View Poll Results: Will Trump win in 2020?
Yes 143 47.19%
No 160 52.81%
Voters: 303. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #651  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:45 PM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,815
I think nothing matters, no issue matters, economy does not matter, foreign policy does not matter. The only things that matters are the tribes, and whoever can get their tribe out to vote is going to win. Since Republicans always vote, the only thing that matters is will Democrats show up? If they do, he loses and if they don't, he wins.

Last edited by BobLibDem; 10-20-2019 at 08:46 PM.
  #652  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:11 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think nothing matters, no issue matters, economy does not matter, foreign policy does not matter. The only things that matters are the tribes, and whoever can get their tribe out to vote is going to win...
Alas, I believe you are correct. The economy could slide into a new depression and FPT* would not be blamed by any of his fans. If they all wound up broke and living on the street, they would still sing his praises and blame everyone but him. Sad but true.
Quote:
Since Republicans always vote, the only thing that matters is will Democrats show up? If they do, he loses and if they don't, he wins
I agree, Dems must show up to vote. But the Republicans are going to do everything they can, legal and illegal, to either keep them from voting or keep their votes from counting. And there's still the Electoral College. It looks grim. Another five years of... ohgod...
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #653  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:17 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Alas, I believe you are correct. The economy could slide into a new depression and FPT* would not be blamed by any of his fans. If they all wound up broke and living on the street, they would still sing his praises and blame everyone but him. Sad but true.
Trump voter 2021: "Obama stole mah job away. I usta git 20 bux an hour changin' the toilet soaps. Not anny moar."
  #654  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,099
I think, and have always thought, that Trump's *real* base - or his floor - is around 20-30%. By that I mean, it doesn't matter what happens to the economy, or what he does in office: they're going to show up and vote for the sonofabitch because God wants them to, or because it's important to stick it to brown people, or because they want oligarchy - or maybe he's just their idea of a good luck charm. Whatever. I think that the number of people who would vote for Trump under the absolute worst of circumstances is probably around 27%, possibly as high as 30%, or in the low 20s if I'm overestimating.

There's probably another 10-15% that would really, really like to vote for Trump, and they will unless they have a really good reason not to. And I never felt like Mueller's investigation into collusion with Russia was that reason. I'm not sure that the quid pro quo is either. In both cases, some people in this softer tier of Trump support would acknowledge that the optics are bad, but they still don't have a reason not to vote for him on a personal level. This is really not much worse than say some of the most outrageous shit he says on twitter or at his pressers. Some people in this softer tier might find this distasteful, but their tax rates are still low, he's still gettin' stuff done on the border, and giving Dems hell.

The difference between the 20-30% who will support him no matter what and that second 15% is that for that softer tier of Trump voters, results matter. Their lives matter. Their welfare matters. And they, like most other voters, will want to hold someone accountable. Now some within this softer tier - those who are closer along the spectrum to those diehards - will stick with the president through an awful lot. But as you get further away from his core, there will be lines of demarcation.

I do believe that Trump has already screwed himself beyond repair with that very small percentage of independents and centrists who frequently switch between parties - I think he's lost them for good, and this will have an impact in places like Pennsylvania, and perhaps in Florida and Ohio, too. But for Trump's real support (which now probably stands at around 42%) to crack, the only thing that'll do it is the economy. And even if they bail on Trump, they won't necessarily vote for a Democrat. What I'm saying is that you'd just have a very bad turnout. Republicans in GOP-controlled states may try to compensate for that by putting conservative ballot initiatives, but that will only go so far. I think that when Trump tanks, he'll tank hard, and so will his party. It's just a question of when that'll happen, and more importantly, how much damage will be sustained by then.
  #655  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:27 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
Voter suppression-- look for more of it ...

The Student Vote Is Surging. So Are Efforts to Suppress It. My bold.

Quote:
The share of college students casting ballots doubled from 2014 to 2018, a potential boon to Democrats. But in Texas and elsewhere, Republicans are erecting roadblocks to the polls.

AUSTIN, Texas — At Austin Community College, civics is an unwritten part of the curriculum — so much so that for years the school has tapped its own funds to set up temporary early-voting sites on nine of its 11 campuses.

No more, however. This spring, the Texas Legislature outlawed polling places that did not stay open for the entire 12-day early-voting period. When the state’s elections take place in three weeks, those nine sites — which logged many of the nearly 14,000 ballots that full-time students cast last year — will be shuttered. So will six campus polling places at colleges in Fort Worth, two in Brownsville, on the Mexico border, and other polling places at schools statewide.

“It was a beautiful thing, a lot of people out there in those long lines,” said Grant Loveless, a 20-year-old majoring in psychology and political science who voted last November at a campus in central Austin. “It would hurt a lot of students if you take those polling places away.”

The story at Austin Community College is but one example of a political drama playing out nationwide: After decades of treating elections as an afterthought, college students have begun voting in force.

Their turnout in the 2018 midterms — 40.3 percent of 10 million students tracked by Tufts University’s Institute for Democracy & Higher Education — was more than double the rate in the 2014 midterms, easily exceeding an already robust increase in national turnout. Energized by issues like climate change and the Trump presidency, students have suddenly emerged as a potentially crucial voting bloc in the 2020 general election.

And almost as suddenly, Republican politicians around the country are throwing up roadblocks between students and voting booths.

Not coincidentally, the barriers are rising fastest in political battlegrounds and places like Texas where one-party control is eroding.

Students lean strongly Democratic: In a March poll by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, 45 percent of college students ages 18-24 identified as Democrats, compared to 29 percent who called themselves independents and 24 percent Republicans
...
Remember back when getting college students to vote and care about government was a good thing?

But the Republicans don't want those uppity, librul, edumacated stoo-dunts out there telling their elders and betters how to run this here country. College is a bad influence-- it just makes them too big for their britches.
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #656  
Old 10-27-2019, 02:05 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,149
I think Trump will lose but it will be super close and he will erupt with claims of voter fraud and we will have a mess on our hands.

Ohio and Wisconsin will stay red. Michigan and Florida will go blue. Pennsylvania and Iowa will be extremely close, probably lean red.
  #657  
Old 11-04-2019, 09:39 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
How an impeached Trump wins
Quote:
President Trump is showing how he could be impeached, survive and still win re-election, something never done before in American history.

Between the lines: Trump officials think two things must unfold for this to happen: Republicans must stay unified, in votes and voice, and the economy must be strong, in jobs and market returns. The trends are strong on both fronts.
  • Every single House Republican voted against a formal impeachment proceeding, a powerful show of unity. In the Senate, there are very few public signs of the Great Red Wall cracking.
  • Importantly, Senate Republicans are discussing how they will defend Trump even if Democrats prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump offered Ukraine a quid pro quo to investigate Joe Biden.
  • Sources close to Republican leadership told us they expect many GOP senators to ultimately settle on a talking point that Trump's actions were "inappropriate but not impeachable."
  • The economy is humming, too. Markets are rising; growth continues, albeit more slowly; and more jobs are materializing. It's hard to argue that the Trump economy is anything but consistently strong one year out from the presidential election.
The big picture: "The worst-case scenario" — that the Senate convicts Trump — "only presents itself if there's a material change in fact pattern," said a source close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "If we know what we know right now, there is no problem."
....
(Formatting appears in the original.)

I think this is exactly what will happen. Add in aggressive and shameless Republican tactics to obstruct voting. A dose of Democratic in-fighting and spoiler candidates (who may yet appear). Capped off with Democrats playing mostly by the rules. (Not that I think the Dems should turn into lawless thugs.) Result: Four. More. Years.

God only knows what state the country will be in by then...

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #658  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:04 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
America After Trump
Even if he loses the next election, the damage he’s done to our political system will be lasting.
Quote:
It might work. The damage Trump could do in a second term would be substantial, and possibly irreversible—starting with the harm that would be done to the legitimacy of the American political system if he once again wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. If that happens, three of the past four Republican presidential terms will have lacked a popular mandate. This harm will be compounded if a Senate trial proves all charges against Trump, then acquits him on a party-line vote.

A second-term Trump would surely continue to rely on the countermajoritarian Senate—at this point it’s less democratically representative than the Electoral College—to cram through conservative judges who will act as umpires for a game that the American majority is not allowed to win.
...
On the other hand,
Quote:
... what if, as seems more likely at this point, he is defeated? If Trump loses, a cloud will lift from American politics. But the circumstances that produced him will not vanish—and the changes that he wrought will outlast him. Like Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire cat, when Donald Trump fades from the scene, his teeth will linger after him—but unlike the cat’s, those teeth will not be smiling. They will bite and draw blood for years to come....
Even if he loses (please God), we're screwed for a looooong time.
Quote:
...Even a roundly defeated Trump will bequeath a hard legacy to his Democratic successor, however: fiscal deficits in excess of $1 trillion for years to come; no-win trade wars, not only against China but against the European Union and other friends.

The leading Democrats of 2020 have offered expensive plans for progressive reform. But under current fiscal and political conditions, a costly progressive agenda stands little chance of being enacted. Medicare for All? Student-debt relief? There won’t be money for those—nor, more pertinent, the votes in the Senate.

Like Bill Clinton opening his administration with “NAFTA because we hafta” and Barack Obama beginning by rescuing banks, the next Democratic president will be compelled to focus on an agenda—trade-restoring, budget-balancing, ally-coaxing—that is at best boring to the Democratic base and at worst deeply unpopular. The Senate won’t allow much more than that. Republicans will be locked in payback mode; even Republicans who never much liked Trump will feel entitled to do anything and everything to inflict retribution upon the party that dared try to impeach him....
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #659  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:08 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
Here's some positive news:

The Suburban Backlash Against the GOP Is Growing
Quote:
...“When Trump was elected, there was an initial rejection of him in the suburbs,” says Jesse Ferguson, a Virginia-based Democratic strategist. “We are now seeing a full-on realignment.”

In that way, the GOP’s losses again raised the stakes for Republicans heading into 2020. In both message and agenda, Trump has reoriented the Republican Party toward the priorities and grievances of non-college-educated, evangelical, and nonurban white voters. His campaign has already signaled that it will focus its 2020 efforts primarily on turning out more working-class and rural white voters who did not participate in 2016.

But yesterday’s results again suggested that the costs of that intensely polarizing strategy may exceed the benefits. Republicans again suffered resounding repudiations in urban centers and inner suburbs, which contain many of the nonwhite, young-adult, and white-collar white voters who polls show are most resistant to Trump. If the metropolitan movement away from the Trump-era GOP “is permanent, there’s not much of a path for Republican victories nationally,” former Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee about two decades ago, told me.

Some in both parties see the results as more confirmation of the pattern from the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats won a majority in the House of Representatives: Trump’s effort to mobilize his nonurban base around white identity politics is having the offsetting effect of turbocharging Democratic turnout in metropolitan areas, which are growing faster than Trump’s rural strongholds.
....
Maybe common sense and education will win out over stupidity in 2020 and beyond.
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #660  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:28 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,812
Let’s hope. Unfortunately, some suburbs are worth more than others. One of the highest value ones, the ‘burbs of Milwaukee, haven’t shown much sign of blueness, as far as I’m aware. Milwaukee overall is amazingly segregated, and Trump’s messaging plays quite well around there even among more educated whites.
  #661  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:31 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,701
Majority expect Trump will win:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-majo...100719696.html
  #662  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:28 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Heh. The first sentence contradicts the headline. A majority think it’s “at least somewhat likely” Trump will win. Well, duh!

Nice try, though.
  #663  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:22 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Heh. The first sentence contradicts the headline. A majority think it’s “at least somewhat likely” Trump will win. Well, duh!

Nice try, though.
I caught that, too, but further down the article says:
Quote:
According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey released on Wednesday, 56 percent of voters expect the president to be reelected next year, including 85 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents. By comparison, more than a third of Democrats (35 percent) say the same.
My bold.

The people who write the headlines don't write the articles. Sometimes I think that the people who write the headlines don't even READ the articles...
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #664  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:31 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,812
Interesting — thanks! My mistake.
  #665  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:52 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Interesting — thanks! My mistake.
At best, the headline is misleading, as 56% is hardly a flaming, screaming, newsworthy majority. Of course, it DID make us read, and that's the goal.
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #666  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:19 AM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,991
In light of polling and interim elections since '16, the continuing confidence of Trump voters and the lack of it from non-Trump voters is astonishing to me. And I'm guilty of it, too. It's so important to beat Alpha Don next year, and it was so disillusioning to me that he won in the first place, that I can't bring myself to believe that the country is principled enough and energetic enough to get off its collective butts and vote the man out of office.
  #667  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:37 PM
wictor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 6
Yes, with the help of the Russians and the NRA.
  #668  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:46 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
If it's Trump against Warren or Sanders, Trump is going to win. Just wait until all those blue-collar union workers with gold-plated health care plans, along with all the liberal professors, teachers, nurses, and other professionals with great health care plans discover that Warren is going to invalidate their contracts, make their health insurance illegal, and force them all into the brave new system of 'medicare for all' with the rest of the rabble. Congress, of course, will be exempt. After all, she'd need their votes.

Warren is already dropping in the polls due to this stupidity, and the average voter isn't really paying attention yet. Bernie's ideas are even more politically destructive to the Democrats.

If the Democrats don't get those two lunatics off the top of the ticket, Trump will win again, and probably by a bigger margin than last time.
  #669  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:04 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If it's Trump against Warren or Sanders, Trump is going to win. Just wait until all those blue-collar union workers with gold-plated health care plans, along with all the liberal professors, teachers, nurses, and other professionals with great health care plans discover that Warren is going to invalidate their contracts, make their health insurance illegal, and force them all into the brave new system of 'medicare for all' with the rest of the rabble. Congress, of course, will be exempt. After all, she'd need their votes.

Warren is already dropping in the polls due to this stupidity, and the average voter isn't really paying attention yet. Bernie's ideas are even more politically destructive to the Democrats.

If the Democrats don't get those two lunatics off the top of the ticket, Trump will win again, and probably by a bigger margin than last time.
Yes, what kind of fool would put the welfare of all Americans ahead of their own person I-got-mine situation? We should instead vote for someone who will lower taxes on the middle class and otherwise perpetuate the status quo, which is working out just great.
  #670  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:42 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If it's Trump against Warren or Sanders, Trump is going to win. Just wait until all those blue-collar union workers with gold-plated health care plans, along with all the liberal professors, teachers, nurses, and other professionals with great health care plans discover that Warren is going to invalidate their contracts, make their health insurance illegal, and force them all into the brave new system of 'medicare for all' with the rest of the rabble. Congress, of course, will be exempt. After all, she'd need their votes.

Warren is already dropping in the polls due to this stupidity, and the average voter isn't really paying attention yet. Bernie's ideas are even more politically destructive to the Democrats.

If the Democrats don't get those two lunatics off the top of the ticket, Trump will win again, and probably by a bigger margin than last time.
Did Warren explicitly rule out all 'private' health care? Just because there's 'medicare for all' doesn't mean people have to avail themselves of it. Wouldn't they still be free to look for, and pay for, 'gold-plated health care"? In fact, by doing so, they'd lighten the load on the public system.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 11-07-2019 at 06:44 PM.
  #671  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If it's Trump against Warren or Sanders, Trump is going to win. Just wait until all those blue-collar union workers with gold-plated health care plans, along with all the liberal professors, teachers, nurses, and other professionals with great health care plans discover that Warren is going to invalidate their contracts, make their health insurance illegal, and force them all into the brave new system of 'medicare for all' with the rest of the rabble. Congress, of course, will be exempt. After all, she'd need their votes.

Warren is already dropping in the polls due to this stupidity, and the average voter isn't really paying attention yet. Bernie's ideas are even more politically destructive to the Democrats.

If the Democrats don't get those two lunatics off the top of the ticket, Trump will win again, and probably by a bigger margin than last time.
Or maybe you're wrong, and maybe your prediction is worth no more than mine in 2015 that there's no way Trump can win.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #672  
Old 11-13-2019, 11:07 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,772
If asahi is correct, then this means DJT is a shoo-in for four more years.

Recession fears have vanished
Quote:
Money managers are not just bullish about the stock market, they're euphoric about the current and future state of the global economy, data from the Bank of America Merrill Lynch shows.

What's happening:
BAML's monthly survey of fund managers from around the world finds investors are all in on the stock market, with global optimism rising by the most in 20 years and expectations of real economic growth jumping by the most in the history of the survey.

Why it matters: Investors have done a complete 180-degree turn in sentiment, moving from distrustful of the market's 2019 gains to full-fledged cheerleaders.
  • This is thanks to an expected pause in the U.S-China trade war and slight improvements in U.S. and global manufacturing, services and housing data.
Details: The survey saw a 43 percentage point increase in the number of investors expecting a stronger global economy in the next year, the biggest month-to-month jump on record.
....
Formatting present in original.
__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." --Václav Havel
  #673  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:00 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Did Warren explicitly rule out all 'private' health care? Just because there's 'medicare for all' doesn't mean people have to avail themselves of it. Wouldn't they still be free to look for, and pay for, 'gold-plated health care"? In fact, by doing so, they'd lighten the load on the public system.
Quote:
Under Ms. Warren’s plan, private health insurance — which now covers most of the population — would be eliminated and replaced by free government health coverage for all Americans.
Cite.
Quote:
The Massachusetts Democrat was one of only two candidates to raise their hand when moderator Lester Holt asked for a showing of who would be willing to get rid of private health coverage in favor of a government-run system.
Cite.

I am not sure if Ms. Warren's plan includes forbidding doctors from treating private patients. And maybe eliminating private health insurance doesn't include eliminating supplemental or complementary coverage. Would breast augmentations or rhinoplasty be covered under M4A? I don't know.

Regards,
Shodan
  #674  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Did Warren explicitly rule out all 'private' health care? Just because there's 'medicare for all' doesn't mean people have to avail themselves of it. Wouldn't they still be free to look for, and pay for, 'gold-plated health care"? In fact, by doing so, they'd lighten the load on the public system.
\\

Sanders plan rules out any private health care.

Sanders Plan is called MFA, but it has no relation to Medicare at all.
  #675  
Old 11-13-2019, 03:46 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If it's Trump against Warren or Sanders, Trump is going to win. Just wait until all those blue-collar union workers with gold-plated health care plans, along with all the liberal professors, teachers, nurses, and other professionals with great health care plans discover that Warren is going to invalidate their contracts, make their health insurance illegal, and force them all into the brave new system of 'medicare for all' with the rest of the rabble.

Anyone who currently has gold-plated health care through their union or university... wouldn’t they simply negotiate for a gold-plated supplemental plan? They could end up with even better coverage.

I believe Sanders’s plan is essentially gold-plated coverage for all. Single payer, no copay, totally free healthcare for all. Not sure this is possible, but it would make all private insurance superfluous.

Warren’s plan is, I think, Medicare-for-all which would still leave room for supplemental coverage, but I could be wrong there. She hasn’t been real clear when asked about private coverage in debates.
  #676  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:11 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
If you honestly think that a universal, federally managed single payer health care system will provide the same benefits to all as the major union-negotiated health care benefits and those that have been negotiated for by professionals, then you are delusional.

There are simply not enough hospitals, doctors and nurses to give everyone that level of care. And under Warren's plan, which severely cuts reimbursement to hospitals and doctors, there will be even fewer resources available.

Her plan to simply pay drug companies 30% of what they get now will end drug research, and cause massive flight of drug companies and researchers out of the U.S. Her plan to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals to medicare rates will kill hospitals, because they rely on private payments to subsidize the medicare patients they currently serve. Take away the private payments, and there is no money left for capital costs since Medicare only reimburses variable costs.

Warren's plan would destroy the health care system as you know it. So would Sanders'. Such sweeping reform to a huge part of the economy would also come with plenty of unintended consequences, and if history is any guide the cost estimates are rosy pie-im-the-sky estimates assuming that everything goes perfectly, supply continues as before, doctors keep working at 60% salary, he same number of people go to med school when their eventual salaries are capped at 60% of what doctors earn now, etc. None of these issues are addressed by any of the 'Medicare for all' advocates. It's all blue skies and rainbows, so long as you turn over another huge chunk of the economy to the federal government.

Get ready for waiting lists and shortages. That's how this always ends.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 11-13-2019 at 05:12 PM.
  #677  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:14 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 705
Death Panels!!!
  #678  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:18 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Death Panels!!!
Nobody said anything about death panels, Captain Non-Sequitur.
  #679  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:18 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If you honestly think that a universal, federally managed single payer health care system will provide the same benefits to all as the major union-negotiated health care benefits and those that have been negotiated for by professionals, then you are delusional.

There are simply not enough hospitals, doctors and nurses to give everyone that level of care. And under Warren's plan, which severely cuts reimbursement to hospitals and doctors, there will be even fewer resources available.

Her plan to simply pay drug companies 30% of what they get now will end drug research, and cause massive flight of drug companies and researchers out of the U.S. Her plan to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals to medicare rates will kill hospitals, because they rely on private payments to subsidize the medicare patients they currently serve. Take away the private payments, and there is no money left for capital costs since Medicare only reimburses variable costs.

Warren's plan would destroy the health care system as you know it. So would Sanders'. Such sweeping reform to a huge part of the economy would also come with plenty of unintended consequences, and if history is any guide the cost estimates are rosy pie-im-the-sky estimates assuming that everything goes perfectly, supply continues as before, doctors keep working at 60% salary, he same number of people go to med school when their eventual salaries are capped at 60% of what doctors earn now, etc. None of these issues are addressed by any of the 'Medicare for all' advocates. It's all blue skies and rainbows, so long as you turn over another huge chunk of the economy to the federal government.

Get ready for waiting lists and shortages. That's how this always ends.
You are aware of other countries, right? And that the rest of the first world did manage to make this transition?

I don't know how people can, in good conscience, enjoy decent health care at the expense of consigning fellow Americans to inferior care. That's not right.
  #680  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:29 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
You are aware of other countries, right? And that the rest of the first world did manage to make this transition?

I don't know how people can, in good conscience, enjoy decent health care at the expense of consigning fellow Americans to inferior care. That's not right.
I AM aware of other countries, since I live in one My wife is currently on a 7-month waiting list for a specialist. We have made two trips to the US to get medical services we couldn't get in a timely fashion here. My grandmother waited on a list for years for a knee replacement.

In a system that removes prices as a mechanism to control demand, he demand must be controlled in some other way. Rationing is just about the only tool the government has to do this.
  #681  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:35 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
You are aware of other countries, right? And that the rest of the first world did manage to make this transition?
Oh, as for the rest of the world 'managing the transition', you might want to check again. NO ONE has the kind of sweeping health care the main candidates are promising. Here in Canada we pay for our own prescription drugs, dentistry, and a whole host of other health care services the government won't cover. And some of the covered stuff takes so long that many Canadians go to the U.S. for treatments, all on their own dime. The last time I drove to he U.S. there were billboards across the border for medical clinics offering knee and hip replacements to Canadians.

Where are you Americans going to go when you're told that you either can't have a certain treatment, or that you can have it but not for several years?
  #682  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:45 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In a system that removes prices as a mechanism to control demand, he demand must be controlled in some other way. Rationing is just about the only tool the government has to do this.
You have it backwards. It's the rich people who can afford to pay for super-expensive drugs and expensive research that enable the poor to get them as well.

Did Mercedes owners cause hardships to people who can't afford a Mercedes? On the contrary, the existence of people willing to pay high premiums for safe cars funded the development of ABS, air bags, rear-view cameras, stability control and other advanced tech too expensive for the poor and middle class. But once that stuff was developed, the price came down because he rich subsidized the R&D.

None of us would have cell phones today if it wasn't for the rich people who initially paid thousands of dollars in fees to subsidize the cell infrastruture.

In all these cases, the existence of rich people that could fund expensive R&D did not hurt the people below - it helped them tremendously. If some socialist idiot had mandated that cars cost no more than $20,000 to 'help the poor', we'd all be driving shit boxes without any of these advancements. There would have been no money to pay for it.

So why is health care different? Who is going to fund a drug to te tune of a billion dollars if there are no people around anymore who can pay $1500 per shot? What incentive does te government have to research drugs that, if they work, will simply drive up the government's costs?

Another way to look at it - rich people pour a lot of money into the health care system. Set one price for all, and all that money goes away. The economy is not a zero-sum game, where every resource used by one person is a resource taken away from another. But turning health care into a government run system WILL make it zero sum. To your detriment.
  #683  
Old 11-13-2019, 06:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Anyone who currently has gold-plated health care through their union or university... wouldn’t they simply negotiate for a gold-plated supplemental plan? They could end up with even better coverage.

I believe Sanders’s plan is essentially gold-plated coverage for all. Single payer, no copay, totally free healthcare for all. Not sure this is possible, but it would make all private insurance superfluous.

Warren’s plan is, I think, Medicare-for-all which would still leave room for supplemental coverage, but I could be wrong there. She hasn’t been real clear when asked about private coverage in debates.
In Sanders/Warrens plan, which is called MFA but has no relation to Medicare at all, there would be no private insurance at all. No supplemental plans. IIRC Warren went for Sanders plan.
  #684  
Old 11-13-2019, 07:32 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Where are you Americans going to go when you're told that you either can't have a certain treatment, or that you can have it but not for several years?
Mexico. But most people don't have the resources to go elsewhere. If I can't have a treatment, I'd rather it be because more urgent cases are prioritized than because I'm poor so screw me.

My Canadian grandfather did drive down to the Mayo clinic for optional care. My American uncle had to declare bankruptcy and lost the family farm because his wife died at age 61, too young to qualify for medicare, and the medical bills were too much. (And he is a veteran who is mildly disabled from the Vietnam War, too—go USA!)

Anyway. Just a couple of anecdotes. Canadian grandpa and grandma made it to 90 despite their terrible healthcare. American grandpa and grandma managed 69 and 67 respectively. Some of that is down to life choices but there is currently about a three-year difference in life expectancy between the US and Canada, and it can't all be down to gun violence. cite
  #685  
Old 11-13-2019, 07:46 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
It's not all down to gun violence - it also that Americans are fatter and less healthy than Canadians. Stop subsidizing your food. The last time I was in the U.S. a restaurant gave me a food order that could have fed the entire table.
  #686  
Old 11-13-2019, 08:28 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,525
If I may continue the health care hijack:

In my opinion, the key reason why Canada's health care plan continues to work (albeit inefficiently and often unfairly) is that the MDs are the gatekeepers to the system.

Except for things like emergency and trauma care, most transplants, and most cancer care, you won't get to a specialist without a referral from another doctor (whether from your family doctor or from a specialist who's involved in your care). To a large extent, in Canada, your doc decides what you'll get done and the consultant/specialist when it gets done.

I have serious doubts that a cohort of doctors trained and matured in the US system where the patient dictates his care (or much of it) could ever adjust to, let alone embrace, the role that Canadian docs play, that of the gatekeeper. In any case, would it even be Constitutional to outlaw all purchase of health care?

Last edited by KarlGauss; 11-13-2019 at 08:29 PM.
  #687  
Old 11-13-2019, 10:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
It's not all down to gun violence - it also that Americans are fatter and less healthy than Canadians. Stop subsidizing your food. The last time I was in the U.S. a restaurant gave me a food order that could have fed the entire table.
Yeah, and altho the USA's murder rate is high compared to Canada, it's a drop in the bucket when comparing life expectancies.

My Canuck relatives are way less stressed than most Americans I know. More polite, more happy. But they aint much lighter, they tend to be big eaters too.
  #688  
Old 11-14-2019, 07:48 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
If asahi is correct, then this means DJT is a shoo-in for four more years.

Recession fears have vanished

Formatting present in original.
When Nixon, who had become a pariah, was forced to resign in 1974, these were the economy numbers:

Unemployment: 7.2% (nearly double that in 1973)
GDP growth: -0.5% (it was 5.6% in 1973)
Inflation: 12.3% (up 4% in 1973)

When Jimmy Carter, who is basically regarded as an ethical person, was voted out in 1980, his numbers were nearly identical to Nixon's in 1974:

Unemployment: 7.2%
GDP Growth: -0.3%
Inflation: 12.5%

When Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, these were his numbers:

Unemployment: 4.4%
GDP Growth: 4.5%
Inflation: 1.6%

I look at George W Bush's re-election as reference point, considering that we were increasingly divided over the War on Terror, Iraq War, tax cuts, and some of the issues we're debating now. Bush/Cheney's war was increasingly viewed as a foreign policy disaster. Bush was viewed as ignorant and Cheney as villainous. And yet, in the end, they beat Kerry and Edwards. The economic numbers:

Unemployment: 5.4%
GDP Growth: 3.8%
Inflation: 3.3%

Historically, people vote the president into office or out of office based on how their feeling about their own lives. They do not care if their president is lying, having sex with porn stars, buying people off, or whatever. Most elections are about how optimistic people are, and most times, that comes down how optimistic they are about their future careers and/or their retirement.

The elections of 2000 and 2016 were somewhat anomalous in that voters changed parties despite the fact that the party that 'held serve' in the White House was voted out of power despite having relatively good, stable economic numbers. My conclusion is that these were a combination of "I'm kinda bored; let's shake things up" and "culture war" elections.

I think Donald Trump is not in good shape because his personality is historically repulsive. He will pay a price among some voters for that, but he might get just enough to win because it's hard to convince people to vote against an actual incumbent when their economic situation is relatively stable, and when they know (or assume) that Trump will leave office in 4 years anyway. It's the assumption that it'll all be over anyway that might be what keeps people from going all in on an impeachment now. In Nixon's case, they were so fucking mad at the state of their country that while they could have ignored the tapes, they didn't ignore it, and they made it clear in polls and demonstrations that they didn't want to wait until 1976. It's a little different now.

Last edited by asahi; 11-14-2019 at 07:51 PM.
  #689  
Old 11-14-2019, 08:04 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I AM aware of other countries, since I live in one My wife is currently on a 7-month waiting list for a specialist. We have made two trips to the US to get medical services we couldn't get in a timely fashion here. My grandmother waited on a list for years for a knee replacement.

In a system that removes prices as a mechanism to control demand, he demand must be controlled in some other way. Rationing is just about the only tool the government has to do this.
Are you saying goods can’t be created merely by legislative fiat?
  #690  
Old 11-14-2019, 08:26 PM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 357
Trump will win in '20, but it doesn't really matter. His election was the end of the US as we knew it and it's just going to get worse form here. There is no coming back from the fact that this country made Donald Trump president.
  #691  
Old 11-14-2019, 09:18 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
Trump will win in '20, but it doesn't really matter. His election was the end of the US as we knew it and it's just going to get worse form here. There is no coming back from the fact that this country made Donald Trump president.
Pretty much this. There will be no return to normalcy or civility regardless of the outcome of the next election. Our political system, government and institutions are irreversibly broken. A President Biden or a President Trump or a President Warren or a President Pence in 2021 all still lead us to the exact same inevitable collapse. Just wait until climate change really starts cooking up the horrors it has in store for us too... Imagine the dystopian presidents we'll have to look forward to then! People will be nostalgic for Trump just like they're nostalgic for Dubya these days lol.
  #692  
Old 11-14-2019, 09:20 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,302
Trump's chances go down significantly if he has to face Deval Patrick or Michael Bloomberg. The Dems will be crazy not to run a moderate in what should be a very winnable election.
  #693  
Old 11-14-2019, 09:24 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Trump's chances go down significantly if he has to face Deval Patrick or Michael Bloomberg. The Dems will be crazy not to run a moderate in what should be a very winnable election.
If those guys are really good at politics, then they can try and win the primary. That's what the primary process is for. It's not perfect, but it's the best way we have to evaluate the political skill and ability of the candidates.
  #694  
Old 11-14-2019, 09:25 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Trump's chances go down significantly if he has to face Deval Patrick or Michael Bloomberg. The Dems will be crazy not to run a moderate in what should be a very winnable election.
Better yet- why not just fold up the Democratic party and politely ask Mitt Romney to run again?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017