Democratic Primary Season 2020

[Schnitzer318is]

I think you and I have had this conversation a while back and we have a some what differing view point on causation but fundamental agree that post high school education costs are beyond reasonable and especially given the quality of a "classic liberal arts" degree has gone down the shitter in the last 30-40 years...

Sleeve, appreciate you taking the time to respond point by point. Give me some time to digest it (still working on that E61) and I'll respond in kind. But wanted to acknowledge the thoughtful response.

[Schnitzer318is]

But your fine with all the other Leftist, Organizations and groups out there, You just want the Conservative ones to be targeted for going away???

I agree that lobbing/campaign funding needs to be brought under control, it has its place, and I think it is a fundamental part of how our system should work. Where people and organizations can support the candidate of their choice, that support their values are allowed to do so. BUT I wholly agree with you that it needs a massive OVERHAUL in some way to limit/eliminate the favor buying..... Maybe limit all donations from private individuals to no more than 500 bucks, and 1000 for business/organization or something like that.

I'll start with your last point. I didn't single out right or left contributors/lobbyists. I want them ALL eliminated at the corporate level, and limited at the individual level something akin to your numbers. At least we can agree that an overhaul is needed to keep the democratic process one of the people, by..., and for... :up:

I think you and I have had this conversation a while back and we have a some what differing view point on causation but fundamental agree that post high school education costs are beyond reasonable and especially given the quality of a "classic liberal arts" degree has gone down the shitter in the last 30-40 years.

Yes, we have, and agreed.

That public option caused the cost of the private options to go way up, mine has more than doubled since 0-care was implemented for the same level of benefits, in fact our prescription coverage has all but evaporated in recent years to keep our premiums in check...

If you ask me it was a compromise that was doomed to fail by intent and lay the ground work for the utopian dream of the next step being single payer, as the "only practical fix"

The ACA is far from perfect (like most things in life, I doubt there IS a perfect solution). Have you shopped your insurance? Employer provided plans aren't always the most affordable, or best care, options. Our insurance went up minimally... less than 5% I think through my wife's employer (we all still over pay as stated before). The biggest cause of premiums increasing though is not the ACA. It's the private insurance companies. They are setting the prices. And only a small handful control ~50% of the market. And they want to merge further... thank goodness for anti trust laws preventing Aetna and Humana from merging.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ups-in-the-us/

And, while individual premiums have continued to rise, they have slowed since the ACA was passed. I wasn't aware of just how severely individual health care cost had risen, and was projected to rise before the ACA.

https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of...-costs-4064878

UMMMMMM NO it should not, Now to some degree I could support the infrastructure (Facilities and maybe subsidization of highly costly equipment) being paid for by local/state/property taxes as that would benefit those in the community that is willing to vote to raise their taxes to support such things. Not unlike how school districts pass Mills to build new buildings or fund equipment and other school related "facilities"

I'm not opposed to the idea of localized taxing to pay for community health care. But the problem you will run into there is that the wealthiest communities will have the best health care. In much the same way that the wealthiest communities tend to have the best public schools. We are in the process now of trying to relocate to one of these districts. We will be house poor... but that's the game you have to play in order to give your children the best chance at a level playing field. I still feel taxing at the federal level would be the best way to accomplish affordable health care. I also would not mind removing the ACA tax penalty to purchase health care in the current system. But then I would like to see hospitals refuse to treat those without insurance. < Drastic way to encourage having insurance, I know. But it's similar to going to jail for driving without insurance. You're taking the gamble, you should pay heavily (possibly with your life) if you choose to not be covered.

This is a BLATANTLY FALSE assumption.... Rural hospitals have been closing doors at an alarming rate since 2010 or so. Why you might ask, you said it your self, high proportion OF MEDICARE patients and the year over year REDUCTION in reimbursement rates, coupled with the lower volume. Yes LARGE hospitals and clinics that work on the Walmart model of VOLUME of people shunted though the system every day will be fine. Not everyone lives in or even near a city with such options. Not to mention if these are the only places that would survive how much longer would the wait for care get with the influx from the closures of other options more local to them?

Its happening NOW as we speak. several rural hospitals have shut down in the last couple months

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-634

Bold for effect added by me

This is from last year and the total closures in the as of right now is 98 since 2010
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/here...in-the-us.html

I don't know the solution to that problem. Hospitals are for profit and can be mismanaged and under-capitalized same as a small business can. A complete revamp of the health care system is in order. I'm sure hospital costs are over inflated in much the same way individual costs are. Again, it comes down to a few companies setting prices for things... Xrays, CT machines, MRI, etc.

https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/t...manufacturers/

This time it's worse though as the top 5 control over 50% of the market. I'm all for people and companies making money... but greed for the sake of greed has gotten out of control in all industries. Companies beholden to stock holders repeatedly exhibit less than scrupulous (and sometimes illegal) business practices in order to pad the bottom line.

For profit medicine is defiantly a double edged sword, and not with out its pit falls, I totally agree with you especially given the experiences/treatment we have dealt with, for the wife's health predicament the last 15 months (that have caused us to all but leave the western medical practitioners). That said show me another system in the world that has generated as much advancement in the field than the profit motive we have been using the last 75 years or so.

You have my sympathies. I wish you both the best in her future treatment.
Having our two children at hospitals has been the largest expense my wife have had aside from our house of course. We are all over paying. For everything. And the quality of care is not reflecting what we are paying.

We will continue to agree to disagree on this. Some points to consider, in places where there is "public funded" healthcare, the better care is normally gotten at PRIVATE hospitals and clinics if you have the funds to afford it. Next point to consider, is how most people receive their HCI, its normally part of their benefits package at work, if there is all the sudden a public option what are all these companies going to do??? THEY ARE GOING TO DUMP all of us into that system, are we going to pay though our taxes (going up on our income) for a "corporate handout" of not having to pay all those HCI premiums on millions of us???? Also are we all going to get that money added to our checks or 401k's.... Thats going to be up to our employers.....

And the wealthy would be more than welcome to search out private care if they desired. I am not overly concerned with what is best for their wallets. If they were, they'd be more than welcome to participate in the same system the rest of us do. Congress should have to as well for that matter. Because you can currently opt out of an employer provided plan... that money would go to your check. If you then wanted to contribute it to your 401k it would be up to you. But my wife and I have opted out of employer plans before and received that money in our checks. YOU are paying for the employer plan, not the employer. They may have negotiated lower rates for their employees... but they are not paying it for the employees, though some do subsidize a portion. Depends on the employer.

Sorry for the long, slightly OT, post but wanted to reply in the same thoughtful manner you did. And I much rather this sort of discussion than the one to two line mud slinging anyway.

[mrsleeve]

I'll start with your last point. I didn't single out right or left contributors/lobbyists. I want them ALL eliminated at the corporate level, and limited at the individual level something akin to your numbers. At least we can agree that an overhaul is needed to keep the democratic process one of the people, by..., and for... :up:

Well you called out citizens united, rather than ACORN or Center for American progress, the ACLU, or the freedom from religion coalition or an host of way more radical progressive organizations that I think you would have issues with getting more of their agendas implemented than some thing along the lines of citizens united. So color me confused on that one is all then.

The ACA is far from perfect (like most things in life, I doubt there IS a perfect solution). Have you shopped your insurance? Employer provided plans aren't always the most affordable, or best care, options. Our insurance went up minimally... less than 5% I think through my wife's employer (we all still over pay as stated before). The biggest cause of premiums increasing though is not the ACA. It's the private insurance companies. They are setting the prices. And only a small handful control ~50% of the market. And they want to merge further... thank goodness for anti trust laws preventing Aetna and Humana from merging.

1st of all, I dont see my premium costs unless I take too much time off in one block and run out of escrow from hours worked when working to cover my premium. That said shopping around for similar coverage in the individual market is likely unavailable/unafordable as its one of the fancy "gold plated Cadillac luxury plans" that were decried as unfair that some people have and others dont and should be taxed on them during the whole ACA debate.

When the wifes issues started to hit hard last May, I flew home from a job, booked a room for 2 weeks in Rochester MN and took her to Mayo walked in the door and we spent 19 days there getting lots of stuff checked and and seeing lots of docs. No referral, No prior history not a thing but show and and present insurance card then hit the waiting rooms/lobbys. We proceeded to spend nearly 50k in the clinic over those 19 days , our insurance plan picked all but about 700 bucks of it up, we were 1000 miles from home, and Mayo is in our network, as are most all major care providers in the country. Of course we were out of pocket for the hotel rental car food and flights, and left with few answers and more questions than we had when we got there, but we did mange to rule out MS, ALS and anything Parkinson's related, and got the come back if it gets worse. As whats she really has got going on is mostly considered "controversial" in the western medical community and her paperwork from there shows negative .

All this said we have had to go outside the western medical providers to find people that are able/willing to help her beyond her have a happy pill and it will all go away. We have some paperwork to go with her issues now, though only about 50% of the very expensive labs were covered, and her new providers are covered to some degree, but since they are not part of the "standard idea of the modern medicine" most MDs will look at her diagnosis's with great skepticism and or write them off as not possible. I think for 2019 we are at least 5k out of pocket for lab work alone, but she has more faith in what shes doing now than anything that was done last year in MN so, thats all that matters

I am a big believer in competition being good for the consumer, so yeah I dont like it the super major players in any given industry mergeing.

I will study your links when I have a little more time.

I'm not opposed to the idea of localized taxing to pay for community health care. But the problem you will run into there is that the wealthiest communities will have the best health care. In much the same way that the wealthiest communities tend to have the best public schools. We are in the process now of trying to relocate to one of these districts. We will be house poor... but that's the game you have to play in order to give your children the best chance at a level playing field. I still feel taxing at the federal level would be the best way to accomplish affordable health care. I also would not mind removing the ACA tax penalty to purchase health care in the current system. But then I would like to see hospitals refuse to treat those without insurance. < Drastic way to encourage having insurance, I know. But it's similar to going to jail for driving without insurance. You're taking the gamble, you should pay heavily (possibly with your life) if you choose to not be covered.

well thats the way things go, and just because you are not in a "rich' area dose not mean you dont have good schools, I grew up in a fairly poverty stricken small town area, and we did have very old buildings, our area had invested in teachers and at the time were investing heavily in technology because thats what the admins, and population thought was best, the same can be done for hospitals and such in that type of scenario

You have my sympathies. I wish you both the best in her future treatment.
Having our two children at hospitals has been the largest expense my wife have had aside from our house of course. We are all over paying. For everything. And the quality of care is not reflecting what we are paying.

Thank you its been a very hard go the last 18 months be especially since last april/may.

For trauma and for things that fit a Medical diagnosis we have a great system in a lot of ways , though this is where the double edged sword seems to come in. A case like the wife walks in the door, enough is done to "not get sued" but if an answer is not gotten too with in the "normal" battery of testing, you are told come back if it gets worse, because the system has to move onto the next in line to keep the cash coming in..... At least this is how it has felt dealing with the wifes issues even going to one of the premier clinics in the world for difficult diagnosis, then having a very prominent Neurologist in our home city ignore her very obvious symptoms of Serotonin syndrome, and try to put her on a SSRI because "her issues were all in her head and needed an antidepressant" If she had taken that it likely would have put her in a coma with in 24 hours of the 1st dose.

And the wealthy would be more than welcome to search out private care if they desired. I am not overly concerned with what is best for their wallets. If they were, they'd be more than welcome to participate in the same system the rest of us do. Congress should have to as well for that matter. Because you can currently opt out of an employer provided plan... that money would go to your check. If you then wanted to contribute it to your 401k it would be up to you. But my wife and I have opted out of employer plans before and received that money in our checks. YOU are paying for the employer plan, not the employer. They may have negotiated lower rates for their employees... but they are not paying it for the employees, though some do subsidize a portion. Depends on the employer.
.

Agreed on the1st part.

Ummmm HCI is part of a salary package, and yes in recent years, many employers have shifted this cost to the employee, either in whole or in part, to help with their profit margins and that has helped to stagnate real wage increases as well, so in some of those cases I can see where it the funds would be allocated elsewhere in the salary package (in all the jobs I have held in my life this was never an option for me). I still see lots of people getting shafted on what was once a benefit being transferred to the employers profit margins when/if a universal public option is in place.

In my case ( I know its not the "norm") its part of my hourly rate, but I have no choice in where that can go. If I had an alternate option for health care to use and chose to use it Vs what is provided though my labor, I dont get that 7 bucks an hour on my check, or in my pension or anywhere else, it is still paid into the Heath and Welfare trust fund. I would suspect we would still have the private insurance in our benefits package given a single payer option is put in place, its just at that point it would become taxable income, and another revenue stream to be wasted by politicians.

Oh one thing I forgot to address in the 1st post...... YES TAXES CAN GO UP THAT MUCH. Talk to your grandparrents, in the 70s and 80s people that are upper middle class (not richers according the 250k mark the progressives have set the line at) were paying in excess of 50% effective tax rates on about 150k in income. Dont think it cant or wont happen again to pay for some of these programs.

[mbonder]

Eric Swalwell drops out of the race for the Democratic Nomination

[Schnitzer318is]

Eric Swalwell drops out of the race for the Democratic Nomination

Who? ;)

[mbonder]

Billionaire Tom Steyer joins the race (For what reason I don't know, other than to have people actually pay attention to him)

[decay]

Billionaire Tom Steyer joins the race (For what reason I don't know, other than to have people actually pay attention to him)

Who? ;)

[gwb72tii]

Billionaire Tom Steyer joins the race (For what reason I don't know, other than to have people actually pay attention to him)

Yes and the Democrats are upset that his $100,000,000.00 will be spent on himself and not doled out to the DNC

[mbonder]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows how long he plans to stay in, I'm sure he's got plenty of money to pass around to whoever makes it to the general election. There's no doubt that he still wants to have a seat at the table when the dust settles.

[roguetoaster]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows how long he plans to stay in, I'm sure he's got plenty of money to pass around to whoever makes it to the general election. There's no doubt that he still wants to have a seat at the table when the dust settles.

This is undoubtedly the correct take.

[gwb72tii]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows how long he plans to stay in, I'm sure he's got plenty of money to pass around to whoever makes it to the general election. There's no doubt that he still wants to have a seat at the table when the dust settles.

ok bonder, time for another Starbucks card bet

i bet:
Trump wins reelection $10 card
Republicans take the house $10 card
Republicans hold the Senate $10 card

[mbonder]

Excellent idea gwb!

I'll take the first bet as I simply don't want another four years of Trump (Right now I don't know who the alternative is, but this bet is on principle)

I'll also take the second bet as I think the Dems can hold as long as the first bet goes in my favor.

I'll pass on the third, I don't believe, even with a switch in POTUS, that the Senate will swing Dem. The current political animus is going to continue and the next POTUS will be just as hamstrung as Trump is currently, sigh.

There's my $20 wager, it's a long road, should be interesting to watch, popcorn in hand.

[z31maniac]

Excellent idea gwb!

I'll take the first bet as I simply don't want another four years of Trump (Right now I don't know who the alternative is, but this bet is on principle)

I'll also take the second bet as I think the Dems can hold as long as the first bet goes in my favor.

I'll pass on the third, I don't believe, even with a switch in POTUS, that the Senate will swing Dem. The current political animus is going to continue and the next POTUS will be just as hamstrung as Trump is currently, sigh.

There's my $20 wager, it's a long road, should be interesting to watch, popcorn in hand.

Just to play Devil's advocate, do you hate the smallest monthly deficit in years? Do you hate what your 401k has been doing the last few?

[gwb72tii]

Excellent idea gwb!

I'll take the first bet as I simply don't want another four years of Trump (Right now I don't know who the alternative is, but this bet is on principle)

I'll also take the second bet as I think the Dems can hold as long as the first bet goes in my favor.

I'll pass on the third, I don't believe, even with a switch in POTUS, that the Senate will swing Dem. The current political animus is going to continue and the next POTUS will be just as hamstrung as Trump is currently, sigh.

There's my $20 wager, it's a long road, should be interesting to watch, popcorn in hand.

Done!

[Schnitzer318is]

Do you hate what your 401k has been doing the last few?

Are you giving Trump the credit for the above?

Oh, nm, Devil's advocate... gotcha.