View Poll Results: What should the 2020 Democratic main message be?
Positive: The importance of progressive causes (i.e., universal healthcare, UBI, forgiving student loan debt, reparations, etc.) 39 69.64%
Negative: The harm of Trump - focus on how important it is to get him out of office 7 12.50%
Other 10 17.86%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-31-2019, 05:21 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Steering clear of his racist tweets seems like a fundamental abdication of moral responsibility with no clear political upside.
  #52  
Old 07-31-2019, 07:16 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Steering clear of his racist tweets seems like a fundamental abdication of moral responsibility with no clear political upside.
I agree itís an abdication of moral responsibility. However, I think thereís a clear political upside. The Dem candidate can only talk about one thing at a time, and the more time they spend talking about what Trump has said, the less time they can spend talking about what heís done.

We all know whatíll happen if the Dems spend time talking about Trumpís tweets. His idiot followers will drag the conversation down tangents about what exactly, precisely, specifically Trump meant with each tweet, and what was in his heart when the wrote them, and what even is racism anyway and blah blah blah blah blah? Then soulless cunts like Hannity will signal boost their nonsense until, once again, the whole conversation becomes about Trump, which is exactly what he wants.

Far better, in my opinion, to keep the focus on what Trumpís done like the anti-American crimes in the ICE border camps.

Put another way, what would you rather Trumpís supporters argue? That heís not racist, or that heís not mistreating kids?
  #53  
Old 07-31-2019, 07:44 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I’m not saying to talk about his tweets all the time or even most of the time. But I took you to mean we shouldn’t say anything about them at all.

ETA: If you are worried about a muddled message, “mistreating kids” is problematic because it was the Obama administration in 2014 that started putting kids in cages.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-31-2019 at 07:46 AM.
  #54  
Old 07-31-2019, 08:55 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post

Far better, in my opinion, to keep the focus on what Trumpís done like the anti-American crimes in the ICE border camps.
The majority of centrist voters simply do not care about this issue - at least not to the extent that they will change their vote on it. They care about themselves. If you want to go negative on Trump then you need to focus on issues that matter to them. Talk about how the tax cuts only benefited the elites(we need to take back that word). Talk about how the Republicans are trying to take away their healthcare. Talk about how he wants to give another tax cut to the rich who own stocks while cutting programs that help the middle class. Tell them about how coal plants have closed because of his ineffective policies and how steelworkers and farmers are suffering under his needless trade war. The voters the Dems need don't care that much about immigrants or the climate. They're too busy trying to pay their electric and pharmacy bills.
  #55  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:10 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
The majority of centrist voters simply do not care about this issue - at least not to the extent that they will change their vote on it. They care about themselves. If you want to go negative on Trump then you need to focus on issues that matter to them. Talk about how the tax cuts only benefited the elites(we need to take back that word). Talk about how the Republicans are trying to take away their healthcare. Talk about how he wants to give another tax cut to the rich who own stocks while cutting programs that help the middle class. Tell them about how coal plants have closed because of his ineffective policies and how steelworkers and farmers are suffering under his needless trade war. The voters the Dems need don't care that much about immigrants or the climate. They're too busy trying to pay their electric and pharmacy bills.
Yes. Talk about the issues that affect Americans every day and how Trump and the GOP have not only failed to improve them, they haven't even addressed them. Ask "What happened to replacing Obamacare with 'something great?'" Then play the clip of Trump saying "Who knew it was so complicated?"
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #56  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:41 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Not exactly. The report I assume you are talking about mirrored the findings of another report by the Urban Institute. Those findings were based on the following assumptions.
  • We could cut drug prices significantly. That is, I suppose, possible, but it is not the same as saying "spend the same on drugs but it would cost less".
  • It assumed significant administrative savings. That is problematic, because the administrative costs of Medicare are partially done by other parts of the government. It still has to happen, and administrative costs have to be paid for, but it is important to note that having a different part of the government do the administration is not the same as saying it will automatically save costs.
  • It assumed no increase in utilization, and that people would get preventative care that would reduce health care costs down the line, and things like assuming they would go to their regular doctor instead of the expensive emergency room. This is also problematic. By and large, preventative care does not save money overall. And, under Obamacare, both visits to PHPs and to emergency rooms went up. Visits to regular doctors, IOW, were in addition to emergency room visits, and did not replace them.
  • More importantly, the report also assumed that all doctors and health care providers would be reimbursed at Medicare rates. Those rates are set by law. On average, doctors lose money treating 65-80% of their Medicare patients. They make up the difference by charging their other patients more.
Based on those assumptions, and if we doubled all payroll taxes instead of paying insurance premiums, it would save around $2 trillion over ten years. It would also add to the deficit - doubling payroll taxes would not replace insurance premiums enough to be revenue neutral - it would have to be higher - i.e. we would save less than $2 trillion, but how much less was not addressed.

Obviously we can't just say "replace all insurance premiums with taxes" because that would not save anything and there would be no particular advantage in M4A.

But the report did not find "we would save a lot of money by eliminating the middle man". It found "we would save a lot of money by paying doctors less than it cost them to deliver health care", and that is not at all the same thing.

In theory I suppose we could do it. Just tell doctors and clinics "it will take you a lot longer to pay off your $250,000 in medical school debt - now go figure out how to deliver the best health care possible while getting paid a lot less" but figuring out how to do it is harder than simply informing them it has to be done.

Regards,
Shodan
I didn't see the report by the Urban Institute, but the Mercatus report, is that the one it's mirroring?
I was reading this analysis from FactCheck.org and it brings up the same points you do. At the end it also says "Sandersí spokesman, Miller-Lewis, argues that the initial assumptions used in the report ó the ones based on Sandersí Medicare for All Act ó are legitimate. The buying power associated with a system that represents all Americans would allow the government to negotiate significant savings in payments to health care providers, as well as on drug prices.The whole point of universal health care is that youíll get these cost-savings.
"Itís done everywhere in the world,Ē he said. ďI donít think weíre making any wrong assumptions.Ē
There is a certain amount of guesswork in estimating the cost of something as complicated as the health care system, and all of those estimates rely on a multitude of assumptions. Weíre not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they arenít Blahousí assumptions."

I see Slacker Inc started a thread about M4A, it looks a bit biased to me but I'll read it later.
__________________
NM
  #57  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:45 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,594
Yes, the Mercatus report is the one we're talking about.
Quote:
"Sanders’ spokesman, Miller-Lewis, argues that the initial assumptions used in the report — the ones based on Sanders’ Medicare for All Act — are legitimate. The buying power associated with a system that represents all Americans would allow the government to negotiate significant savings in payments to health care providers, as well as on drug prices.The whole point of universal health care is that you’ll get these cost-savings.
"It’s done everywhere in the world,” he said. “I don’t think we’re making any wrong assumptions.”
I would not characterize Sanders' assumptions as "wrong". The problem with them IMO is that "if" is the biggest little word in the world.

If we reimburse doctors at Medicare rates, then overall, they will lose money 65-80% of the time. Then what happens? I doubt very much they will simply carry on - they are much more likely to adjust. Delivering less health care overall, preferably more efficiently but definitely less.

Regards,
Shodan
  #58  
Old 07-31-2019, 05:02 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, the Mercatus report is the one we're talking about. I would not characterize Sanders' assumptions as "wrong". The problem with them IMO is that "if" is the biggest little word in the world.

If we reimburse doctors at Medicare rates, then overall, they will lose money 65-80% of the time. Then what happens? I doubt very much they will simply carry on - they are much more likely to adjust. Delivering less health care overall, preferably more efficiently but definitely less.

Regards,
Shodan
Doctors will definitely take a shellacking from socialized medicine. Not sure that's a bad thing. The arrogance of the profession in general does more damage to healthcare than the good pay attracts talent.
  #59  
Old 07-31-2019, 06:42 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
We should have never let their pay soar so high. But that’s going to be quite a trick, to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
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 04:32 PM.

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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017