Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

I said back in the first debate that I thought it was frustrating how every time the debate turned to financial reforms the candidates stopped talking about their real plans.  I would guess the logic is that a complicated plan isn't something you can sell.  The upshot of the plan is that it carves out a territory of executive powers where the executive branch is actively exercising it's role role in disincentive risky behavior.  The active part is far more important then the size part.  What various government branches are expected to do sometimes turns out to not happen or to be delayed by legal ambiguity and that was a big part of the last crisis.  And at the end of the day to be honest we dont even know if it will work, it's just trying whatever we can, FDR style.

The claims that Sanders plan is unrealistic is much simpler, the numbers add up but they are unrealistic.  It's far outside the range of outcomes that prior studies and pilot programs have found.  I have zero respect for this writer saying "BUT EUROPE GUYZ" even if they are writing it in calmer, more wordy fashion.  Yes Europe does it cheaper, that means that in the long run we can expect such a shift.  But the long run means decades of market forces playing out, decades of regulators doing their jobs and decades of continuing to update the legislation.  Lower healthcare costs in 2070 are a great thing but we need to be worried about 2025 too.  And lower healthcare costs in 2070 dont happen if the efforts are abandoned in 2020.

When Obama was pushing the affordable care act there was a lot of long term cost curve stuff in there, community clinics, long term health maintenance studies, health record modernization.  The Congressional Budget Office assumed zero benefits from such programs.  The Obama administration expected that.  You want to invest in such efforts of course but you dont count your chickens before they hatch.  In order to make sure the budget will balance you assume the speculative programs will fail and hope to be pleasantly surprised.  Electronic medical records were a great example of why you should be so cautious, it should have saved billions or even tens of billions of dollars.  It saves that kind of money in Europe.  Instead of saving billions of dollars it taught us that American doctors cant find their assess with a map.  So dont assume that your new more efficient system will work, even if it works in other places.

When you start allowing yourself to go with assuming things will work, you start entering the realm of unreaslistic predictions.  You start entering the realm of this:

Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible. "In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion," he writes in an email. "With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative." (Authors emphasis, not Thorpe's.) The Sanders camp revised the number down to $241 billion when I pointed this out.

As far as I know, republicans haven't started attacking the Sanders healthcare plan yet.  That means that the people who attack it are all democratic policy writers.  And democratic policy writers pretty much unanimously want some form of socialized healthcare.  The evidence is overwhelming that socialized healthcare is a good way of doing things.  When they say it's unrealistic it's people who fundamentally believe it's a workable idea, the path of least resistance in fact.  Their problem is not with the idea, it's with the plan.

See, this is what the Clinton people need more of. Seriously. This is a calm, well-reasoned but firm argument that doesn't denigrate Sanders or his supporters. It doesn't even reject the goal of the policy. It merely differs on whether this implementation of the policy recommendation is feasible or not.

Honestly, that's the most swayed I've been the entire campaign.

[Shadowlord]

No, I mean that future savings can exceed past costs because of massively increased prices for drugs that have no competitors for the conditions they're prescribed for.

[SirQuiamus]

Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible. "In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion," he writes in an email. "With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative." (Authors emphasis, not Thorpe's.) The Sanders camp revised the number down to $241 billion when I pointed this out.

Two words: Martin Shkreli

Pharmabro <3 The Bern.

[Shadowlord]

See, this is what the Clinton people need more of. Seriously. This is a calm, well-reasoned but firm argument that doesn't denigrate Sanders or his supporters. It doesn't even reject the goal of the policy. It merely differs on whether this implementation of the policy recommendation is feasible or not.

Honestly, that's the most swayed I've been the entire campaign.

But can you trust Hillary Clinton?

[mainiac]

No, I mean that future savings can exceed past costs because of massively increased prices for drugs that have no competitors for the conditions they're prescribed for.

While that would increase the urgency of the issue, it wouldn't balance the budget.  It's saying that there is an unfunded liability that is not on the books and we will pay for things by eliminating said unfunded liability.

But can you trust Hillary Clinton?

I can turn face at any time.  Just saying.

[smjjames]

Lol this http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/ted-cruz-phil-robertson-un-ambassador/index.html

(Insert meme pic of Fry from Futurama with the text 'are you serious or are are you trolling?' Because I'm using iPhone)

Really, no idea if he is actually serious or is joking. Doesn't the ambassador have to be confirmed by congress anyway? I'm sure he'd have to lose the 'swamp man' beard though and that hair of his,  wonder if Phil would be okay with that.

Edit: PRETTY SURE Cruz is joking around.

[mainiac]

I think ambassadors usually cruise through without objection because they're pretty uncontroversial.  Would be interesting to see a controversial nomination to go with the interesting times we live in.

[Shadowlord]

Cruz has held up the appointments of a bunch of ambassadors iirc. I think he just relented recently.

I got the impression that ambassadorial appointments usually go to important bundlers for the president's campaign rather than career diplomats with appropriate qualifications.

[mainiac]

Some of them, yes.

[Loud Whispers]

But can you trust Hillary Clinton?

Does it matter? Point a nimble navigator in the right direction and they'll destroy the right obstacles

Spoiler: older topic (click to show/hide)

I forget, did we look for statistics about this when we discussed this ebfore?
If we didn't settle it with statistics, are you sure it isn't just a few of them being bad apples, and it being reported intensely because it was unusual?

I don't think we've done one specifically for immigration and crime in the USA, and I wouldn't chalk it to more reporting because it's under-reported or just not even news

I mean, the news rarely reports on "routine" things - like murders in majority black cities, or on suicides unless they're cops or murder-suicides or otherwise sensational. There's rarely reporting on murders in general unless they're mass shootings, or happen to middle-class or upper-class people, or involve a pretty girl, as far as I can tell. So I wonder - if rapes are common in Europe, but usually perpetrated by someone the victim knows, would the news just virtually never report on anything like that because it's routine, unless it becomes sensational?

If we're talking Europe no, it's nothing to do with the media, as they tried covering this up and the numbers are already out (I can post in Yurop thread, do not want to derail Obamathread)

[If you're wondering, statistics on suicide and homicide by firearm by race]
Showing that suicide by firearm rates are much higher among white males (than white females, black males, or black females), and homicide by firearm rates are ridiculously high for black males:

The CDC PDF that came from. You've probably seen it before.

I haven't, thanks it was pretty interesting. I've wondered how much of this is to do with the different black culture in America than anywhere in Africa or Europe that prizes money, bitches and a particular honour above all, how much of this is to do with large urban ghettoes or sparse rural communities and how much of this is other factors like poverty or Obama not fixing everything. As well on the suicide rates, I had hoped that african american men had found something unique since the general rule of thumb is women attempt more suicides with higher failure rates (cutting across the street, sleeping pills and alcohol) whilst men attempt less suicides with far more successful methods (like guns and gravity), but it seems the trend was not broken and shit's still shit.

I clicked the link, it went to wikipedia, and then I clicked the citation, and there was no way to follow it to get to the actual source, so anyone could have just made up the numbers. vOv

No one would ever make up numbers on wikipedia, it is 100% truth and justice with zero fabrications or distortions

But! If they're real numbers:
So what you're saying is that people were crossing the southern border to try to get into the US illegally before the financial meltdown, maybe some were bringing drugs (it's unclear), and that the federal courts were spending a huge amount of time dealing with them, right?

Nah I don't really know enough about the situation to make an in depth analysis of my own, I'm just saying there appears to be enough evidence to suggest le toupe dollar man is not bullshitting the fullshit

"It's-a me, Marco-bot!"

Glad someone got that, I wonder what happened to him. Stage fright? This kinda stuff they wouldn't write in house of cards, no one would believe that it was real.

[misko27]

Cruz has held up the appointments of a bunch of ambassadors iirc. I think he just relented recently.

I got the impression that ambassadorial appointments usually go to important bundlers for the president's campaign rather than career diplomats with appropriate qualifications.

It depends. The ambassador to Japan is Caroline Kennedy. The Ambassador to Iraq is, quote "Stuart E. Jones, a career member of the U.S. Foreign Service", and former Ambassador to Jordan.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for specifically putting a Kennedy in Japan, but in general, difficult, bland, or important jobs go to diplomats with the capabilities to handle themselves, while the easy jobs go to Presidential supporters. It would be easy to criticize, but again, no one gives a shit about the Ambassador to Japan, as s/he isn't usually negotiating tough stuff, and presumably when they are negotiating, they fall back on their experience of doing what the President tells them to do (which is pretty much the job of diplomats in the first place). Presumably the President also is careful not to let morons be ambassador, and chooses the more suitable supporters (like Kennedy). But the system is one where no one will complain as long as nothing goes wrong, so I don't see it as all too bad.

Generally speaking, Ambassador to the UN is an actually important position (although its importance comes and goes), so I highly doubt Cruz would put him there. Robertson hasn't been important enough to Cruz's campaign to warrant it (I think, maybe a grain a salt), and even if he was he'd be ambassador to like, Great Britain or something. The people who become diplomats were either crucial fund-raisers or supporters, AND have some level of background and respectability that allow them to be in that job (even if that means journalist or businessman or something).

[mainiac]

There have been some low expectations skewing early preceptions of this race.  Sanders wasn't really taken seriously until around the first democratic debate.  Trump wasn't taken as seriously as he should be until New Hampshire.  Cruz still isn't taken as seriously as he probably should be.

[smjjames]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/nevada-caucus-double-voting-219504 We'd better be on the lookout for voting sheneinighans in Nevada, and those are some seriously dirty tricks if the local republican party is advocating that voters, through a sheer quirk in timing, commit what could essentially be voting fraud. Would be bad if Sanders won just through meddling by the republicans.

Then again, NH (and Iowa I think) voters could switch parties and then switch back on the same day and nobody's complaining.

edit: In 538 stuff, here's an analysis on the SC polls: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-at-stake-in-the-south-carolina-republican-primary/

[i2amroy]

When you start allowing yourself to go with assuming things will work, you start entering the realm of unreaslistic predictions.  You start entering the realm of this:

Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible. "In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion," he writes in an email. "With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative." (Authors emphasis, not Thorpe's.) The Sanders camp revised the number down to $241 billion when I pointed this out.

As far as I know, republicans haven't started attacking the Sanders healthcare plan yet.  That means that the people who attack it are all democratic policy writers.  And democratic policy writers pretty much unanimously want some form of socialized healthcare.  The evidence is overwhelming that socialized healthcare is a good way of doing things.  When they say it's unrealistic it's people who fundamentally believe it's a workable idea, the path of least resistance in fact.  Their problem is not with the idea, it's with the plan.

See, this is what the Clinton people need more of. Seriously. This is a calm, well-reasoned but firm argument that doesn't denigrate Sanders or his supporters. It doesn't even reject the goal of the policy. It merely differs on whether this implementation of the policy recommendation is feasible or not.

Honestly, that's the most swayed I've been the entire campaign.

To be fair with a single-payer system you actually could essentially have what they describe as a net "negative" amount spent based on what they are comparing here since you would be gaining savings from the vastly simplified paperwork and paperwork pusher chain that's not reflected in their "current spendings now" value. It would be like if you had a system where you spent $20k on paperwork and $20k on bills and you switched to a system where you spent $2k on paperwork and $17k on bills your "net" savings would be $21k, which is greater than the "$20k on bills" that you had spent previously and result in what they claim would be "net negative spending". (Not necessarily arguing for or against it here, I haven't seen either of the original statements that are being compared here, but just pointing out an additional aspect of the argument as they are displayed here).

[RedKing]

I think ambassadors usually cruise through without objection because they're pretty uncontroversial.  Would be interesting to see a controversial nomination to go with the interesting times we live in.

Hard to use John Bolton as a case study, as Shrub used a recess appointment to bypass Congress on that one.


EDIT: 538 rickrolled me. Like, literally rickrolled me. My life is complete.