2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[TurkeysGhost]

snipped for brevity, i trust you understand

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?

My concern with a public private system is that public services that really only benefit the poorest Americans have a tendency to be neglected. If a large portion of Americans have private health care that provides acceptable service, there isn't going to be much pressure to maintain good service to all the poorest people on Medicare.

Paul Ryan types hate expanding the social safety net, you are correct. As much as they hate it, they are terrified of actually tearing it down once it is popular. As much as they might have hated Medicare for seniors or social security, they know that attacking it is political suicide. Universal programs are popular, programs that only benefit the poor are neglected. Americans love social programs, but hate welfare.

Part of this calculation is that these are programs that benefit every American. Programs that only benefit poor people are often successfully defunded, because no one really cares about the most vulnerable. Try to snatch away some retired boomer's social security check, you'll draw back a bloody stump and have every retired person voting for your political opponent.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Already addressed. In fact, I'm pretty sure I already acknowledged these drawbacks, and suggested a remedy for them.

 

[theprestige]

A simple yes or no would've been quicker.

It wasn't a simple question. A simple yes or no would not have sufficed. I had already given a complex answer to the complex question. It was definitely quicker to refer to that answer than to try to repeat it.

But now we're to the point where defending my second answer is taking up just about as much effort as repeating my original answer, so I'm going to cut my losses here. See you next time!

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

That is the crux of the deal. If the middle class can easily be swayed to opt out of the public system then the public system will be allowed to rot on the vine. If the middle class largely embrace a public system they will fight to make it better.

I assume the very rich will always functionally opt out of any system that does not give them preferred treatment.

 

[dudalb]

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

Yeah, all the Dem candidates are giving Iowa a try...
(Cue that song from 'The Music Man")

 

[Segnosaur]

Re:Health care systems ('single payer' vs. mixed public/private)...

My concern with a public private system is that public services that really only benefit the poorest Americans have a tendency to be neglected. If a large portion of Americans have private health care that provides acceptable service, there isn't going to be much pressure to maintain good service to all the poorest people on Medicare.

If so many people are picking the private system over public, its perhaps an indication that fees payed by the public system were too low to start with and needed to be increased. But the solution "force everyone to the public system" won't necessarily force an improvement. Instead, you'll probably see certain health care infrastructure disappear completely.

But hey, if you want to ignore evidence, by all means do so. Canada has been dealing with problems for decades and hasn't found a solution, but I'm sure Sanders has some sort of magic wand that he can wave that will magically make waiting lists disappear.

 

[Brainster]

Wall Street is definitely unhappy about the prospect of Elizabeth Warren becoming the nominee:

Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination.

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.

Of course the antipathy from Wall Street probably helps her in the primaries.

 

[kellyb]

Canada has been dealing with problems for decades and hasn't found a solution, but I'm sure Sanders has some sort of magic wand that he can wave that will magically make waiting lists disappear.

When you look at the current proposals to pay for the proposed US universal system, it'll cost twice as much per person as Canada's - a total of almost 6% in payroll taxes for healthcare.

Making the US public system twice as expensive per person as Canada's would be one way.

It's money, not magic.

 

[Aridas]

Wall Street is definitely unhappy about the prospect of Elizabeth Warren becoming the nominee:



Of course the antipathy from Wall Street probably helps her in the primaries.

Warren's response -

I'm fighting for an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected. I'm not afraid of anonymous quotes, and wealthy donors don't get to buy this process. I won't back down from fighting for the big, structural change we need.

Also... antipathy from Wall Street has a good chance of also helping notably in the general.

 

[SezMe]

I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes".

Such a systems screams "flawed outcomes" so loud it can be heard on the far side of the moon.

1. You have to physically present to vote. This happens in Iowa in January. Let's say you live in Inwood. It's a four hour drive - one way - assuming good roads. That excludes A LOT of people.
2. As noted, you have to be a real political junkie to put up with what it takes to vote. But those people are going to vote Dem/GOP no matter what, yet you want a candidate who can bring out people on the fence, or who have to be persuaded to vote, etc. Thus it has real potential to nominate the wrong person.
3. Voting this way is so unlike how the final election is held. Both parties should want a process like the final election so they get an accurate reading of the potential voters.
4. Iowa goes first (which is stupid, by itself). So a flawed (at best) process is used to pick a winner gets a big boost.

If you don't see stupidity, you aren't looking. One would have to work hard to design something worse.

 

[SezMe]

I think the caucuses serve a useful purpose; they gauge not just whom the voters prefer, but the depth of that commitment.

I doubt that but let's go with it for this discussion. Commitment is NOT what either party should be trying to gauge. The extremely committed - which is who participates - is going to vote their party no matter what. The party should be trying to measure a whole range of factors that will influence the outcome of the finial election, not who is so much of a political junkie that they will spend a whole day in in a spin room.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Warren's response -



Also... antipathy from Wall Street has a good chance of also helping notably in the general.

Indeed. A large part of Warren's appeal is from those who see Wall Street as representative of the only people who are really benefiting from Trump while leaving the rest of us with the credit card bills, and it just so happens that they are already the most well off. That idea could catch on.

 

[Belz...]

It wasn't a simple question.

Maybe you're making it more complex than it needs to be, then.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe you're making it more complex than it needs to be, then.

I think you're trying to forcibly simplify what was actually a complex argument on my part.

 

[Belz...]

I think you're trying to forcibly simplify what was actually a complex argument on my part.

Well, that would be unfortunate, then.

You said you didn't nee negatives, only drawbacks. But drawbacks are negatives. Those are synonyms.

And I went back and I can't see how you've addressed this contradiction.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Health care....

Canada has been dealing with problems for decades and hasn't found a solution, but I'm sure Sanders has some sort of magic wand that he can wave that will magically make waiting lists disappear.

When you look at the current proposals to pay for the proposed US universal system, it'll cost twice as much per person as Canada's - a total of almost 6% in payroll taxes for healthcare.

Making the US public system twice as expensive per person as Canada's would be one way.

I don't really quite understand the point you're making here. Maybe its a wordin g problem. You're suggesting the proposed changes would "cost twice as much per person as Canada's". But the U.S. system is already twice as expensive per capita as Canada's.

Are you suggesting that those seeking "single payer" will do so while increasing spending even more? Or keep spending at current levels (which seems to me missing one of the points of health care reform: to reduce the huge costs of the system).

 

[theprestige]

Well, that would be unfortunate, then.

You said you didn't nee negatives, only drawbacks. But drawbacks are negatives. Those are synonyms.

And I went back and I can't see how you've addressed this contradiction.

I made a distinction. The distinction, and the terms used, were explained in the same post. You're just trying to erase the distinction. That doesn't work for me.

 

[kellyb]

I don't really quite understand the point you're making here. Maybe its a wordin g problem. You're suggesting the proposed changes would "cost twice as much per person as Canada's". But the U.S. system is already twice as expensive per capita as Canada's.

Are you suggesting that those seeking "single payer" will do so while increasing spending even more? Or keep spending at current levels (which seems to me missing one of the points of health care reform: to reduce the huge costs of the system).

Some of the costs per person can be reduced just by elimination the profits going to insurance CEOs, so more money per person will be spent on healthcare.

There are other ways of redirecting money currently going to CEO and shareholder profits into actual healthcare, too, under a universal system.

With us paying twice as much per person for healthcare (now and after the transition) there's no "magic" needed for us to not have the same problems faced by comparatively radically underfunded systems.

 

[Brainster]

Warren's response -



Also... antipathy from Wall Street has a good chance of also helping notably in the general.

I'm not entirely convinced on that point, especially if the tech billionaires start to get qualms about forking over 2% of their assets. I suspect a lot of tv, movie and sports stars are going to discover this applies to them as well.

 

[Aridas]

I'm not entirely convinced on that point, especially if the tech billionaires start to get qualms about forking over 2% of their assets. I suspect a lot of tv, movie and sports stars are going to discover this applies to them as well.

It's something of a trade-off. The general population will fairly certainly be more in favor of said development than against. More money will flow from Wall Street and the very, very rich to help Biden's (before the primary) and the Republican campaign, though, which goes back to how relevant of money actually is in a campaign, which can distinctly vary. We could certainly delve more into that, of course. Of more concern would be the media tycoons and whether they do like they did to Hillary in 2016.