Joe Biden Debates Donald Trump September 29

[NewbieCanuckFan]

25 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

 

Edit: as far as the field goes, depends on how easily Dems can support a consistently Independent, old white guy

I doubt the ones wearing pillow sheets over their heads would consider Bernie a white guy.  Plus they had no problems voting for a Kenyan.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

That's an oversimplification of his platform. Great input though. But $610,000,000 on the military is totally feasible?

Money is nothing to a "Billionaire" . (the REAL reason urine man doesn't want to release his tax returns doesn't have anything to do with illegal activities or collusion with foreign powers... but it would hurt his ego for everyone to know he's not a member of the Billionaire's club).

 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Money is nothing to a "Billionaire" . (the REAL reason urine man doesn't want to release his tax returns doesn't have anything to do with illegal activities or collusion with foreign powers... but it would hurt his ego for everyone to know he's not a member of the Billionaire's club).

 

 

Urine man...hahahaha!

[RUPERTKBD]

7 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Urine man...hahahaha!

Sounds like a new Marvel character....

 

Urine Man! Watch out, or he'll beat the piss out of you!

[canuckistani]

13 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

That's an oversimplification of his platform. Great input though. But $610,000,000 on the military is totally feasible?

Given that the US military hegemony over the globe is the only time in entire human history that it has not been used for direct genocide, territorial annexation, i am perfectly happy with their defense budget and military dominance. There has never, ever been another regional power, let alone global super-power, that hasn't used its military dominance in causing military violence to its full capacity, save US of A. We should be thankful for that. 

[RUPERTKBD]

Honestly, I have trouble mentioning Trump and a superhero (even one named Urine Man) in the same sentence. I see him more as a children's cartoon character:

 

Hanna - Barbera presents everyone's least favorite cat, Carrot Puss!

[Kragar]

6 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

That's an oversimplification of his platform. Great input though. But $610,000,000 on the military is totally feasible?

Uhh, yeah.  610 billion is far ways below Bernie's medicare plan.

 

Medicare today is over 500 billion, serving about 15% of the population.  Medicare for all... trillions. 

 

Free tuition is, granted, more affordable than Medicare for all.  Of course, forcing the states to pay a third of it helps spread the pain.  Regardless, we currently see tuition going up because the government already hands out student loans like candy on Halloween.  What happens when tuition is free?  The costs will rise, just like they have with the influx of loans.  And, his platform (his website) does not address plans to control these costs.  Why should he, since it helps redistribute wealth to academics that love him already.

[canuckistani]

Just now, Kragar said:

Uhh, yeah.  610 billion is far ways below Bernie's medicare plan.

 

Medicare today is over 500 billion, serving about 15% of the population.  Medicare for all... trillions. 

 

Free tuition is, granted, more affordable than Medicare for all.  Of course, forcing the states to pay a third of it helps spread the pain.  Regardless, we currently see tuition going up because the government already hands out student loans like candy on Halloween.  What happens when tuition is free?  The costs will rise, just like they have with the influx of loans.  And, his platform (his website) does not address plans to control these costs.  Why should he, since it helps redistribute wealth to academics that love him already.

Free tuition - in any country- has to be free for the degrees that are readily employable. A person with degrees in STEM or Business & Medicine fields will easily get employed at 50K/year or more starting salary and quickly progress to 75K-90K mark in 4-5 years time. But giving out free tuition to those in arts is sinking money into useless workplace skills for the most part and effectively, paying for 'hobby skills'. 

 

Medicare can be affordable to the US population - provided they tax the top 1% and corporations like most western nations do. 

[Kragar]

35 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the electoral college. Trump became President because he managed to flip 3 states in the rust belt Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. He flipped these 3 states by a total of less than 100,000 votes total. That's less than .1% of the total votes cast.

 

His path to a second term will require following that same path and defending those states. Joe Biden is from Pennsylvania and is very popular there especially in rural Pennsylvania. Given how bad Trump's current approval rating is in Pennsylvania you can pretty much put that state in the Biden column already. Pennsylvania is worth 20 electoral votes. Taking it from Trump to Biden is a swing of 40 votes.

 

Trump is currently polling horribly in Wisconsin and Michigan. The problems they faced pre 2016 are the same problems they face now. Loss of good paying jobs, the opioid epidemic, unemployment rates far higher than the national average. These states never really benefited from the lift out of the Great Recession. Which made them vulnerable to be flipped. For them they are still stuck in the economic mud. They took a chance on Trump but he has not delivered for them. Making them ripe to be flipped back.

 

Independents in these rust belt states (you can throw in Ohio as well) broke heavily for Trump. They were simply fed up of seeing a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot and wanted change. Independents have abandoned Trump nationwide. They have no party allegiance and are simply disgusted with his behavior.

 

Trump is currently under water 17 points with women. With women being 50% of the electorate that's kind of a big problem. In the 2016 general election Trump surprisingly won the majority of white women. His current numbers with white women are a major problem.

 

Trump has a major problem. The people who took a chance on him haven't got much of anything out of his presidency. They'll vote for whoever they feel will deliver for them.

 

Politicians lie all the time. Numbers don't.

Many fair points (not at all surprised ) 

 

I'd be curious what the women's polling was 4 years ago.  He was well under water then, IIRC, so not sure that item makes as much a difference. 

 

Everything else you say could easily come to be.  What it will come down to is whether the Dem opponent can offer a sound alternative to Trump on those points, and can defend them from Trump's rhetoric.  And, of course, whether the Dem opponent avoids pulling a Hillary and gives them the campaign attention she clearly punted on.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I know that there is a 50% chance that Trump stays in as president, but I'm not totally convinced.

 

Certainly Dumbpf has used indoctrination to work his malleable flock to follow and adore his every expulsion. That, in and of itself, is a very powerful tool. It's worked for various dictators in the past.

 

I just don't think that it's a total given that the same methods will guarantee him a second term.

I hope you are correct Phil. 

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I hope you are correct Phil. 

Me too.....but the fact that Dubya got a second term tells me you throw common sense out the window when it comes to elections...

[Kragar]

8 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Free tuition - in any country- has to be free for the degrees that are readily employable. A person with degrees in STEM or Business & Medicine fields will easily get employed at 50K/year or more starting salary and quickly progress to 75K-90K mark in 4-5 years time. But giving out free tuition to those in arts is sinking money into useless workplace skills for the most part and effectively, paying for 'hobby skills'. 

 

Medicare can be affordable to the US population - provided they tax the top 1% and corporations like most western nations do. 

Fully agree with you on tuition.  People who treat a student loan as an investment, and have a plan to deal with it should be fine.  IIRC, don't countries that offer free tuition also restrict the programs available, so that STEM and such are the only ones being covered?

 

I disagree on taxation making up the difference on Medicare.  Under Bernie, we're talking 1-2 trillion a year more than what is currently spent, and that doesn't take into account the impact of added demand for care this will bring.  That's at least a 50% required increase in tax revenue, when the top 1% already contributes over a third of the current tax revenue.  And, this assumes that there will be no negative economic impact resulting from the tax increases.  if incomes go down, so will tax revenue.

 

Also, I suspect that Canadian and British wait times will not be well tolerated here.  While there is plenty of work needed on our system, single-payer is not the solution.  The Swiss have a better system that is much more free-market that should be emulated, with costs focused on the individual rather than employer or government (poverty support aside), and costs controlled by market forces rather than flawed, often short-sighted government policies.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Me too.....but the fact that Dubya got a second term tells me you throw common sense out the window when it comes to elections...

Something happened during W's time in office...…

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Fully agree with you on tuition.  People who treat a student loan as an investment, and have a plan to deal with it should be fine.  IIRC, don't countries that offer free tuition also restrict the programs available, so that STEM and such are the only ones being covered?

I am not sure if they are restricted by program in places like Germany or Finland. 

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I disagree on taxation making up the difference on Medicare.  Under Bernie, we're talking 1-2 trillion a year more than what is currently spent, and that doesn't take into account the impact of added demand for care this will bring.  That's at least a 50% required increase in tax revenue, when the top 1% already contributes over a third of the current tax revenue.  And, this assumes that there will be no negative economic impact resulting from the tax increases.  if incomes go down, so will tax revenue.

Eh ?!? First off, those numbers are baloney and exist if and only if you have insurance companies paying the medical expenses and charging a premium on insurance. This is where the 'public medicare' debate in the US is so way, way off the mark: if you have socialized healthcare, there are no insurance companies. There is no 'OMG its gonna cost trillions to insure smokers and old people over 80' syndrome. 

 

Furthermore, it does not matter if the US top 1% pays 33% of the tax of the country. What matters, is that US tax rate for the top 1% is one of the lowest in the world for a developed nation and their corporate tax rate is also amongst the lowest. There is a lot of wiggle room in that department for the Americans. 

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

Also, I suspect that Canadian and British wait times will not be well tolerated here.  While there is plenty of work needed on our system, single-payer is not the solution.  The Swiss have a better system that is much more free-market that should be emulated, with costs focused on the individual rather than employer or government (poverty support aside), and costs controlled by market forces rather than flawed, often short-sighted government policies.

Wait times ?
There are no wait times for any medical emergencies or illnesses. There are only two sectors of medicine in socialized healthcare, where 'wait times' are a factor: for plastic surgery (which, if not a result of a disfiguring accident like car crash/house fire etc, comes out of your own pocket- as it should) and orthopedics. The ONLY concievable physical or mental illness you can have, where you wait longer in Canada than in US, is if you need a hip replacement or knee replacement or such like. 

 

The Swiss system is not applicable to a large economy like the US - its a folly to compare large, far more complex economies like US, China or India to little goldilocks and special scenario tiny ones like Switzerland, Singapore or Norway. The Swiss for eg, have untold banking wealth and are one of the foremost export oriented nations for high end-user goods. They are also ultra-tiny. 

 

Healthcare is definitively one aspect where socialized healthcare *is* better than privatized healthcare - i've seen it to be the case by directly accessing both. 

[Kragar]

10 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

I am not sure if they are restricted by program in places like Germany or Finland. 

Eh ?!? First off, those numbers are baloney and exist if and only if you have insurance companies paying the medical expenses and charging a premium on insurance. This is where the 'public medicare' debate in the US is so way, way off the mark: if you have socialized healthcare, there are no insurance companies. There is no 'OMG its gonna cost trillions to insure smokers and old people over 80' syndrome. 

 

Furthermore, it does not matter if the US top 1% pays 33% of the tax of the country. What matters, is that US tax rate for the top 1% is one of the lowest in the world for a developed nation and their corporate tax rate is also amongst the lowest. There is a lot of wiggle room in that department for the Americans. 

Wait times ?
There are no wait times for any medical emergencies or illnesses. There are only two sectors of medicine in socialized healthcare, where 'wait times' are a factor: for plastic surgery (which, if not a result of a disfiguring accident like car crash/house fire etc, comes out of your own pocket- as it should) and orthopedics. The ONLY concievable physical or mental illness you can have, where you wait longer in Canada than in US, is if you need a hip replacement or knee replacement or such like. 

 

The Swiss system is not applicable to a large economy like the US - its a folly to compare large, far more complex economies like US, China or India to little goldilocks and special scenario tiny ones like Switzerland, Singapore or Norway. The Swiss for eg, have untold banking wealth and are one of the foremost export oriented nations for high end-user goods. They are also ultra-tiny. 

 

Healthcare is definitively one aspect where socialized healthcare *is* better than privatized healthcare - i've seen it to be the case by directly accessing both. 

Why are the numbers off?  I am only extrapolating a portion of the current Medicare expenditures, not the otherwise inflated rates of private insurance.  If Medicare already spends over a half billion on less than a 6th of the population on Medicare, is it any stretch to think it will take another 2 trillion + if we cover everyone here?  Remember... if it is "free", it will get used more.  Also, how much of the income of those 1% will go into hiding if you double their tax rate?

 

My own parents (in Canada) have both dealt with waits involving cancer and cardiovascular treatments.  Emergency treatment was good and addressed in a well timely manner, but other treatments they needed were not.  Not months, like for orthopedics, but still weeks.  And, regarding those instances involving orthopedics, what happens when the delays interfere with your ability to work, as it has for friends and other family members of mine?  Small business owners can hardly afford to wait months for treatment, which is why those that can afford it choose to come here and pay for it themselves.  When that option is taken away, then their support for Canada's system will decline further.

 

I understand Switzerland is a much smaller country.  However, making healthcare a personal responsibility rather than depending on one's employer like we do here, and allowing insurance companies to compete freely, as they do in Switzerland, will do wonders for controlling costs.  I'm not against government helping those who cannot get insurance, but single payer is not feasible long term.  As it stands now in the US, hardly anyone who has any influence is interested in controlling costs.  When single-payer is the situation, the only way to control costs is to ration care.  

 

Perhaps it's best if we continue through messages, rather than divert the thread more?  Works for me if you like.

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

Why are the numbers off?  I am only extrapolating a portion of the current Medicare expenditures, not the otherwise inflated rates of private insurance.  If Medicare already spends over a half billion on less than a 6th of the population on Medicare, is it any stretch to think it will take another 2 trillion + if we cover everyone here?  Remember... if it is "free", it will get used more.  Also, how much of the income of those 1% will go into hiding if you double their tax rate?

Because the medicare cost often includes what the insurance companies charge the government/private companies to provide low income/group insurance. Medicare itself works through insurance - it just pays your insurance on your behalf. This is an extra cost layer that is absent in actual socialized medicare systems. 

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

 

My own parents (in Canada) have both dealt with waits involving cancer and cardiovascular treatments.  Emergency treatment was good and addressed in a well timely manner, but other treatments they needed were not.  Not months, like for orthopedics, but still weeks.  And, regarding those instances involving orthopedics, what happens when the delays interfere with your ability to work, as it has for friends and other family members of mine?  Small business owners can hardly afford to wait months for treatment, which is why those that can afford it choose to come here and pay for it themselves.  When that option is taken away, then their support for Canada's system will decline further.

Unless they literally live in the middle of nowhere, there is no wait time involved with cancer/cardiovascular treatments that are any different from anywhere else in the world. Whether you get to see your doctor today or next week has nothing to do with the system on offer, it has everything to do with the supply of doctors and how full their schedules are. And for immediate consultations, they always make room for the necessary. In a socialized system, the medicare follows rules of triage, not rules of the dollar. 

 

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

 

I understand Switzerland is a much smaller country.  However, making healthcare a personal responsibility rather than depending on one's employer like we do here, and allowing insurance companies to compete freely, as they do in Switzerland, will do wonders for controlling costs.  I'm not against government helping those who cannot get insurance, but single payer is not feasible long term.  As it stands now in the US, hardly anyone who has any influence is interested in controlling costs.  When single-payer is the situation, the only way to control costs is to ration care.  

 

Perhaps it's best if we continue through messages, rather than divert the thread more?  Works for me if you like.

Sure. I'd say that the biggest cost-control a socialized system provides, is that it does not gear itself towards profit that is always the bottomline of the insurance companies. Single payer is working just fine in countries that are far more comparable to the US in terms of population - Germany, France, UK, etc are all 1/3rd-1/4th of US population and they are making it work just fine. 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

Why are the numbers off?  I am only extrapolating a portion of the current Medicare expenditures, not the otherwise inflated rates of private insurance.  If Medicare already spends over a half billion on less than a 6th of the population on Medicare, is it any stretch to think it will take another 2 trillion + if we cover everyone here?  Remember... if it is "free", it will get used more.  Also, how much of the income of those 1% will go into hiding if you double their tax rate?

 

My own parents (in Canada) have both dealt with waits involving cancer and cardiovascular treatments.  Emergency treatment was good and addressed in a well timely manner, but other treatments they needed were not.  Not months, like for orthopedics, but still weeks.  And, regarding those instances involving orthopedics, what happens when the delays interfere with your ability to work, as it has for friends and other family members of mine?  Small business owners can hardly afford to wait months for treatment, which is why those that can afford it choose to come here and pay for it themselves.  When that option is taken away, then their support for Canada's system will decline further.

 

I understand Switzerland is a much smaller country.  However, making healthcare a personal responsibility rather than depending on one's employer like we do here, and allowing insurance companies to compete freely, as they do in Switzerland, will do wonders for controlling costs.  I'm not against government helping those who cannot get insurance, but single payer is not feasible long term.  As it stands now in the US, hardly anyone who has any influence is interested in controlling costs.  When single-payer is the situation, the only way to control costs is to ration care.  

 

Perhaps it's best if we continue through messages, rather than divert the thread more?  Works for me if you like.

FWIW, I did a little digging and the number that comes up most often, is somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion, (actually 27 or 28 trillion over the next decade) so no, I'd say your estimate is fairly close.

 

Which is why, Medicare For All won't work, at least not as currently structured. For it to be feasible, the profit element would have to be eliminated, but I can't see that happening in socialism hating America.

 

I think more likely is something more along the lines of Medicare for all who can demonstrate an inability to afford medical coverage on their own. I can't say how that will work, or what the cost would be, but I agree that publicly funded coverage for all Americans is a non starter under the current system.

[Ronaldoescobar]

I saw trump bench press 800lbs while driving a tank... No dem can compete with that!!

[Hansman]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

That's an oversimplification of his platform. Great input though. But $610,000,000 on the military is totally feasible?

Listen I get your argument I truly do, however when you are one of the largest super powers do you not think they may require a strong military? especially considering they do protect a lot of weaker budgeted nations with that same military. 

[CBH1926]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

I am not sure if they are restricted by program in places like Germany or Finland. 

Eh ?!? First off, those numbers are baloney and exist if and only if you have insurance companies paying the medical expenses and charging a premium on insurance. This is where the 'public medicare' debate in the US is so way, way off the mark: if you have socialized healthcare, there are no insurance companies. There is no 'OMG its gonna cost trillions to insure smokers and old people over 80' syndrome. 

 

Furthermore, it does not matter if the US top 1% pays 33% of the tax of the country. What matters, is that US tax rate for the top 1% is one of the lowest in the world for a developed nation and their corporate tax rate is also amongst the lowest. There is a lot of wiggle room in that department for the Americans. 

Wait times ?
There are no wait times for any medical emergencies or illnesses

 

. There are only two sectors of medicine in socialized healthcare, where 'wait times' are a factor: for plastic surgery (which, if not a result of a disfiguring accident like car crash/house fire etc, comes out of your own pocket- as it should) and orthopedics. The ONLY concievable physical or mental illness you can have, where you wait longer in Canada than in US, is if you need a hip replacement or knee replacement or such like. 

 

The Swiss system is not applicable to a large economy like the US - its a folly to compare large, far more complex economies like US, China or India to little goldilocks and special scenario tiny ones like Switzerland, Singapore or Norway. The Swiss for eg, have untold banking wealth and are one of the foremost export oriented nations for high end-user goods. They are also ultra-tiny. 

 

Healthcare is definitively one aspect where socialized healthcare *is* better than privatized healthcare - i've seen it to be the case by directly accessing both. 

To begin oncology treatment is 3.8 weeks and orthopedic surgery wait is 39 weeks. I don't know about you but if i needed knee surgery i would not want to wait that long. Also to get an MRI is about 20 week wait nationwide.

 

The Fraser Institute report said Tuesday the median wait time for “medically necessary treatments” in B.C. was 23.2 weeks, compared to 19.8 weeks for the rest of the country.

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2018

 

https://swt.hlth.gov.bc.ca/

 

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/b-c-has-the-longest-healthcare-wait-times-in-canada-report/

Edited April 25, 2019 by CBH1926