Elections ***Second Democratic Primary Debate play-by-play thread: Night 1. ***

Who Won the Debate?

  • Total voters
    86
The more I listen to Bernie and Warren the less I like them. Bernie - free college, pay off student debt, medicare for all and no private insurance. Taxes would have to go up a lot to pay for all of that.

I have no problem with plans to pay off student loans if people take jobs for underserved communities or other types of jobs that help society. Not just pay off student debt.

I much prefer people having the option to keep their private insurance if they want to keep it.

Even with a medicare type plan I think you have to have some small sort of co-pay for a visit or people will go for every headache to get aspirin or other small problem. Doctors would be overwhelmed with small stuff that doesn't require a doctor visit. Unless you give nurses much more responsibilities, this type of system won't work.
 
Prokofievian said:
So far as I know, medicare for all would essentially be copying Canada's system, depending on what it covers. Key things are not covered in Canada's basic plans: prescription drugs, eye care, that sort of thing. Providers are all still private, though. They just bill the government for the services they provide.

Japan is a different ball game. I don't know much about it. But I heard that all their hospitals are physician owned non-profit co-ops or some shit like that? Seems like more of a re-write than just M4A.
Click to expand...

It would be more akin to UK system or Japan's system as far as deployment. Canada's system in 10 different UHC based on provincial decision, with an opt out
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
It would be more akin to UK system or Japan's system as far as deployment. Canada's system in 10 different UHC based on provincial decision, with an opt out
Click to expand...

I think it's closer to Canada's system, given that we also have the federal transfer system, and the NHS is actually also a provider itself, whereas medicare is just a payment service so far as I know. And the opt out is..well, there's a reason why no province actually does.
 
method115 said:
I understand the healthcare industry would be shaken up and lots of people losing their job but were talking about people dying here. Not just adults but sometimes kids as well. Is there really an argument at that point? Sure lets try to slowly do it and help these people get jobs. Maybe even see about having them qualify for some sort of relief payment package to support them for 6 months or so if they are having trouble finding work. At the end of the day though this is people losing jobs vs people dying.
Click to expand...

Do you think Canada has no doctors, nurses, radiologists, etc? They all have good salaries representative of their years of education. Single-payer means the system itself is non-profit i.e. no money being siphoned off to enrich pharmaceutical companies, hospital executives, pharmacy chains and insurance companies.
 
Prokofievian said:
I think it's closer to Canada's system, given that we also have the federal transfer system, and the NHS is actually also a provider itself, whereas medicare is just a payment service so far as I know. And the opt out is..well, there's a reason why no province actually does.
Click to expand...

Fed transfer only to have not provinces. All tables US system are Federal implemented and governed. Each state gets the same service. That's very different than the Canadian system. Medicare would resemble provincial system only by acting as the middle man, so yeah in that regard it would differ than UHS
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
Fed transfer only to have not provinces. All tables US system are Federal implemented and governed. Each state gets the same service. That's very different than the Canadian system. Medicare would resemble provincial system only by acting as the middle man, so yeah in that regard it would differ than UHS
Click to expand...

Sure, that's how transfers normally work. The Federal government operating the vast majority of its services as is the case of the NHS is a lot more different, IMO: it's a different function entirely, instead of merely a different level of government. Medicare 4 all would see the government become a buyer, not a provider (that would be VA for all).
 
waiguoren said:
Unless something has changed over the years, Mr. Hasan is not a careful thinker. His interview of Richard Lindzen was sloppy and full of incoherence.
Click to expand...


Awesome dude. What the fuck does that have to do with him correctly pointing out that all of these centrist stooges are polling within the margin of error and are literally being jeered and laughed at whenever they speak in public during this campaign?

 
method115 said:
I understand the healthcare industry would be shaken up and lots of people losing their job but were talking about people dying here. Not just adults but sometimes kids as well. Is there really an argument at that point? Sure lets try to slowly do it and help these people get jobs. Maybe even see about having them qualify for some sort of relief payment package to support them for 6 months or so if they are having trouble finding work. At the end of the day though this is people losing jobs vs people dying.
Click to expand...


Agreed man. Plus a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage and free college makes any transition easier and less fearful. With those three things in place you can start a business while working a menial job and still do OK while improving things.
 
superpunch said:
Healthcare makes up ~18% of the US GDP and is ~8% in most countries with universal healthcare coverage. We actually already spend more tax dollars on healthcare per person than every country in the world with a universal healthcare system except for Norway on just medicare for some. That's how stupid medicare for all is.

And as stupid as it is, it's still less stupid than the system we have now. But it's still really, really stupid; it would be the worst and most expensive public healthcare system in the world.

It's not a policy proposal for serious people. It's a policy proposal for people that can't think very hard and get lost at anything with a description longer than 3 words. "BUILD A WALL!" "MEDICARE FOR ALL!"
Click to expand...

That is money spent on the sickest part of our population. That also includes government money spent on ER visits for the uninsured and under insured. Not to mention hugely inflated costs for pharmaceuticals.
 
Last edited:
AndroidRage said:
That is money spent on the sickest part of our population. That also includes government money spent on ER visits for the uninsured and under insured. Not to mention hugely inflated costs for pharmaceuticals.
Click to expand...

GDP is also calculated on the price of goods and services (either is USD equivalent or PPP). So, let's say the cost of prescription drugs is out of control in the U.S, and it is. If you enacted some sort of sweeping reform that drastically reduced the price of drugs in the U.S., the GDP would go down, even if the actual output of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry wouldn't change. The GDP goes up (very slightly) when companies jack the price of insulin through the roof, even if their actual output isn't changing.

I'm just saying, maybe the GDP isn't the right metric to be using here.
 
Joy Reid MSNBC did a good job talking about Tulsi an you could see could see show producers tripping her up. She was talking about effective at reporting but you could see they were feeding her statements. David a former Republican was doing a good job an Alter is a paid troll. Jason was having a hard time trying to sell Biden it was obvious.

Tulsi did a good job but she will need to be a VP media not giving her any positive reporting other then saying she is blind to the pain of Syrians. Biden is raging about 30 trillion for healthcare we're already on pace to spend 34 trillion over 20 years so saving 4 trillion minimum sounds like a sound investment. Biden went to a fundraiser were healthcare executives were in attendance lol. He loses any credibility on the issue. Warren looks pretty good right now an Sanders.
 
Prokofievian said:
GDP is also calculated on the price of goods and services (either is USD equivalent or PPP). So, let's say the cost of prescription drugs is out of control in the U.S, and it is. If you enacted some sort of sweeping reform that drastically reduced the price of drugs in the U.S., the GDP would go down, even if the actual output of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry wouldn't change. The GDP goes up (very slightly) when companies jack the price of insulin through the roof, even if their actual output isn't changing.

I'm just saying, maybe the GDP isn't the right metric to be using here.
Click to expand...

It is takes into account consumer spending. People spend less on healthcare and then spend more elsewhere.
 
AndroidRage said:
It is takes into account consumer spending. People spend less on healthcare and then spend more elsewhere.
Click to expand...

This is correct, IMO. The idea that the GDP would collapse under a different healthcare system smacks of the sort of scare mongering used to argue for enormous tax subsidies for the wealthy: ''IF WE RAISE TAXES ON CORPORATIONS THEY'LL ALL LEAVE.'' Will they? All of them? Every single one? I have my doubts.

GDP takes into account government spending as well. But the point that the american left should be making is that the profit in your healthcare system is an inbuilt inefficiency. People can't have the argument that the GDP will collapse if they deliver the same services by government, and that the services aren't currently being delivered in a grossly iniquitous way. It's a most macabre argument: literally sacrificing your own citizens to the GDP god.
 
My God... Bernie's smackdown of Jake Tapper, CNN, Republican Talking Points, and the Anti-M4A camp in one answer was absolutely barbaric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,957
Messages
58,330,944
Members
176,002
Latest member
Shock7

Share this page

Back
Top