Page 20 of 25

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 Sep 2019, 18:05:36
by jedrider
Revi wrote:Well we've lost Inslee and Hickenlooper, so people who know what's actually going on and weren't afraid to talk about it are not what the voters want. It would be nice to have someone who is peak oil/climate change aware steering this ship...


It would be nice to have someone who was not a whore steering this ship PERIOD

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 Sep 2019, 18:14:22
by Cog
Revi wrote:Well we've lost Inslee and Hickenlooper, so people who know what's actually going on and weren't afraid to talk about it are not what the voters want. It would be nice to have someone who is peak oil/climate change aware steering this ship...


Do you really think the voters want a depression and never ending end to BAU? You have never ran for office or ran a political campaign have you?

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 Sep 2019, 18:26:38
by Newfie
I understand that politicians don’t lead, they just try to run in front of the pack.

How well would the Army work using that method?

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 Sep 2019, 18:30:50
by Cog
Newfie wrote:I understand that politicians don’t lead, they just try to run in front of the pack.

How well would the Army work using that method?


You can lead people to a desired goal, even an unpleasant one, but you must be subtle about it.
.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2019, 10:00:10
by Newfie
Agree, yet here we are.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2019, 12:41:25
by Plantagenet
As I predicted, Elizabeth Warren's poll numbers continue to improve, and she has pulled into the lead in the latest poll...now tied with Joe Biden at the top of the poll.

joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-are-tied-26-percent-new-poll

Old White Joe doesn't have a chance. He's too old, too slow, too lethargic, and too witless to match up with Warren. Same thing with Sanders.

Image

Its going to be the golem of greatness against Pocahontas.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 06:53:29
by Revi
It probably will be "our dear leader" against Elizabeth Warren. Let's see how they do in this debate. Warren is pretty good at getting her points out there. How would she fare in a general election? I don't want 4 more years of our present occupant...

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 11:02:31
by Cog
Revi wrote:It probably will be "our dear leader" against Elizabeth Warren. Let's see how they do in this debate. Warren is pretty good at getting her points out there. How would she fare in a general election? I don't want 4 more years of our present occupant...


Warren's positions are just as left as the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Are the American people ready to vote in socialism? Because you can vote your way into it but you have to shoot your way out of it. Something the American people need to understand about what is at stake.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 12:06:16
by dissident
Cog wrote:
Revi wrote:It probably will be "our dear leader" against Elizabeth Warren. Let's see how they do in this debate. Warren is pretty good at getting her points out there. How would she fare in a general election? I don't want 4 more years of our present occupant...


Warren's positions are just as left as the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Are the American people ready to vote in socialism? Because you can vote your way into it but you have to shoot your way out of it. Something the American people need to understand about what is at stake.


America is at a historic cross-roads right now. One hopes the fake stream media isn't leading them into the ditch.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 17:15:21
by Plantagenet
Warren just proposed raising everyone's social security benefit by ca. $200 per month.

warren-social-security-scheme

Now she's promised reparations to blacks, reparations to gays, Medicare for people who don't qualify for Medicare, no more borders for illegal immigrants, and $200 more for every social security recipient!

Wow! Its like Christmas!!!

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 02:31:59
by Cog
Beto promised during the debate last night that "we are coming for your Ar15 and Ak47s". He will certainly be a busy man. LOL

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 03:29:09
by gollum
Cog wrote:Beto promised during the debate last night that "we are coming for your Ar15 and Ak47s". He will certainly be a busy man. LOL



He ran his mouth enough that "universal Background checks" have now gone from 50/50 to being a remote possibility for the remainder of Trumps term. They manage to screw themselves every single time this issue comes up. From now on the pro gun people are going to be very energized.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 06:55:18
by Revi
I think this was a way for those on the lower half of the ten candidates to get their voice heard. Who did we hear from in the debate? Julian Castro, Beto O'Rourque and a little bit from Elizabeth Warren, although I can't remember what she said. I do remember Joe trying to deflect what Castro was saying. You have to remember that when they go to a 5 person debate those lower 5 are out. This was their only chance to be heard at all and stay in the race.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 09:08:31
by Cog
Warren continued the push for Medicare for all like Bernie Sanders. On guns, she did not advocate the confiscation of Ar's but she wants future sales banned. Furthermore, she said she wants to continue gun regulations until all the violence stops. Irrational position since you won't ever get rid of the 400 million guns in private hands, nor the 10 million Ar's and Ak47s in private hands.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 11:26:26
by Outcast_Searcher
Cog wrote:
Revi wrote:It probably will be "our dear leader" against Elizabeth Warren. Let's see how they do in this debate. Warren is pretty good at getting her points out there. How would she fare in a general election? I don't want 4 more years of our present occupant...


Warren's positions are just as left as the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Are the American people ready to vote in socialism? Because you can vote your way into it but you have to shoot your way out of it. Something the American people need to understand about what is at stake.

Yup, Warren is showing more of her true colors as wealth redistribution in spades (i.e. "free giveaway" programs, becomes the heart of her campaign. If you can't buy an election with donations from rich backers, maybe you can buy one by promising enough free money to the masses, and to hell with long term incentives to produce, etc.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 11:37:14
by Outcast_Searcher
Cog wrote:Warren continued the push for Medicare for all like Bernie Sanders. On guns, she did not advocate the confiscation of Ar's but she wants future sales banned. Furthermore, she said she wants to continue gun regulations until all the violence stops. Irrational position since you won't ever get rid of the 400 million guns in private hands, nor the 10 million Ar's and Ak47s in private hands.

And criminals aren't going to give up their guns. And as long as criminals have guns, the violence won't stop (think gang bangers, robbers, etc). And of course, there will be the occasional random violent shooter.

So her position is really just saying she wants to regulate away American gun ownership over time. I'm all for reasonable compromise on thngs like ensuring gun buyers know basic gun safety and their legal responsibility, etc., but not for what she's trying to sell.

And meanwhile, there are some counter-trends. As a Kentuckian, I was surprised to learn that I can now legally carry concealed without a license in KY., as long as I obey the signs on buildings saying guns not permitted. I found that surprising in the gun climate these days.

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2 ... -kentucky/

(I just love the idea that would-be robbers, muggers, rapists, etc. never know when the intended victim pulls out a gun, and uses it if necessary.)

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 12:11:29
by Newfie
Encouraged by federal tax subsidies worth an estimated $250 billion in 2013, many U.S. employers provide coverage as part of their compensation plans; employer-sponsored insurance covers more than 150 million workers and their dependents. The next largest source of coverage, Medicaid, insures less than half as many, 70 million; Medicare enrolls 50 million; and the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and individual market provide coverage for about 17 million.


https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2 ... -insurance

150 million WORKERS with health care
70 million medicAID
50 million mediCARE - over 65
17 million ACA
TOTAL 287 million

316 million USA Population 2013
So that’s 19 million dependents. Sounds low! Maybe that’s the number of uninsured?

Or 150+19 is 169 (say 170) million receiving employer sponsored health care.

But using those numbers ($250 billion / 170 million) is about $1,470/person subsidy.

NHE National Health Expenditure
NHE grew 3.9% to $3.5 trillion in 2017, or $10,739 per person, and accounted for 17.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
. 8O
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics ... sheet.html

Medicare spending grew 4.2% to $705.9 billion in 2017, or 20 percent of total NHE.


60 million on MediCARE 2017

$706,000,000,000/19,000,000. Is $11,8000/Medicare person.

Medicaid spending grew 2.9% to $581.9 billion in 2017, or 17 percent of total NHE.

582,000,000,000/56 million (2017) is $10,400 per Medicaid person.

So the bottom line is it seems we are spending about $10,700/person on health expenditures. That to me a tremendous amount of money. And it doesn’t seem one model (medicare /medicaid) is spending a lot more than the other (private) models.

Every dollar of it comes out of the taxpayers pocket now, so in that sense we already have “single payer health care”, the single payer is the tax payer.

So if we are going to improve on this we need to find efficiencies and ways to not needlessly waste dollars.

I could get behind a Medicare for all where the individual is allowed to also buy additional insurance.

At most I could identify 19-20 million uninsured out of 316 million (2013). Or 7% of the population.

Seems to me it is no great cost to add those without insurance if we can then reduce the overall medical costs.

Am I missing something?

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 12:16:10
by Newfie
I think there may be a couple of loop holes to be plugged, and we should require gun owners to report stolen weapons in a reasonable time frame.

Other than that I don’t see a heck of a need for more legislation. From what I read the vast majority of gun related crimes are done by folks who have their guns illegally which means we can not enforce the gun regulations we now have. So I see it as an enforcement problem as much as anything else. Once we fix the enforcement issue then we can take a look at the laws.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 12:19:35
by jedrider
Newfie, if those numbers are correct: $10K per person per year.

Well, we said that U.S. healthcare is completely bloated.

That it is across the board is interesting of itself.

The whole system has a bias towards expensive drugs, expensive facilities, profits for someone.

If it were $5K per person per year in outlays, I would still think it was too expensive, but that should be what everyone should be contributing IF everyone had adequate healthcare available and made use of it. IMO.

Re: THE Democrat Thread Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Sep 2019, 12:38:08
by Outcast_Searcher
Newfie wrote:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2 ... -insurance

150 million WORKERS with health care
70 million medicAID
50 million mediCARE - over 65
17 million ACA
TOTAL 287 million

316 million USA Population 2013
So that’s 19 million dependents. Sounds low! Maybe that’s the number of uninsured?

Or 150+19 is 169 (say 170) million receiving employer sponsored health care.

But using those numbers ($250 billion / 170 million) is about $1,470/person subsidy.

NHE National Health Expenditure
NHE grew 3.9% to $3.5 trillion in 2017, or $10,739 per person, and accounted for 17.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
. 8O
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics ... sheet.html

Medicare spending grew 4.2% to $705.9 billion in 2017, or 20 percent of total NHE.


60 million on MediCARE 2017

$706,000,000,000/19,000,000. Is $11,8000/Medicare person.

Medicaid spending grew 2.9% to $581.9 billion in 2017, or 17 percent of total NHE.

582,000,000,000/56 million (2017) is $10,400 per Medicaid person.

So the bottom line is it seems we are spending about $10,700/person on health expenditures. That to me a tremendous amount of money. And it doesn’t seem one model (medicare /medicaid) is spending a lot more than the other (private) models.

...

Am I missing something?

First, re the gap, 316 - 287 is 29, not 19, so you're off by about a third there, assuming by "dependents" you mean the folks not covered.

When you say $10,700 per person using Medicare and Medicad, remember that Medicare is only covering OLD people. Old people have a tremendously higher average medical cost because of the obvious fact that most health problems occur among the elderly, statistically.

What I don't understand is why the tab is so high for Medicaid. The ACA premiums are nothing close to 10K a year on average, but Medicaid covers young and old, so that's not a fair comparison either.

But the waste is tremendous. Just think how much money we could save by simply letting entities like Medicare negotiate drug prices like happens in other countries. When the same drug from the same company costs retirees half or a third in places like Canada or Britian, we're doing something very wrong there. (Or 1% of the US cost for expensive drugs in places like India, but that's another matter). And of course, why should only retirees get a break?