2020 Democratic Field

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

She's also have the Dodgers and Yankees pay for it.

we all know which team they would all sign with .  . . 

[Tank]

3 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

There were surprisingly a couple of good comments on that.

If Elizabeth Warren posted on the main board her off season plan would be to sign Cole, Strasberg, Wheeler, Grandal and Rendon. She'd also be open to trading for a first basemen and adding relief help. 

[fan_since79]

The price tag for Warren's plan is $52 Trillion.

And not a penny more in taxes for the middle class.

Fantasy world.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/warrens-dollar52t-medicare-for-all-plan-revealed-campaign-still-claims-no-middle-class-tax-hikes-needed/ar-AAJGePV?ocid=spartandhp

 

[Adam]

Yeah it's just stupid. Voters are stupid. Whether it's a wall or free universal health, the masses eat that shit up. 

[Taylor]

This is a good read. 

http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis

One of the main arguments for Medicare for All is that the huge burden on citizens would be offset by the amount of money they're spending on health expenses anyway. If your premium through your employer is $300 per month, that $300 would be paid to the government instead to finance the single-payer system. The more you already spend on health-related costs, the more you would benefit. But if you don't spend a lot or have great insurance, you're likely to lose out.

[fan_since79]

Uh oh...Biden has slipped to 4th place in the latest New York Times Iowa poll.

Warren, Sanders, and Mayor Pete are ahead of him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/iowa-poll-warren-biden.html

[Adam]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

This is a good read. 

http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis

One of the main arguments for Medicare for All is that the huge burden on citizens would be offset by the amount of money they're spending on health expenses anyway. If your premium through your employer is $300 per month, that $300 would be paid to the government instead to finance the single-payer system. The more you already spend on health-related costs, the more you would benefit. But if you don't spend a lot or have great insurance, you're likely to lose out.

It's the same argument for every government program. But in the end it costs $2 Million to put up a bathroom.

https://reason.com/video/stossel-2-million-dollar-bathroom/

[Blarg]

9 minutes ago, Taylor said:

This is a good read. 

http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis

One of the main arguments for Medicare for All is that the huge burden on citizens would be offset by the amount of money they're spending on health expenses anyway. If your premium through your employer is $300 per month, that $300 would be paid to the government instead to finance the single-payer system. The more you already spend on health-related costs, the more you would benefit. But if you don't spend a lot or have great insurance, you're likely to lose out.

The ACA cost more than $300 per month per person plus a $5K deductable until expenses were covered so that article is so full of shit and yet you lap it up as if it could come true if you just wish hard enough and elect the candidate that says they will make it almost cost free. So much bullshit being put out there to get people to willingly enslave themselves to the federal government.

[Adam]

It will never happen because government requires dependency but please liberate entrepreneurs and innovators

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2018/07/17/only-free-markets-will-save-and-strengthen-healthcare/#6f22007b6f12

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

The middle class or rather what's left of it will get hammered when it comes to paying for it.  Whether it's additional payroll taxes, taxes on businesses or a wealth tax the receipts will come in lower than Warren/Bernie/whoever predict and the difference will have to come from somewhere.  Some European countries tried a wealth tax in the past and the majority ended up doing away with it after receipts were much lower than projections and it was hard/expensive to administer. 

Supposedly included in the cost of medicare for all is the 2M jobs that would be lost:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-2m-lost-jobs-part-of-the-cost-of-medicare-for-all.

This screams absolute disaster but whether it's right or left there's always a base that will support whatever one side puts out.  

 

[Adam]

This bitch lies as often as Trump

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-york-times-reporter-sat-on-public-records-challenging-warrens-pregnancy-discrimination-claim/?fbclid=IwAR3k0hBDuXdwaW64HMiK9vgbgN_1qfDWQewxM1OQCpqNuSUQ_7dxCDxMA-4

[Adam]

1 minute ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

The middle class or rather what's left of it will get hammered when it comes to paying for it.  Whether it's additional payroll taxes, taxes on businesses or a wealth tax the receipts will come in lower than Warren/Bernie/whoever predict and the difference will have to come from somewhere.  Some European countries tried a wealth tax in the past and the majority ended up doing away with it after receipts were much lower than projections and it was hard/expensive to administer. 

Supposedly included in the cost of medicare for all is the 2M jobs that would be lost:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-2m-lost-jobs-part-of-the-cost-of-medicare-for-all.

This screams absolute disaster but whether it's right or left there's always a base that will support whatever one side puts out.  

 

You gotta think the establishment dems are simply running on this with no intention of pushing it through. 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

35 minutes ago, Adam said:

You gotta think the establishment dems are simply running on this with no intention of pushing it through. 

Part of me agrees because what they really care about is getting Trump out as that's been all they've tried to do since he took office.  The other part of me thinks this is the same party that pushed the ACA through knowing it wasn't going to be successful long term and this is the next step towards an even bigger boondoggle that gives the government new revenue streams and more control over our lives.  Sometimes I just can't wrap my ahead around how anyone would want to give the government more power.  Both sides are equally terrible and it amazes me that the right sits by and let's Trump continue to Trump while the left thinks the response is to go even further left.  Between politics and the media it just seems like common sense has left the station.  

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

The ACA cost more than $300 per month per person plus a $5K deductable until expenses were covered so that article is so full of shit and yet you lap it up as if it could come true if you just wish hard enough and elect the candidate that says they will make it almost cost free. So much bullshit being put out there to get people to willingly enslave themselves to the federal government.

Uh, did you read the article? The article makes the point that medicare for all is impossible without taxing the middle class. It doesn't support medicare for all.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Taylor

[Adam]

8 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Uh, did you read the article? The article makes the point that medicare for all is impossible without taxing the middle class. It doesn't support medicare for all.

moded

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

This is a good read. 

http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis

One of the main arguments for Medicare for All is that the huge burden on citizens would be offset by the amount of money they're spending on health expenses anyway. If your premium through your employer is $300 per month, that $300 would be paid to the government instead to finance the single-payer system. The more you already spend on health-related costs, the more you would benefit. But if you don't spend a lot or have great insurance, you're likely to lose out.

 

2 hours ago, Taylor said:

Uh, did you read the article? The article makes the point that medicare for all is impossible without taxing the middle class. It doesn't support medicare for all.

Did you read your own statement?

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Did you read your own statement?

Where did my statement say I support medicare for all? I was stating what the argument for it is. If you read the article, my statement makes sense.

[Blarg]

By making the statement and not refuting it. 

 

[tdawg87]

Semantics! 

[tdawg87]

I fuckin hate this forum btw. Brings out the absolute worst in all of us.

[tdawg87]

Especially Tank.

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

By making the statement and not refuting it. 

Um, OK. I was just trying to understand the issue more.

If I said, "Yankee fans argue that Derek Jeter is the best player of all time," would that indicate that I agree with that statement?

[St1ck]

Beto is out. 

Beto O'Rourke ends 2020 campaign, says he'll work to elect eventual Democratic nominee
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/beto-o-rourke-ends-2020-campaign-says-he-ll-work-n1074811

[tdawg87]

Oh no!

[Jason]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

I fuckin hate this forum btw. Brings out the absolute worst in all of us.

Welcome to politics in 2019