2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Maybe. Profit incentive also motivates efficiencies that are not necessarily there for a government administered system.

If we had to bet on two scenarios which is more efficient, and one had a financial motive to be efficient and the other didn't, I'm going to bet on the profit motive.

This is a separate issue of cost controls from size of negotiating power.
Click to expand...

If that was the case we would expect American healthcare system to be among the most cost-effective of the entire world. In reality it is the most costly.

Profit incentives are great for making profit, not necessarily in lowering expenses and costs.
 
I'm curious if Warren is going to hold off throwing her support behind Sanders past the point it could lock things up for their progressive wing. I'm guessing yes.
 
Arcade22 said:
If that was the case we would expect American healthcare system to be among the most cost-effective of the entire world. In reality it is the most costly.

Profit incentives are great for making profit, not necessarily in lowering expenses and costs.
Click to expand...

That is the separate issue of negotiating power. Single payer governments are simply able to negotiate better prices. That isn't an efficiency question.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is the separate issue of negotiating power. Single payer governments are simply able to negotiate better prices. That isn't an efficiency question.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with efficiency. The amount of profit that you are able to make does not have to hinge on being efficient and cutting costs to the consumer.

In fact a lot of the time being inefficient, in terms of the value offered to customers relative to the cost of the service, is a very important source of the profitability of companies.

Either America's healthcare system is great because it's focus on profits help make it very efficient and cost-effective to the consumer, or it's great because it is very profitable for the companies involved.
 
I should note here that there is obviously nothing that prevents "single-payer" healthcare system's from focusing on making a profit, even if it is detrimental to the cost-effectiveness to the consumer.

In fact in Sweden some center-right counties/regions (which manage the healthcare system) are now hard at work doing just that, seeking to use the magic of profit-seeking to make healthcare more expensive and less effective. To these people it's more important to pay private companies to tend to people, where these companies main concern is making money, than letting the "inefficient" state handle it.
 
Distracted1 said:
What sort of "efficiencies" are encouraged by the profit motive of an insurance company?

The profit comes from the difference between collected monies and services paid for, the more they collect- and the less they pay out the more profitable they are.

Is this an efficiency that is beneficial to humans in need of medical care? Being the most efficient parasite is still being a parasite.
Click to expand...

Arcade22 said:
It has everything to do with efficiency. The amount of profit that you are able to make does not have to hinge on being efficient and cutting costs to the consumer.

In fact a lot of the time being inefficient, in terms of the value offered to customers relative to the cost of the service, is a very important source of the profitability of companies.

Either America's healthcare system is great because it's focus on profits help make it very efficient and cost-effective to the consumer, or it's great because it is very profitable for the companies involved.
Click to expand...

To use an analogy to compare the two....


In wrestling, efficiencies would be comparable to technique, and size of population would be like weight class. At some point, a lot of technique and smaller weight class has no chance against a bigger person with basic technique.

An example of beneficial efficiencies from insurers (which isn't really insurance) is case management efforts to substitute doctor visits for low acuity ER visits.
 
The above conversation assumes that various candidate's voters would go primarily to the next candidate in the same 'ideological lane'. American voters don't have a strong inclination for that. Last time I checked Warren was the highest picked second choice for all the other top four. (Going outside the top four you get some wild stuff like a third of Yang voters saying their second choice is Trump.)

The assumption that because Pete is the next moderate after Biden that Biden's voters would go mostly to Pete just isn't true. If I remember correctly, Warren voters second choice is first Bernie, but then Pete, and the split is like 30% to 25%.

This is for the same reason that while things like 'socialist' poll extremely badly, it doesn't hurt Bernie as much. For Presidents Americans put personality and personal trust above ideology.
 
I'm back to believing, sad as it is, that socialism makes such an easy target for Trump and the GOP, that we are taking a huge chance if either Warren or Sanders is the nominee. And they can't see it. They believe in their revolutions. If only a bunch of voters would rise up. Steyer says the same, sigh, that "we can do it because the voters will stand up."

I'm very disappointed Sanders and Warren are attacking Bloomberg, not on his stand on the policies, but rather on the fact he's an 'evil' billionaire. Their whole schtick is to blame the 1%, lump them altogether despite the fact there are a few good philanthropists among them.

They should instead be courting Bloomberg's money for key Senate races.

We are at a serious disadvantage. Attacking both Bloomberg and Steyer because they are billionaires makes both Sanders and Warren look petty. It's one thing to attack the collective 1%. It's one thing to attack the nameless bankers and corporate heads. But why attack individuals that may not fit in that collective group?

Then we have Party leader Perez who is incompetent.

This is looking very risky. We could have that corrupt piece of **** in office for 4 more years.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
...

This is for the same reason that while things like 'socialist' poll extremely badly, it doesn't hurt Bernie as much. For Presidents Americans put personality and personal trust above ideology.
Click to expand...
Or that could be an illusion because Sanders has a following built up. But that following is limited.


I agree with the rest of your post.
 
Patrick Lang:

Patrick Lang said:
Bill Maher interviewed Pete Buttigieg a few days ago on January 31, 2019. Bill Maher said, “You are the only military veteran in this."
Buttigieg nodded along and said, “Yeah.”

It was a critical test of character for Mayor Pete, and Buttigieg showed his true colors. Instead of acknowledging Major Tulsi Gabbard — the first female combat veteran to ever run for the presidency, who volunteered to deploy twice to the warzones of the Middle East at the height of the war, who has served in the Army National Guard for 17 years and is still serving today — Buttigieg chose to allow the audience to believe the falsehood that he was the only military veteran running for president because it benefits him politically.

Furthermore, when Buttigeig's campaign posted the interview on social media, they chose to cut out the first part of Maher's statement (i.e. “You are the only military veteran in this.")
Click to expand...
 
The_Animus said:
I'm not sure if they've done polling that specific.

The closest thing I'm aware of is general election Trump vs Biden and Trump vs Sanders polling for those states and both Biden and Sanders beat Trump. You can find the breakdowns on realclearpolitics.
Click to expand...

I feel like, after 2016, we should only be citing polls that called 2016 for Trump.
 
Polls have repeatedly shown that voters care more about beating Trump than issue positions. Interestingly, some recent polling show Biden falling behind Sanders in perceptions of ability to win the general election.

Finally, we asked respondents to estimate each Democrat’s chances of defeating Trump, from 0 percent (no chance) to 100 percent (certain to win). Going into the debate, as in other general-election polls, Biden was the candidate voters thought was most likely to beat Trump, on average. But for the first time in our polling with Ipsos, Biden no longer led on this question after Friday’s debate. He lost nearly 5 points off his average rating — more than anyone else. And Sanders gained a little under 1 point, edging his average chances of beating Trump, according to respondents, past Biden’s.
Click to expand...

Linky.

Sanders 29%
Biden 25%
Buttigieg 14%

Linky.
 
I liked Pete a lot in the beginning and thought he gave good answers in the debates, though I didn't like him for President because he seemed too technocratic. Then there was his record on race, which he kept fumbling, and did again in the last debate. Warren responding to his vague answers was one of my takeaways from the night.

I recently came across another story with Pete regarding a race issue.

https://www.southbendtribune.com/ne...cle_ccb44d19-3f97-518c-a460-415e2894e3f5.html

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/19/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-i-cant-breathe-shirts/

tl;dr A police officer, whose store the city was a customer of, sold t-shirts saying "Breathe easy, don't break the law" as a mocking/taunting/threatening response to the reaction to the death of Eric Garner. Black council members and the NAACP condemned it, and asked Pete to do so as well. All Pete said was vague, feel-good platitudes and he even both-sided it.

But after the video of the Iowa woman who wanted to change her vote after learning Pete was gay, I'm not even sure if this is a race-specific blind spot for Pete. He praised the volunteer's response, and said more vague nonsense about respect.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...o-pulled-her-support-after-realizing-n1131591

Now, I don't want a "full SJW" histrionic response, where they call the woman an ignorant, homophobic hick and tell her to vote for Trump, but the "moderate" and "respectful" response was completely lacking in respect for Pete and his marriage. It was all "I respect your viewpoint" and "you have the right to your opinion" and "Pete is a human being and it shouldn't matter". And his fans are eating it up.

And when he had homophobic hecklers:

“That gentleman believes that what he is doing is in line with the will of the creator, I view it differently. We ought to be able to view it differently and never question one another’s choices.

“The good news is, the condition of my soul is in the hands of God but the Iowa Caucuses are up to you.”
Click to expand...

Linky.

What kind of nonsense is this? It was widely praised by the commentariat and fans, but I just don't get it.

It's like it is pathological. Whenever he encounters adversity, he retreats to some cheap platitudes and won't dare challenge anyone. He won't defend Black people, he won't even defend gay people.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
What kind of nonsense is this?
Click to expand...
The kind that works in Iowa?

Tsukasa Buddha said:
It's like it is pathological. Whenever he encounters adversity, he retreats to some cheap platitudes and won't dare challenge anyone. He won't defend Black people, he won't even defend gay people.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is pathological; on the other hand I associate Midwesterners with niceness ... maybe that's just who he is.

He reminds me of Obama though - thinking that "respect" and "listening" will get the job done.

Thanks for the links :)
 
Minoosh said:
The kind that works in Iowa?

Maybe it is pathological; on the other hand I associate Midwesterners with niceness ... maybe that's just who he is.

He reminds me of Obama though - thinking that "respect" and "listening" will get the job done.

Thanks for the links :)
Click to expand...

Here's Obama on respect:

As Obama was speaking at a White House event honoring LGBT Pride Month on Wednesday, an accented voice rang out from the crowd. Obama wasn't amused.

"Shame on you," he told his heckler, who was protesting deportations under the Obama administration.

Obama responded, "Listen you're in my house ... it's not respectful."
Click to expand...

Linky.

And that was just a person breaking decorum, not disrespecting Obama on a personal level.

Midwestern manners or respect have nothing to do with Pete's servility in the face of disgusting disrespect. We didn't give Trump a pass for Charlottesville because he took the "unifying" approach.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Midwestern manners or respect have nothing to do with Pete's servility in the face of disgusting disrespect. We didn't give Trump a pass for Charlottesville because he took the "unifying" approach.
Click to expand...
That lady in Iowa was just a loon. So low information I wonder if she can tie her shoes. Jaw-dropping ignorance, and I'm not talking about her homophobia but about *how she could possibly have missed* Buttigieg's gayness. So I can see why he set aside that battle. I won't address the race issue for now because I haven't read those links.

When I look at any one of the Democratic candidates I think, "You'd be perfect - if only you were different!" But I admit, I haven't been following very closely. I squint hard and try to imagine the ideal ticket - one for president, one for veep - based on the choices so far. But of course the ticket doesn't have to be perfect, just a clear improvement on the status quo, which it will be, whatever comes out of the nominating process.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom