• 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!

Live Thread for the SC Democratic Presidential Debate

Surrealistik said:
Improbable assumptions according to who? You?
Click to expand...

Common sense?

Widescale closing of emergency departments and reduction of inpatient capacity is not a politically feasible assumption, nor a likely outcome based on what we know about patient patterns for seeking care. By they count $3.452T in savings there. Reducing all reimbursement to Medicare rates is not going to happen (even Bernie has never publicly committed to that level, as far as I know). Yet they count $3.352T in savings there. They invent $2.842T in savings via "improving fraud detection" (while simultaneously cutting back administrative oversight to virtually nothing) out of thin air. They assume that reducing cost-sharing to nothing induces zero demand for anyone spending less than 10% of their income out-of-pocket. Meaning their assumed $3.034 in induced demand is certainly understated. And of course they assume VA drug prices and the percentage of Medicare administrative spending is scalable to every drug sold and every dollar spent, which is unsupported and doesn't pass the sniff test. But hey, another $3.164T and $2.945T to add to the pile!

That's not a "study," it's a string of unsupported and naïve fantasies.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Buttigieg is doing well. Biden not as much. Why is he going after irrelevant Steyer? He is disorganized as usual, not as focused as in Nevada.
Click to expand...

That's because he is running for the senate seat
 
Weak moderators again, repetitive nonsense by the candidates....the ones who so far have pushed their talking points and hogging the time. This is worse than the last debate IMO. Stop the repeat attacks, state your stand on the issues, Jeez, what a waste of time in this format. What will be the takeaway, eating their own again? Less than a half hour in, hope the mods grow a pair and the candidates speak about what they will offer if nominated. Warren shoots off at the mouth again with her selfie lines...give me a break people! So far the only ones, that I could hear who made any sense at all, were Biden and Steyer. Mods should allow all equal time, that's not happening again. Weak moderators = poor debate.
 
A campaign as during the debate he's in is peak Bloomberg.
 
Wow, Mike's ad is very good. No doubt he's got some good publicists.
 
Sheer entertainment. :popcorn2:
 
Greenbeard said:
Common sense?

Widescale closing of emergency departments and reduction of inpatient capacity is not a politically feasible assumption, nor a likely outcome based on what we know about patient patterns for seeking care. By they count $3.452T in savings there. Reducing all reimbursement to Medicare rates is not going to happen (even Bernie has never publicly committed to that level, as far as I know). Yet they count $3.352T in savings there. They invent $2.842T in savings via "improving fraud detection" (while simultaneously cutting back administrative oversight to virtually nothing) out of thin air. They assume that reducing cost-sharing to nothing induces zero demand for anyone spending less than 10% of their income out-of-pocket. Meaning their assumed $3.034 in induced demand is certainly understated. And of course they assume VA drug prices and the percentage of Medicare administrative spending is scalable to every drug and every dollar spent, which is unsupported and doesn't pass the sniff test. But hey, another $3.164T and $2.945T to add to the pile!

That's not a "study," it's a string of unsupported and naïve fantasies.
Click to expand...

So according to you then, and it seems like your real issue has more to do with the extent of estimated savings than the existence of those savings in the first place.

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, than a random internet nobody who has a demonstrable hard on for keeping private health insurance around no matter the cost, and has literally never said anything about singlepayer that wasn't vitriolic or dismissive.
 
“150 million people have died to run violence since 2007” - Joe Biden
 
This cluster **** is the most entertaining debate so far. We are witnessing the self implosion that was bound to happen at some point.
 
Amy is such light weight. Her standard answer is, "the way to do it is to elect me."
 
Oh my God.

Is this really happening?

Wow.
 
Chillfolks said:
This cluster **** is the most entertaining debate so far. We are witnessing the self implosion that was bound to happen at some point.
Click to expand...

It's been pretty bad. Horrible debate, following the excellent one last week. WTF has happened? Is it the fault of the incredibly incompetent moderators?
 
Isn't Klobuchar from Minneasota? Minneasota is pretty left wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom