Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 254: Pete's Whine Cave

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nelson_Mandela posted...

That is pretty inarguably due to opioid use and suicide

I am so glad Bernie supports legalizing Marijuana which has shown to decrease opioid use and his m4a plan covers mental health.

Exactly my point. We have more problems than just cancer and Bernie understands that.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The same could be said for any kind of insurance. Unfortunately, there is no natural solution for that. Whenever you have a valuable item (a home, a car, yourself), you have to pay a premium to protect it.

But if I have more to lose I will pay more to protect it. If I have a Ferrari I'll be willing to pay much more in premiums than I would for a 1990 Honda civic. With healthcare, no one dies because they can't pay - they are just stuck with a bill. Which if you can't pay, you don't. So those who can pay more have more to lose if they aren't insured, they get more value from their insurance, and they should pay higher premiums.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

That is pretty inarguably due to opioid use and suicide

What industry is it that helps people deal with opiod addiction and mental health now?

Actually hell I don't even mind companies making a profit for doing something well and helping people.

Let's cap profits to 50 million. Little bit of spending money.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Lol who, Haley?

i don't have anybody in mind, i just think conservatives have 1) a better grasp of what's more popular on a national level, and 2) because they don't make a big deal of the sex of the politician it paradoxically makes it easier to happen as when it does most will believe she's there mainly for her own merit, not because she's a woman. i mean just ask the UK how that whole "we want a woman in charge!" rant Labour wants, all while May was in power and they recoiled in horror to go "not her!" for US politics i just see the way Tulsi's treated and see the same issue: woman, check. minority race, check (Samoan). minority religion, check (Hindu). military background, been in politics for years, by far the best crossover support. checks all the boxes you could ask for... but not very big with the establishment of the party, picked Bernie in 2016 over Hillary, isn't liked for bucking trends hard. conservatives quite like her, as do moderates, but it's a handful of liberals and anything more left utterly hates her. in other words, dems will pick a female candidate but odds are it'll be one who can't win due to no crossover appeal.

edit: Palin's the obvious counterpoint of "she was picked for being a woman," yeah. and was called out by everyone, including conservatives on it. i don't think they're gonna do that mistake again for a while.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Trump supporters (and Im not saying Wang is one, but we both know he spends a lot of time congregating with them for some reasonnot sarcasm), are utterly convinced Ivanka has 2024 on lock.

any who think that are really dumb. the only things Ivanka has going for her are that 1) she's really hot, and 2) her dad is a campaigning and fundraising monster. and i spend plenty of time in all camps really, more Bernie/Warren fans than the rest by virtue of, y'know, NYC. have met a few conservatives and know a good chunk of displaced liberals the left's abandoned though, the latter does vote Trump but ain't particularly diehards, they just don't see people like Biden as a better option. maybe Bernie. definitely Yang, definitely Tulsi. you know, the top 3 candidates with crossover appeal.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I know that's what they did for alcohol and I guess it's vaguely justifiable from a drunk driving perspective, but is that same tactic used for smoking? It makes no sense to me why any local government would feel the need to raise it beyond age 19.

state has a vested interest to protect the kids. yes this is tied back to the recent vaping deaths. most states were either doing it or on their way to doing it so this just sped that process up by a couple years.

---

Reg posted...

Why does this ignore the disgustingly long track record private insurers have of doing things that are great for profits but really shitty (and sometimes even functionally lethal) for patients? This is why Chris considers you bad faith, and frankly this is why I agree with him.

The ACA was good for insurers and for patients. And I'm not saying that good for insurers --> good for patients. I'm saying it's fucking obvious why insurers are against M4A (the plan would literally ban their current product!) and that their opposition is irrelevant to evaluating the merits or risks of M4A for Americans.

---

For the record, I dont think LotM is a bad faith actor in the slightest, Ive listened to enough Pod Save America to know the people with his beliefs are serious.

---

Thanks red sox and Tony.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

So to the extent that voters actually care about policy...Warren's loyalty to M4A isn't the issue. But the Warren/Pete suburban audience is pretty fickle.

same one Harris had, same one Beto had, same one Klobuchar has, similar one to Bloomberg's too. almost all with zero stickiness. those ain't really policy votes, it's mostly mood, tone, and advertisement.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The ACA was good for insurers and for patients. And I'm not saying that good for insurers --> good for patients. I'm saying it's fucking obvious why insurers are against M4A (the plan would literally ban their current product!) and that their opposition is irrelevant to evaluating the merits or risks of M4A for Americans.

You know what the ACA originally had that the insurance companies railed against hard both then and now?

A public option

Leafeon13N posted...

What industry is it that helps people deal with opiod addiction and mental health now?

China apparently

I will join you in a call to go to war with China, don't worry

---

Reg posted...

You know what the ACA originally had that the insurance companies railed against hard both then and now?

A public option

And again, it's obvious why they're against it! But you can easily come down in favor of one (say a public option) and against the other (M4A) despite the fact that insurers oppose both, because the position of insurers doesn't have to determine your position (either by forcing it to be the same or the opposite).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

And again, it's obvious why they're against it!

Yes, becuase they're running a fucking scam operation and don't want to have their profits reduced at all. Fucking pigs, all of them. If any of them gave a shit about anything except bottom lines, they'd at least be fine with a public option existing.

Private insurance companies do not have any patient's best interests anywhere near their hearts, but you continue to go to bat for them every time you get the chance. If I didn't know better, I'd be questioning whether you were getting paid to do so.

LordoftheMorons posted...

And again, it's obvious why they're against it! But you can easily come down in favor of one (say a public option) and against the other (M4A) despite the fact that insurers oppose both, because the position of insurers doesn't have to determine your position (either by forcing it to be the same or the opposite).

and what happens when these wonderful insurance companies, which you yourself have stated are profit driven, do not accept people who are not young and healthy?

---

I feel like the ones trying to smear LotM without actually trying to engage the arguments he's making against M4A are the ones arguing in bad faith here.

LotM is claiming that M4A, if improperly implemented, won't have the desired outcome and will end up bad for everyone, and you guys are responding by saying that the desired outcome is good (which I don't think anyone is disputing?) and so therefore LotM must be wrong.

Now from my standpoint this points to an argument to make sure that M4A is properly implemented rather than an argument against the philosophy of the policy itself, but yeah.
---

*ROLL EYES* at the word 'smear' '

Like, I am perfectly allowed to hold the belief someone is arguing in bad faith. To call it a smear is just absurd.

OK pyresword.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

China apparently

I will join you in a call to go to war with China, don't worry

I think there's no need for war if we have strong, intelligent, leaders like President Trump and President Nixon negotiating for us.

---

pyresword posted...

LotM is claiming that M4A, if improperly implemented, won't have the desired outcome and will end up bad for everyone, and you guys are responding by saying that the desired outcome is good (which I don't think anyone is disputing?) and so therefore LotM must be wrong.

Frankly, my only real interest with healthcare is finding a way for people to get out of the private system that isn't "oh, you got sick? Guess you're bankrupt now". Some form of single payer would do that best, but I acknowledge it's not the only way.

The other piece here that's at the crux of the discussion but that has not been highlighted today is LotM's complete fucking ignorance of how political barganing works. As always, he appears to be under the belief that you can start negotiations at a public option and wind up with a public option. Or at least, that's the position he's arguing from. Despite literally citing the ACA already.

Reg posted...

Frankly, my only real interest with healthcare is finding a way for people to get out of the private system that isn't "oh, you got sick? Guess you're bankrupt now". Some form of single payer would do that best, but I acknowledge it's not the only way.

The other piece here that's at the crux of the discussion but that has not been highlighted today is LotM's complete fucking ignorance of how political barganing works. As always, he appears to be under the belief that you can start negotiations at a public option and wind up with a public option.

Yeah this. I would never expect Bernie's exact M4A as he wants it to be passed, that's just not reasonable. But it has to start there.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

and what happens when these wonderful insurance companies, which you yourself have stated are profit driven, do not accept people who are not young and healthy?

They have to because of the ACA!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

They have to because of the ACA!

Do they, though? What's going to enforce that? What is the objective standard? What are the penalties for disobeying this?

---

How many people are actually bankrupted by medical debt in the US? How many of those are bankrupted because they could not afford to pay for private insurance vs willfully choosing not to pay for private insurance? How many in the former were not eligible for Medicaid?

I honestly would like to see that breakdown, because that segment of the population is (in my mind) the only group where a solution is needed. And I would be shocked to learn that this amounts to more than .1% of the population.

---

eh, you just come across to me as a person looking for a plausible, "this would pass" solution as opposed to an ideological "health insurance above all else!" type. you want your "real solutions" as opposed to the utopian ones, partially out of fear that it'll collapse into a dystopian one should it fail. climate change hasn't been brought up but i'd assume there's a similar approach on that; bernie's very extreme on both of those positions and so are many of his diehard supporters. it's also why there's a clear limit on how far he can go and while he's doing very well at moving the needle he does need a completely messed up field or major failings by the top guys to win. the hate on him ain't all "oh he's a socialist!", it's more of a quiet dislike of "eh, too many promises, not enough reality." his success in this campaign is a testament to how much better the messaging has gotten.

bear in mind i pop in and out of these topics with months long breaks so i ain't the best judge. and i've been called everything under the sun.

---

It feels like you're intentionally trying to discredit LotM and get others to not take him seriously by calling his character into question, which fits the word "smear" pretty well.

If you aren't doing that then I apologize.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Do they, though? What's going to enforce that? What is the objective standard? What are the penalties for disobeying this?

I've applied for healthcare as an individual within the past 4 years and can confirm that they do not ask about your health and you are quoted a flat rate based on age.

---

Reg posted...

Yes, becuase they're running a fucking scam operation and don't want to have their profits reduced at all. Fucking pigs, all of them. If any of them gave a shit about anything except bottom lines, they'd at least be fine with a public option existing.

Private insurance companies do not have any patient's best interests anywhere near their hearts, but you continue to go to bat for them every time you get the chance. If I didn't know better, I'd be questioning whether you were getting paid to do so.

I'm not "going to bat" for the insurance companies. I'm fine with the healthcare system improving at the expense of their profits. I disagree that M4A will improve the healthcare system. (Or to be more precise, I think that it's far too big of a gamble in the presence of lower risk alternatives to achieving universal coverage).

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

How many people are actually bankrupted by medical debt in the US? How many of those are bankrupted because they could not afford to pay for private insurance vs willfully choosing not to pay for private insurance? How many in the former were not eligible for Medicaid?

I honestly would like to see that breakdown, because that segment of the population is (in my mind) the only group where a solution is needed. And I would be shocked to learn that this amounts to more than .1% of the population.

By bankrupted, do you mean "has a negative net worth" or "filed bankruptcy?" Because the only reason to file for bankruptcy is if you have assets to protect. If it's having a negative net worth, then loads of Americans are in that situation, maybe 30-40% of the country?

---

pyresword posted...

It feels like you're intentionally trying to discredit LotM and get others to not take him seriously by calling his character into question, which fits the word "smear" pretty well.

If you aren't doing that then I apologize.

I don't care if anyone else takes him seriously, he just pisses me off. Tony, Red sox, you, anyone else is free to have your own opinion of him. Notice how I didn't go after red sox or tony or you for thinking he isn't bad faith acting.

Red Sox, old article but:

https://healthpayerintelligence.com/features/how-the-affordable-care-act-changed-the-face-of-health-insurance

Basically like you said - based on age. They price out most people and then play the odds factor.


---

pyresword posted...

It feels like you're intentionally trying to discredit LotM and get others to not take him seriously by calling his character into question, which fits the word "smear" pretty well.

If you aren't doing that then I apologize.

That side of it goes back to the majority of LotM's posts in this topic series literally being the "trump bad m i rite?" Twitter posts, and when we do have discussions like this there are a large number of places where he misses or ignores key points (willingly or inadvertantly, I don't really care which), so a lot of frustration is starting to boil over here.

red sox 777 posted...

By bankrupted, do you mean "has a negative net worth" or "filed bankruptcy?" Because the only reason to file for bankruptcy is if you have assets to protect. If it's having a negative net worth, then loads of Americans are in that situation, maybe 30-40% of the country?

Most of the country is in credit card debt, so no I don't mean "they have bills to pay for services that they received." Cry me a fucking river about that.

I mean how many people are not able to sustain themselves because of medical debt. And of those, how many are in that position because of a risk they willingly took (ie, not paying for insurance [through their employer or otherwise] or not applying for Medicaid if they qualified) vs how many earn too much to get Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance? I am guessing that this number is negligible and thus I don't even see how this is a problem in the US.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

How many people are actually bankrupted by medical debt in the US? How many of those are bankrupted because they could not afford to pay for private insurance vs willfully choosing not to pay for private insurance? How many in the former were not eligible for Medicaid?

I honestly would like to see that breakdown, because that segment of the population is (in my mind) the only group where a solution is needed. And I would be shocked to learn that this amounts to more than .1% of the population.

bankrupt is the most extreme case.
situations like notable credit hit due to medical debt is something like 10-15%.

for the most part the issue is out of network costs. if that alone got fixed you'd be able to eliminate the worst of it for most people.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Most of the country is in credit card debt, so no I don't mean "they have bills to pay for services that they received." Cry me a fucking river about that.

I mean how many people are not able to sustain themselves because of medical debt. And of those, how many are in that position because of a risk they willingly took (ie, not paying for insurance [through their employer or otherwise] or not applying for Medicaid if they qualified) vs how many earn too much to get Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance? I am guessing that this number is negligible and thus I don't even see how this is a problem in the US.

Yeah, it's slim to nonexistent. It's not like medical debt has a higher priority than credit card debt. They can get in line with all the other creditors.

---

Wanglicious posted...

i just think conservatives have 1) a better grasp of what's more popular on a national level,

Not really though? They dont really win popular votes nationwide
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I don't care if anyone else takes him seriously, he just pisses me off. Tony, Red sox, you, anyone else is free to have your own opinion of him. Notice how I didn't go after red sox or tony or you for thinking he isn't bad faith acting.

Red Sox, old article but:

https://healthpayerintelligence.com/features/how-the-affordable-care-act-changed-the-face-of-health-insurance

Basically like you said - based on age. They price out most people and then play the odds factor.

I think it was pretty predictable that premiums would rise with the ACA if you ignored the thousands of pages of policy papers its proponents put out to cover up the common sense reality - increasing demand by forcing people to buy a product without increasing supply will inevitably lead to an increase in price.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Not really though? They dont really win popular votes nationwide

The nation expresses itself through the Electoral College.

---

red sox 777 posted...

The nation expresses itself through the Electoral College.

And through gerrymandering of course m

Like in the 2018 Senate elections. Almost 18 million more votes were cast for Dems than for Republicans, but the GOP gained two seats
---

red sox 777 posted...

The nation expresses itself through the Electoral College.

Congress is a popular vote as well.

---

With apologies to Reg

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1208093283777298433?s=21

---

I like the Trump R Bad twitter posts. I don't think it's wrong for people to be reminded of all the unique ways that the GOP is a cesspool which is consistently working against the interests of the country. If anyone ever asks for proof that it's really that bad these days (and you get plenty of people saying that), then I just look right here!

---

The ACA is really the culmination of supply-side economics- where it got to the point where they completely ignored the demand side and tried to blame everything on mostly imaginary free riders.

Every other 1st world country has MORE free riders than the US on healthcare and they all spend LESS of national GDP. So blaming the US healthcare problem on free riders is ridiculous and is just demonizing the poor because they are defenseless.

---

Espeon posted...

Congress is a popular vote as well.

Its not a popular vote at a nationwide level though

Districts are such that the Dems could win the nationwide House popular vote but still lose the chamber
---

KamikazePotato posted...

I like the Trump R Bad twitter posts. I don't think it's wrong for people to be reminded of all the unique ways that the GOP is a cesspool which is consistently working against the interests of the country. If anyone ever asks for proof that it's really that bad these days (and you get plenty of people saying that), then I just look right here!

If Trump was the disease and not the symptom I would agree. Lotm would have things go back to usual and just give rise to another like Trump tbh

---

I dont mind all the bad and mocking posts about Trump per se, but they can be extremely frustrating when a discussion is started or trying to be started and it gets totally ended by consecutive Look how dumb Trump is posts.

We know hes dumb, its fun to laugh at him, but also please consider the flow of the topic, maybe? I dunno, just thinking out loud

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont mind all the bad and mocking posts about Trump per se, but they can be extremely frustrating when a discussion is started or trying to be started and it gets totally ended by consecutive Look how dumb Trump is posts.

I would take this notion more seriously if people weren't still humoring Corrin/red sox/ect. Half the discussions in this topic are worthless


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont mind all the bad and mocking posts about Trump per se, but they can be extremely frustrating when a discussion is started or trying to be started and it gets totally ended by consecutive Look how dumb Trump is posts.

We know hes dumb, its fun to laugh at him, but also please consider the flow of the topic, maybe? I dunno, just thinking out loud

It seems to me that that rarely happens, actually; I try to avoid dropping links in the middle of a discussion here because they usually get ignored (not saying I never do it, but I definitely think twice).

---

If red sox and I have taught you anything, its that you should never be afraid to make a post that might be ignored
---

Red Sox is literally parodying the Republican party and I don't know how anyone could have missed this fact for years. He is the Stephen Colbert of our time.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Red Sox is literally parodying the Republican party and I don't know how anyone could have missed this fact for years. He is the Stephen Colbert of our time.

Nobody missed it. red sox has said multiple times that he's playing devil's advocate to the topic for fun. People still reply to him.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like in the 2018 Senate elections. Almost 18 million more votes were cast for Dems than for Republicans, but the GOP gained two seats

2018 Senate (or any individual year for the Senate, really) is a bad example. In particular, CA had two Dems on the ballot; if you adjust for both lower turnout (CA Sen had 1.3 million fewer votes than CA Gov) and assume the same margin for Harris as Newsom, that goes down to like 10 million. And then you have to consider that the 2018 map is by far the most Dem friendly map (in contrast, the 2020 map is extremely R friendly). Finally, gaining seats is about how your performance has changed from last cycle; the Dems already had most of the seats so its easier for them to lose some. Another way of putting it is that they won the vast majority of the seats!

(Its quite likely that the reverse will happen in 2020; Dems gain some Senate seats with Republicans getting more total Senate votes because the seats up are an R-leaning set).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

2018 Senate (or any individual year for the Senate, really) is a bad example. In particular, CA had two Dems on the ballot; if you adjust for both lower turnout (CA Sen had 1.3 million fewer votes than CA Gov) and assume the same margin for Harris as Newsom, that goes down to like 10 million. And then you have to consider that the 2018 map is by far the most Dem friendly map (in contrast, the 2020 map is extremely R friendly). Finally, gaining seats is about how your performance has changed from last cycle; the Dems already had most of the seats so its easier for them to lose some. Another way of putting it is that they won the vast majority of the seats!

(Its quite likely that the reverse will happen in 2020; Dems gain some Senate seats with Republicans getting more total Senate votes because the seats up are an R-leaning set).

Yeah and all that is silly

We dont need the Senate
---