• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Gotchaye

Member
Oct 27, 2017
694
Warren needs a better answer, but there's also a reason she's talking about costs instead of taxes. She fundamentally rejects the framing about taxes. It's like how when faced with a lump sum or annuity, lottery winners almost always choose lump sum. There's a sticker shock that she's trying to avoid by reframe the way we talk about health care costs.

Does she need a better answer? yes. Will some of her critics never be happy until she says "Medicare for All will raise taxes"? yes. But is she being evasive for not saying that? no, I don't think so.
I don't think this is a compelling defense because she's not actually saying this. Sanders is much closer to saying this. You reject the framing by explicitly saying that it doesn't matter if people's taxes go up as long as their costs go down. She's not doing this because she understands that actually most voters accept that framing and won't be convinced otherwise.

That's the thing, you can't convince people to take a tax increase under any circumstances on this simply because most people are actively shielded from the actual cost of healthcare as they get it through their job as part of their compensation. Companies did this to get around salary caps back in the day, but now it's got the side-effect of making any sort of actual reform way harder than it would otherwise be.
This was a really good point that Biden made against Sanders in last month's debate, and is a problem for Warren too. You can't credibly promise that your M4A plan will get rid of private insurance and make costs go down for everyone when lots of people aren't paying very much out of pocket for health care because it's baked into their compensation. It's not like any M4A plan is going to require that employers increase your paycheck by the amount they save on insurance.
 

Kaitos

Tens across the board!
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
14,705
I thought that was because with low-risk investing and basic financial management the lump sum is the more lucrative one. Well, and also the "don't want to die with 10 years of money still left to payout" thing.
Yeah there's actually no difference really beyond the death of it all, but almost everyone chooses the lump sum because it's the more immediate, larger number. That's how we've trained people to look at taxes instead of what those taxes do towards overall costs. Probably not the perfect metaphor admittedly.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,930
Re: Taxes and M4A.

So, maybe I'm just a jaded old queen, but I say just lie. Here's the thing, we're not getting M4A. We all know that. There's no reason to let the political positives go while tying an anvil around your neck. I think she is very close to a decent answer on the issue, especially when she said that she would not sign a bill that would make costs for middle class families go up. I'd also just spin it around and say that, yes, she supported Sander's bill, but she is the one running for President. She can also make a bullshit statement about not accepting a tax hike on middle class families, but then never defining what middle class is. There are literally 2 groups of people who want her on record saying it'll raise taxes, and none of them are important to her primary or general election chances.

I'd also like to point out the INSANE double standard we have when Donald Trump ran on "Mexico is gonna pay for it" and literally no one ever pushed back against that absurdity. But we're supposed to fund everything with sound bites and gotcha shit? Fuck that. Just lie. "Under a Warren administration, we will work towards implementing Medicare for All. I will not sign into law, though, any bill that will raise costs on hard working middle class families. It's time we make the largest corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share, and break the grip of out of control healthcare costs on the average American family. That's my promise." Boom. Next question.
At this point, I actually do agree that playing...ummn, we'll call it "loose with the details" on the answer here would go over a lot better for Warren than being so obviously evasive like she was last night. Because that was ultimately her problem in that segment: optics. We all know WHY Warren does not want to get pinned down on that talking point, but we all expected her to dance around it better. If you're layperson who doesn't know the finer details of the healthcare debate (and I wouldn't blame you, those segments in these debates are trash), you didn't need to know a single detail to perceive that Warren was being knocked off balance.
 

Kaitos

Tens across the board!
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
14,705
I don't think this is a compelling defense because she's not actually saying this. Sanders is much closer to saying this. You reject the framing by explicitly saying that it doesn't matter if people's taxes go up as long as their costs go down. She's not doing this because she understands that actually most voters accept that framing and won't be convinced otherwise.

Eh, I don't see it that way. She's rejecting that this is how we should be talking about costs of health insurance by not even entertaining that question.
 

minato

Member
Oct 27, 2017
347
I really don't understand why they haven't just haven't summoned Esper to come in yet. We should have plenty of material on him. Oh well when it happens it will be magical.
 

Valiant

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,310
People pushed back on Trumps rhetoric about Mexico paying for the wall.

Even the Mexican President was like lol nope.

I think you're looking back at Trump as if there was no pushback on things he did when there infact was. Its why there isn't a wall yet if Mexico was going to pay for it.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,616
I guess a better example would be:

Would you rather take a million dollars now or a penny that increases its value by twice as much every month?

Most people would see this and take the million dollars up front. Anyone else who is a bit more savvy and patient would realize that after 3 years you would have way more than a million.

Medicare and taxes is similar. Only it's an even dumber example:

"Would you rather pay an extra 20 in taxes a month with free healthcare or not pay extra taxes and keep paying your private health insurance/deductibles/premiums?"
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
5,215
This was a really good point that Biden made against Sanders in last month's debate, and is a problem for Warren too. You can't credibly promise that your M4A plan will get rid of private insurance and make costs go down for everyone when lots of people aren't paying very much out of pocket for health care because it's baked into their compensation. It's not like any M4A plan is going to require that employers increase your paycheck by the amount they save on insurance.
This is one of the things for us and literally everyone at my husband's work. As of January for the average worker, the company is covering 100% of the premiums for everyone. Even under Bernie's 0 minute ab 4% payroll thing, my family's costs would skyrocket. (And we use a lot of health care! As in, my son just had nearly $30k worth of medical testing/drugs/equipment done in the last 2 days. We reach our out of pocket maximum by the end of January each year.) There is no universe in which a 4% payroll tax would save us an ounce of money. I accept that we're not necessarily indicative of everyone, as we earn a lot more than most and have a strong union backed plan. But, there is going to be some massive pushback from unions on this issue.

It's why Medicare for All Who Want It is the best possible option. Look,if people really hate their health insurance, and if people really, really want a government plan...let it compete! My ideal solution would be something where each year you sign up for your health insurance at work. Your company can offer a private plan that you can sign up for, or you can elect to sign up for the Medicare option. If the Medicare option works best for your family, you pick that. We'd get rid of the exchanges, and the only option would be the Medicare for All Who Want It Plan. We'd roll Medicaid into this new plan, while keeping the same level of Medicaid coverage. We'd roll Medicare A/B/D into this new plan too. If at any point you lose your job, you can immediately enroll in the M4AWI plan. It would be subsidized heavily. This would give our infrastructure time to actually adapt to the idea of a single payer system. It would let people keep their insurance if they want it. It would eliminate uninsured. It would give us time to figure out how to manage reimbursements without having to cut services. It's a win/win situation.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,605
Warren needs a better answer, but there's also a reason she's talking about costs instead of taxes. She fundamentally rejects the framing about taxes. It's like how when faced with a lump sum or annuity, lottery winners almost always choose lump sum. There's a sticker shock that she's trying to avoid by reframe the way we talk about health care costs.

Does she need a better answer? yes. Will some of her critics never be happy until she says "Medicare for All will raise taxes"? yes. But is she being evasive for not saying that? no, I don't think so.
I get all that. I think framing it in terms of costs is smart, but she can only do it -- or at least do it in this manner -- for so long. Because when she's asked "yes or no, will Medicare for All raise taxes" and doesn't answer with a yes or no, that is literally being evasive. By definition it evades the question being asked.

I don't think she should say "I will raise taxes." She's right to dodge that trap. But I also don't think she can continue to parrot this same answer about costs, especially since we're doomed to have this same healthcare argument in every single debate for the rest of the race. There needs to be a different spin on the answer. I don't know what that is though. Thankfully it's not up to me to decide! But it sounds like her campaign recognizes that and is looking into ways to adjust precisely because she was being called out on it last night.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
C_DpFSUwc2PC_lI29k_glPszuIo=.gif

This is what Warren should call her method of paying for her health care plan.
 

Kaitos

Tens across the board!
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
14,705
I get all that. I think framing it in terms of costs is smart, but she can only do it -- or at least do it in this manner -- for so long. Because when she's asked "yes or no, will Medicare for All raise taxes" and doesn't answer with a yes or no, that is literally being evasive. By definition it evades the question being asked.

I don't think she should say "I will raise taxes." She's right to dodge that trap. But I also don't think she can continue to parrot this same answer about costs, especially since we're doomed to have this same healthcare argument in every single debate for the rest of the race. There needs to be a different spin on the answer. I don't know what that is though. Thankfully it's not up to me to decide! But it sounds like her campaign recognizes that and is looking into ways to adjust precisely because she was being called out on it last night.
Yes, I agree with this, but I don't think it's being necessarily evasive as much as saying, you're asking the wrong questions.
 

Damisa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
324
That's the thing, you can't convince people to take a tax increase under any circumstances on this simply because most people are actively shielded from the actual cost of healthcare as they get it through their job as part of their compensation. Companies did this to get around salary caps back in the day, but now it's got the side-effect of making any sort of actual reform way harder than it would otherwise be.

Nobody is going to trust their employers to "pass on" the health care savings either.
Basically anyone who gets their health care through their employer is working on the assumption that it's "Free" and your asking them to give up free healthcare AND pay more in taxes. So good luck with that.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
27,945
I can't help but notice that Trump is the only one without any notes in that picture. Not that I'd ever expect him to give a shit, but this isn't a multimedia presentation, even! He's literally just showing up to argue.
What does Trump need notes for? First of all, he never reads anything. Second, his record of what happened is whatever he thinks makes him look best at whatever time he talks about it.
 

shadow_shogun

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,732

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, is overseeing a nearly $1 million renovation of his government-provided residence, paid for with taxpayer money, that current and former officials have criticized as extravagant and unnecessary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/amid-impeachment-probe-gordon-sondland-is-overseeing-a-renovation-of-his-residence-that-has-cost-1-million-in-taxpayer-money/2019/10/16/d0eece92-ef86-11e9-bb7e-d2026ee0c199_story.html …
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
5,215
Lot of empty real estate in there.
Maybe we should build a wall around what's left of his mind and make Russia pay for it.

Also, I think we should add Johnson's 10th and 11th articles of impeachment to Trumps:

Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States.
Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions.

Now he's just copying what she said except sounding super childish and petty.
tenor.gif
 

fragamemnon

Member
Nov 30, 2017
6,814
While this is excruciating to watch- love how Schiff has cut off their ability to wage information warfare on impeachment so well that Trump is writing his own 25th Amendment exit out of panic and fear.

that background change is savage, I'm so happy that Democrats endgame here is to isolate him into giving up and leaving.
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,956
I dunno, I want to go to the universe where David Bowie did the planned sequel to 1.Outside after Blackstar.

Man, the possibility of an alternate timeline where Bowie is still alive is just as heartbreaking as the one where Hillary wins. In both cases, we're reminded just how much our current one sucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.