2020 US General Election Thread IV: The Battle Begins

[Alien Space Bats]

You are mistaken. In both of the presidential contingent elections in 1800 and 1836 the president was decided by the outgoing house and not the incoming one.

Precedent dictates that the current house would vote for the president not the new one

The law has changed since 1836. Votes get certified on January 3rd, which will be the first day of the next Congressional session.

Of course, you're free to look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

[Alien Space Bats]

You need radical change to get from being shit to being good. If all you want is small, incremental change then all you'll get is from shit to still shit.

Missing the point, aren't you?

If the government is split between two groups of radicals, each embracing a platform that is 180° opposite the other side's platform, then absolutely nothing is going to get done — ever.

[Alien Space Bats]

As for your question about illegality, yeah, Congress has broad authority to regulate or outlaw commerce on a national level. The Constitution would only need to be amended if they tried to forbid intrastate competition.

I think you're going to find that to be untrue. Insurance regulation falls within the purview of the States, and if a State wants to allow health insurance to be sold within its borders, I rather suspect that the Federal government will find that it lacks the authority to say otherwise.

[Alien Space Bats]

As for forcing providers to accept M4A with such a select customer base as...everyone a provider deciding they only want someone else for some reason would be self defeating. It wouldn't be widespread enough to bother making illegal either.

You clearly don't live in Arizona. We have doctors here who don't accept anyone's insurance right now.

And if the reimbursement levels and restrictions are too severe, you might just see more doctors doing that sort of thing.

[Sougra]

I honestly believe an American where the populist right and populist left have the power will be psychologically healthier and overall a happier and calmer place.

Neoliberalism and neoconservativism drive war and depression and they need to die.

You actually expect Trumpists and Sandernistas to agree on anything?

They actually agree on a lot. You'd be surprised.

They both agree the political system is corrupt and that the corruption should be taken out, that the endless wars the US is in are stupid and should be ended as soon as possible, that drug pricing needs to go down (and the general solution advocated from them is government involvement), the pharmaceutical industry is greedy and corrupt, the opioid crisis needs to be dealt with, the trade agreements signed have often benefited large corporations and not the working class.

They both have a more specific focus on the working class, have a disdain for the neoliberal and neoconservative bias in the mainstream media, believe in criminal justice reform to some extent, are at least ambivalent on LGBT+ rights (to be clear, a lot of these are Trump from his campaign), are against cuts to Social Security, and have a strong focus on empowering the working class.

Now, Trump has backed down from some of this, and it seems he was mostly advocating for them for political reasons, but it's not difficult to see that he's a populist or at least speaking the language of one. And since Bernie is too, it's quite evident that they'd have similar views on certain things.

In fact, both would probably have more in common than the current Dems do. The only thing the current Dems generally agree on in the Senate are things like the USMCA, giving the President more war powers, lowering drug pricing (although Mitch McConnell is not doing anything on that front), and confirming judges.

You can actually already see a coalition of sorts popping up between the two in the mainstream in some regard. For example, Sanders supporters have for a while been claiming that Fox is somehow more fair to them than MSNBC (and that's usually quite true in terms of Tucker Carlson, can't say anything about the other shows), and there's a show between two populists both from the left and right as news host in terms of Hill TV's Rising that's been gaining quite a lot of traction.

So yeah, they agree on a lot. Now, social issues is where all the fighting will happen. They're economically similar, it's just more so that they often advocate to different approaches to the same problems. For example, USMCA is considered good by Trump, but Sanders says that there are improvements, but it's not enough, specifically on the environmental front (which Sanders and Trump disagree on quite a bit).

[LRON]

I do not even see why Americans want a single payer system let alone one where there are fifty different systems! Most universal systems are not single payer, particularly the rather good ones. Wanting universal healthcare is all fine and dandy, chaps, but there is more than one way to do it!

[True Refuge]

I do not even see why Americans want a single payer system let alone one where there are fifty different systems! Most universal systems are not single payer, particularly the rather good ones. Wanting universal healthcare is all fine and dandy, chaps, but there is more than one way to do it!

Poor show. It's surely been explained already.

[Cedoria]

You need radical change to get from being shit to being good. If all you want is small, incremental change then all you'll get is from shit to still shit.

Missing the point, aren't you?

If the government is split between two groups of radicals, each embracing a platform that is 180° opposite the other side's platform, then absolutely nothing is going to get done — ever.

Nah, then you just need one group to crush the other:)

[Lamoni]

Yes, that’s why I asked someone to explain it to me.

How lame, you can't even be asked to do any research on your own while demanding others do so. No wonder you got wiped when we went into actual history. It explains so much :^)

It’s becoming extremely apparent that you don’t understand what the argument is.

Then take it up with your colleague. Perhaps you can give him some of your """pro""" debating tips! :^)

That you are unwilling to put together the most basic connection because you don’t actually have an argument is not my fault.


I don’t know why you’re putting pro in quotation marks as if it’s supposed to get under my skin. I’m in high school. I know I’m not a pro debater.

Ah but you always brag about your formalistic settings and other such nonsense. I'm glad though you've come to realize your limitations. Perhaps there is hope for you afterall. One day we might get your to ditch your religion and learn to win!

The East Marches II:
*** Warning for Flamebait ***

[Ifreann]

You need radical change to get from being shit to being good. If all you want is small, incremental change then all you'll get is from shit to still shit.

Missing the point, aren't you?

If the government is split between two groups of radicals, each embracing a platform that is 180° opposite the other side's platform, then absolutely nothing is going to get done — ever.

Nothing is getting done in your government now.

[United States of Devonta]

Missing the point, aren't you?

If the government is split between two groups of radicals, each embracing a platform that is 180° opposite the other side's platform, then absolutely nothing is going to get done — ever.

Nothing is getting done in your government now.

Exactly. Let's try something new.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

You need radical change to get from being shit to being good. If all you want is small, incremental change then all you'll get is from shit to still shit.

Missing the point, aren't you?

If the government is split between two groups of radicals, each embracing a platform that is 180° opposite the other side's platform, then absolutely nothing is going to get done — ever.

Which, in turn, will be detrimental for America as a whole. Which is why we need to transcend the concept of left-right politics, because it’s outdated and has been since the start of the 21st century

[Ifreann]

Missing the point, aren't you?

If the government is split between two groups of radicals, each embracing a platform that is 180° opposite the other side's platform, then absolutely nothing is going to get done — ever.

Which, in turn, will be detrimental for America as a whole. Which is why we need to transcend the concept of left-right politics, because it’s outdated and has been since the start of the 21st century

Or, instead, we don't do a fascism.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Which, in turn, will be detrimental for America as a whole. Which is why we need to transcend the concept of left-right politics, because it’s outdated and has been since the start of the 21st century

Or, instead, we don't do a fascism.

We don’t even need to do fascism, just transcend the concept of left and right politics

[Thermodolia]

I do not even see why Americans want a single payer system let alone one where there are fifty different systems! Most universal systems are not single payer, particularly the rather good ones. Wanting universal healthcare is all fine and dandy, chaps, but there is more than one way to do it!

Poor show. It's surely been explained already.

I mean he’s not wrong. Single payer isn’t the only way to UHC. The German system would work far better for the US than single payer

[Aureumterra]

Or, instead, we don't do a fascism.

We don’t even need to do fascism, just transcend the concept of left and right politics

Why?

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

We don’t even need to do fascism, just transcend the concept of left and right politics

Why?

Because internal partisanship is detrimental to national security

And because politics shouldn’t be a team sport, not in the 21st century

[Ifreann]

Why?

Because internal partisanship is detrimental to national security

And because politics shouldn’t be a team sport, not in the 21st century

Not conceptualising politics as a left-right spectrum doesn't mean not having political partisanship. Even if you got all of America to call themselves third positionists they'd still have all the same political disagreements they have now.

[Jerzylvania]

Or, instead, we don't do a fascism.

We don’t even need to do fascism, just transcend the concept of left and right politics

Heard over the P.A. - "Would the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus all report to the Impossible Wish Clinic asap?"

[Satuga]

Tab 495 geez, I think it's about time to make a new Thread lol

[Galloism]

Um, if this were actually the case — IOW, if huge universal state-run monopolies were vastly more efficient than multiple competing private companies, due to the lack of "wasteful duplication" and "profit mark-ups" — then how on Earth was it that the Soviet Bloc didn't outperform the West economically during the Cold War?

I think your last observation is essentially correct: That we have no idea if M4A would be less expensive, more expensive, or just as expensive as our current system. Of course, we're never going to get a chance to find out, because even if Sanders manages to win, he'll never get M4A through Congress (or past the High Court, for that matter: Can the U.S. government actually make private health insurance companies illegal under our current Consitution, or compel all private health care providers to accept M4A if they don't want to?)

Well, it's clearly not a general phenomenon that universal state-run monopolies are more efficient than free markets.

However, when we invert the conditions under which a free market necessarily tends towards efficiency, we produce the recipe for a market failure. The conditions of the health care marketplace do not meet the criteria required for the invisible hand to go to work.

• There are large and significant barriers to entry into the market.¹
• Pricing is not transparent.²
• Decisions about health care are made by persons other than those footing the bill. Also, by persons other than those who are concerned about health outcomes.³
• Information about cost, efficacy, availability, et cetera are highly asymmetrically distributed.⁴
• Consumption of health care services is not even always voluntary.⁵
• There are large-scale subsidies involved.⁶
• There are major externalities involved.⁷

Basically speaking, every single textbook example of what can cause market failures has been present in the American health care system. We do have good comparative information, though, which is to say that pretty much every other health care system in a developed country - ranging from more effectively regulated private systems to national health care systems - is clearly more cost-efficient. Government administration of health care systems might not be the most efficient possible arrangement, but we have seen how things like the NHS work, and it's not terrifically inefficient.

We may not know the true price tag of M4A very well, but it's pretty reasonable to conclude that in this particular setting, a huge universal state-run monopoly would be more efficient than the "multiple competing private companies" that operate in a system that has "MARKET FAILURE IN PROGRESS" written all over it. Seriously - there are a lot of areas where markets really can squeeze allocative efficiency into a system, but you need to have the basic conditions for a functional market in order for that to be likely.

1. This includes regulatory barriers, not just the large initial capitalization problem common to normal insurance companies. This is one reason why it is that in most states, only 1-3 insurers participate in the individual health insurance market.
2. This is true even on the level of a single procedure. Even just a simple price check on a widely performed procedure is very difficult.
3. C.f. principal-agent problem. The "traditional" American model of employer-provided coverage is spectacularly messy in this regard.
4. Information asymmetry alone induces market failures on an almost automatic basis. The party or parties with superior information can generally leverage that asymmetry profitably. In this case, health insurance companies and large health care providers have incentives to actively obfuscate information - e.g., obscuring the true price of a procedure in order to claim a large discount.
5. On the strictest level, C.f. emergency medical services, but also cases of unexpected complications to a surgical procedure. That said, the consequences for failing to get necessary health care are dire enough to qualify as duress by any reasonable definition. Lives are literally at stake, and when lives are at stake, extortion is free.
6. It's a good general principle, IME, that hybrid public-private systems work worse than public systems or private systems. Companies can compete by providing better standards of care ... or just by getting better at acquiring public money. The amount of government money involved is very large, and the scale and complexity of direct and indirect subsidies is enormous. The whole tax system is involved.
7. I'm not just talking about ordinary public health externalities such as stopping the spread of contagious diseases. I'm talking about the fact that an insurer can expect the patient to become someone else's problem later, especially if they're shopping on the marketplace regularly - and there are major differences in short-term versus long-term thinking when it comes to health care. Then there are externalities associated with things like ludicrous sticker prices that insurance companies don't actually pay and the misallocation of public resources.

This thing needs a like button.

Anyway, point 3 is why I think medicare (original medicare, not advantage) has kinda the right idea on copays, and I don't necessarily agree with Sanders all the way when it comes to completely eliminating copays. Because if Doctor A costs $200 per visit and Doctor B costs $300 per visit, what do you care if you have no copay or a flat $20 or $30 copay? There's no point in being market selective.

This is unlike when you go to the store and there's Spaghetti-O's for $0.88 per can and Bernie O's for $0.74 per can. You can weigh those factors - whether you're willing to pay $0.14 less for a slightly inferior product. Those type of market selections is what causes price to drop and quality to rise via successive improvements - as Spaghetti-O's either has to drop their price or improve their quality to make people choose them.

That being said, no cap - where your copays continue until you can no longer function - is no good either.

Sanders has a good idea, and if he makes it, even with a very friendly congress, Congress will cut it down some - probably leading to this angle (IE, it's like medicare part B, sort of, frankenstein'd).

[Shrillland]

Tab 495 geez, I think it's about time to make a new Thread lol

I'll have one up as we get closer, so in a few hours probably.

[Satuga]

Tab 495 geez, I think it's about time to make a new Thread lol

I'll have one up as we get closer, so in a few hours probably.

I've got a format, I've just thought of, doesn't work considering it makes a jab at me from you but ill send you it anyways in TG and see if you like it or want to change it in some way

[Cisairse]

As for your question about illegality, yeah, Congress has broad authority to regulate or outlaw commerce on a national level. The Constitution would only need to be amended if they tried to forbid intrastate competition.

I think you're going to find that to be untrue. Insurance regulation falls within the purview of the States, and if a State wants to allow health insurance to be sold within its borders, I rather suspect that the Federal government will find that it lacks the authority to say otherwise.

That would be intrastate, which I mentioned.

And besides, the feds have many well-known ways to more or less compel states to pass certain laws. Minimum wage is the prime example of this.

[United States of Devonta]

AFL-CIO South Carolina has come out in strong support of medicare-for-all recently

This is in contrast to the Culinary Union of Nevada leadership who opposed it. A very different Union dynamic in Nevada then SC. Union leadership in Nevada has long been apart of the Democratic machine under Sen. Harry Reid, while in SC leadership is pretty progressive. It's also important to note, a majority of Culinary Union members caucused for Bernie and bucked their own leadership.

Also, in an official letter the AFL-CIO SC called out Mayor Pete's and other public option health care measures by name and stated such systems do not do enough for working class people. This should help Bernie Sanders, even if unions don't play as large of a rule in SC as they did Nevada.