The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[old_gregg]

also, what’s disingenuous is bernie’s absolute refusal to even have the beginnings of a ballpark discussion on costs. “it’s expensive now” is not a good enough answer to “how much will it cost?”.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not a Sanders supporter at all. But, I find it disingenuous when people throw these numbers around as "new spending" when talking about healthcare. We're already spending that now on healthcare.



So. if we figure that the current non-governmental expenditures would come into the federal coffers instead of private industry, and we factor in the buyouts of private insurance companies necessary for Bernie's system, then the $3 trillion seems to be only $1 trillion in increases over the current spending (that number is troubling in and of itself, but it's not $3 trillion in "new" spending). Taking insurance premiums and calling them taxes and expenditures of taxes, is disingenuous.

Now do:

1) free college tuition
2) student loan debt forgiveness
3) medical debt forgiveness
4) pre-k and childcare
5) green new deal

[Jeff Lebowski]

If Sanders’s tax plans were to raise as much money as he claims, they would increase federal taxes as a share of GDP by as much as 11 percentage points. “I think it is fair to say that the tax increase—assuming it is as big as Senator Sanders projects—is about as large as the [13-point] tax increases enacted to finance World War II,” as measured as a share of GDP, says Leonard Burman, a former senior Treasury Department tax official under Clinton and an institute fellow at the Tax Policy Center, which is operated by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. “It is more than five times as large as any tax increase enacted since. And even if it falls short of the campaign’s projections, it would be the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

And that is based on his unrealistic revenue projections.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-plans/607105/

[wapiti]

538 post-Super Tuesday projection is out. Bottom line: It over. 88% chance Biden will be the nominee and 10% chance no candidate will get a majority.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...mary-forecast/

Of course, this assumes Biden remembers his name in the next debate.

[Omaha 680]

538 post-Super Tuesday projection is out. Bottom line: It over. 88% chance Biden will be the nominee and 10% chance no candidate will get a majority.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...mary-forecast/

Of course, this assumes Biden remembers his name in the next debate.

It really is impressive how effectively the Democrats executed Order 66 (hat tip Clay Travis) on the field after the South Carolina results.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Commando]

It really is impressive how effectively the Democrats executed Order 66 (hat tip Clay Travis) on the field after the South Carolina results.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[wuapinmon]

Now do:

1) free college tuition
2) student loan debt forgiveness
3) medical debt forgiveness
4) pre-k and childcare
5) green new deal

1. Free college tuition is dumb. Not only will it de-incentivize state legislatures from paying for their land-grant obligations, administrators will go nuts with new stadiums, dorms, alumni houses, and other bullshit. Also, hundreds of small privates will go out of business. The government's intrusion into the marketplace in such a way would be, in effect, creating a monopoly, and it'll get tied up in lawsuits for decades. Meanwhile, once the dust settles the goddamned for-profits will come back and fill the gap after enrollments are capped at free schools and more people want to go to college than have room. No way this program gets expanded endlessly for anyone who wants to go to college. No way.

2. Student loan debt forgiveness is tricky. I think that people shouldn't be paying exorbitant sums to go to med school. We have a vested interest in having doctors in rural and isolated communities, or in places where getting a doctor to go only happens with do-gooders or missionaries. A program of free med school tuition for those willing to dedicate service for a certain number of years (while being paid), like the military currently has, would work. There are a lot of brilliant people who could be physicians, but become lawyers, professors, engineers, accountants, teachers, and work in business/econ because they don't want to set themselves up for a decade of self-imposed poverty and then have to pay back $500k. I'm also a fan of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, perhaps for selfish reasons, but, 120 payments is 10 years of repayment. I think private student loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy under more circumstances than currently are available. I think the federal government makes billions and billions per year on student loans, and I'd call the program a success financially for the treasury, though the drag on the economy is debatable. However, a blanket forgiveness of all loans seems irresponsible, and unfair to those who repaid theirs.

3. Medical debt forgiveness should be part of the buyout of private insurance if it comes to that. Medical debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy, but the government will go after assets hardcore if you owe them for Medicare. My Aunt Vera, at age 94, had her stuff auctioned out of her storage unit while she lay dying in a nursing home by the feds, and we only found out about it the night before and couldn't stop it.

4. Childcare shouldn't be free, but, it needs to be ramped up if we don't allow more immigration, otherwise that fertility rate below 2.1 per female is going to catch up to us, economically.

5. Green New Deal. I'm not up to speed on this, but, investing in technology research to help us accommodate the reality of anthropogenic climate change seems like something the NSF would excel at doing.

[Eddie]

I may be wrong - but don't a lot of those rural/isolated communities have incentives to attract medical professionals that includes paying off their student loans over time if they'll make a commitment to practice in that community for a set amount of time? Maybe not EVERY community in need has this - but I remember being at a Social Services Appropriations Subcommittee Meeting here in Utah where they talked about several communities that had applied for federal and state money to do this - and they actually had more money available than what was being used at the time, but were renewing and expanding the program still.

[BigPiney]

I may be wrong - but don't a lot of those rural/isolated communities have incentives to attract medical professionals that includes paying off their student loans over time if they'll make a commitment to practice in that community for a set amount of time? Maybe not EVERY community in need has this - but I remember being at a Social Services Appropriations Subcommittee Meeting here in Utah where they talked about several communities that had applied for federal and state money to do this - and they actually had more money available than what was being used at the time, but were renewing and expanding the program still.

Yes, dentist in my ward did a couple of years in American Samoa and now is at the Indian health clinic in my community. He is getting paid and having his loans forgiven at the same time. Like Northern Exposure.

[wuapinmon]

Yes, dentist in my ward did a couple of years in American Samoa and now is at the Indian health clinic in my community. He is getting paid and having his loans forgiven at the same time. Like Northern Exposure.

Will they? Won't they?

[Uncle Ted]

Yeah, what was that last guy's name anyway?

Embedded Tweet

Omair? Omeed? Osama?... Someone throw Biden a bone and help him out!

[Lost Student]

Yeah, what was that last guy's name anyway?

Embedded Tweet

Omair? Omeed? Osama?... Someone throw Biden a bone and help him out!

So funny that this is the guy to beat Trump! Go Joe!

[falafel]

Yeah, what was that last guy's name anyway?

Embedded Tweet

Omair? Omeed? Osama?... Someone throw Biden a bone and help him out!

Uh, I don't think that's what happened.

[UVACoug]

Not a Sanders supporter at all. But, I find it disingenuous when people throw these numbers around as "new spending" when talking about healthcare. We're already spending that now on healthcare.



So. if we figure that the current non-governmental expenditures would come into the federal coffers instead of private industry, and we factor in the buyouts of private insurance companies necessary for Bernie's system, then the $3 trillion seems to be only $1 trillion in increases over the current spending (that number is troubling in and of itself, but it's not $3 trillion in "new" spending). Taking insurance premiums and calling them taxes and expenditures of taxes, is disingenuous.

You also have to account for the fact that under Bernie's plan, current tax revenue from the health sector would be drastically reduced if not completely eliminated. He would wipe out the health insurance industry all together. And the "for profit" model of providing health services would likely go away quickly as well. I don't know how much of an impact that would have on tax revenue (let alone the economy as a whole), but it would have to be made up for somehow ... likely with even higher tax rates than Bernie is suggesting.

[wuapinmon]

I may be wrong - but don't a lot of those rural/isolated communities have incentives to attract medical professionals that includes paying off their student loans over time if they'll make a commitment to practice in that community for a set amount of time? Maybe not EVERY community in need has this - but I remember being at a Social Services Appropriations Subcommittee Meeting here in Utah where they talked about several communities that had applied for federal and state money to do this - and they actually had more money available than what was being used at the time, but were renewing and expanding the program still.

Yes, but there are places in big cities where you can't get a doctor to go, and many who used to, won't accept Medicaid/Medicare anymore because the reimbursement rates aren't high enough. Also, I like family doctors, but they are a dying breed, and free med school for that field would see a return of people being able to see a doctor, and would likely save lives. I like nurse practitioners, but, they ain't physicians, and you realize the difference between a good NP and a bad one only when a physician conscientiously takes a look at their charts, instead of a perfunctory audit. Since that seems incredibly easy to phone in, I'd prefer to see a physician.

You also have to account for the fact that under Bernie's plan, current tax revenue from the health sector would be drastically reduced if not completely eliminated. He would wipe out the health insurance industry all together. And the "for profit" model of providing health services would likely go away quickly as well. I don't know how much of an impact that would have on tax revenue (let alone the economy as a whole), but it would have to be made up for somehow ... likely with even higher tax rates than Bernie is suggesting.

I hadn't thought of lost tax revenue. A half-assed internet search of tax revenue from the health sector is full of people bitching about the new 21% tax rate as unfair. Seriously. Already the slash isn't enough, they want a lower rate.