Support NeoGAF

[balladofwindfishes]

The main issue I had with the "Free college for everyone!!!" idea was that most voters right now are struggling with mountains of college debt. "Free college" doesn't help them at all.

Sanders' plan actually also included forgiveness for current loans. I'm not sure how he's going to wipe out billions in loans that private companies manage, but he said he was going to do it.

But even then, you'll get people (like me) slightly annoyed that they paid their loans well ahead of time to avoid interest, and people who didn't make an attempt to pay early, end up getting 20K+ just handed to them, while I had to live under my means for 5 years to rapidly pay off my loans.

It's going to be really difficult to convince people who have already paid off their loans that people should be cleared of tens of thousands of dollars of debt that the older people already paid off years ago. The majority of college educated voters are old enough that most will have already paid off their loans.

That's probably why making college more affordable, or making payoff schemes like "work 10 years for the government and your loans are gone" are likely going to be more effective than "everything is free and everyone's loans are gone." Americans really, really, really do not like it when they perceive others are getting a better deal from a law than they are.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Nothing is working!

Except every indication is that Trumps approval rating has been in steady decline and his support in every state has softened. And he barely won last time against the other most unpopular candidate in history.

So really, everything seems to be working.

Trump won in 2016 with favorability ratings similar to his current approval ratings in polls.

 

[Mark Andrew]

I’ve been crunching the numbers, and literally the only way we win in 2020 is if (((George Soros))) relocates 80,000 cosmopolitan elites to the Midwest. We need to move on this ASAP to establish residency.

 

[Bronx-Man]

You know which voting bloc is gonna carry us to the presidency in 2020? The Furry Vote.

The Silent Majority will soon rise. And yiff.

 

[Plinko]

Is there any value in picking-up and running with some of Hillary's ideas? From her campaign website:

Absolutely. Hillary had some fantastic policies.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Because a massive tax raise on every working American is a hugely unpopular policy proposal and there's no particular reason to do it when we could go the public option route to ease the transition enormously?

Why is a tax raise necessarily the first option here? Employers currently pay hundreds per month or more for individual health care coverage per employee. Employees see only a fraction of that come out of their paycheck. Why couldn't that money be converted into a new healthcare system?

For example, my old job I paid $0 per month in premiums. But the actual cost was something over $600 a month that my employer paid just for individual PPO coverage. Why can't that money be used as part of a new system?

 

[Plinko]

Sanders' plan actually also included forgiveness for current loans. I'm not sure how he's going to wipe out billions in loans that private companies manage, but he said he was going to do it.

But even then, you'll get people (like me) slightly annoyed that they paid their loans well ahead of time to avoid interest, and people who didn't make an attempt to pay early, end up getting 20K+ just handed to them, while I had to live under my means for 5 years to rapidly pay off my loans.

It's going to be really difficult to convince people who have already paid off their loans that people should be cleared of tens of thousands of dollars of debt that the older people already paid off years ago. The majority of college educated voters are old enough that most will have already paid off their loans.

That's probably why making college more affordable, or making payoff schemes like "work 10 years for the government and your loans are gone" are likely going to be more effective than "everything is free and everyone's loans are gone." Americans really, really, really do not like it when they perceive others are getting a better deal from a law than they are.

Agree 100%. When I said "amnesty" I was including those programs. I'm currently in Public Service Loan Forgiveness and couldn't survive without it. I feel like everyone should be allowed to use it.

Why is a tax raise necessarily the first option here? Employers currently pay hundreds per month or more for individual health care coverage per employee. Employees see only a fraction of that come out of their paycheck. Why couldn't that money be converted into a new healthcare system?

For example, my old job I paid $0 per month in premiums. But the actual cost was something over $600 a month that my employer paid just for individual PPO coverage. Why can't that money be used as part of a new system?

It can be used in that sense. That's why I was so fixated on the detail that there needs to be a mandate requiring businesses to continue putting those funds toward health care and not pocket the money instead.

 

[benicillin]

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Senator Al Franken (D-MN)
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

So what % run in 2020?

 

[Blader]

Trump won in 2016 with favorability ratings similar to his current approval ratings in polls.

with the caveat that his opponent was similarly unpopular.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

So what % run in 2020?

At least six people.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

People keep looking at Sweden or Canada for healthcare, while we should maybe look at Switzerland.

They basically have a more solid ACA. They have no public option, they have a mandate, and the industry is highly regulated with cost control. Their healthcare is more expensive than other European countries, but is also higher quality than most of those countries.

The Swiss system doesn't really seem to be that bad, and fits well within the current US system. It would just be an expansion of the ACA to have more cost control and strict deductible maximums.

 

[Mac_Lane]

The way Trump tries to manage Congress from Twitter is astoundingly stupid, never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Wilsongt]

You know which voting bloc is gonna carry us to the presidency in 2020? The Furry Vote.

The Silent Majority will soon rise. And yiff.

Nazi furs.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

You know which voting bloc is gonna carry us to the presidency in 2020? The Furry Vote.

The Silent Majority will soon rise. And yiff.

Juggalos are that group.

Whoop whoop to the White House

 

[BoogieWoogie]

@thehill

Shock Poll: Dem candidate statistically tied with GOP rivals in Alabama Senate race

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...d-with-gop-candidates-in-ala-senate-race-poll

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sanders' plan actually also included forgiveness for current loans. I'm not sure how he's going to wipe out billions in loans that private companies manage, but he said he was going to do it.

But even then, you'll get people (like me) slightly annoyed that they paid their loans well ahead of time to avoid interest, and people who didn't make an attempt to pay early, end up getting 20K+ just handed to them, while I had to live under my means for 5 years to rapidly pay off my loans.

It's going to be really difficult to convince people who have already paid off their loans that people should be cleared of tens of thousands of dollars of debt that the older people already paid off years ago. The majority of college educated voters are old enough that most will have already paid off their loans.

That's probably why making college more affordable, or making payoff schemes like "work 10 years for the government and your loans are gone" are likely going to be more effective than "everything is free and everyone's loans are gone." Americans really, really, really do not like it when they perceive others are getting a better deal from a law than they are.

well can't the government create the law to pay everyone back what they payed into the loan whether finished or not?

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...d-with-gop-candidates-in-ala-senate-race-poll

What did the pervious polls say?

 

[Wilsongt]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...d-with-gop-candidates-in-ala-senate-race-poll

Congrats Mr. Moore on your new seat in Congress!

 

[Frank the Great]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...d-with-gop-candidates-in-ala-senate-race-poll

Lol @ statistically tied

 

[balladofwindfishes]

well can't the government just pay everyone back what they payed into the loan whether finished or not.

How would you even prove this to get your money?

My grandfather paid my dad's loans off 30 years ago as a present. My grandfather has been dead almost 20 years. Who gets the money? My dad? My still alive grandma? Nobody, because he's dead? Would there even be paperwork from the 80s to show any of this?

I've had three loans. One private loan (before they were illegal), which I paid off years ago and have no real records of anymore, one loan shared in my name that I still have about a year left on, and my dad's name, and one loan 100% in my dad's name, but I make all payments on, and I finish paying next month. Would my dad get the money since he's a co-borrower (or the actual borrower for one of my loans)? Do I get the money because I paid? Would my dad get a 60k check sent to him by the government and just sort of hope he'd give it to me? (He would btw, but others aren't so lucky)

And we're talking what amounts to probably a trillion+ dollars in loans from people over the last 80+ years.

 

[sc0la]

Nazi furs.

Tediz

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I'm getting super sick of Bernie's shit now.

Why put up a bill that would easily decimate an industry or two, and not put out how to fund it and pay for it?

Like what the fuck, the big difference between the modern Dems and GOP is that one knows how to govern. Why be like them?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Why are we all suddenly more concerned with the profits of the health insurance industry than the healthcare of American citizens?

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm getting super sick of Bernie's shit now.

Why put up a bill that would easily decimate an industry or two, and not put out how to fund it and pay for it?

Like what the fuck, the big difference between the modern Dems and GOP is that one knows how to govern. Why be like them?

1. Voters don't care about governing
2. You can't govern if you always lose

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Why are we all suddenly more concerned with the profits of the health insurance industry than the healthcare of American citizens?

False dichotomy.

Getting rid of private insurance would have huge ripples and affect the ecomomy in a huge way more than "the profits of the health insurance industry." A change of this magnitude needs to be done with care and forethought, two things that don't seem to be on the table.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Why are we all suddenly more concerned with the profits of the health insurance industry than the healthcare of American citizens?

Considering their share of employment (especially in rural areas) we should be extremely concerned to crash the industry.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Why are we all suddenly more concerned with the profits of the health insurance industry than the healthcare of American citizens?

Because when those industries go bye bye, there will be a lot of people out of jobs and in need of support.


Nevermind other economic implications.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So do you think that singlepayer magically manages to run without needing any labour input or something?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Why are we all suddenly more concerned with the profits of the health insurance industry than the healthcare of American citizens?

My city would be instantly dead if the healthcare industry collapsed.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

My city would be instantly dead if the healthcare industry collapsed.

So do you think that singlepayer magically manages to run without needing any labour input or something?

.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So do you think that singlepayer magically manages to run without needing any labour input or something?

Quit strawmanning. Nobody said that. But it's not like those people instantly get new government jobs right where they live, either.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

My city would be instantly dead if the healthcare industry collapsed.

My whole state too (CT, which is already dying).

Like shit, this is one of those things where the hows are very important. There are fucking stakes in these changes.

Be all "save everyone" you want, but you need something good. Borderline bulletproof. Obamacare was close and still got ravaged.

 

[PBY]

Because when those industries go bye bye, there will be a lot of people out of jobs and in need of support.


Nevermind other economic implications.

Once again, you're fucking making the Right's arguments!

Why are we doing this???

I'm willing to entertain discussions about strategic ways to arrive at this outcome, or the best timing to introduce the bill, but come on.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Quit strawmanning. Nobody said that. But it's not like those people instantly get new government jobs right where they live, either.

Well... why not? Single-payer wouldn't be implemented overnight, it's too large a project. There'd have to be a fairly lengthy transitional period. So why not just give ex-healthcare insurance employees a job guarantee if they transfer into the new sector?

 

[benicillin]

Until the Democrats actually write a healthcare bill that has a chance at passing (or was even intended to have a chance at passing!) I don't see the need to freak out about it.

 

[Teggy]

Because when those industries go bye bye, there will be a lot of people out of jobs and in need of support.


Nevermind other economic implications.

Also, there should be choices. I think it's fine for the government to offer a set number of Medicare plans but there should be private companies offering different competitive plans for people who prefer the coverage options.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Once again, you're fucking making the Right's arguments!

Why are we doing this???

I'm willing to entertain discussions about strategic ways to arrive at this outcome, or the best timing to introduce the bill, but come on.

It's not the rights argument, it's the argument of everyone who knows someone who works in the industries affect. And in CT that is a whole fucking lot.

That strategy and transition stuff means everything to them. That is the thing that wi make them trust the idea.

An absolute necessity. Trust that their livelihoods aren't getting sacrificed for a greater good their families will not be a part of.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well... why not? Single-payer wouldn't be implemented overnight, it's too large a project. There'd have to be a fairly lengthy transitional period. So why not just give ex-healthcare insurance employees a job guarantee if they transfer into the new sector?

I suppose we will see if that is in today's bill, but from the sounds of it that is not a problem Bernie is interested in solving right now

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I also find it amusing how free trade is fine even if it makes blue-collar manual labourers go out of business, because it's better for the average American, but bringing in singlepayer is terrible, because even if it would be better for the average American, it would make white-collar educated insurers go out of business. It betrays how horribly elitist the political consciousness of this thread is, without even realizing it.

No free trade/no single-payer, free trade/single payer. Pick one!

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Well... why not? Single-payer wouldn't be implemented overnight, it's too large a project. There'd have to be a fairly lengthy transitional period. So why not just give ex-healthcare insurance employees a job guarantee if they transfer into the new sector?

Sure, a good bill would do all this (and by all this, I mean it should guarantee that every worker in the industry is guaranteed at least their current salary, plus their new job should require no significant movement on their part).

But what you're effectively asking is "do people trust the government without all this in writing?" I doubt it. I'd like less symbolic "we'll figure it out later" bills and more detail.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

"Do people trust the government without all this in writing?" I doubt it. I'd like less symbolic "we'll figure it out later" bills and more detail.

Exactly. These details are important. A bill of this magnitude needs to be bulletproof or close.

Symbolism is one thing, but that symbolism will go beyond that when it's seen less as a dream or a goal, and more a missed opportunity for the people.

Not a bullet dodged.

 

[PBY]

Sure, a good bill would do all this (and by all this, I mean it should guarantee that every worker in the industry is guaranteed at least their current salary, plus their new job should require no significant movement on their part).

But what you're effectively asking is "do people trust the government without all this in writing?" I doubt it. I'd like less symbolic "we'll figure it out later" bills and more detail.

But... this bill is symbolic it isn't going anywhere. I agree by the way, I think that having a solution that works is absolutely the most important part of it.

 

[The Technomancer]

I also find it amusing how free trade is fine even if it makes blue-collar manual labourers go out of business, because it's better for the average American, but bringing in singlepayer is terrible, because even if it would be better for the average American, it would make white-collar educated insurers go out of business. It betrays how horribly elitist the political consciousness of this thread is, without even realizing it.

No free trade/no single-payer, free trade/single payer. Pick one!

I think that this doesn't really quite express how much the loss of blue collar manufacturing jobs is due to other reasons also. Factories that needed 200 employees in 1975 now need 45. That's not due to trade

 

[Pixieking]

Off to bed, like, now, but this caught my eye. On mobile, so messy link: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/amp/

Actually really interesting and (I think) balanced, arguing points I've not seen here or anywhere else about Hillary and her book.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think that this doesn't really quite express how much the loss of blue collar manufacturing jobs is due to other reasons also. Factories that needed 200 employees in 1975 now need 45. That's not due to trade

Right, and under a more efficient healthcare system, healthcare bureaucracy that needs 150 employers now could by 2030 need 75. The only difference is that white-collar workers have enough institutional and political clout to protect their interests from advances in efficiency by lobbying the political system in their favour, and you're busy defending this, while throwing low income Americans, including those from minority backgrounds who are significantly more likely to be working in manual labour and to need good healthcare access, to the hounds.

Great job, progressive party!

 

[Fenderputty]

I also find it amusing how free trade is fine even if it makes blue-collar manual labourers go out of business, because it's better for the average American, but bringing in singlepayer is terrible, because even if it would be better for the average American, it would make white-collar educated insurers go out of business. It betrays how horribly elitist the political consciousness of this thread is, without even realizing it.

No free trade/no single-payer, free trade/single payer. Pick one!

Why are you pretending these are even remotely the same? The sheer size and scope of the healthcare industry absolutely dwarfs blue collared workers losing business to free market

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Well... why not? Single-payer wouldn't be implemented overnight, it's too large a project. There'd have to be a fairly lengthy transitional period. So why not just give ex-healthcare insurance employees a job guarantee if they transfer into the new sector?

Your plan is convince voters to let the government handle their healthcare (strike 1), convince people raising their taxes is a good thing (strike 2), and then convince them the government will take care of them when their city or entire state's economy is put into jeopardy (strike 3)

Uhh... okay, good luck with that.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Why are you pretending these are even remotely the same? The sheer size and scope of the healthcare industry absolutely dwarfs blue collared workers losing business to free market

i want whatever the fuck you're smoking

the healthcare industry employs about 2.5 million people

american manufacturing employs 12.5 million people

yet this thread is perfectly fine to say 'fuck american small towns, leave them for dead', but the moment we start talking about liberal urban insurers, oh, the concern, the concern!

 

[The Technomancer]

I'll say that, for me personally, I don't think I've ever used "loss of white collar jobs" as a reason not to proceed with healthcare reform other than as an acknowledgement of a source of potential blowback. I can't speak for others

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I'll say that, for me personally, I don't think I've ever used "loss of white collar jobs" as a reason not to proceed with healthcare reform other than as an acknowledgement of a source of potential blowback. I can't speak for others

Well yeah, because it's a straw man. I'm not saying that we should never do a bill, I'm arguing the bill has to be good. And crab is just arguing "don't worry, it'll be good, also what about rural white people" which isn't really the discussion. If his suggestion of a job guarantee is in the bill, that's good!