Yang vs. Sanders

[CreamCat]

Here's my current stance.

Bernie Sanders will probably make a great president. I'm just more curious about what Andrew Yang will do. I am not very curious about Bernie Sanders because he is not as experimental as Andrew Yang.

I like voting for experimental candidates who might even not stand a chance.

[Anderz]

The article I quoted earlier about UBI being insufficient - such as for truck drivers losing their jobs - admitted that a UBI will solve poverty. That's a huge deal! When people are in poverty that's detrimental for mental, emotional and even for physical health. Removing poverty improves the health and the well-being of the whole nation. And psychologically it makes people feel safer and more secure, even people who have jobs because if they become unemployed the UBI is a decent additional social safety net. This improves the overall health in society.  And also, yes it's true that a UBI will be insufficient in many cases, but it may be enough for downsized low cost living even when people lose their jobs, especially with accelerating technological progress improving price/performance for products and services over time. Heck, they have even started using 3D printers for building houses!

[remember]

i`m not familiar with the main differences between andrew yang and bernie sanders but it`s very interesting to watch the egos at game in that play of trying to devide. there was a thread recently about betting on trump winning and unfortunately i must admit, seeing these political games and group splintering, i guess you guys feel too safe about trump loosing - but with that attitude, he might not. it is much more important to stand together than to devide. but hey, it`s ok it`s about which candidate is more fun. can someone please clean up the rest of brain lying around here everywhere?

[Tanz]

On 10/20/2019 at 4:28 PM, Leo Gura said:

YangGangers... like a pack of hungry wolves who found a bone.

sigh....

 

LOL, yang gave a good answer on legalizing drugs.  Hopefully legalizing psychedelics? 

[Revolutionary Think]

Has Sanders ever reformed a racist into not being a racist? 

 

[tenta]

On 10/31/2019 at 5:22 PM, Revolutionary Think said:

Has Sanders ever reformed a racist into not being a racist? 

 

 

And what exactly will Yang do about mass surveillance, cyber security, global warming, AI and automatization?

Also he is not for medicare for all, he says he is on the front page of his website but he isn't when you read what he says about it

[Revolutionary Think]

15 hours ago, tenta said:

Also he is not for medicare for all, he says he is on the front page of his website but he isn't when you read what he says about it

He isn't? 

 

[Leo Gura]

On 10/24/2019 at 10:20 AM, Tanz said:

yang gave a good answer on legalizing drugs.

That he did. That he did.

Unfortunately, of course, it won't fly. Too radical even for most Dems. At least for now. It will take some decades for the Overton window to shift on drug legalization. Legalizing weed nationwide is the first most important step. We're getting close. Should happen within the next decade.

[tenta]

3 hours ago, Revolutionary Think said:

He isn't? 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

@tenta To be fair to Yang, he's been stating for a while now that he agrees with "the spirit" of Medicare For All but not Bernie's exact implementation.

Reasonable people can disagree about how best to implement universal healthcare. Bernie's plan doesn't have to be the only way. Although I think it's a good idea to kill private insurance because they drive up costs too much while adding zero value.

A universal healthcare plan which does not have a mechanism for cutting out gluttonous corporate profits is not really a plan at all. The key problem is affordability and profiteering. It is not possible to cover 330 million people while maintaining existing corporate profit margins. The profit margins are what needs to be attacked via a populist movement.

[CreamCat]

On 11/7/2019 at 8:21 PM, Leo Gura said:

A universal healthcare plan which does not have a mechanism for cutting out gluttonous corporate profits is not really a plan at all.

A good universal healthcare plan teaches private insurances a lesson by competing with them harshly.

A good universal healthcare plan squeezes inefficient private insurances out of the market through competition.

If the government provides a good healthcare plan for all, private insurances will have to adapt.

When US government funded various scientific researches aggressively after world war 2, private companies had to compete with the government in the job market. Private companies had to treat researchers well lest they transfer to government jobs.

The government can maneuver private companies through competition.

Edited November 9, 2019 by CreamCat

[Leo Gura]

@CreamCat Private companies will offload the sickest people onto government plans, driving up public plan costs.

Which is why private plans are not allowed in many countries which have a public system.

[CreamCat]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@CreamCat Private companies will offload the sickest people onto government plans, driving up public plan costs.

Which is why private plans are not allowed in many countries which have a public system.

What's wrong with taking care of sickest people? As far as I know, my country has single-payer medicare along with private plans. It's nowhere as broken as american medicare. At least, I haven't heard my people complain about medicare as a major pain point.

My country is not even nearly as rich as USA.

In my country, priavte plans are add-ons to single-payer medicare, and most people pay for a mixture of the public medicare and private plans. Both public and private plans are reasonably cheap.

I think it already works. USA can do it, too.

In any case, the existence of single-payer medicare will drive down the costs significantly.

Also, what will happen when private plans are not allowed? They will offload all of their patients to the public plan. So, they are going to offload either most or all patients. Whether or not private plans are allowed, sickest people will be taken care of by the public plan.

Edited November 9, 2019 by CreamCat

[Leo Gura]

A) American healthcare has massive profit margins. You cannot compare it to other countries. Cutting those profit margins is very hard because they don't want to give it up. It's like taking away crack from an addict.

B) If all the sick people are offloaded onto public plans, public plans will pay all the cost while private plans will offer cheap insurance for healthy people who don't need it. For the public plan to be affordable it needs to contain many healthy people to offset the sick ones. This is how insurance works.

Having a single giant pool is ideal. Then everyone is invested in it and no one can manipulate it or want to cut it.

People on private plans will want to cut public plans because it doesn't benefit them.

[Nak Khid]

On 10/20/2019 at 4:28 AM, Leo Gura said:

YangGangers... like a pack of hungry wolves who found a bone.

sigh....

 

Who do you think is second best after Sanders and capable of beating Trump? 

[CreamCat]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

People on private plans will want to cut public plans because it doesn't benefit them.

In my country, tax payers are obliged to pay for the public plan. So, healthy tax payers are going to pay for the public plan anyway. If they could just quit paying for it, it is not a single-payer medicare. If you earn salaries, your employer has to pay for your public plan even before giving you your salary. Lots of healthy people pay for it.

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If all the sick people are offloaded onto public plans, public plans will pay all the cost while private plans will offer cheap insurance for healthy people who don't need it.

The end result is that most or many healthy people pay for the cheap private plans that cover little on top of the cheap public plan.

I don't see much room for manipulation. In my perspective, private plans are minor details that are worth experimenting with in the presence of single-payer medicare.

Perhaps, my country's single-payer medicare hasn't been stressed as US medicare has been because USA has a lot more fat people. USA also sends a lot of soldiers to foreign war zones.

My country's public medicare is not perfect. Here, surgeons make basic mistakes because they work too many hours to keep the prices low. My cousin became a vegetable after a surgeon performed a wrong surgery on him. He died a while ago.

Edited November 10, 2019 by CreamCat

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

Who do you think is second best after Sanders and capable of beating Trump? 

I like Warren or Yang as 2nd choice.

[CreamCat]

Here's my model of medicare.

• Every tax payer is obligated to pay for the public medicare through tax.
• Private plans have the following purposes
  • People add finishing touches to the public plan through private plans
  • Private plans can explore experimental changes that the public plan can later assimilate.

Without private plans, it's more difficult to learn and adapt to changes.

[Revolutionary Think]

Here's another reason why Yang has the right vision and Sanders is stuck in the past 

    

[tenta]

Just now, Revolutionary Think said:

Here's another reason why Yang has the right vision and Sanders is stuck in the past 

    

Bernie is very ahead of his time, while Yang tries to appeal to centrists and not question the system