2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[angrysoba]

You misunderstood varwoche's post. He says that he doesn't think in terms of 'which party said what' in order to avoid saying something that one party says and the other reflexively disagrees with.

A statement is either true or it isn't.

“This statement is false.”

 

[Belz...]

“This statement is false.”

Since apparently my comment will trigger a host of responses seeking to know if it's 100% literally true in all hypothetical instances within the context of our space-time continuum, allow me to rephrase:

The truth value of a statement is unrelated to whether you otherwise politically agree with the person who uttered it.

 

[Donal]

To republicans, diversity means having token politicians that still advocate the party line that is harmful to vulnerable and minority communities. You know, like having Michelle Malkin going around saying internment camps were a good thing.

The idea that a black democrat might prefer a white candidate with better policies is anathema to their understanding of racial politics. Harris dropping out is proof that the Democratic party is racist, and not just evidence that her campaign was very unappealing to pretty much everyone.

Ya, I think she over estimated the appeal of "black woman candidate" to the older, more conservative black voters who are sticking with Biden so far. She saw a little spike when she tried to go more progressive, but ran right back to centrism, which was already crowded.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Before Obama I was pretty well into "We need a Vice President from Demographic X to... ease the public into the idea before we have a President from Demographic X" mindset but I'm not so sure anymore.

I even in things far less fickle then politics it's near impossible to draw inclusions from one sample size, but still.

 

[Donal]

The "public" is never ready. It is a politician's job to sell their bold ideas. Like FDR did with the New Deal, like JFK did with the moon landing, like Trump did with an incompetent twit as president.

this is why the contemporary Democratic party sucks. They are so damn afraid to push the envelope or get folks excited. Democrats have the more popular positions and personnel. The party is just too scared of being called "commies" or something, even though that will happen no matter what policies they run on.

That is why folks like Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum almost pulled massive victories in what should have been cake walks for the GOP. Neither are known as super progressive, but they are both unapologetic about their positions. If Beto doesn't turn milk toast centrist at the end of his Senate bid, he probably beats Cruz. It took a ton of voter suppression and other shenanigans for the GOP to win all of those races.

 

[ArchSas]

The truth value of a statement is unrelated to whether you otherwise politically agree with the person who uttered it.

That statement is true in a vacuum, but people also have unconscious biases and can often fail to meaningfully evaluate the "truth value" of what are actually opinion statements. Or sometimes even recognize them as opinions, especially when something seems intuitively true to the person in question. Like, hypothetically speaking, making a statement that accomplishing a certain goal is impossible based on made up numbers, or speculation based on what assuming the general population might think.

In other words, this is a discussion about politics and opinions. Asserting that something is a fact doesn't make it so, regardless of whether or not it aligns with your beliefs. It's one thing to say "water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen molecules," it's another to say (borrowing an example from TM" "cilantro tastes bad" as a statement of fact. It entirely possible for a person to believe they're being objective when all they're doing is expressing an opinion.

 

[theprestige]

Since apparently my comment will trigger a host of responses seeking to know if it's 100% literally true in all hypothetical instances within the context of our space-time continuum, allow me to rephrase:

The truth value of a statement is unrelated to whether you otherwise politically agree with the person who uttered it.

I think angrysoba was just clarifying that bit for you, in case you forgot.

 

[Belz...]

I think angrysoba was just clarifying that bit for you, in case you forgot.

What bit? He made a lighthearted comment, not a clarification.

That statement is true in a vacuum

Oh, it's also true in an atmosphere.

but people also have unconscious biases and can often fail to meaningfully evaluate the "truth value" of what are actually opinion statements. Or sometimes even recognize them as opinions, especially when something seems intuitively true to the person in question.

You're over-thinking my statement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Harris was in a relationship with the politician Willie Brown many years ago, which means she must have slept her way to the top. And then there's the brilliant pun on "willie". Mr. Brown's first name is Willie, and at the same time he has a willie (penis), which allegedly on occasions has been placed inside Harris, below the belt. No, it doesn't make sense.

Thanks.

What a steaming pile of ****, Bogative. I take it you only want to get rise out of people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't get this. How you present yourself wins elections. Most Americans don't look that closely. I also think you're selling Bloomberg a bit short. But he's not my choice. From an issue position Warren is my favorite. But like Hillary, she hasn't impressed me as a candidate.

Exactly no one votes for elected officials on BS like the issues.

 

[ponderingturtle]

People accuse Bernie of being unrealistic, but it's quite the opposite. He's the only one that is open about the nature of our deliberately stymied government.

What is Pete, or Biden, or Warren going to do when they win and McConnell refuses to play ball, as we know he will. Was 8 years of Obama not enough to prove that nothing is to be gained from trying to compromise with these people?

Bernie is calling for a popular movement to recapture the legislature. He intends to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to do so.

How is Warren going to pass her wealth tax? When McConnell says no, and the right wing SCOTUS says no, it's over. Her policies are empty promises and she knows it.

These people are content to not fight the hard battles. Meanwhile, creeping fascism is taking over the right, and the liberals have no solutions.

So yeah, garbage.

Yea he will finally have a chance to shine unlike when he was in the senate and couldn't be bothered getting things passed.

 

[CORed]

I really want to see some data from these people that keep spouting the "people like their plans" line. How many people actually like their insurance scheme?

I have relatively good insurance through my work and it still sucks. My employer pays nearly all the premium, but the insurance system itself is inherently stressful. It's a game of making sure every little thing, every doctor, every clinic, every drug, is covered by my plan or else I end up with a giant bill in the mail a couple months later. All the tax deferred HSA's and other such BS plans aren't going to polish this turd of a system.

Of course, my good plan is only good so long as I remain employed. That's fine for little health problems, but a catastrophic health problem would still financially ruin our family. Basically, if I get ill enough to have to leave work, it's a ticking clock until my short and long term leave benefits are exhausted and I'm laid off. Then I have the "option" of continuing my care, at my expense through COBRA, which I won't be able to afford as I'm not making any income. Eventually I run out of money to cover the premiums, deductibles, and copays and I get thrown off my plan and I'm uninsured. Hooray

A serious health problem with myself or my wife would be enough to drive a dual income, no children middle class family into poverty, and it's only worse for people less well off.

This isn't an exaggeration. A coworker of mine had cancer and was coming into work well passed the point of medical prudence. She was trying to maximize how long her benefits would last, because once she stopped coming in, the slow crush of reduced pay and increasing bills would grind her into submission. It would be a better financial solution for the cancer to kill her quickly, so that her life insurance payout would exceed her medical expenses. This is the grim calculus of private insurance.

Almost nobody likes their insurance plan, except for the few people with old-fashioned union-negotiated or government employee coverage. It's an inherently horrible system. People are apprehensive of change, as is the human condition, but nobody would miss it.

High deductible plans are only going to become more common, so they don't even cover the little expenses. When I'm healthy, my bills don't ever exceed the deductible amount, so I'm paying 100% for all the little things. If I get catastrophically ill, the plan will still financially derail my family. These plans suck in all scenarios.

You are correct. I have a very good government employee plan. It still sucks. A few years ago, I had multiple injuries from a bad ski accident. This meant that much of my treatment was emergency treatment, and a good bit of it was out of network. I ended up paying several thousand out of pocket, with bills from doctors that I didn't know who they were or what they did, and an out of network surgery bill for several thousand, that I eventually managed to settle for quite a bit less than the original bill. Since I was a government employee and had lots of accumulated sick leave, I was able to maintain my employment and coverage. Had that not been the case, I would have been in a world (more) of hurt. The current healthcare "system" (scare quotes because it's really not a system at all) is irretrievably broken. The ACA, though a step in the right direction, was really just a small bandaid on the festering sore that is the current system. The current system needs to be thrown in the trash and rebuilt from scratch.

 

[theprestige]

You are correct. I have a very good government employee plan. It still sucks. A few years ago, I had multiple injuries from a bad ski accident. This meant that much of my treatment was emergency treatment, and a good bit of it was out of network. I ended up paying several thousand out of pocket, with bills from doctors that I didn't know who they were or what they did, and an out of network surgery bill for several thousand, that I eventually managed to settle for quite a bit less than the original bill. Since I was a government employee and had lots of accumulated sick leave, I was able to maintain my employment and coverage. Had that not been the case, I would have been in a world (more) of hurt. The current healthcare "system" (scare quotes because it's really not a system at all) is irretrievably broken. The ACA, though a step in the right direction, was really just a small bandaid on the festering sore that is the current system. The current system needs to be thrown in the trash and rebuilt from scratch.

I'm not sure it makes for a standard health insurance plan to underwrite the costs of voluntary risky behavior that results in serious injury. If you fall ill or are the victim of an accident, sure. But if you're going to go on a ski vacation, why shouldn't you pay the associated costs out of your own pocket?

 

[Aridas]

Warren talks the talk, but has no follow through. If she were to secure the nomination, she is going to gallop back towards a centrist position. She's already retreating from her earlier stance on universal single payer.

Mmm. I see that narrative from Bernie supporters and, quite frankly, I think that it's not particularly trustworthy. To be clear, of course, on the subject of M4A (that's distinct from universal single payer and really, really shouldn't be conflated), Warren's commitment to M4A specifically has always been untrustworthy. She has somewhat habitually sponsored or co-sponsored just about any decent legislation to make the US healthcare situation notably better from where it is presently. That is pretty well in line with her focus on addressing the issue of medical bankruptcies and the seriously detrimental economic effects of absurd medical bills, quite frankly, and one of the reasons why I was actually surprised when she tied herself more closely to Bernie's plan specifically in the first debate.

She will continue to flee from her more bold progressive stances as she feels is politically expedient.

And I think that attempt at framing is distinctly misleading and misses the larger picture of who she is and what she's actually fighting for.

Sanders has a track record of not wavering on these pivotal positions. He's rock solid on these issues.

If you want to go with questionable attacks of the type that you're going with, shall I point out that Sanders also sponsored or cosponsored a bunch of the same not even remotely M4A healthcare bills that Warren did?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure it makes for a standard health insurance plan to underwrite the costs of voluntary risky behavior that results in serious injury. If you fall ill or are the victim of an accident, sure. But if you're going to go on a ski vacation, why shouldn't you pay the associated costs out of your own pocket?

I like this, car insurance bails on covering you if they decide your driving was unnessacary. Think of all the money they can make denying coverage like that!

Next I see all prenatal care included because really children are a luxury of course and if you can't afford to pay for them out of pocket you don't deserve any.

I bet we can get rid of all so called accidents and really save money.

 

[CORed]

You are correct. I have a very good government employee plan. It still sucks. A few years ago, I had multiple injuries from a bad ski accident. This meant that much of my treatment was emergency treatment, and a good bit of it was out of network. I ended up paying several thousand out of pocket, with bills from doctors that I didn't know who they were or what they did, and an out of network surgery bill for several thousand, that I eventually managed to settle for quite a bit less than the original bill. Since I was a government employee and had lots of accumulated sick leave, I was able to maintain my employment and coverage. Had that not been the case, I would have been in a world (more) of hurt. The current healthcare "system" (scare quotes because it's really not a system at all) is irretrievably broken. The ACA, though a step in the right direction, was really just a small bandaid on the festering sore that is the current system. The current system needs to be thrown in the trash and rebuilt from scratch.

I like this, car insurance bails on covering you if they decide your driving was unnessacary. Think of all the money they can make denying coverage like that.

Next I see all prenatal care included because really children are a luxury of course and if you can't afford to pay for them out of pocket you don't deserve any.

I bet we can get rid of all so called accidents and really save money.

Sure, while they're at it, they could exclude (or charge extra to cover) injuries from playing basketball, football, bowling or just plain running or taking a walk if their actuaries determine that these activities pose a higher risk of injury than sitting on your couch watching TV. Then they can charge a higher premium because the lack of exercise increases the risk of heart disease. I'm kind of surprised they haven't done this already.

They could probably make health insurance really cheap if they can find a way to determine that the vast majority of injuries or illnesses are somehow the fault of the person injured or ill.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sure, while they're at it, they could exclude (or charge extra to cover) injuries from playing basketball, football, bowling or just plain running or taking a walk if their actuaries determine that these activities pose a higher risk of injury than sitting on your couch watching TV. Then they can charge a higher premium because the lack of exercise increases the risk of heart disease. I'm kind of surprised they haven't done this already.

They could probably make health insurance really cheap if they can find a way to determine that the vast majority of injuries or illnesses are somehow the fault of the person injured or ill.

Insurance already does exclude a lot of things. Most property insurance either excludes earthquake damage or has a separate (higher) deductible for it. Flood insurance is a separate thing entirely because floods are so expensive they can't be insured by normal companies. Damage caused by warfare is explicitly excluded from all insurance coverage (which is why declaring a "war on terror" was a big deal, some insurers tried to get out of covering 9/11 on the grounds it was an actual war!). On top of those things there are behavior/usage exclusions: many auto policies won't cover you if you're using your vehicle for business, which surprises many an unwary pizza delivery person. If you don't lock your car doors or house doors you might get denied a theft claim. Having a pool or a certain breed of dog may disqualify you from getting a policy, or make you pay more for one.

Health insurance isn't quite as bad, but they will charge you more if you are a smoker, and it looks like they're heading towards charging more if you're overweight. IVF isn't covered usually, and a lot of things deemed "cosmetic" whether legitimately so or not.

Long story short, insurers are already calculating all the odds and doing what they can to maximize premiums and minimize payout, and if you give them an opening to expand on that they'll do it in a heartbeat.

 

[tyr_13]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/14/congress-diversity-democrats-republicans-photo

They don't care about facts, and only have a cargo-cult understanding of the idea of inclusiveness.

The 2016 Republican Primaries had 19 candidates, two were men of color, one a white woman, and the rest were old white dudes. I'll be generous and include all 29 of the people who kind of are or were going after the 2020 Democratic nomination. Seven are not white. Five are women. One is gay.

Again even on the disingenuous over-simplified understanding, the Democrats are manifestly better.

 

[Stacyhs]

Insurance already does exclude a lot of things. Most property insurance either excludes earthquake damage or has a separate (higher) deductible for it. Flood insurance is a separate thing entirely because floods are so expensive they can't be insured by normal companies. Damage caused by warfare is explicitly excluded from all insurance coverage (which is why declaring a "war on terror" was a big deal, some insurers tried to get out of covering 9/11 on the grounds it was an actual war!). On top of those things there are behavior/usage exclusions: many auto policies won't cover you if you're using your vehicle for business, which surprises many an unwary pizza delivery person. If you don't lock your car doors or house doors you might get denied a theft claim. Having a pool or a certain breed of dog may disqualify you from getting a policy, or make you pay more for one.

Health insurance isn't quite as bad, but they will charge you more if you are a smoker, and it looks like they're heading towards charging more if you're overweight. IVF isn't covered usually, and a lot of things deemed "cosmetic" whether legitimately so or not. Long story short, insurers are already calculating all the odds and doing what they can to maximize premiums and minimize payout, and if you give them an opening to expand on that they'll do it in a heartbeat.

Health insurance companies used to charge women more than men. Obamacare made that illegal.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Health insurance companies used to charge women more than men. Obamacare made that illegal.

And they used to exclude "pre-existing conditions". But they don't (at the moment) so I didn't mention it.