2020 US Election Polls

[Halycon 48]

Just now, Postboy said:

Some people say Nina Turner, who is awesome. 
 

Others say Tulsi Gabbard, because she appeals a lot to independents. I personally don’t think Bernie needs Tulsi to appeal to independents. The polling shows this to be true also. 
 

Some are also speculating that Bernie and Warren are still on good terms and she was actually asked about the VP or secretary of treasury positions. 

 

Interesting. I mainly focus on British politics so I don't really have a clue who many of these people are, so I will have to read them up.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

On 1/26/2020 at 12:11 PM, Postboy said:

Oh girl, ya beat me to it... and stated it way better than me  
 

On another note, can we change the stan name to “Bernie Sis” since he has the most contributions from women than any other candidate? 

I support it

Also, its infuriating how mainstream media just completely accepts "no one knows how to pay for M4A! Its unrealistic and unpopular!" -which helps confuse people even though Bernie has answered this question at basically every debate  

Meanwhile, everyone assumes a Public Option is just common sense middle ground instead of a huge disaster that wouldn't work for a **** ton of reasons, especially Buttigieg's version  

(Inb4 "But other countries have both!" ) 

[President Biden 5,898]

11 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Not trying to convince you of anything, but I will point out a few misconceptions about Medicare For All.

1) Under M4A your parents wouldn't lose their insurance, they would lose the company that charges you for the insurance. Everyone would still be covered, and they actually would probably have more comprehensive insurance depending on how high quality the insurance they currently have is. For example, most insurance plans don't cover in home patient care (something elderly people especially need, but often cannot get due to lack of insurance and which tends to lead to them being shipped off to bad retirement homes), but M4A will cover this at no additional price.

2) The quality of the care they receive would remain the same, as the doctors and providers would be the same literally, though you could now go to previously "out of network" doctors for free and no additional charge - so it could be potentially better!

3) The difference is that they would pay less for their insurance, and it would come as a 4% income tax as opposed to deductibles, co-payments, premiums, and out of pocket expenses

 - That tax would also be most likely a lot less than how much they pay for Deductibles, Premiums, co-pays, and out of pocket expenses, possibly up to thousands less per year. 

- The exception is if your parents are either relatively affluent (like ballpark over $100,000 as individuals) and everyone who has that insurance plan only goes to the doctor like once or twice a year max, in which case it would be only slightly different from what they currently pay on either end, but the average person will save money, and most families of 3 and 4+ would especially save money cause of dependents and joint filings)

4) This one is long, but go with me:

M4AWWI actually doesn't guarantee that EVERYONE can get healthcare, let alone CHEAP healthcare. Let's tackle "everyone"

Under M4AWWI, People would still be uninsured - there are still large chunks of people who would slip through the cracks per the method the plan says it will evaluate people's eligibility for their program (which is a triangulation of people in between their eligibility for medicaid, Obamacare, etc. Millions would be in between qualifying for neither Medicaid and M4AWWI if it was implemented tomorrow).

Its' "automatic enrollment" plan is actually somewhat impossible in our current government tax structure. M4AWWI is a means tested public option, so for those who don't qualify for others but should be "automatically enrolled' per the wording of the plan, there actually isn't a reliable means of ascertaining through our existing tax information and data whether or not the right people will be placed into it. It would have to make assumptions. This is because in America our taxes are not done automatically by the government. We don't just know how much everyone makes, has made, will make, how their dependents change, their address changes, etc. at any given time in a year. What we do know is what they file, which should be expected to fluctuate for the average person as they go through life. One solution to this would be to just use people's tax filings when the government gets them and enroll based off of that information, but that would certainly guarantee lower enrollment on top of delays in enrollment, perhaps even substantial ones that leave potentially millions uninsured for months. There would also need to be more resources put into administration that currently doesn't do this job. There wouldn't be a way for People who work in job fields that are not steady 8-5, 5 day a week jobs, but jobs whose income fluctuates in a year to always be accurately enrolled in the public option if they qualify for it. The people who are being screwed over by their states not expanding Medicaid per the ACA will likely still be screwed by this, just in another annoying way - They will make too little for the ACA, but too much for Medicaid since it wasnt expanded universally, and therefore be screwed under this plan too Imagine being in the awkward state of being between qualifying for the public option at some times, and having to fend their own other times in a single year (which would leave them potentially uninsured for months at a time... This means that potentially millions of people who should be automatically enrolled won't be and will have to voluntarily enroll at different times of the year which is a barrier to access, on top of the mess of reimbursements of hospitals which will have to be dealt with someway...

Ultimately, this means unemployed and underprivileged people can and still will find a way to be uninsured by the millions. It really should be titled "Medicare For The Few Who Can Find It"  

M4A on the other hand can guarantee automatic "enrollment" by the virtue of the fact that it will enroll every living breathing American in this country regardless of their income, taxes filed, etc (and yes, it would also apply to undocumented immigrants who live here then). If you go to the doctor, you can get seen w.o there being insurance paperwork filled - you will be generally assumed to have it, though I believe that M4A proponents think printing out cards would be nice for people that like a tangible sense of being "insured"  though they don't know if its necessary entirely.

About  "cheapness" - I don't think this is a claim that M4AWWI can make honestly. The prices of a public option compared to the rest of the market will almost certainly have to change in orde to keep up with the increasing demands and prices of other programs in order to be viable for people who are wanting a cheaper plan, but don't qualify for some other programs. Insurance companies are operating in a market and with a profit motive, so they have strong incentive to change and adapt in order to get more people and more money. They will  even cater towards taking advantage of desperate people in the process -  but they are self-made in a sense and are only expanding current success, not starting from scratch and they can take risks.  If all the people who "like my current insurance" are tempted to stay on their plans by private insurers, the only people who are on the public option will be increasingly people who are poor and in underserved communities (and again, lots of those people will be under enrolled in the first place per this plans shitty automatic enrollment policy)  and not middle class Americans. So, the vast majority of Americans  who are neither automatically enrolled OR already have private insurance would be disincentivized from moving to the public option. 

Since M4AWWI isn't taxing its base of people as a means of making money, instead just being another private option that charges premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc. and just offered by the government instead of a corporation, this plan doesn't have the funding to remain competitive. Low enrollment and lack of competitiveness means that its very likely that the public option will overtime become expensive because the current funding price Buttigieg's plan calls for isn't large enough to sustain its "cheapness" without compromises. (Or, shockingly, it will have to implement new taxes or reallocate funds from somewhere later on to help pay for it - the money has to come from somewhere!)

This means that over time it would logically either have to raise its prices to keep running or cut costs somewhere (or both), which could mean that they begin to cover less and less things, which would mean less and less doctors will be available in this public option network (unless they mandate it, but idk how that would work), which is an issue of quality. All of this which makes it very easy in just a few years politically to disassemble this plan as being "just another expensive handout program that only helps a handful of people, and even the people who have it think it is low quality!" (And they'll be right, the lack of access to good doctors, not comprehensive coverage, frustrations over enrollment, and rising prices are all the makings of an unsuccessful plan in the making) 

It will become the VA, but worse and will be attacked by Republicans as part of their electoral strategy for a generation. Meanwhile, poor people are STILL getting screwed over by our health care system from the top down.

So no, M4AWWI specifically does NOT guarantee Universal Health Coverage, or Cheaper healthcare for all.

For comparison, Warren's plan which is also a public option plan, but with a written in glide path to M4A in 3 years (7 total), is a LOT more viable, self sustaining through taxes, enforces regulations on private insurers and drug companies and hospitals to prevent them overtaking the plan, and has a lot more comprehensive care and coverage. It could *actually* work, the only missing variable is how media is able to attack this plan as "socialism!?!?!?" and "Warren wants you to give up your doctors" etc, which every candidate's plan, even Buttigieg, will have to face eventually. Thats just how lobbying and media work.

 

We already pay incredibly high income taxes (over 50%) because we live in an expensive coastal state but the state gives our town no money bc it’s affluent so we hen have additional astronomical local taxes. So a 4% income tax raise is out of question, and Idrc if it might help some other person get healthcare. It’d literally destroy our family’s finances.  Our healthcare is already phenomenal and covered by my parents work with minimal expenses. I’ve had high line dental procedures even with us barely paying a few hundred dollar fees. I’m not risking that to be stuck on some government system like the UK’s NHS, where I’ll have to wait a million yrs to see my preferred doctor. 

 

We are in that 100k+ category and see the doctor minimally so yes, we would be screwed. And I don’t really want that.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

On 1/26/2020 at 12:20 PM, Halsey said:

We already pay incredibly high income taxes (over 50%) because we live in an expensive coastal state but the state gives our town no money bc it’s affluent so we hen have additional astronomical local taxes. So a 4% income tax raise is out of question, and Idrc if it might help some other person get healthcare. It’d literally destroy our family’s finances.  Our healthcare is already phenomenal and covered by my parents work with minimal expenses. I’ve had high line dental procedures even with us barely paying a few hundred dollar fees. I’m not risking that to be stuck on some government system like the UK’s NHS, where I’ll have to wait a million yrs to see my preferred doctor. 

 

We are in that 100k+ category and see the doctor minimally so yes, we would be screwed. And I don’t really want that.

What I meant was that you would have to be a single bachelor making around a $100,000 a year that currently spends very little on health care a year total (thousands less than the average person in fact...)  before you start actually paying more for M4A than what you currently pay.

The average individual estimate is anywhere from a low guess of $2,500 to a more likely $6,000, and families can go upwards of 12,000+ a year on healthcare currently...

Married people that file jointly would have to hit around $200,000 before they start to pay more, and at that point it would be about $1,500-2,000. 

(For reference, 70% of America does not make even $100,00 a year, including joint filings) so likely more than 70% of people sans rare exceptions would save up to thousands of dollars a year on M4A  and 100% of people would have at least the possibility of access to healthcare as well. (Places that don't have hospitals, good doctors, clinics shutting down, etc. have their own barriers to access, but this would at least let them go wherever is available) 

Idk your family's taxes or actual earnings, but if you're actually making upwards of $200,000 a year, $2,000 more a year for healthcare is... negligible if you are even *decent* with your money and not living in a place where you are paying like, idk 60% of your income on rent or house payments and don't take on excessive debts and loans? I'm not tryna be rude or anything idk you're life, but also... I just can't imagine what a scenario looks like where a family making $200,000 would be financially burdened by $2,000 a year (and one where your current health care costs are significantly less than most of America as well? This just sounds confusing)

The bolded is your prerogative, but just so you know, this would improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans significantly with even modest estimates of current costs, while a Public Option would only somewhat reduce costs and only somewhat increase enrollment.

For comparison, a person making $50,000 a year who pays $12,000 a year on Healthcare (Which is a lot btw) would still pay $4,250 a year under Pete's plan, but someone with the same circumstances would pay $800 a year under Bernie's... and they would likely be receiving less comprehensive coverage under Pete's as well  

If your thing really is "we make $200,000 and paying $2,000 more a year would burden us significantly and we have no plans of changing how we spend/save our money" thats fine (but also highly unlikely and irregular I might add...) and also "I don't care if it would help other people get health insurance" then so be it, but please understand that - whether its about you or not, most people would be benefitting much much more from Bernie's plan financially than Pete's. Like this isn't my lefty bias, this is just numbers. There's a reason why many modern countries have a single-payer system -  its because it works. There is no need to test run a public option or to assume that America is exceptional in terms of how many people need access to healthcare, we know it works already. (Also, the situations of foreign states with a mix of private/public is a lot more reigned in and nuanced than ours, which is monopolistic and unregulated)

[LibraLove 1,281]

2 hours ago, Postboy said:

Some people say Nina Turner, who is awesome. 
 

Others say Tulsi Gabbard, because she appeals a lot to independents. I personally don’t think Bernie needs Tulsi to appeal to independents. The polling shows this to be true also. 
 

Some are also speculating that Bernie and Warren are still on good terms and she was actually asked about the VP or secretary of treasury positions. 

It will probably Barbara Lee from California. They have been tweeting back and forth and talking about each other a lot recently.

[LibraLove 1,281]

40 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

What I meant was that you would have to be a single bachelor making around a $100,000 a year that currently spends very little on health care a year total (thousands less than the average person in fact...)  before you start actually paying more for M4A than what you currently pay.

The average individual estimate is anywhere from a low guess of $2,500 to a more likely $6,000, and families can go upwards of 12,000+ a year on healthcare currently...

Married people that file jointly would have to hit around $200,000 before they start to pay more, and at that point it would be about $1,500-2,000. 

(For reference, 70% of America does not make even $100,00 a year, including joint filings) so likely more than 70% of people sans rare exceptions would save up to thousands of dollars a year on M4A  and 100% of people would have at least the possibility of access to healthcare as well. (Places that don't have hospitals, good doctors, clinics shutting down, etc. have their own barriers to access, but this would at least let them go wherever is available) 

Idk your family's taxes or actual earnings, but if you're actually making upwards of $200,000 a year, $2,000 more a year for healthcare is... negligible if you are even *decent* with your money and not living in a place where you are paying like, idk 60% of your income on rent or house payments and don't take on excessive debts and loans? I'm not tryna be rude or anything idk you're life, but also... I just can't imagine what a scenario looks like where a family making $200,000 would be financially burdened by $2,000 a year (and one where your current health care costs are significantly less than most of America as well? This just sounds confusing)

The bolded is your prerogative, but just so you know, this would improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans significantly with even modest estimates of current costs, while a Public Option would only somewhat reduce costs and only somewhat increase enrollment.

For comparison, a person making $50,000 a year who pays $12,000 a year on Healthcare (Which is a lot btw) would still pay $4,250 a year under Pete's plan, but someone with the same circumstances would pay $800 a year under Bernie's... and they would likely be receiving less comprehensive coverage under Pete's as well  

If your thing really is "we make $200,000 and paying $2,000 more a year would burden us significantly and we have no plans of changing how we spend/save our money" thats fine (but also highly unlikely and irregular I might add...) and also "I don't care if it would help other people get health insurance" then so be it, but please understand that - whether its about you or not, most people would be benefitting much much more from Bernie's plan financially than Pete's. Like this isn't my lefty bias, this is just numbers. There's a reason why many modern countries have a single-payer system -  its because it works. There is no need to test run a public option or to assume that America is exceptional in terms of how many people need access to healthcare, we know it works already. (Also, the situations of foreign states with a mix of private/public is a lot more reigned in and nuanced than ours, which is monopolistic and unregulated)

This person is clearly ill-informed and basically admitting that they are selfish. I also highly doubt this person is over the age of 26. Once they reach that age and get kicked off this "fantastic" healthcare plan of their parent's, they will surely have a reckoning.

[President Biden 5,898]

49 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

What I meant was that you would have to be a single bachelor making around a $100,000 a year that currently spends very little on health care a year total (thousands less than the average person in fact...)  before you start actually paying more for M4A than what you currently pay.

The average individual estimate is anywhere from a low guess of $2,500 to a more likely $6,000, and families can go upwards of 12,000+ a year on healthcare currently...

Married people that file jointly would have to hit around $200,000 before they start to pay more, and at that point it would be about $1,500-2,000. 

(For reference, 70% of America does not make even $100,00 a year, including joint filings) so likely more than 70% of people sans rare exceptions would save up to thousands of dollars a year on M4A  and 100% of people would have at least the possibility of access to healthcare as well. (Places that don't have hospitals, good doctors, clinics shutting down, etc. have their own barriers to access, but this would at least let them go wherever is available) 

Idk your family's taxes or actual earnings, but if you're actually making upwards of $200,000 a year, $2,000 more a year for healthcare is... negligible if you are even *decent* with your money and not living in a place where you are paying like, idk 60% of your income on rent or house payments and don't take on excessive debts and loans? I'm not tryna be rude or anything idk you're life, but also... I just can't imagine what a scenario looks like where a family making $200,000 would be financially burdened by $2,000 a year (and one where your current health care costs are significantly less than most of America as well? This just sounds confusing)

The bolded is your prerogative, but just so you know, this would improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans significantly with even modest estimates of current costs, while a Public Option would only somewhat reduce costs and only somewhat increase enrollment.

For comparison, a person making $50,000 a year who pays $12,000 a year on Healthcare (Which is a lot btw) would still pay $4,250 a year under Pete's plan, but someone with the same circumstances would pay $800 a year under Bernie's... and they would likely be receiving less comprehensive coverage under Pete's as well  

If your thing really is "we make $200,000 and paying $2,000 more a year would burden us significantly and we have no plans of changing how we spend/save our money" thats fine (but also highly unlikely and irregular I might add...) and also "I don't care if it would help other people get health insurance" then so be it, but please understand that - whether its about you or not, most people would be benefitting much much more from Bernie's plan financially than Pete's. Like this isn't my lefty bias, this is just numbers. There's a reason why many modern countries have a single-payer system -  its because it works. There is no need to test run a public option or to assume that America is exceptional in terms of how many people need access to healthcare, we know it works already. (Also, the situations of foreign states with a mix of private/public is a lot more reigned in and nuanced than ours, which is monopolistic and unregulated)

We actually fit like that exact criteria, which is likely why my parents don’t support M4A. Personally I haven’t run the numbers, but my they did which is why I’m not supportive of M4A.

 

  My alternative proposal (that no candidates offer) is we create a system that allows people to keep their kids on their healthcare plan even after 26 and allows people to add their 65+ parents to their plan. My family personally would like to include my grandparents on our plan, bc it’d save my grandparents a lot of money. And $2,000 is a fairly substantial amount in a household of college-aged kids attending university.

 

I’d actually be supportive of a much more leftist plan of replacing health insurance 100% and just having hospital care be free of charge, but obviously that wouldn’t work as it’d destroy the competition of capitalism and all that American whatnot 

[President Biden 5,898]

8 minutes ago, LibraLove said:

This person is clearly ill-informed and basically admitting that they are selfish. I also highly doubt this person is over the age of 26. Once they reach that age and get kicked off this "fantastic" healthcare plan of their parent's, they will surely have a reckoning.

Everyone’s inherently seflish

 

and hopefully by then I have a steady professional job with my own good care plan

[Emvee 8,832]

17 minutes ago, LibraLove said:

It will probably Barbara Lee from California. They have been tweeting back and forth and talking about each other a lot recently.

Oh, you’re right! I almost forgot about Barbara Lee. That would be great too. 

[Emvee 8,832]

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/iowa-2020-sanders-solidifies-frontrunner-status-in-iowa-while-klobuchar-nears-viability
 

We got another one, Bernie Sistren 

@Brainiac @Govhooka @Morphine Prince @Buddy @Guillaume Hamon @Marilyn MonHoe @ItsTommyBitch @LibraLove @ALGAYDO

[Brainiac 11,171]

1 minute ago, Postboy said:

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/iowa-2020-sanders-solidifies-frontrunner-status-in-iowa-while-klobuchar-nears-viability
 

We got another one, Bernie Sistren 

@Brainiac @Govhooka @Morphine Prince @Buddy @Guillaume Hamon @Marilyn MonHoe @ItsTommyBitch @LibraLove @ALGAYDO

Yep, already saw it. Bernard is going to WIN the democratic nomination!

[Emvee 8,832]

12 minutes ago, Brainiac said:

Yep, already saw it. Bernard is going to WIN the democratic nomination!

The worry is the 2nd choice redistribution for this caucus. A lot of these candidates won’t make the cut and some of those supporters will undoubtedly go to Biden. 

[Brainiac 11,171]

1 minute ago, Postboy said:

The worry is the 2nd choice redistribution for this caucus. A lot of these candidates won’t make the cut and some of those supporters will undoubtedly go to Biden. 

Bernie is going to get most of Warren's vote in precincts where she does't make the cut, which there will be a decent amount. He's also going to get pretty much ALL of Yang and Tulsi's support which will boost him even more. I'm not worried about that.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Klobuchar bearing Warren omfg

it all backfired on her

[stevana229 1,916]

im honestly here for ANY democrat over Trump