• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Butts-a-plenty said:
Single payer is an absolutely terrible idea to try to implement in the US. It's an example of how he has tried to make anything else but his way non-progressive. Single payer is not the only way to UHC and it's not even the option that makes sense here. But I'm against it so I'm not progressive!
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSLx6ybErU

Bernie wasn't for it either. Starts around 5 minutes where he denies saying he supports single payer and says we should move for a public option.

That's what I want as well.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Macho Madness said:
Expected when they're also deciding a Supreme Court slot
Click to expand...

First let me just say that electing the Supreme Court is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, even if Kloppenburg pulls it off the conservatives would still have a 4-3 majority, but it would at least give liberals the opportunity to pick up the court in 2017 or 2018, when conservatives are up for re-election. Bradley leads in the only recent poll I could find.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Butts-a-plenty said:
Single payer is an absolutely terrible idea to try to implement in the US. It's an example of how he has tried to make anything else but his way non-progressive. Single payer is not the only way to UHC and it's not even the option that makes sense here. But I'm against it so I'm not progressive!
Click to expand...

UHC doesn't make sense. Single Payer a la Sweden make a ton of sense for the infrastructure we currently have in place.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Public option is still limited in its benefits compared to single payor but its a definite step up. The real problem with healthcare is in the waste/the details of the system itself. Private insurance has its own set of big problems but a lot of our absurd spending is unnecessary.
 
B

Butts-a-plenty

Banned
EskimoJoe said:
Wait, what? Isn't single payer a type of UHC? How can single payer make sense when UHC doesn't?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was kinda confused by that as well...

Universal Healthcare can be achieved by many avenues, Single Payer being one. Switzerland is the model I would strive for in the US because we're really not that far off institutionally.
 
E

East Lake

Member
Peanut/subsidy/free trade chat.

When Congress passed an updated Farm Bill in 2014, the legislation included a program focused on the legume. The economics of agricultural subsidies are notoriously complex, but the important part here is that the price point established by the government tacitly encouraged more peanut production, as a Congressional Research Service report from last year noted. So farmers planted more peanuts -- so many that there may not be enough warehouse space this year to contain them all.
Click to expand...

A glut of peanuts has pushed prices lower, meaning that more farmers are handing their peanuts over to the Department of Agriculture instead of paying off their loans. Reuters estimates that about 145,000 tons of peanuts were forfeited to government last year. "That stockpile is enough to satisfy the average annual consumption of over 20 million Americans — more than the population of Florida," Reuters's Chris Prentice writes, "and puts the administration in a bind." After all, storing those peanuts is expensive and selling all of them could just push prices lower.

The solution? Give them away. The Department of Agriculture just announced a program to send "nutritious U.S. peanuts" as part of a "humanitarian effort" to Haiti, as writer Abe Sauer noted on Twitter. "USDA crafted a deal that will result in 500 metric tons of packaged, dry-roasted peanuts grown in the United States to be shipped later this year to school children in Haiti who have little access to food," the department reports. Problem solved.

Except that a number of farmers in Haiti already grow their own peanuts. In January of last year, the U.S. government's Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative praised an effort to bolster peanut production by Haitian farmers. That effort was funded in part by the Clinton Foundation, which created the Acceso Peanut Enterprise Corporation to partner with a non-profit called Meds & Food for Kids and the University of Georgia.

The foundation has spent $30 million in the country overall. Last year, we looked at its successes and failures -- and the improvements in peanut crop yield seen by Haitian farmers participating in the program were counted among the former. Acesso buys farming products at bulk rates and sells them to farmers at lower costs.

The USDA's announcement about shipping peanuts to Haiti met with a number of unhappy responses. "Its an admirable concept," one commenter on the department's website wrote, "but why on earth are you importing American peanuts when peanuts are one of the few agricultural products Haiti is able to produce? Do you realize you are totally undermining the local peanut market and therefore putting the farming communities, whose children you are trying to help, increasingly at risk by jeopardizing their livelihood!??"

In 2014, the Haitian peanut market was hampered when one use for the product -- providing a nutrient-rich food for malnourished children -- was undercut by American food donations. The World Food Programme had been buying peanut butter from Meds & Food for Kids and the Clinton partnership -- about half of the group's sales went to creating the paste -- but switched to a soy-corn blend after the United States Agency for International Development oversupplied the product in anticipation of a bad hurricane season.

"No one seems to have pondered the local implications of the decision," the Guardian wrote at the time.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lut-could-undermine-the-work-of-the-clintons/

Surely we should have seen this coming.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
This is... weird for someone who's expecting to go on to a general election

Since March, the campaign has been laying off field staff en masse around the country and has dismantled much of what existed of its organizations in general-election battlegrounds, including Florida and Ohio.

Last month, the campaign laid off the leader of its data team, Matt Braynard, who did not train a successor. It elevated his No. 2, a data engineer with little prior high-level political strategy experience, and also shifted some of his team’s duties to a 2015 college graduate whose last job was an internship with the consumer products company Colgate-Palmolive. Some of the campaign’s data remains inaccessible.

Multiple staffers and advisors left the campaign last month in protest of the way its management was treating its staff, a source familiar with the departures told POLITICO.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-campaign-staff-disarray-221557#ixzz44ySpU9Yb
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
What Trump would look like if he didn't tan so much

CfSx_RdWIAQHQag.jpg:large
 
U

User 406

Banned
Melkr_ said:
She wasnt cold for single payer at some point during late 2007. She later retracted (shocking), though.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, yeah, I wonder what could have changed that would make her switch from supporting a single payer solution to a different kind of UHC system? It's baffling.


ugaboga232 said:
Public option is still limited in its benefits compared to single payor but its a definite step up. The real problem with healthcare is in the waste/the details of the system itself. Private insurance has its own set of big problems but a lot of our absurd spending is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

That's why I think they took the right route with ACA, focusing on coverage first. The cost controls need a ton of work, but the critical part is to get everyone covered, and if it weren't for that fuck Scalia, we'd be there already. As it is, it's just a matter of time before red state intransigence
fuck federalism
gets worked around and the coverage ends up operating fully as intended. From here, getting a public option and adding stronger cost controls becomes a lot easier. It's indeed a big fucking deal.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
wait, since when did Clinton explicitly support single-payer pre-2008?

because i could've sworn that Hillarycare was still multi-payer (regional alliances of highly regulated private providers), and that's the only specific policy scheme to implement a universal system that i ever recall her supporting before 2008. and even the AHCP framework from the 2008 campaign was still multi-payer (with a mandate of coverage from some source).

she hasn't walked back support of single-payer because she's never supported single-payer.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Sea Manky said:
Hmmm, yeah, I wonder what could have changed that would make her switch from supporting a single payer solution to a different kind of UHC system? It's baffling.




That's why I think they took the right route with ACA, focusing on coverage first. The cost controls need a ton of work, but the critical part is to get everyone covered, and if it weren't for that fuck Scalia, we'd be there already. As it is, it's just a matter of time before red state intransigence
fuck federalism
gets worked around and the coverage ends up operating fully as intended. From here, getting a public option and adding stronger cost controls becomes a lot easier. It's indeed a big fucking deal.
Click to expand...

Eh underinsurance is still a big thing with ACA so total coverage isn't what total coverage should be (obviously a huge step but i think pretty much every doctor that has talked about it wants a lot more but fuck doctors playing an integral role in the healthcare system).
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Macho Madness said:
This is... weird for someone who's expecting to go on to a general election



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-campaign-staff-disarray-221557#ixzz44ySpU9Yb
Click to expand...

Guys, I don't think you paid enough attention to this:

It elevated his No. 2, a data engineer with little prior high-level political strategy experience, and also shifted some of his team’s duties to a 2015 college graduate whose last job was an internship with the consumer products company Colgate-Palmolive.
Click to expand...
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Melkr_ said:
Economics is a broad field with different, antagonistic theories. You can totally call out as "establishment" those who are running the current consensus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the dude who wrote the book on increasing the minimum wage.

You've already shown you have zero understanding of the field with your decades outdated "Chicago School" comments. You'll excuse me for not thinking you really have an even remotely decent grasp on this.
 
S

Suite Pee

Willing to learn
Voted in Milwaukee just now. More interested in the Supreme Court/MKE County races than the vote I threw away to Bernie.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Wonder were all that money that the Koch bothers have, is going to end up if Trump wins the nomination. I guess most will go to the Congress races.
 
U

User 406

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
how does red state intransigence get worked around? new court case forcing Medicaid Expansion on states who have not done it?
Click to expand...

That's a possibility once the empty SC seat gets filled, but we've already seen some attrition from red state governors acknowledging that refusing the expansion actually costs their states money. The expansion itself is popular, and makes things politically difficult for them to hold out. The dominoes are going to fall. And depending on the makeup of the new Congress, there might be some patches in the offing.


ugaboga232 said:
Eh underinsurance is still a big thing with ACA so total coverage isn't what total coverage should be (obviously a huge step but i think pretty much every doctor that has talked about it wants a lot more but fuck doctors playing an integral role in the healthcare system).
Click to expand...

Just like Social Security wasn't a comprehensive system at the beginning. And it's a lot easier to get popular support to improve a system that already covers everyone than it is to improve a system that only benefits those people lucky enough to already have insurance.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Sea Manky said:
That's a possibility once the empty SC seat gets filled, but we've already seen some attrition from red state governors acknowledging that refusing the expansion actually costs their states money. The expansion itself is popular, and makes things politically difficult for them to hold out. The dominoes are going to fall. And depending on the makeup of the new Congress, there might be some patches in the offing.




Just like Social Security wasn't a comprehensive system at the beginning. And it's a lot easier to get popular support to improve a system that already covers everyone than it is to improve a system that only benefits those people lucky enough to already have insurance.
Click to expand...

I don't know what we are arguing as i think we pretty much agree 100% lol. Would be nice if public option was included from the start or we could have done some more radical changes but eh who cares if a few tens of thousands die prematurely. Also a lot more on mental illness would have been nice but even medicine itself is not fully up to date I would say on that front.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Sea Manky said:
Just like Social Security wasn't a comprehensive system at the beginning. And it's a lot easier to get popular support to improve a system that already covers everyone than it is to improve a system that only benefits those people lucky enough to already have insurance.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The ACA is inadequate, in fact not even close, but it provides a framework for moving forward that can eventually get us to true UHC. But improving Obamacare one step at a time just isn't as good as soundbite as Medicare for All.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Box of Kittens said:
Exactly. The ACA is inadequate, in fact not even close, but it provides a framework for moving forward that can eventually get us to true UHC. But improving Obamacare one step at a time just isn't as good as soundbite as Medicare for All.
Click to expand...

Well the problem is that it will be almost impossible to improve obamacare anyway and even if we can get the slow move forward, people will die. Its not really the same as free college when there are permanent effects for sticking to the standard playbook.
 
B

Butts-a-plenty

Banned
ugaboga232 said:
Well the problem is that it will be almost impossible to improve obamacare anyway and even if we can get the slow move forward, people will die. Its not really the same as free college when there are permanent effects for sticking to the standard playbook.
Click to expand...

Well that just not true. Continued expansion of Medicaid improves it, enacting cost controls improves it, a public option would help improve it.
 
U

User 406

Banned
ugaboga232 said:
Well the problem is that it will be almost impossible to improve obamacare anyway and even if we can get the slow move forward, people will die. Its not really the same as free college when there are permanent effects for sticking to the standard playbook.
Click to expand...

But that's Green Lantern thinking. Just because we really want a far more ideal solution doesn't mean we can actually get it. A full replacement of the ACA with a single payer solution just isn't going to happen, because there isn't enough support for it to pass the legislation. Yeah, people are dying. That urgent need doesn't change reality, which is that a century of attempting to create universal health coverage while people were dying at an even faster rate barely got us the ACA. There's no way you're going to be able to start over from scratch just eight years later and pass a far more expensive and disruptive system without compromise.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Butts-a-plenty said:
Well that just not true. Continued expansion of Medicaid improves it, enacting cost controls improves it, a public option would help improve it.
Click to expand...

Well duh, but will a republic congress/republican controlled state allow that?

Sea Manky said:
But that's Green Lantern thinking. Just because we really want a far more ideal solution doesn't mean we can actually get it. A full replacement of the ACA with a single payer solution just isn't going to happen, because there isn't enough support for it to pass the legislation. Yeah, people are dying. That urgent need doesn't change reality, which is that a century of attempting to create universal health coverage while people were dying at an even faster rate barely got us the ACA. There's no way you're going to be able to start over from scratch just eight years later and pass a far more expensive and disruptive system without compromise.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, its not going to happen, I think we are just posting for the sake of replying. I was just more getting into my own feelings not necessarily the political landscape. At some point though, disruption probably has to happen in the shift from healthcare as an industry to healthcare as a utility.
 
U

User 406

Banned
ugaboga232 said:
Oh I agree, its not going to happen, I think we are just posting for the sake of replying. I was just more getting into my own feelings not necessarily the political landscape. At some point though, disruption probably has to happen in the shift from healthcare as an industry to healthcare as a utility.
Click to expand...

Well, it's been pointed out before, other countries have health care industries with universal coverage that are doing just fine. We've taken our starting steps towards having something similar.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Sea Manky said:
Well, it's been pointed out before, other countries have health care industries with universal coverage that are doing just fine. We've taken our starting steps to having something similar.
Click to expand...

Except their industries are almost completely regulated by the government or are purely supplemental so it ends up just being a matter of semantics. We could have a 100% private insurance scheme that would be far better than what we have now, it just requires a utility model of healthcare that I see most UHC and single payer countries have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom