2020 Candidate Speculation

[ladybrienne]

Dec 18, 2019 8:24:39 GMT -6 Sundae said:

I would so much rather pay more taxes to have everyone covered. We already pay 13k a year in premiums. I don’t think our taxes would go up that much, but if they did? Meh. I want everyone to have healthcare. And college. And parental leave.

This is where I am at, I DGAF if my taxes go up. Healthcare is a human right. The healthier we all are, the better off our country is too. 

[greykitty]

jkjacq , I agree that certain industries will enhance benefit programs to attract and retain employees - and whether it's increasing salaries (although how that might tie to inflation is always worth a look) or other sorts of benefits, we just don't know, I think. Depending on what sort of head tax might be passed to help pay for M4A, there may not be all that extraneous money left around for transferring cold hard cash to employees. After all, health insurance as we know it started as a 'perk' since after WW II employers were capped on what salaries they could offer. Be interesting if there were a change back to salary-based competition, but then in the gig economy, not sure how things would play out. I suspect most employers would still be pretty focused on reducing headcount.

That was nice what your employer did to get people off your plan and onto Medicare. Mine - well, to be fair it's an apprentice-type professional services field, and most employees are gone by 65. Those who were around were basically told join Medicare, and use the firm's insurance as a secondary at a somewhat reduced employee premium rate, but certainly no equivalent pay raise (which made sense - that would also affect the defined benefits pension then in effect). That lasted for quite a few years, then, after feedback from insureds, it was join Medicare and pick a medigap plan from the commercial world. Our insurance was both more comprehensive, and more expensive.

blurnette989 , you're right - I wasn't clear. Assuming those not earning high enough levels of either self-employed or employer-based income fall into defined poverty status, they're probably only not owing any taxes, they may well be getting credits or refunds back. Now, how does that play into financing M4A if Medicaid doesn't exist, but everyone goes onto an enhanced, more expensive Medicare. Please let me be clear - this is not to say that's not a desirable outcome, but how is the financing accomplished and how is it conveyed to voters. And, yes, I totally don't buy Warren's two cents approach - great slogan, though.

And what of retirees depending on SS and possibly pensions or IRAs? If you're only getting SS you're probably not paying federal taxes (you are indeed paying Medicare premiums somehow), but any other resources are generally taxable at both Federal and many states' levels. Possible grandfathering of existing Medicare recipients with no tax impact? Who knows - I haven't seen anything to date, but I hear a lot of nervous chatter in the 50+ group.

I don't think anyone realistically has indicated taxes would go up 'only a little' under most projections - certainly Sanders has not, IMO, and 'he wrote the bill'; for me, a little would be $500-1,000 annually. Most studies I've seen are talking more like $7,000-$10,000 for moderate income taxpayers (your mileage, and studies, may vary). Yep, if everyone gets a $10,000 raise, that's a wash, maybe even a 'true' raise in take home monies. But if they don't, and they're not really careful about banking whatever amount of premiums were deducted from the regular paychecks and saving it toward taxes? And if now they're in a new, higher tax bracket? Ouch? And won't that be a fun election cycle immediately thereafter.

For a general voter point of view, let's say they're hearing $7,000 they're going to have to come up with to pay the IRS over and above current income taxes (let's not even get into the massive overhaul of the Code that will have to happen). They've also heard, or experienced, the publicized poor service offered to too many of, really, our most deserving Americans through the VA and they're going to wonder how well will this program, with possible a huge influx of new insureds, be managed by a federal agency? Again, IMO, some sort of good answer has to be provided based on US experience - yeah, parochial, but I'm thinking also realistic.

M4A isn't, under Sanders, just the existing Medicare which might manage if a lot of good new employees were added to handle the influx. It's a vastly expanded, vastly more expensive program. I still think that even under the rosiest projections of expenses saved and financing options, no one has really figured out how it will be paid for or how much political will and muscle will be needed to pass a lot of these proposals.

Heck, no one likes change that much, and it has to be carefully demonstrated to promote support. Look at France, and I hope someone with more insight into the matter has comments. From what I can tell, that huge, disabling transit strike is basically down to the government wanting to streamline public pensions that could adversely affect current and potential pension holders. I guess I can see both sides there, but right now I can only think the French economy is taking a huge hit, and how will the dispute be resolved both fairly and in a long-term viable fashion.

I really wish so much of these healthcare debates didn't have real, and sometimes devastating, impact on people's daily lives. I try to approach it from how can the votes and general support over diverse groups be generated to accomplish these real needs. I think at this point a more moderate, slower transition would play better in the general election - but it's not popular with some of the most engaged voter groups.

[dc2london]

A $7-10k increase in my taxes would still save me a buttload of money vs current healthcare expenses

[roloma]

Ok, I am going to be pretty blunt here and I'm not spending a lot of time thinking this through so I apologize in advance...WE SHOULD BE TAKING CARE OF EACH OTHER, FULL STOP. People need to stop being so fucking selfish and realize that, as humans, we need to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Under- and uninsured people SHOULD NOT EXIST. Healthcare is a human right and if it takes paying a bit more in taxes so be it, damn it. Fuck, man.

The same can be said for paying for lunch for school children. NO CHILD SHOULD GO HUNGRY, EVER.

Good lord, even thinking about these things gets my blood boiling. These should not be debated points.

[jkjacq]

Dec 18, 2019 10:07:39 GMT -6 roloma said:

Ok, I am going to be pretty blunt here and I'm not spending a lot of time thinking this through so I apologize in advance...WE SHOULD BE TAKING CARE OF EACH OTHER, FULL STOP. People need to stop being so fucking selfish and realize that, as humans, we need to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Under- and uninsured people SHOULD NOT EXIST. Healthcare is a human right and if it takes paying a bit more in taxes so be it, damn it. Fuck, man.

The same can be said for paying for lunch for school children. NO CHILD SHOULD GO HUNGRY, EVER.

Good lord, even thinking about these things gets my blood boiling. These should not be debated points.

does the eye pointy thing..

I 100% agree

[punker1212]

Dec 18, 2019 9:30:59 GMT -6 dc2london said:

A $7-10k increase in my taxes would still save me a buttload of money vs current healthcare expenses

This is an important point. I think so many Americans don’t really pay attention to the costs toward premiums coming out of their pockets/their employers’. So all of that, on top of deductibles, co pays, co insurance... we pay a lot.

Also I will say there is one point Williamson made in the first or second debate that was about the only worthwhile point she made. In addition to the costs talking point, we kind of also have to talk about why Americans are so sick. Our lax environmental regulations are very much related. I’m in Michigan where water contamination is such a pervasive problem and the full impacts of the pollution are almost unknowable.

[dc2london]

Dec 18, 2019 11:03:42 GMT -6 punker1212 said:

Dec 18, 2019 9:30:59 GMT -6 dc2london said:

A $7-10k increase in my taxes would still save me a buttload of money vs current healthcare expenses

This is an important point. I think so many Americans don’t really pay attention to the costs toward premiums coming out of their pockets/their employers’. So all of that, on top of deductibles, co pays, co insurance... we pay a lot.

Also I will say there is one point Williamson made in the first or second debate that was about the only worthwhile point she made. In addition to the costs talking point, we kind of also have to talk about why Americans are so sick. Our lax environmental regulations are very much related. I’m in Michigan where water contamination is such a pervasive problem and the full impacts of the pollution are almost unknowable.

Yes!!! I've been saying for years that the government would do more to protect our health if they had skin in the game.

[greykitty]

punker1212, I agree that most people do not know their employer-based premiums in total. We always got a chart showing the employee portion - one year there was an 'oopsie', so they said, and we saw the partner portion as well (as owners, they paid the total premiums). It was extremely eye-opening to employees to see that total number and what the employer subsidy was.

Over the next few years, we started seeing breakdowns of total compensation costs annually - salary, insurance premiums, FICA and Medicare, vacation, PTO - in chart form. All stuff we could have figured out on our own, but most people never bothered. Obviously, it was a benefit to the employer as well for people to see that all-in comp vis a vis take home pay.

[punker1212]

Dec 18, 2019 11:09:46 GMT -6 dc2london said:

Dec 18, 2019 11:03:42 GMT -6 punker1212 said:

This is an important point. I think so many Americans don’t really pay attention to the costs toward premiums coming out of their pockets/their employers’. So all of that, on top of deductibles, co pays, co insurance... we pay a lot.

Also I will say there is one point Williamson made in the first or second debate that was about the only worthwhile point she made. In addition to the costs talking point, we kind of also have to talk about why Americans are so sick. Our lax environmental regulations are very much related. I’m in Michigan where water contamination is such a pervasive problem and the full impacts of the pollution are almost unknowable.

Yes!!! I've been saying for years that the government would do more to protect our health if they had skin in the game.

High five.

[notblanche]

Dec 18, 2019 8:58:35 GMT -6 greykitty said:

I really wish so much of these healthcare debates didn't have real, and sometimes devastating, impact on people's daily lives.  

The real and devastating impact of our current system is I watched two family members die in 2011 because they were under- and/or uninsured and did not have access to care they desperately needed. In a different country, under different circumstances, they might very well still be alive today. Your questions and concerns are valid and thought provoking, and I truly appreciate the perspective you bring to these conversations... but yeah. Where we are now is real and devastating, and something's got to change. 

[notblanche]

My employer-sponsored health insurance plan is practically gold plated; they pay 90% of my premiums and 85% of the premiums for Mh and M. 100% of dental and vision premiums are covered for my whole family. Until earlier this year our deductible was $0 and it's still staggeringly low compared to others. We also have two well-paying jobs and an additional $7–$10k in annual taxes will have an impact... I nocurr. Let's do it. Fixing a broken ass system is more than worth it imo.

[greykitty]

I think I want to see change so much that I want to be really sure there are good solid rebuttals and explanations to counter any possible question and doubt, and to garner not just grudging support, but enthusiastic votes saying this can be done, and done well.

I dimly remember the Reagan landslide - I think repeating anything close to that lingers in the minds almost all Democrats and/or moderates of a couple of generations.

[Ls2012]

Dec 18, 2019 12:22:29 GMT -6 notblanche said:

My employer-sponsored health insurance plan is practically gold plated; they pay 90% of my premiums and 85% of the premiums for Mh and M. 100% of dental and vision premiums are covered for my whole family. Until earlier this year our deductible was $0 and it's still staggeringly low compared to others. We also have two well-paying jobs and an additional $7–$10k in annual taxes will have an impact... I nocurr. Let's do it. Fixing a broken ass system is more than worth it imo.

This is where the conversation on who gets taxed what comes into play. Because as much as I would love to say sure, I'll happily pay more in taxes so everyone can have health insurance, I can't. $7-10k wouldn't just have an impact on my family, it would be a massive blow. I will happily pay more, but I can't afford much more. And sadly that's a big truth for many many people/ families in this country.

Idk. The whole damned system is fucked and makes me ragey. The number of health issues in my family that have gone, and continue to go, undiagnosed because we're terrified of the out of pocket costs and our now even larger deductible is..not small. That we have to cross all the things and pray to every deity in existence that these things aren't serious and/or going to screw my children over in their lives is such utter bullshit. But here we are, a one middle income household that can't afford care but doesn't qualify for help/ aid/ services.

I know the country needs more taxes to fix the healthcare situation. I want to help and do my part. Paying more taxes makes me feel 1 paper bag away from hitting the floor.

[AmyG]

Dec 18, 2019 13:13:52 GMT -6 Ls2012 said:

Dec 18, 2019 12:22:29 GMT -6 notblanche said:

My employer-sponsored health insurance plan is practically gold plated; they pay 90% of my premiums and 85% of the premiums for Mh and M. 100% of dental and vision premiums are covered for my whole family. Until earlier this year our deductible was $0 and it's still staggeringly low compared to others. We also have two well-paying jobs and an additional $7–$10k in annual taxes will have an impact... I nocurr. Let's do it. Fixing a broken ass system is more than worth it imo.

This is where the conversation on who gets taxed what comes into play. Because as much as I would love to say sure, I'll happily pay more in taxes so everyone can have health insurance, I can't. $7-10k wouldn't just have an impact on my family, it would be a massive blow. I will happily pay more, but I can't afford much more. And sadly that's a big truth for many many people/ families in this country.

Idk. The whole damned system is fucked and makes me ragey. The number of health issues in my family that have gone, and continue to go, undiagnosed because we're terrified of the out of pocket costs and our now even larger deductible is..not small. That we have to cross all the things and pray to every deity in existence that these things aren't serious and/or going to screw my children over in their lives is such utter bullshit. But here we are, a one middle income household that can't afford care but doesn't qualify for help/ aid/ services.

I know the country needs more taxes to fix the healthcare situation. I want to help and do my part. Paying more taxes makes me feel 1 paper bag away from hitting the floor.

If most people in the us don't have an extra $500 for an emergency (medical bill or other)
If they hear $7-10k, they aren't going to be able to vote for that, they aren't going to be able to pay it.
A bunch are people that make too much for any public assistance, but don't make enough to set aside that $500.
Even when dh was working we were basically paycheck to paycheck people.
We've owed the IRS money before and making payments to them were pretty easy, but it would still give me a heart attack to have to pay them 500-$1k a month forever... cause we weren't paying that for insurance when he worked. It was a plan with a low deductible but larger out of pocket for anything aside from dr visits (see $$$$ hospital bill for heart attack that we've been paying on for 2 years now)

It seems that it can't be a big jump into medicare for all. It's gotta start by filling in the old and the young, raising  income limits for medicaid type coverage, --lowering age to qualify for mediare (the olds who get laid off can't find a job and have to take early retirement but don't qualify for mediare yet)--making that coverage and medicare very similar in coverages, doctors and all that.
and then start to annually add to who qualifies. It's gonna have to have an overlap between the old system and the new. 

[athn64]

Comments on the "choice" argument for healthcare

[jkjacq]

Dec 19, 2019 8:10:53 GMT -6 athn64 said:

Comments on the "choice" argument for healthcare

The point i was making earlier, made much more succinctly

[dc2london]

relevant to our discussion:

www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/upshot/irs-letter-health-insurance-fine-study.html

[blurnette989]

Dec 19, 2019 10:27:52 GMT -6 dc2london said:

relevant to our discussion:

www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/upshot/irs-letter-health-insurance-fine-study.html

"he experiment, an unintended result of a budget shortfall, is the first rigorous experiment to find that health coverage leads to fewer deaths, a claim that politicians and economists have fiercely debated in recent years as they assess the effects of the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion."

How can anyone honestly debate whether greater health insurance coverage saves lives???? Anyone debating that is so out of touch to what not being able to pay for healthcare means for a persons health. WTF.

[greykitty]

I don't think anyone here is debating that increasing healthcare coverage to more (all) people is undesirable - the debate in my mind is the funding mechanism and how to convey the story to voters so they won't be scared out of their minds about voting for some sort of transition. Ask Hillary Clinton about "Harry & Louise".

[dc2london]

Dec 19, 2019 10:37:37 GMT -6 blurnette989 said:

Dec 19, 2019 10:27:52 GMT -6 dc2london said:

relevant to our discussion:

www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/upshot/irs-letter-health-insurance-fine-study.html

"he experiment, an unintended result of a budget shortfall, is the first rigorous experiment to find that health coverage leads to fewer deaths, a claim that politicians and economists have fiercely debated in recent years as they assess the effects of the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion."

How can anyone honestly debate whether greater health insurance coverage saves lives???? Anyone debating that is so out of touch to what not being able to pay for healthcare means for a persons health. WTF.

I'm not sure the debate was due to people disbelieving that being insured leads to better outcomes, but more in whether it could be empirically proven.

Data people are very finicky about that kind of stuff (and for good reason. Don't @ me, nerds!)

[blurnette989]

Dec 19, 2019 11:27:28 GMT -6 dc2london said:

Dec 19, 2019 10:37:37 GMT -6 blurnette989 said:

"he experiment, an unintended result of a budget shortfall, is the first rigorous experiment to find that health coverage leads to fewer deaths, a claim that politicians and economists have fiercely debated in recent years as they assess the effects of the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion."

How can anyone honestly debate whether greater health insurance coverage saves lives???? Anyone debating that is so out of touch to what not being able to pay for healthcare means for a persons health. WTF.

I'm not sure the debate was due to people disbelieving that being insured leads to better outcomes, but more in whether it could be empirically proven.

Data people are very finicky about that kind of stuff (and for good reason. Don't @ me, nerds!)

I doubt that is true of the politicians as referenced here. The economists I will give you. 

[roloma]

We have 9:45pm Central tickets for Rise of Skywalker tonight (nerd alert) so I am going to miss the end of the debate.

I just looked at the NYT article about the debate and they have pictures of the candidates participating all next to each other. Here are my thoughts:

1) Aside from Yang, that's a lot of white.
2) Speaking of Yang...just, how? why? Seriously.
3) I'm thankful there are two women but it's 2019. There are only 2?? That's some bullshit right there.
4) Tom Steyer, huh? GTFO dude.
5) So. much. white. (and this is the point that pisses me off the most and why I might even completely skip them)

[dc2london]

Yeah roloma I'm usually buzzy with excitement on debate days and today I primarily just feel annoyed.

Annoyed with the entire process.
Preemptively annoyed with the moderators and the questions they will ask.
Annoyed that we will be technocratic and sincere about wanting to help people while the other side yells about John Dingell.
Annoyed that these candidates have sincerely thought out plans and will earnestly try to present them to the American people tonight but Trump will dry hump a flag and 40% of the country will think he's the messiah.

[roloma]

Dec 19, 2019 14:01:41 GMT -6 dc2london said:

Yeah roloma I'm usually buzzy with excitement on debate days and today I primarily just feel annoyed.

Annoyed with the entire process.
Preemptively annoyed with the moderators and the questions they will ask.
Annoyed that we will be technocratic and sincere about wanting to help people while the other side yells about John Dingell.
Annoyed that these candidates have sincerely thought out plans and will earnestly try to present them to the American people tonight but Trump will dry hump a flag and 40% of the country will think he's the messiah.

This basically runs through my brain 98% of my waking hours.

[roloma]

The DNC raised the thresholds again for the next debate. Cool, make sure it is totally white up there, would you? Fucking implicit bias.

I want to Dems to be better, but it is clear, deep down, the majority are not.

[cnf]

Dec 20, 2019 12:21:18 GMT -6 roloma said:

The DNC raised the thresholds again for the next debate. Cool, make sure it is totally white up there, would you? Fucking implicit bias.

I want to Dems to be better, but it is clear, deep down, the majority are not.

What are the new thresholds? Given so many didn't make this one they could have easily left the thresholds as is. Sigh.

[punker1212]

Dec 20, 2019 12:21:18 GMT -6 roloma said:

The DNC raised the thresholds again for the next debate. Cool, make sure it is totally white up there, would you? Fucking implicit bias.

I want to Dems to be better, but it is clear, deep down, the majority are not.

Ugh. UGH.

[elle]

Dec 20, 2019 12:21:18 GMT -6 roloma said:

The DNC raised the thresholds again for the next debate. Cool, make sure it is totally white up there, would you? Fucking implicit bias.

I want to Dems to be better, but it is clear, deep down, the majority are not.

I understand the desire to narrow the field, but this entire time they've gone about it the wrong way. The fact that the debate stage broadened in October after being whittled down in September illustrates that plainly.

[roloma]

Dec 20, 2019 16:09:32 GMT -6 cnf said:

Dec 20, 2019 12:21:18 GMT -6 roloma said:

The DNC raised the thresholds again for the next debate. Cool, make sure it is totally white up there, would you? Fucking implicit bias.

I want to Dems to be better, but it is clear, deep down, the majority are not.

What are the new thresholds? Given so many didn't make this one they could have easily left the thresholds as is. Sigh.

Here:
In order to qualify for the next debate on Jan. 14, candidates must earn at least 5 percent in four qualifying polls released between Nov. 14 and Jan. 10, or 7 percent in two polls conducted in one of the four early-voting states on the nominating calendar: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina.—Additionally, candidates must receive donations from 225,000 individuals, up from 200,000 for Thursday’s debate, with a minimum of 1,000 donors in at least 20 states.The qualification deadline is Jan. 10 — four days before the debate, hosted by CNN and The Des Moines Register at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

[doublestuf]