2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Brainster]

Biden's still got his firewall in South Carolina. And now that Warren has moved up in the polls, she will start getting extra scrutiny by the media, which is always looking to provide the sine-wave coverage necessary to make the horse race more interesting.

Warren has benefited from pretty positive political coverage since the DNA fiasco died down. She's been releasing detailed position papers on every issue under the sun, as the media keep telling us.

But the minute the media decide she is the front-runner, they will turn on her.

Bernie may not be going anywhere. Yet. But he needs to draw to an inside straight at this point. His lane has been taken by Warren.

 

[kellyb]

But the minute the media decide she is the front-runner, they will turn on her.

The "liberal media"?

lol

 

[Belz...]

Look at the audience. It's whiter than flour.

It is really stupid that Iowa plays such a prominent role in presidential politics. I hope that some day (probably in the far future) a saner, more representative method of holding primary races is put in place. One essential part of any improvement must be the elimination of using a caucus to decide who the state's votes go to. S.T.U.P.I.D.

I'm not too familiar with how caucuses work here. Can you explain how it's S.T.U.P.I.D.?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not too familiar with how caucuses work here. Can you explain how it's S.T.U.P.I.D.?

Caucuses are terrible. Basically, rather than just casting ballots, a candidate is selected by whoever can accumulate the most standing bodies of supporters. If you wanted to participate in the primary, you have to show up the caucus and aggregate with fellow supporters. Speeches are given to try to persuade undecided attendees. Candidate supporters harangue each other as they try to build up majorities. Delegates are assigned based on final head counts of each candidates supporters. It can take multiple hours and is generally a huge pain in the ass to be involved in.

Caucuses generally have lower turnout than just ordinary voting and tends to prefer candidates with more ardent fanbases who are willing to put up with this terrible system. Regular people who aren't super enthusiastic see this clown-show and decide they'd rather spend their day anywhere else and are excluded from the process.

There's really nothing a caucus does that can't be done better by another system, such as ranked choice voting, and the negatives are quite stark.

 

[theprestige]

Caucuses are terrible. Basically, rather than just casting ballots, a candidate is selected by whoever can accumulate the most standing bodies of supporters. If you wanted to participate in the primary, you have to show up the caucus and aggregate with fellow supporters. Speeches are given to try to persuade undecided attendees. Candidate supporters harangue each other as they try to build up majorities. Delegates are assigned based on final head counts of each candidates supporters. It can take multiple hours and is generally a huge pain in the ass to be involved in.

Caucuses generally have lower turnout than just ordinary voting and tends to prefer candidates with more ardent fanbases who are willing to put up with this terrible system. Regular people who aren't super enthusiastic see this clown-show and decide they'd rather spend their day anywhere else and are excluded from the process.

There's really nothing a caucus does that can't be done better by another system, such as ranked choice voting, and the negatives are quite stark.

I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.

 

[Segnosaur]

Bernie's town hall on the failures of our US medical system was gut wrenching.
...
How any Democratic candidate can be against single payer is a mystery to me.

(Hope this isn't too much of a rehash of stuff that's been discussed at various places on the forum)

To me the big problem is how people define 'single payer'.

Some people think 'single payer' is simply equivalent to 'universal coverage', meaning some people may have private insurance, but some sort of public support will be there to fill in the gaps.

But that's not what Sanders is proposing... instead, he's suggesting getting rid of all private insurance, and forcing everyone into one system. (To me, that's a more accurate definition of 'single payer'.) Which, in my opinion, is an incredibly dumb way to do it. The best health care systems in the world seem to have a mixed public/private system. On the other hand, the one country with a health care system closest to Sander's plan is Canada, a country with significant problems with waiting lists.

The U.S. health care system needs to be fixed. The question is the best way to fix it, and there are better models to follow than the Canadian "single payer" system.

Not only would Sander's plan be emulating a system which has some major flaws, it would also probably be politically unpopular. Most people want universal coverage, but only a minority support ending private insurance. Sander's plan would give the republicans plenty to attack.

From: https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...-medicare-expansion-keeping-private-insurance
Sixty-seven percent of registered voters support allowing people under 65 to have an option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program, while keeping private insurance options available...Less than half of registered voters, 41 percent, support a single-payer Medicare for All system that would eliminate the private health insurance...

From:

 

[Brainster]

I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.

Well, the Democrats are all about making voting easier. Pain in the ass is definitely the opposite of easy.

I think the caucuses serve a useful purpose; they gauge not just whom the voters prefer, but the depth of that commitment. If you're willing to go out on a cold Iowa January evening and put up with the speeches by candidate surrogates and run the risk that your candidate will fail to get 15%, in which case you have the option to leave or support a different candidate, then obviously you are really committed.

 

[theprestige]

Well, the Democrats are all about making voting easier. Pain in the ass is definitely the opposite of easy.

I tend to make a distinction between "voting" as a democratic process involving citizens as such, and "selecting the party's nominee", which is an internal party matter that may or may not involve votes of some sort. I don't think it's inconsistent for a party to want to make "voting" easier, but still prefer a more complicated or awkward process for "selecting the party's nominee".

I think the caucuses serve a useful purpose; they gauge not just whom the voters prefer, but the depth of that commitment. If you're willing to go out on a cold Iowa January evening and put up with the speeches by candidate surrogates and run the risk that your candidate will fail to get 15%, in which case you have the option to leave or support a different candidate, then obviously you are really committed.

As someone who firmly believes that an abstention is just as much a vote as a marked ballot, I feel like caucuses are probably not a problem. I don't have to be enthusiastic about the candidates for nomination. I just have to feel like the party is doing an acceptable job muddling through with the serious fanbase, and I'll be alright with whatever nominee they pick. And if that ever changes, I always have the option of getting out there and caucusing myself (if you want a job done right...) or switching to a party with a better track record of nominating candidates I like.

Though, I might not even have to bother switching parties. If the other party is producing better candidates, I can simply let them carry on, and then vote for their nominee in the actual election.

So I don't really see a problem with caucuses. Except in the "looks like a pain in the ass, so I'll leave it to the hardcore party fans" sense.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.

It makes participation difficult for average people. The point of any electoral process should be to get an accurate accounting of the will of the people. Caucuses have a heavy bias towards highly enthusiastic voters and are a poor representation of the average voter who might not be willing to engage in such a raucous, time consuming, and unpleasant event. A candidate selected this way may not actually be one that is general favorite of the party, but just the favorite of the several very enthusiastic factions.

Participating in a caucus pretty much means spending the day at the polls. Not everyone is able or willing to take off work and spend precious time that way, where many more may be willing to drop off a ballot during their lunch break.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.

One positive is that they're usually a form of ranked choice with multiple rounds: If your candidate gets eliminated, you go stand with another group. You keep eliminating the smallest group until someone has a majority.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

(Hope this isn't too much of a rehash of stuff that's been discussed at various places on the forum)

To me the big problem is how people define 'single payer'.

Some people think 'single payer' is simply equivalent to 'universal coverage', meaning some people may have private insurance, but some sort of public support will be there to fill in the gaps.

But that's not what Sanders is proposing... instead, he's suggesting getting rid of all private insurance, and forcing everyone into one system. (To me, that's a more accurate definition of 'single payer'.) Which, in my opinion, is an incredibly dumb way to do it. The best health care systems in the world seem to have a mixed public/private system. On the other hand, the one country with a health care system closest to Sander's plan is Canada, a country with significant problems with waiting lists.

The U.S. health care system needs to be fixed. The question is the best way to fix it, and there are better models to follow than the Canadian "single payer" system.

Not only would Sander's plan be emulating a system which has some major flaws, it would also probably be politically unpopular. Most people want universal coverage, but only a minority support ending private insurance. Sander's plan would give the republicans plenty to attack.

From: https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...-medicare-expansion-keeping-private-insurance
Sixty-seven percent of registered voters support allowing people under 65 to have an option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program, while keeping private insurance options available...Less than half of registered voters, 41 percent, support a single-payer Medicare for All system that would eliminate the private health insurance...

From:

How serious is this Canadian wait problem? My cursory research seems to indicate longer waits are only common for major, non-emergency surgeries. So yeah, a joint replacement might take a few months. That's unpleasant, but not life threatening.

Comparisons to the US system always have a major data hole, which is the uninsured who simply are not receiving services that they need. Someone who cannot afford a non-emergency procedure simply never gets it, so their waiting time is basically forever. This isn't considered a "wait time", because they are electing not to have a procedure, though that election is driven by lack of funds. Plenty of uninsured people simply never treat their chronic issues, because there is not duty to treat non-life threatening, non-emergency problems without payment up front.

I imagine that in the US, if we were ever to have universal medical care such as Bernie suggests, our medical system would be heavily overtaxed because so many people who previously had no access would enter the system all at once. I don't see this as an indictment of such a scheme, but rather an indictment of our current scheme that leaves so many without needed care. The medical system will have to grow and the short term may be a bit rocky until it can catch up.

A buy into medicare system strikes me as non-optimal. Unless you start allowing for rejection of pre-existing conditions, why wouldn't people just opt out until they need medical care? If the goal is to cover the medical risks for the entire US population, the simplest route is to just tax the general population like we do for other universal services and provide it. The added layer of insurance bureaucracy does not add value.

 

[Belz...]

Caucuses are terrible. Basically, rather than just casting ballots, a candidate is selected by whoever can accumulate the most standing bodies of supporters. If you wanted to participate in the primary, you have to show up the caucus and aggregate with fellow supporters. Speeches are given to try to persuade undecided attendees. Candidate supporters harangue each other as they try to build up majorities. Delegates are assigned based on final head counts of each candidates supporters. It can take multiple hours and is generally a huge pain in the ass to be involved in.

Caucuses generally have lower turnout than just ordinary voting and tends to prefer candidates with more ardent fanbases who are willing to put up with this terrible system. Regular people who aren't super enthusiastic see this clown-show and decide they'd rather spend their day anywhere else and are excluded from the process.

There's really nothing a caucus does that can't be done better by another system, such as ranked choice voting, and the negatives are quite stark.

Thanks for the summary. Sounds like a pretty sucky system.

Americans don't seem to understand how to conduct democracy, ironically enough.

I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.

Drawbacks aren't negatives?

 

[theprestige]

Thanks for the summary. Sounds like a pretty sucky system.



Americans don't seem to understand how to conduct democracy, ironically enough.







Drawbacks aren't negatives?

Already addressed.

 

[Belz...]

How serious is this Canadian wait problem?

Very. But as you say, only for non-emergencies. The problem is that the long wait times means that something that's not serious may become serious if left untreated for too long, and some cancers can similarily go undetected until it's too late.

But sure, if you need an emergency surgery you'll get it right away at no cost.

It's not a bad system per se. It's just really poorly managed, with politics and doctors' unions being prime culprits.

 

[Belz...]

Already addressed.

A simple yes or no would've been quicker.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Very. But as you say, only for non-emergencies. The problem is that the long wait times means that something that's not serious may become serious if left untreated for too long, and some cancers can similarily go undetected until it's too late.

But sure, if you need an emergency surgery you'll get it right away at no cost.

It's not a bad system per se. It's just really poorly managed, with politics and doctors' unions being prime culprits.

Not sure how this compares to other countries with universal coverage, but this is almost certainly preferable to the American system.

The big attack point is that people who have good coverage now might see a decline is service quality, such as longer waits. But the upside is that people who are getting no service will be granted access.

It's not a question of rationing and managing care, because that is already happening in every system. In Canada, there are wait times. In the US, poor people don't get medical care.

I think a big upside of a Canadian system is that everyone is in the same boat, so to speak. In the US, social programs that only benefit the poor have a funny way of getting gutted over time. Social programs that are universal tend to be popular and more protected. If there is a problem with a universal social program, there is widespread pressure from the electorate to have it fixed.

 

[dudalb]

At this moment you have to wonder if some of the candidates are really running for Vice President....

 

[TurkeysGhost]

2008 Iowa caucus of the mostly three way race between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. You can see why so many voters want no part of this trainwreck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnh-136QqO8

 

[Segnosaur]

The U.S. health care system needs to be fixed. The question is the best way to fix it, and there are better models to follow than the Canadian "single payer" system.

Not only would Sander's plan be emulating a system which has some major flaws, it would also probably be politically unpopular. Most people want universal coverage, but only a minority support ending private insurance. Sander's plan would give the republicans plenty to attack.

How serious is this Canadian wait problem?

I guess it depends on whether you're one of the people that's stuck on the wait list.

There was actually a case before the supreme court of Canada where someone sued the government over being stuck on a wait list... he won the case when they found it violated the provincial charter of rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_(AG)

Now the thing about Canada is that we don't have a single health care system... we have multiple systems (one for each province), so different provinces will have different issues with wait lists, depending on location.

My cursory research seems to indicate longer waits are only common for major, non-emergency surgeries. So yeah, a joint replacement might take a few months. That's unpleasant, but not life threatening.

Yes, emergencies do get handled quickly. But even non-emergencies can be serious. They can impact quality of life and even cause premature death.

You casually dismiss a joint replacement delay as 'unpleasant' but if you're under severe pain because of it you might not be so happy.

I'm a perfect example: Earlier this year, I went to the doctor for a routine visit (get the oil changed, rotate the tires, etc.) I brought up 2 issues: a skin growth that has been increasing in size (doc said it should be biopsied as it could be cancerous), and an issue where I stop breathing at night (possible sleep apnea, which has been linked to premature death). It took over 6 months for them to contact me to set up an appointment with a dermatologist. By the time I actually have the appointment, it will have been almost 10 months... and that's just for the initial consult. It may be over a year before I actually get treated. And the possible sleep apnea? Still haven't been scheduled for a sleep study.

I also have a cousin who (possibly) tore a ligament. He was on the waiting list for an MRI for months in order to get diagnosed.

Comparisons to the US system always have a major data hole, which is the uninsured who simply are not receiving services that they need.

Actually the biggest problem here is that whenever I bring up the problems with Canada's health care system, they always jump in to compare it to the United States.

Once again: I am not comparing the Canadian system to the American system. I am comparing the Canadian system to places like the U.K., which mix private and public systems, with better results than Canada's system.

I'm not saying "Keep your American system the way it is". (I'm acknowledging your system largely sucks.) I'm saying "Don't replace it with the second worst system... replace it with one of the better systems".

A buy into medicare system strikes me as non-optimal. Unless you start allowing for rejection of pre-existing conditions, why wouldn't people just opt out until they need medical care? If the goal is to cover the medical risks for the entire US population, the simplest route is to just tax the general population like we do for other universal services and provide it. The added layer of insurance bureaucracy does not add value.

Allowing people the option to buy private insurance gives a health care system flexibility.... if someone wants to wait for treatment on the public system they can; if someone thinks "Its better for my state of mind to get faster treatment" they can go private. Not everyone has the same mind-set when it comes to their financial and life priorities.

And governments are often slow to react to changes in health care technology. (Canada often lags behind the U.S. in certain treatments.)

Plus, put it this way: Lets say Sanders gets his way and you have a fully funded single-payer health care system. A decade down the road, the republicans (under, lets say, Paul Ryan) get elected. He now gets to decide what to fund and how much. Would you really want to be in the situation where your health care is dependent on him?

 

[Belz...]

Not sure how this compares to other countries with universal coverage, but this is almost certainly preferable to the American system.

The big attack point is that people who have good coverage now might see a decline is service quality, such as longer waits. But the upside is that people who are getting no service will be granted access.

It's not a question of rationing and managing care, because that is already happening in every system. In Canada, there are wait times. In the US, poor people don't get medical care.

I think a big upside of a Canadian system is that everyone is in the same boat, so to speak. In the US, social programs that only benefit the poor have a funny way of getting gutted over time. Social programs that are universal tend to be popular and more protected. If there is a problem with a universal social program, there is widespread pressure from the electorate to have it fixed.

No argument there. We clearly have the better system up here. It just needs to be cleaned up, is all.