Support NeoGAF

[Makai]

For the GOP? None. Fox has pretty much solidified that a candidate unwilling or unable to stand up to serious debate scrutiny gets the nomination.

Cruz tried to and got fucking booed.

 

[User 463088]

CNN found a woman who is switching from being a Republican to caucusing for HIllary!

 

[Mike M]

I missed everything. What was the content of these videos?

 

[Makai]

I missed everything. What was the content of these videos?

Spoiler

 

[B-Dubs]

Spoiler

That's about right :lol

 

[Mike M]

Yes, yes, the Red Wedding. I get it.

Seriously, what were the videos?

 

[Black Republican]

i think Rubio will pick up some undecided after tonight

 

[VendettaRed07]

I got my dad to admit he'd vote for Hillary over Trump in a general election.

What do I win, gaf.

Spoiler

seriously This is an unprecedented achievement for me.

 

[User 463088]

Yes, yes, the Red Wedding. I get it.

Seriously, what were the videos?

Basically showed how Cruz and Rubio had flip flopped in imigration reform and issues. It was extremely effective.

I got my dad to admit he'd vote for Hillary over Trump in a general election.

What do I win, gaf.

Spoiler

seriously This is an unprecedented achievement for me.

All of the things.

At Trump's event, he basically tried to tell his daughter's uterus to have the baby in Iowa so he'd win it.That happened.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

All of the things.

Only if he lives in a swing state.

 

[Basileus777]

I didn't watch the whole debate, how many shots at Trump's absence did anyone get in?

 

[VendettaRed07]

For comparison he doesn't really think the confederate flag is racist. He's all about the "people are just overly PC these days"

 

[VendettaRed07]

Only if he lives in a swing state.

Unfortunately no. New England. But my family grew up in western mass where there are a lot more conservatives than in other places, so it's more just a moral victory lol

 

[Roland_Gunner]

For comparison he doesn't really think the confederate flag is racist. He's all about the "people are just overly PC these days"

Perhaps I spoke too soon.

 

[Makai]

https://twitter.com/GoogleTrends/status/692906789742837760

 

[A Human Becoming]

I told ya Makai, without Trump the thread would be slow:

Debate 1: 85 pages
Debate 2: 79 pages
Debate 3: 46 pages
Debate 4: 33 pages
Debate 5: 53 pages
Debate 6: 43 pages
Debate 7: 16 pages currently

Democratic debates in comparison:

Debate 1: 58 pages
Debate 2: 23 pages
Debate 3: 18 pages
Debate 4: 24 pages

 

[Iolo]

There's a fable that I think is pretty illustrative about what's going on with Fox News at the moment.

The Joyful Tortoise and the Hair

 

[Makai]

Nate posted probabilities of dropout by SC

Santorum 62.6%
Christie 57.1%
Paul 56.8%
Fiorina 56.8%
Huckabee 52.7%
Carson 45.0%
Kasich 41.1%
Bush 29.5%
Rubio 23.4%
Cruz 22.5%
Trump 5.9%

 

[Basileus777]

Nate posted probabilities of dropout by SC

How is he calculating this? Rubio and Cruz's odds seem too high.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

Luntz focus group said Trump has no respect for Iowans.

 

[danm999]

Luntz focus group said Trump has no respect for Iowans.

Margin of error +- 1 Luntz.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think the U.S. should follow Japan and go to negative interest rates.

 

[Black Republican]

fox news not feeling cruz

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Can it be anymore blatant that Luntz operates fake focus groups that tout the party/establishment? Pretty sure each of his focus groups has featured heavy Rubio support that is not demonstrated by any actual polling of Iowa or NH.

 

[Retromelon]

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

i want optimistic 2014 aaron back

 

[JetBlackPanda]

My cousin won't stop asking me what the difference between a democrat and a socialist is.

 

[PBY]

Had everything dvred just watched all the madness


Dying at all these articles saying trump won. Dude gave a basic ass stump speech with some fireworks, and the party all but eats itself.

Wtf was that?! That was self immolation, Kelly snatched Cruzs soul, and that was after he had just gotten shit on

 

[And_Gignac]

Nate posted probabilities of dropout by SC

Ok this has to be one of the most pointless, baseless predictions Nate has ever done. He is getting into Miss Cleo territory.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Bernie Sanders' campaign claimed single payer would save $324B more than a health economist projected with regards to prescription drugs. This is problematic since total prescription drug spending in the U.S. last year was $305B.... When pointed out that the savings Sanders was projecting was physically impossible, they just changed the number to the largest possible number that was physically possible.

Dear God, this man is the Paul Ryan of the left.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

 

[Chichikov]

How is he calculating this? Rubio and Cruz's odds seem too high.

By misapplying Bayesian inference.
Like pretty much everything he does (that has percentage value next to them, weighted poll averages are generally a reasonable prediction tool, though one that get waaaaaaaaaaaay too much praise, especially when contrasted with actual polling, which is actually difficult, complicated, important and not to mention the basis for everything Nate Silver does).

Ok this has to be one of the most pointless, baseless predictions Nate has ever done. He is getting into Miss Cleo territory.

Par for the course these days.

 

[B-Dubs]

Just thought I'd ask but do you guys have favorite GIFs for each candidate? It'd really help me out if you had preferences. I already know Jeb and the hoodie, but I was wondering for the rest.

 

[User 463088]

Bernie Sanders' campaign claimed single payer would save $324B more than a health economist projected with regards to prescription drugs. This is problematic since total prescription drug spending in the U.S. last year was $305B.... When pointed out that the savings Sanders was projecting was physically impossible, they just changed the number to the largest possible number that was physically possible.

Dear God, this man is the Paul Ryan of the left.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

Thorpe estimates, taking into account taxes he thinks that plan needs to finance itself, that many groups would pay more:

71 percent of total working households with private insurance would pay more.
57 percent of households of workers in businesses with fewer than 50 employees would pay more.
65 percent of working young adult (18 to 26) households would pay more.
85 percent of working households on Medicaid would pay more.
66 percent of working households on Medicare (a minority of Medicare recipients, most of whom are retired) would pay more.

Holy hell. That is just....wow.

 

[User1608]

Bernie Sanders' campaign claimed single payer would save $324B more than a health economist projected with regards to prescription drugs. This is problematic since total prescription drug spending in the U.S. last year was $305B.... When pointed out that the savings Sanders was projecting was physically impossible, they just changed the number to the largest possible number that was physically possible.

Dear God, this man is the Paul Ryan of the left.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

I'm reading and I'm so confused... Not good.
Also, B, I hate the man but the funniest thing to come from him is definitely this gif:

 

[Holmes]

Yeah, this isn't the universal health care plan the US needs.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

FDR's price fixing scheme lead to the U.S. fuckedupness in health care costs, but no one actually takes FDR for that economic blunder and instead they talk about imaginary blunders.

 

[tmarg]

Holy hell. That is just....wow.

Does "paying more" mean paying more in tax increases than they currently pay for health coverage, or just more taxes period? Because if it's the latter, well, duh.

 

[disastermouse]

Does "paying more" mean paying more in tax increases than they currently pay for health coverage, or just more taxes period? Because if it's the latter, well, duh.

That's what I want to know too.

To be honest though, I'd pay more if I never had to deal with an insurance company again, quite honestly.

 

[Chichikov]

Just thought I'd ask but do you guys have favorite GIFs for each candidate? It'd really help me out if you had preferences. I already know Jeb and the hoodie, but I was wondering for the rest.

Trump:

Cruz:

Hillary:

Bernie:

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Does "paying more" mean paying more in tax increases than they currently pay for health coverage, or just more taxes period? Because if it's the latter, well, duh.

The first.

 

[Retromelon]

Just thought I'd ask but do you guys have favorite GIFs for each candidate? It'd really help me out if you had preferences. I already know Jeb and the hoodie, but I was wondering for the rest.

well, the donald trump one just got posted.

this specific rubio one, because its sped up:

sometimes cheap laughs are the best kind:

bernie used to be a track star:

and finally,

 

[User 463088]

Does "paying more" mean paying more in tax increases than they currently pay for health coverage, or just more taxes period? Because if it's the latter, well, duh.

The first

That is to say, those shares of those groups would pay more when you take into account both the taxes and the fact that they wouldn't have to pay for health expenditures like premiums, deductibles, copays, etc. anymore. In each case, though, a substantial minority, including many with large health bills and/or hugely private expensive health care plans, comes out ahead.

Thorpe finds that 72 percent of Medicaid workers would pay more under single-payer even under Sanders's lower tax rates. Medicaid currently has very limited cost sharing for families in poverty, mostly limited to prescription drug copays, and so single-payer would offer such families little in the way of health savings while making them pay an additional 6.2 percent in payroll taxes, even if most don't have taxable income that'd be hit by the 2.2 percent income-based premium.

It would hurt the poorest of the poor worse than anyone else.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The first





It would hurt the poorest of the poor worse than anyone else.

It would hurt the poorest workers more than anyone else. The unemployed poor would benefit dramatically. The working poor would be hit hard though.

 

[User 463088]

It would hurt the poorest workers more than anyone else. The unemployed poor would benefit dramatically. The working poor would be hit hard though.

Well, the unemployed poor in states with Medicaid expansion wouldn't benefit at all really. It would be, at best, neutral. There could be negative effects. For example, Medicaid offers non-emergency medical transportation for people. I'm not sure Bernie's plan would cover this or not. If it did, there would be a gigantic shortage of providers if everyone is eligible for that service.

But, ya, I should have specified working poor.

 

[tmarg]

The first.

Reading the article, it sounds like Bernie is overly optimistic on some things, but the other guy is obviously off on some too. I don't believe for a second that drug costs would only fall by 1/5, for example. Though they wouldn't fall to the same levels as in other single payer countries, their low costs are actually subsidized by us paying too much. I would actually expect their costs to rise if we went single payer.

Other points they agree on, but with assumptions that probably wouldn't be representative of the final form of any actual health care program. For example, I would expect that, in the end, there would be some modest copay retained, if only to prevent people from making trips to the ER in completely unnecessary situations.

I also doubt that the system would be paid for entirely through payroll taxes, I would expect to see significant vice taxes applied, as they have the benefit of bringing in revenue and driving down costs at the same time.

 

[User 463088]

Reading the article, it sounds like Bernie is overly optimistic on some things, but the other guy is obviously off on some too. I don't believe for a second that drug costs would only fall by 1/5, for example. Though they wouldn't fall to the same levels as in other single payer countries, their low costs are actually subsidized by us paying too much. I would actually expect their costs to rise if we went single payer.

Other points they agree on, but with assumptions that probably wouldn't be representative of the final form of any actual health care program. For example, I would expect that, in the end, there would be some modest copay retained, if only to prevent people from making trips to the ER in completely unnecessary situations.

I also doubt that the system would be paid for entirely through payroll taxes, I would expect to see significant vice taxes applied, as they have the benefit of bringing in revenue and driving down costs at the same time.

I agree that Bernie's plan is not something that would be passed (for several reasons), not least of which is that several people who have looked at it have said it's not workable. I haven't seen anyone come out in favor of it, but I haven't been paying a ton of attention to it, to be honest.

But the copay thing you bring up is something to consider. I think a lot of it depends on how much any potential copays are. Again, though, that hurts Medicare and Medicaid recipients most. Medicaid typically has no copays, and while Medicare only covers 80%, most doctors don't require patients to pay anything up front. So, if we accept that there are going to be copays (and I think there would have to be, and I'm not opposed to them at all), we have to increase the cost passed on to the tax payers. Again, higher taxes and more money out of people's pockets. The case gets harder and harder to make, especially for anyone who is happy with the coverage they have.

 

[tmarg]

But the copay thing you bring up is something to consider. I think a lot of it depends on how much any potential copays are. Again, though, that hurts Medicare and Medicaid recipients most. Medicaid typically has no copays, and while Medicare only covers 80%, most doctors don't require patients to pay anything up front. So, if we accept that there are going to be copays (and I think there would have to be, and I'm not opposed to them at all), we have to increase the cost passed on to the tax payers. Again, higher taxes and more money out of people's pockets. The case gets harder and harder to make, especially for anyone who is happy with the coverage they have.

Obviously copays could be variable depending on the economic situation of the patient. I don't see this as an issue.

 

[Jack Remington]

Someone on Reddit put together a collection of fucked up Chillary things

Dang

Of course it includes the email bullshit. Of course it does.

A fucking Bernie Bro is harping on the emails. Fuck that traitor. He's no better than the Hillary fans who floated the "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" BS.

No liberal who gives Breitbart talking points the fucking time of day deserves to call himself one.

 

[User 463088]

Obviously copays could be variable depending on the economic situation of the patient. I don't see this as an issue.

Sure, I'm sure it would. Two things, though, I would think that would increase the cost to run the program. Maybe only marginally, but it would cost a bit more to implement. You then have the issue of what happens if a person can't pay. Again, these are solvable problems, but I think they would add a bit more to the cost of running this thing. (Costs which Bernie has already underestimated substantially.)

But, more importantly, it's another optics problem for his plan. You're now telling people that you're going to raise their taxes to pay for health insurance, even if they already have health insurance. You're going to tell them they're not allowed to keep what they have, even if they like it. Then, on top of that, you're going to tell them they may have to pay even more than John Q. Public because they make more money. At that point, it's no longer about being forced to pay for someone else's health care. It's now the government, literally, making you pay more for the same services because you make more money.

To be honest though, I'd pay more if I never had to deal with an insurance company again, quite honestly.

You may not have to deal with an insurance company denying something, but the only way that the government could keep costs down is to deny certain things. You'll be dealing with someone. Ezra Klein wrote a great article on this after the plan was announced. There is no way this can be affordable when the government rubber stamps everything doctors or patients want.

 

[Muzy72]

How is he calculating this? Rubio and Cruz's odds seem too high.

Well, if Cruz loses Iowa he's done IMO. The only reason he has a shot at winning right now is because winning Iowa would give him enough momentum for it to be a Trump vs Cruz fight.

 

[Basileus777]

Well, if Cruz loses Iowa he's done IMO. The only reason he has a shot at winning right now is because winning Iowa would give him enough momentum for it to be a Trump vs Cruz fight.

Cruz isn't dropping out before March 1st unless he's hit by a scandal or something. Iowa alone isn't going to get him to bow out. We're talking about Ted Cruz, he doesn't give a fuck about appeasing the party or helping consolidation behind someone else to oppose Trump.