[Debate] Election 2020 Side Discussions

a place to have in-depth discussions of topics related to the 2020 U.S. Elections, so the main thread doesn't derail

fangblackbone wrote:
I think it's that they *have* to--without the clear-as-day demonstration of importance in Clyburn bringing Biden back, I don't know if that happens.

I think you are right that they HAVE to. The Clyburn moment certainly added fuel but I think BLM couldn't have been ignored regardless. I mean you couldn't have had a WTF litmus test clearer than Floyd's murder.

I guess I should say I don't see it as all-or-nothing, and I'm sure you don't either, so we probably differ on how much was the 'baseline reaction' (if that phrase makes sense) to that murder and how much was a reaction to the demonstration of political power in the Clyburn endorsement. No need for that Clyburn endorsement, I don't know if he picks Harris, for instance.

Moral pressure is good, but it only goes so far. Moral pressure plus political pressure is exponentially more powerful.

fangblackbone wrote:
I think it's that they *have* to--without the clear-as-day demonstration of importance in Clyburn bringing Biden back, I don't know if that happens.

I think you are right that they HAVE to. The Clyburn moment certainly added fuel but I think BLM couldn't have been ignored regardless. I mean you couldn't have had a WTF litmus test call to action clearer than Floyd's murder.

I think it means something (not flattering) that there literally had to be video footage of an execution for mainstream liberals to finally take it seriously instead of sidelining the movement because of politics.

The persistent idea that the Democratic party would be rightwing in Europe is untrue, at least going by the analysis of the Manifesto Project.

Here's some visualizations from a NYTimes opinion piece on the subject.

IMAGE(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-91e4f5e14fe3187d692b113bf06df145)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-kcuCcXUAAPvNr?format=jpg&name=medium)

On a number of social issues the Dem's are further left then their counterparts across the pond, just look at some of the stated party positions on immigration you find. Or just look at the conversations around the Romani.

What screws us as a country is that because of FPTP amongst other things our system ends up with two parties, the Republicans are off the deep end when it comes to rightwing parties, and Racism.

Though, side note, Netherlands, what are you doing! I don't even know how a party can BE that rightwing without breaking out the armbands and Hugo Boss uniforms.

Zona wrote:

The persistent idea that the Democratic party would be rightwing in Europe is untrue, at least going by the analysis of the Manifesto Project.

Here's some visualizations from a NYTimes opinion piece on the subject.

IMAGE(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-91e4f5e14fe3187d692b113bf06df145)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-kcuCcXUAAPvNr?format=jpg&name=medium)

On a number of social issues the Dem's are further left then their counterparts across the pond, just look at some of the stated party positions on immigration you find. Or just look at the conversations around the Romani.

What screws us as a country is that because of FPTP amongst other things our system ends up with two parties, the Republicans are off the deep end when it comes to rightwing parties, and Racism.

Though, side note, Netherlands, what are you doing! I don't even know how a party can BE that rightwing without breaking out the armbands and Hugo Boss uniforms.

Thanks for that! I've taken that description of "the Democratic party would be right wing in Europe" at face value, so this is really fascinating, and definitely a bit of a relief.

Zona wrote:

On a number of social issues the Dem's are further left then their counterparts across the pond, just look at some of the stated party positions on immigration you find. Or just look at the conversations around the Romani.

What screws us as a country is that because of FPTP amongst other things our system ends up with two parties, the Republicans are off the deep end when it comes to rightwing parties, and Racism.

I think what screws us--but is also our greatest opportunity--is that we're a colony and a colonizer in one nation. Which, yeah, Racism (and racism's role in how a right wing party goes off the deep end, and why FPTP is much more of a problem here than in Canada), but in historical detail. It's probably not an accident that the two issues that jumped out about Europe are the ones involving racism.

I'm not sure that those charts accurately reflect the conversation most are having though. If you look at the Times article itself, it is using data from the Manifesto Project to calculate those dots. This is the data:
IMAGE(https://i.ibb.co/HVYftJw/image.png)
I could certainly be misreading it, but I'm not seeing policy or objectives in that chart or the above examples in the way we would usually discuss policy here. For example universal healthcare, automatic voter registration, prison reform, policing reform. And as most of the reforms leftists in this country are seeking are already in place in Great Britain, it seems silly to say that the mainstream Democratic platform is only very slightly to the right of Labour.

Here is Labour's 2019 manfiesto for additional data points.

r013nt0 wrote:

I'm not sure that those charts accurately reflect the conversation most are having though. If you look at the Times article itself, it is using data from the Manifesto Project to calculate those dots. This is the data:
IMAGE(https://i.ibb.co/HVYftJw/image.png)
I could certainly be misreading it, but I'm not seeing policy or objectives in that chart or the above examples in the way we would usually discuss policy here. For example universal healthcare, automatic voter registration, prison reform, policing reform. And as most of the reforms leftists in this country are seeking are already in place in Great Britain, it seems silly to say that the mainstream Democratic platform is only very slightly to the right of Labour.

Here is Labour's 2019 manfiesto for additional data points.

The UK is not the only country in Europe, and all of the bolded are part of the Democratic party platform. Most of them have been for years! Biden's plan for a public option, for instance, is not only a form of universal healthcare, as written it's a more socialized system then the one currently in place in Germany. I would hazard a guess that on the healthcare front the impression that the only way to do universal healthcare is some form of M4A is because most of our exposure to the concept comes from the other English speaking countries. As much as I would prefer a single payer system it's not the only way to improve healthcare in this country.

I understand that, but Labour is the dot closest to ours which is why I specifically used that as a comparison. In fact, your entire second graph compares directly with Britain and not Europe in totality.
Biden's plan is not universal healthcare as enjoyed by other countries, where they don't need to worry about premiums and copays.

r013nt0 wrote:

I understand that, but Labour is the dot closest to ours which is why I specifically used that as a comparison.
Biden's plan is not universal healthcare as enjoyed by other countries, where they don't need to worry about premiums and copays.

No, but in Germany patients who require overnight care are charged an additional fee, including for meals. Which often isn't covered by their insurance.

Also, right off the Biden campaign site.

Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your insurance company isn’t doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether you’re covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers. It also will better coordinate among all of a patient’s doctors to improve the efficacy and quality of their care, and cover primary care without any co-payments. And it will bring relief to small businesses struggling to afford coverage for their employees.
Zona wrote:

Also, right off the Biden campaign site.

Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your insurance company isn’t doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether you’re covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers. It also will better coordinate among all of a patient’s doctors to improve the efficacy and quality of their care, and cover primary care without any co-payments. And it will bring relief to small businesses struggling to afford coverage for their employees.

He also specifically used the words reducing premiums in his acceptance speech. This is better than nothing, yes. But it isn't good enough.

quote still isn't edit for some reason.

So the plan is to have a public option without copays, and also to negotiate lower prices with hospitals and doctors. I fail to see the problem? Is the objection the existence of private, as opposed to government, healthcare providers? Because no country on earth has NO private providers. The NHS model of the government being the main employer and provider of health services is the exception, not the general rule. Admittedly since the three other English speaking countries are the ones with that model we're exposed to it more.

Universal Healthcare means everyone has healthcare. The Swiss have Universal Healthcare, they also don't even have a public option, they make private health insurance compulsory. They also regulate those insurers, which seems like a great idea! Happily, those sort of regulations are part of Biden's platform! Hell, the cap of 8.5% of income in Biden's plan is a whole .5% over the Swiss cap.

To be clear I do support a single payer model of health insurance, I think it is probably the most efficient use of resources. But my main goal is to ensure that everyone in the country has access to healthcare, which is what I mean by universal healthcare, and other countries show that there are a variety of paths to achieve that goal. Something like the Swiss system would be an inarguable and vast improvement over our current nightmarish set up, and would probably be easier to implement both politically and practically.

Ideally a strong public option once implemented Will slowly become a de facto single-payer system by virtue of being better than our current private insurance.

The idea is to not go completely broke because you unluckily ended up with cancer, yes. The objection is to your health and wellbeing being a source of profit for a business.

Anyway, we can move on. I do not think we are going to agree about the data or the fundamental human right to survive.

You know what? You're right. We should move on if your framing of the argument is that anyone who disagrees with your specific implementation of universal healthcare means what they want people to get sick and die.

You edited your comment after I had already posted mine and clarified your stance. My framing is not that anybody wants anyone to get sick and die. My framing is that nobody should make a profit off of anybody else's health. The entire idea of a for-profit healthcare system is repulsive and should absolutely be tossed in the burning dumpster of history.

If I gave the impression that I think you do not care if people live or die, that was not my intention, and I apologize.

ruhk wrote:
But look how far BLM has come in just 4 years: from a political stunt at a Bernie speech to millions in the streets marching in cities across the nation for months.

The Black Lives Matter movement got where it was on it’s own through grass roots effort and mutual aid and it is exceedingly disingenuous (and more than a little problematic) to try to claim the movement as a “win” for the Democratic Party. I’m sure most people who support it are Dem voters but it’s not a Democratic Party movement.

This is my new House Representative, Cori Bush, that just out Lacy Clay Jr., whose family held the seat for over 50 years. This was 100%, the Democrats in St. Louis choosing BLM to a part of the Democratic platform.

And yes, I absolutely voted for her. She's a goddamn rock star.

I'm ready for a BLM supported mayor next.

BLM is its own movement. But it will get more done as a part of the Democratic platform, and that is what is happening.

Zona wrote:

Biden's plan for a public option, for instance, is not only a form of universal healthcare, as written it's a more socialized system then the one currently in place in Germany. I would hazard a guess that on the healthcare front the impression that the only way to do universal healthcare is some form of M4A is because most of our exposure to the concept comes from the other English speaking countries. As much as I would prefer a single payer system it's not the only way to improve healthcare in this country.

Oh, I think the impression also comes from the Biden campaign, trying to sell this as less radical than M4A!

From what I've read, a public option may prove to be a tricky thing to get right. If it's too weak, it doesn't solve the problem. If it's too strong, it will outcompete private insurance.

which, hey, if Joe is loading up the M4A trojan horse, I'm all for it! : D

but I also don't think it's totally cynical to think the public option might wind up so toothless it fails to fix the gaps in the ACA.

I keep wondering if there are any other countries that accomplish health care coverage with a similar plan to compare this to. Not just a mix of private and public, but something that's a close analog of the proposed public option.

Cori Bush is badass. You guys are lucky to have her.

The ACA exchange is there. It just needs to be strengthened. (A lot!)
There really is little difference between a strong public option and M4A.
There was also mention of lowering the medicare age requirement which is another path to M4A
At some point between raising the age at which young adults can stay on their parents insurance and lowering the age for medicare, you will have universal healthcare. Say it is raised to 30 or 35 and lowered to 50, that gets you almost all the way there. And insurance for those 35-50 would be lower because it would be less burden on insurance companies to cover the most likely to require expensive care. Sure they would take their cut, but their could be competition would exist too.

r013nt0 wrote:

You edited your comment after I had already posted mine and clarified your stance. My framing is not that anybody wants anyone to get sick and die. My framing is that nobody should make a profit off of anybody else's health. The entire idea of a for-profit healthcare system is repulsive and should absolutely be tossed in the burning dumpster of history.

If I gave the impression that I think you do not care if people live or die, that was not my intention, and I apologize.

First, and without any reservations, I appreciate the apology.

I agree with you that a for-profit healthcare system is not moral, but even in the U.K it exists in some form. Most of my arguments are framed around what I think can be accomplished in our political system as it currently exists, and public opinion as it currently stands. What I want is to make it so everyone in the U.S has access to healthcare and can use it without having to be financially ruined. Biden's plan is not the most moral, and it is not what I would do if you made me God Emperor (Slogan - There are Going to be some Changes around Here) , but it would improve the lives of a huge chunk of our population. So I'll take it, we can build on it later.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Zona wrote:

Biden's plan for a public option, for instance, is not only a form of universal healthcare, as written it's a more socialized system then the one currently in place in Germany. I would hazard a guess that on the healthcare front the impression that the only way to do universal healthcare is some form of M4A is because most of our exposure to the concept comes from the other English speaking countries. As much as I would prefer a single payer system it's not the only way to improve healthcare in this country.

Oh, I think the impression also comes from the Biden campaign, trying to sell this as less radical than M4A!

From what I've read, a public option may prove to be a tricky thing to get right. If it's too weak, it doesn't solve the problem. If it's too strong, it will outcompete private insurance.

which, hey, if Joe is loading up the M4A trojan horse, I'm all for it! : D

but I also don't think it's totally cynical to think the public option might wind up so toothless it fails to fix the gaps in the ACA.

I keep wondering if there are any other countries that accomplish health care coverage with a similar plan to compare this to. Not just a mix of private and public, but something that's a close analog of the proposed public option.

Don't tell all the new Suburban Dem votes, but I think that the bolded is a feature not a bug.

Germany is probably the closest analog of the proposed Public option, especially because under the current plan children and those under a certain income are automatically enrolled.

I agree that having a strong public option added to the ACA would be a step in the right direction. I just don't believe it goes far enough, especially with what we're seeing right now due to the current pandemic -which certainly won't be the last. I believe that now is the time to move forward with sweeping change. I have personally known too many people who have had serious health complications because they don't have access to or can't afford health care and the associated hospital bills. I have personally known multiple people who have died from completely preventable issues. It's a disgrace to us as human beings to continue to allow this to happen in a post-scarcity world.

Anyway, here's an interesting segment from today's Democracy Now! with Cornel West discussing a few of these issues.

Zona wrote:

You know what? You're right. We should move on if your framing of the argument is that anyone who disagrees with your specific implementation of universal healthcare means what they want people to get sick and die.

I think whether or not you want someone to die is immaterial to this discussion. And from recent comments it sounds like you agree, Zona, but I just wanted to reiterate what I consider to be the important point.

It's not about how the healthcare is delivered, necessarily. You're correct that many countries with universal healthcare deliver it through for-profit insurance companies. The thing that matters most to me is that people support a healthcare system that doesn't rely on people with disabilities or in the middle of a health crisis reaching a certain level of economic productivity to afford said healthcare to survive.

If you don't provide healthcare to the least of us, you're consigning those people to get sick and die. Regardless of who actually pays for said healthcare. The only moral healthcare system is one where people at their worst can get the care they need. Period.

DSGamer wrote:
Zona wrote:

You know what? You're right. We should move on if your framing of the argument is that anyone who disagrees with your specific implementation of universal healthcare means what they want people to get sick and die.

I think whether or not you want someone to die is immaterial to this discussion. And from recent comments it sounds like you agree, Zona, but I just wanted to reiterate what I consider to be the important point.

It's not about how the healthcare is delivered, necessarily. You're correct that many countries with universal healthcare deliver it through for-profit insurance companies. The thing that matters most to me is that people support healthcare system that doesn't rely on people with disabilities or in the middle of a health crisis reaching a certain level of economic productivity to afford said healthcare to survive.

If you don't provide healthcare to the least of us, you're consigning those people to get sick and die. Regardless of who actually pays for said healthcare. The only moral healthcare system is one where people at their worst can get the care they need. Period.

I agree with you completely! In these discussions I'm just operating under the assumption that even the most watered down wishywashy Dem plan is going to provide either the Public option for free, or for-profit insurance with costs fully subsidized by the government, to anyone even near the poverty line or with a physical or mental disability that makes work difficult or impossible. Any Democrat not supporting that is going to be one whose primary opponent I donate to and volunteer time for. While we're at it though, let's raise the poverty line. It's currently way too f*cking low.

Zona wrote:

While we're at it though, let's raise the poverty line. It's currently way too f*cking low.

Medicare, UBI, and Taco Tuesdays for all. This is my platform.

r013nt0 wrote:
Zona wrote:

While we're at it though, let's raise the poverty line. It's currently way too f*cking low.

Medicare, UBI, and Taco Tuesdays for all. This is my platform.

Well, you just lost the IBS vote.

trichy wrote:

Well, you just lost the IBS vote.

I absolutely allow for nice and gentle Baja California fish tacos...

Really interesting look at progressive success vs Democratic incumbents and in open seats running against party establishment candidates.

In short, Progressive groups are getting more selective with some evidence that it's being more effective, while also shying away from races where a progressive candidate might help the Republicans.

Still a long way to go, but it seems like the left of the party has a plan and are getting better at executing it.

While I certainly wouldn't say Democrats would be right-wing in Europe (more like center-right), that study also seems a bit silly.

I think a reason is this:

To calculate these scores, we used a statistical technique called correspondence analysis, analyzing how frequently the party platforms mention each topic coded by the Manifesto Project.

Focusing on talking points vs. what the parties actually do.

Shadout wrote:

While I certainly wouldn't say Democrats would be right-wing in Europe (more like center-right), that study also seems a bit silly.

I think a reason is this:

To calculate these scores, we used a statistical technique called correspondence analysis, analyzing how frequently the party platforms mention each topic coded by the Manifesto Project.

Focusing on talking points vs. what the parties actually do.

That is where our political system and the existence of the Republican party come into play. Any attempt to do anything to change our system has to overcome the insurgency of the Republican party and it's voters. Consider the Republicans location on that same chart, we're not dealing with a mildly rightwing party here. A large amount of their success rests on the back of racial animosity, which we've been dealing with essentially since our founding.

It's not like the Dem party doesn't generally try to get it's stated policy positions passed. If you Thanos Snapped the Republican party and it's voters away for 10 years the U.S would end up looking a lot more like the rest of the developed world.

At the same time the rise of the right wing in Europe is being fueled in large part by the same racial animosity the U.S has had to deal with. Which is why you have a situation where the Danish People's Party had to coopt right wing language and positions on immigration and multiculturalism.

Badferret wrote:

Really interesting look at progressive success vs Democratic incumbents and in open seats running against party establishment candidates.

In short, Progressive groups are getting more selective with some evidence that it's being more effective, while also shying away from races where a progressive candidate might help the Republicans.

Still a long way to go, but it seems like the left of the party has a plan and are getting better at executing it.

They were, which is why the the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced they would completely blacklist anyone that works on a campaign that tries to primary an incumbent Democrat.