• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Definitive Pre-Debate Rankings of the Democratic Presidential Candidates

The left should have left everyone the hell alone and concentrated on the 10%-20% uninsured. Instead they ****ed it up for everyone and arrogantly thought they would be in power forever and would be able to fix any glitches. And, here we go again, with the MFA'rs wanting to **** it up for everyone.

There's no way to concentrate on the 10-20% insured with little fixes. That's what frustrates me with you guys on the right.

How do you do that? If the answer was easy, it would have been done without the ACA or something similar, or the radical solution of MFA. Fact is it's very, very difficult and requires systemic changes.

And the bigger problem with you guys on the right is the ACA is the way to fix healthcare AND leave the vast majority of the existing system in place, which it did. The people impacted were the small minority who got their insurance on the private market, and the poor who were most often previously insured, with Medicaid expansion and the ACA subsidies on the exchanges. That's largely why the GOP is so worthless. They can't improve the system without something that looks an awful lot like the ACA, which they've said for a decade is terrible, awful, etc. So they have nowhere to turn that's not MORE disruptive than the ACA, or that undoes the good ACA did.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but that doesn't change the HUGE problem that going from private contributions funding most under-65 healthcare to public won't require massive tax increases. It's just a fact. And you can promise people that they'll save money in the end, and for lots that will be true, and for many people it will be false and their taxes will go up far more than the new benefits. That's in part part of the appeal - you'll being in 20 million uninsured and lots of people will pay for that. That means tax increases to fund new benefits, which means all those people will see net tax increases far in excesss of benefits. You can say to yourself it will only affect the rich, but it's too big a number to not reach well down into the upper middle class, at least, and if payroll taxes on a bunch of people.

I actually agree it will result in substantial tax increases. Moreover, I don't think these increases are going to exclusively target the rich, nor does any MFA advocate in the know, including Bernie. That's fine and expected.

What I'm saying is that I don't think they're going to be nearly as big as you purport, since you seem to be assuming a 1 : 1 transfer of cost from the private to the public sector which just won't happen per savings predicated on improved economies of scale, negotiating power, administrative reduction and elimination of most payer middlemen and their profit margins.
 
I've been through a lot of primaries, this early in the game it's short sited, IMHO, to favor anyone. There are 20 candidates, the prudent thing to do is listen to what they have to say. There will be one left standing next summer, most of the ones that don't make it will eliminate themselves by their own words. If we don't give them a fair listening how will we be sure we've picked the right one?

My favorite candidate will be the one that has the best plan on how to reunite the people of this country as AmeriCANs and whom I believe can restore dignity to the Office of President of the United States of America and take their rightful place as LEADER of the Free World.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but that doesn't change the HUGE problem that going from private contributions funding most under-65 healthcare to public won't require massive tax increases. It's just a fact. And you can promise people that they'll save money in the end, and for lots that will be true, and for many people it will be false and their taxes will go up far more than the new benefits. That's in part part of the appeal - you'll being in 20 million uninsured and lots of people will pay for that. That means tax increases to fund new benefits, which means all those people will see net tax increases far in excesss of benefits. You can say to yourself it will only affect the rich, but it's too big a number to not reach well down into the upper middle class, at least, and if payroll taxes on a bunch of people.

You know maybe there will be some kind of tax increase who knows? But if all programs are rolled into 1 the 2...something trillion dollars can be in one pot, the negotiating power can be in one pot and the change can start from there.
I say merge all current federally funded medical programs into one payer then go from there.
Right know we pay almost 3 trillion dollars for all the federally funded medical programs not including research.
As far as states rights...give them the option fully fund your people including seniors, children, veterans , legislators or get in the pool.
I think NY and Massachusetts cigarette tax (that partially funds their healthcare) removes about 1 trillion off the overall bill.
There are lots of creative ways for healthcare to be more affordable without raising everyone's taxes beyond 2010's rates.
Oh yeah let's not forget employers...any employer that signs on and doesn't raise wages to meet or exceed current averages of healthcare premiums they are paying, pay a non negotiable insurance tax.
 
You know maybe there will be some kind of tax increase who knows? But if all programs are rolled into 1 the 2...something trillion dollars can be in one pot, the negotiating power can be in one pot and the change can start from there.
I say merge all current federally funded medical programs into one payer then go from there.
Right know we pay almost 3 trillion dollars for all the federally funded medical programs not including research.
As far as states rights...give them the option fully fund your people including seniors, children, veterans , legislators or get in the pool.
I think NY and Massachusetts cigarette tax (that partially funds their healthcare) removes about 1 trillion off the overall bill.
There are lots of creative ways for healthcare to be more affordable without raising everyone's taxes beyond 2010's rates.
Oh yeah let's not forget employers...any employer that signs on and doesn't raise wages to meet or exceed current averages of healthcare premiums they are paying, pay a non negotiable insurance tax.

It's not that I'm against any of that, but a lot of it will be very difficult to legislate, and the numbers are just way too big to do single payer without massive tax increases. But in general, what you're pointing out is the drafting of single payer will be a massive challenge, and the devil will be in the details, which are basically napkin length sketches at this point.
 
I've read the studies and recognized all that in my response. Where you're going wrong is that there is or even can be this nice, neat exchange of private insurance premiums, a big part of pay for most people with good jobs, and then their taxes go up but their pay increases because employer passed along to them the savings it got from no longer having to fund health insurance. That will be imperfect, with 10s of millions of LOSERS. If you don't think the GOP will spend massive sums pointing that out, you're delusional, and the problem is for many people those ads will be CORRECT because there have to be 10s of millions of losers versus the status quo to make single payer work.

It's a mistake and a serious one to dismiss those real concerns by pretending those of us who point it out are just peddling "establishment bull****." I'm not peddling anyone's talking points, but pointing out FACTS about how this massive transition will work, and that it will be incredibly disruptive, and there WILL BE lots of big losers if it happens.

If single payer saves, let's say $300 billion per year, guess what? That's $300 billion in lost wages, lost jobs, lost profits, closed clinics, closed hospitals. Stock prices will go down, and more. That's a lot of losers that will fight like hell against a change that causes them to get fired and lose their jobs. You don't have to trust me to know that's inevitable, just think about it for 5 minutes. And if all you have in response is "establishment bull****!!" then single payer is toast. They will be real jobs lost, lots of them. Lying to people just makes the cause worse, and if you don't have something better than that, you will be lying, or ignorantly repeating talking points. One or the other.

Maybe you should spend some time looking at how other countries do this and stop fearmongering and peddling bull****, for real. That's literally all you're doing.
 
As good a ranking as any. I think the two tired old white guys will fade as we go on and fresher, more interesting voices will take their place. Spending the next year re-litigating votes from 30 years ago by two past-their-prime politicians is a singularly boring prospect.

I would agree with this if Bernie wasn't literally the only one who is right on most, if not all the issues. Everyone else is half-assing it, if they're even trying at all - which people like Biden and Orourke aren't.
 
I've been through a lot of primaries, this early in the game it's short sited, IMHO, to favor anyone. There are 20 candidates, the prudent thing to do is listen to what they have to say. There will be one left standing next summer, most of the ones that don't make it will eliminate themselves by their own words. If we don't give them a fair listening how will we be sure we've picked the right one?

My favorite candidate will be the one that has the best plan on how to reunite the people of this country as AmeriCANs and whom I believe can restore dignity to the Office of President of the United States of America and take their rightful place as LEADER of the Free World.

I can't agree with this take at all, and it's just useless platitudes. Virtually anyone other than Trump will clear up a lot of the **** we have going on, because they're not massive twats with other massive twats in their administration. But, the people who liked Trump aren't just going to go along with that because the next person isn't a piece of **** lol.

The only thing that's going to move us forward is the right policies based on facts and the improvement of the standards of living for the American people. Even most Republican voters came around, at least partially, on the ACA once they received the benefits from it - you think that wouldn't happen on a larger scale with something like M4A or free college or better wages for working people? You have to show the people that you're working for them.
 
Maybe you should spend some time looking at how other countries do this and stop fearmongering and peddling bull****, for real. That's literally all you're doing.

If you want to know why I lose patience with the Bernie contingent, that kind of comment right there is a perfect example. I'm on your side on this, and I have looked around the world, and if YOU have you know that single payer is the exception and not the rule about how countries get to universal coverage.

And I don't consider pointing out inconvenient FACTS about the huge hurdles facing a single payer system bull****. More to the point, if all you have in response to people ON YOUR SIDE pointing out those problems is to insult them, then the proposal has no chance, and we might as well wish for ponies and lollipops for every child, because that's as likely as single payer.

For starters, you're asking me to look around at other countries and how they do it, but what you should be willing and ready to do is point to what YOU have found and how it makes your case, not insulting me. If you think the tax increases aren't a problem, tell us how we can somehow convince skeptical voters that their wages WILL go up when the burden is lifted from employers, and that most people will be better off post change, not worse off. And you should be able to explain that for those who will be worse off - because there will be millions of them - why it's still the better option.

In short, point to data, evidence, don't make emotional arguments insulting those who challenge what I think are simplistic and not well thought ought assumptions about how this massive change will work.
 
In short, point to data, evidence, don't make emotional arguments insulting those who challenge what I think are simplistic and not well thought ought assumptions about how this massive change will work.

Nah, you don't get to flip this. You're literally ignoring all the data, multiple studies that have been done, basic ****ing math, and the fact that they have one form or another of this type of system in EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON THE PLANET.

We don't even have a set-in-stone system laid out for exactly how our system will work, so there's literally no way you know ANYTHING about there being "massive tax increases" that aren't already off-set by other savings or cost reductions and you're just concern trolling / fearmongering.

Also, I'd bet money that if you polled every poor, working class, or middle class American and asked them if they'd pay a bit extra in taxes to completely never have to worry about stupid insurance company bull**** or medical bills or whatever that they'd probably be okay with it - so even if you were right, which there's no reason to assume you are, then it still would likely not matter.

The only problem with M4A is people like you lying about it and muddying the waters.
 
#6: Cory Booker and everyone else. While I invite the remaining 16 candidates to continue running and seek to influence the platform, I think pretty much all of them have no chance. Sorry, winning really matters to my analysis.

#4: Bernie Sanders. I was a Bernie Congressional delegate in the last Primary, but that was chiefly because of my concerns regarding Hillary Clinton. I was also less critical of Democratic Socialism, but I think a Bernie Primary victory could frame the General Election as a Socialism versus Capitalism Primary, and my knowledge of the American National Character causes me to be skeptical of a victory on this front.

#4: Joe Biden. Veep Biden has all kinds of problems for me as a candidate, but he is well known, associated with Obama (whom a lot of people love), and most importantly polling well (though increasingly not so well). I would begrudgingly support Joe if he were nominated, but I doubt I will end up supporting him in the primary.

#3: Kamala Harris. I think the Senator is one of the three remaining candidates able to scoop up Biden's vote. She seems to me like she would be a good president, though I would like to see her performance on the debate stage and see where precisely she lands in certain policy areas.

#2 Mayor Pete and Elizabeth Warren. At the top I have the two people who I think could most likely topple Biden for the kind of broader canopy candidate for the Democratic Party. I honestly think Pete's homosexuality may make him unable to run at the top of a ticket in a must win election, though I think perhaps if he were to be a Vice President for Warren I think this could be formidable. Obviously, the "Pocahontas" fiasco will haunt, but it wasn't fatal and she is growing on the basis of substance. I think such a ticket could also satisfy both wings of the Party to a large extent, but I think this depends on Biden falling on his face.

#1 Any human being who is nominated for the Democratic Party. Whether its Sanders, or Biden, or Gabbard, or Yang, or Warren, or Buttigieg, or Oprah, or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. They have my vote. Any direction is better than the one we are going under Trump's "leadership." My viewpoint will likely evolve to support that candidate which I think will be most successful in the General Election. Ideological purity can take secondary importance this around, victory MUST be achieved, so my viewpoint will eventually gravitate to whom I view has the best shot against Trump. I don't think that can be established yet, even with Biden polling the best at present.

Great analysis. I agree with you about Joe. I like Joe, but as I've said many times here, Joe is yesterday's news.

I like Tulsi Gabbard - not just because she's beautiful, but because she's a veteran, she stood up against the DCCC when they shouldered out Bernie in 2016. She's tough, attractive and smart.

I hope it's her.

Pete would be my second choice, but as you said, red-state America would have a lot of trouble with a gay person.

Also, like you, I'll support whomever the Dems nominate, as I did ****ing Hillary in 2016. What other choice do we have?
 
I can't agree with this take at all, and it's just useless platitudes. Virtually anyone other than Trump will clear up a lot of the **** we have going on, because they're not massive twats with other massive twats in their administration. But, the people who liked Trump aren't just going to go along with that because the next person isn't a piece of **** lol.

The only thing that's going to move us forward is the right policies based on facts and the improvement of the standards of living for the American people. Even most Republican voters came around, at least partially, on the ACA once they received the benefits from it - you think that wouldn't happen on a larger scale with something like M4A or free college or better wages for working people? You have to show the people that you're working for them.



Let’s have free everything. How about it?
 
Let’s have free everything. How about it?

Let's go read up about how this works in every other developed country on the planet. You're completely ignorant on every topic I've seen you speak on, and this is certainly no exception.
 
I'm leaning towards Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttegieg. Considering that many people wouldn't vote for a gay man that's married to a man, it leaves me with Elizabeth Warren.

The debates unfortunately, will be focused on those high-polling candidates and they will get the majority of time at the microphone. Candidate Senator Michael Bennet joking said that he has already warned his family not to blink watching the debate or they'll miss him.

There's something I like about Elizabeth Warren, she's extremely smart and she's extremely focused. She will not only say what her policies are, she will explain in detail how they will work, step-by-step. When a topic comes up, no matter what it is, whether it's health care, gender equality, equal rights, etc., she will say, "I have a plan for that" -- and she does, and she'll go into detail exactly what that plan is and how it will be implemented.

I've had enough opponent bashing, finger pointing blame to someone else and denying facts. I want to watch candidates that don't merely spew cliches' and rhetoric, I want a plan and I want facts. Tell me what you're going to do and tell me how you're going to do it and how we're going to pay for it. That's ALL
 
I'd vote for Bill Weld over Biden, probably. He's not going to get the nomination, though. The GOP has already sworn on Trump.

Weld was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher recently. There's no way that guy will motivate people to come out and vote. They guy can barely walk. I think his health is questionable.
 
Weld was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher recently. There's no way that guy will motivate people to come out and vote. They guy can barely walk. I think his health is questionable.

Oh, for sure. Maybe you missed the the 2nd and 3rd sentences in that post.
 
Let's go read up about how this works in every other developed country on the planet. You're completely ignorant on every topic I've seen you speak on, and this is certainly no exception.

Why can’t we have free everything? Come on 50% of us pay federal taxes, we can afford it. Right?
 
It doesn't matter which party I belong to, in reality; I always vote split tickets based on issues and individual candidates. Also, I am an obvious social liberal, but a fiscal conservative in too many ways to be comfortable with too many core Democratic principles, just as I'm not comfortable with too many core GOP principles (especially nowadays). There is no Independent party with any focus or power, so here I am. :)

I wish I had written this.
 
Yeah, you missed me literally saying that Weld won't be the nominee - so replying just to tell me that was silly.

Awww... does someone need a hug?
 
Last edited:
Nah, you don't get to flip this. You're literally ignoring all the data, multiple studies that have been done, basic ****ing math, and the fact that they have one form or another of this type of system in EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON THE PLANET.

We don't even have a set-in-stone system laid out for exactly how our system will work, so there's literally no way you know ANYTHING about there being "massive tax increases" that aren't already off-set by other savings or cost reductions and you're just concern trolling / fearmongering.

Also, I'd bet money that if you polled every poor, working class, or middle class American and asked them if they'd pay a bit extra in taxes to completely never have to worry about stupid insurance company bull**** or medical bills or whatever that they'd probably be okay with it - so even if you were right, which there's no reason to assume you are, then it still would likely not matter.

The only problem with M4A is people like you lying about it and muddying the waters.

Suit yourself. But what might be more effective than insults and calling me a liar is actually taking on one or more points. We can start with taxes. If you don't believe there will be massive tax increases, then point me to something, anything, telling me how it will be funded without them.
 
You know maybe there will be some kind of tax increase who knows? But if all programs are rolled into 1 the 2...something trillion dollars can be in one pot, the negotiating power can be in one pot and the change can start from there.

The problem is that at some point someone needs to move beyond the "negotiating power" euphemism and lay out the differences in the cost structure of the American health system and those of cheaper OECD systems: higher wages and abundant employment; greater capacity and access for things like hospitals, medical equipment, specialty and sub-specialty care, expensive technologies; faster access to and greater use of new medications and more expensive interventions.

It could be that people will clamor for government intervention to reverse this. Some groundswell of "There's too many unoccupied beds in my local hospital, let's close it down and re-direct!" or "The compensation of these unionized nurses is excessive, let's pool our negotiating power to take them down a peg!" or whatever. But as far as I can tell nobody is putting the question to them.

Right now folks seem happy to imply we're going to keep our high cost structure while also declining to pay for it. They'll tell you the health sector will continue to be our primary jobs engine without acknowledging that's the problem they're trying to fix! Someone at some point will need to step up and say "I think we should dismantle some of what we've gotten used to and instead move to a lower-cost system, and here's what that entails..."
 
Back
Top Bottom