1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Fourth Democratic Debate OCT2019

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by DreamShook, Oct 15, 2019.

  1. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Watched her (late) on CNN. She was unflappable while dodging the question on price for Medicare for all (does "no increased cost for middle class mean all in? Including increase in taxes? What is her definition of "cost").

    But last commentator brought up the upcoming endorsements for Bernie and it seemed to bother her. She answered well -- no matter what we will all be on the same side at the end -- but she seemed to view the endorsements as important (my read).
     
    snowconeman22 likes this.
  2. baller4life315

    baller4life315 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,648
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    As someone that really wants to like Warren, it’s absolutely excruciating watching her dance around the yes/no question on healthcare. Tonight she got absolutely brutalized on that topic and it was 100% her fault.

    Her team of advisors can’t seriously believe this attempted nuance around a simple yes/no answer is a sustainable strategy.
     
  3. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,140
    Likes Received:
    35,950
    Why frame a question in a yes or no answer? It's reductive. This isn't an interrogation. It's a policy debate and discussion or at least we would get much more out of these **** debates if had the discussion part.
     
    B-Bob likes this.
  4. snowconeman22

    snowconeman22 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14,051
    Likes Received:
    15,997
    This was my first time watching, i didnt know that they'd bring other candidates on After klobuchar and Pete.

    Anyway, i do think the news networks like to drum up controversy and so im not saying they are picking her to win the whole thing .... i just think they might have pumped her up a bit
     
    jcf likes this.
  5. baller4life315

    baller4life315 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,648
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    It has to be simple and yes/no. We’re lucky enough to get the average viewer to watch a debate and barely pay attention; let alone have a firm grasp on every policy nuance. They’re looking for yes/no.

    Remember Hillary vs Bernie on fracking? Hillary went first and gave a very nuanced answer explaining why, in detail, she would ultimately oppose fracking. Then Bernie replied with a simple “no” and his supporters acted like he reinvented the wheel.

    Look, whether you’re the biggest Warren fan in the world or not, you have to acknowledge her awkward dodging on the yes/no question on healthcare is damaging and not sustainable.
     
    jcf likes this.
  6. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Problem is her mantra didn't explain what she was really promising. Everyone kept pushing her on taxes, and she would divert to costs.

    If she simply said whether her view of costs included increased taxes, we would know what she was proposing. I think (stress "think") she was including taxes when promising not to sign a bill that would raise middle class costs.

    But if so, she in fact could have simply said it. Post-debate, one commentator w as practically begging her to do so.
     
  7. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,280
    Likes Received:
    43,344
    Just started watching now. Dear god Biden/Klobuchar/Pete are such dishonest pricks on the healthcare debate.

    Although, I do agree with others Warren refusing to say taxes will increase like Bernie openly said is a mistake at this point, but I understand the motive, she simply doesn't want to give that soundbite of "yes taxes will increase" on social media, knowing it will be used without context. At this point, it's obvious that catching her dodging might be worse than that soundbite, which shows Bernie made a wise decision because they aren't saying a word to him, he also made a wise decision in releasing a plan to pay for it, unlike Warren who's also getting dogged for that. It looks awful considering her motto is "I have a plan for that".

    That being said, she and Bernie are absolutely correct on this subject, the cost will go down on average middle/lower-class families, and go down for all Americans as a whole. What CNN and all the other candidates are doing is playing cheap dishonest politics trying to force soundbites. What else can they do, they are proposing garbage healthcare plans against the clear golden ticket in M4A.

    The average cost for individual private healthcare is over 400 per month, the average deductible is over 2k, and the average cost in premiums/copayments is 1k. Meaning if you actually use your healthcare plan, you and or your employer are likely paying over 7500 dollars per year for the average individual. Meanwhile, your still going to be scared shitless every time you go to the hospital that you might be out of network, or that your plan doesn't cover this or that, and overall you just know your insurance company is checking every loophole to see if they don't have to cover you (because that's their job). Half of the American workers make 30k or less per year. The average American simply can't afford to give 25% of their checks to healthcare.

    All of that says nothing for those who are underinsured or uninsured, who are absolutely ****ed when in need of healthcare. M4A will be cheaper than our current healthcare for the entire country, it will cover everyone, and the overall quality of healthcare for America will go UP significantly. Assholes like Klobuchar calling it a pipe dream must think shows how stupid they think Americans are, like we can't just look out a countless list of other countries who have MUCH better healthcare systems then we do, Klobuchar's state freaking borders Canada for god sake.
     
    Rashmon, Hakeemtheking and RayRay10 like this.
  8. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,147
    Likes Received:
    25,187
    I watched it here and there. Didn't like Booker's response against UBI is with "more free trade agreements."

    He's onto something about the dignity of work, but totally misses the point that these agreements are one factor responsible for destroying middle American jerbs.

    I might be biased since I think he has the stink of Wall Street sleeze.

    P.S. Healthcare is a trap if you're not designated a leader on it. Warren is better off sandbagging until she faces a lightweight like Trump who will call her a fugly grandma and laugh at her kitchen skills while pressing for details. The more info you give hurts because right wing distortion machine punishes detail and nuance over simple non-binding promises.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  9. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,280
    Likes Received:
    43,344
    Pete and Amy are unbearable to me. I can't believe some are saying they had great nights.

    Warren didn't get beat up, she got a bunch of intellectually dishonest garbage thrown at her that she cut right through, some of the takes in here are very worrisome to me.

    EDIT, re-reading the thread, guess it was just two posters, jcf and baller4life repetitively repeating Warren got dogged and Pete/Amy had good nights in multiple post, making it look at first to me like 10 people we're saying the same thing.

    Thoroughly disagree with yall's takes on the debate.
     
    #49 ThatBoyNick, Oct 16, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  10. baller4life315

    baller4life315 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,648
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    This gave me a good chuckle.

    ....but also a reminder that we all see the world differently. Just promise me that if your girl doesn’t win the nomination you’ll still vote for a Democrat. Differences aside, that’s all I ask. You can have whatever deranged interpretation of tonight's debate performance that suits you. Let’s just remember to keep our eye on the ball here because you might have been channeling your inner Jodie Foster in Contact tonight. And that’s totally okay. Just make sure that space shuttle lands back on planet Earth.
     
    joshuaao likes this.
  11. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,280
    Likes Received:
    43,344
    What specifically did you think they said that did well?

    I agree with you that we all see the world differently, I legitimately thought that line was going to be a lead you into explaining why you disagree with me like a decent person but you went on to put together a bunch of weaksauce attacks lol, nice pump fake.
     
  12. baller4life315

    baller4life315 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,648
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    Ah, yeah, so...this is getting even better. The same person blabbering about how Klobuchar, Pete and anyone else that disagrees with your girl is an “*******”....yet you want this to come back to a discussion about weaksauce attacks?. Got it.

    I’m unfamiliar with you as a poster, so all I can do is go by context. Assuming you’re a Warren fan.

    That said, Google is your friend. As is watching the debate (assuming you didn’t). There’s a reason why people are praising Pete and Klobuchar, while acknowledging Warren took some heavy punches tonight. It’s ok, it happens. Your girl is still the frontrunner. You’ve got that going for you, and I’ll support her if that’s the case.

    But to answer your question, there’s no question that she got roughed up on healthcare. It’s her signature issue and she flopped like a total lightweight when pressed on the key yes/no question that’s central to the debate. It was hard to watch. The same way it’s hard to watch her dance around this question the other 400 times it’s been asked.
     
    jcf likes this.
  13. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,280
    Likes Received:
    43,344
    Warren isn't my girl.
    I don't think anybody who disagrees's with her is an *******
    I do think Amy and Pete are assholes
    Your attacks were indeed weak sauce.

    I don't google for peoples opinions/polls, I don't have twitter, I don't do politics on facebook, I just watched the debate and checked this thread. Sorry.

    As you've read my previous post you know my stance on the healthcare debate, she made a poor decision on the choice to not give the soundbite over getting bagged for the dodge, but overall I'm not in it for the gotcha's or the who performs what well, I find the baiting for soundbites to be AWFUL for politics, I care about the policies that the candidate support. Pete, Biden, and Amy are all incredibly dishonest when discussing healthcare, their half-assed fake medicare for all plus/choice/whatever plans that use the phrase medicare for all due to its enormous popularity but they dishonestly do some personal tag word with it to trick people into thinking that it's still medicare for all while leaving people uninsured is despicable to me.

    Medicare for all would be cheaper than our current healthcare system, yet Biden/Pete/Amy dishonestly pretend it's a pipe dream that we can't afford, many countries have shown they can successfully provide much better healthcare systems, that insures all citizens, that provide better quality care for their citizens with better health outcomes for CHEAPER than our current awful system.

    So what I got from that exchange was Pete/Biden/Amy are dishonest assholes attacking a candidate with a genuine policy position that would genuinely help the American people.
     
    #53 ThatBoyNick, Oct 16, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  14. baller4life315

    baller4life315 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,648
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    Same team yet two completely different dimensions of reality. But that’s okay. The burden is on us to play for the same team, and ultimately, pick an ally to move us both forward.

    That said, I’ll ignore your hypocrisy on name-calling. I’ll gladly do you that favor. I’m “weaksauce” and Klobuchar and Pete are “assholes”. All of the above are not a good look if your goal is to be taken seriously.

    Klobuchar and Pete’s performances from tonight are being roundly praised. Either everyone knows something you don’t...or you’re biased and refuse to give credit where credit is due.

    Moving on to the substance, one of my frustrations of dealing with the Warren/Sanders wing is this belief they spread about how the process works (err...doesn’t work). As if one of them gets elected and immediately M4A is signed into law and on the books. That easy!

    One of the reasons I support Klobuchar is due to her transparency. Her willingness to explain the difference between actions requiring Congress vs. actions a President could accomplish via Executive Action. Unlike most, she does a good job of explaining this distinction.
     
    joshuaao likes this.
  15. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,280
    Likes Received:
    43,344
    I never mentioned name-calling? There's no hypocrisy here. Your attacks were weaksauce (I never even called YOU weaksauce lol), Klobuchar and Pete are assholes. If you don't take me seriously for calling them assholes... so be it.

    Oh, I'm biased for sure, I hate Pete and Amy as candidates due to their policy positions.

    That's a fine frustration. My thing is, I actually want really want Medicare for all, and the only way to have a chance at getting that is by supporting the candidates who support it. I know it will be a huge fight to get it passed, I'm fine with that, makes it all the more important to elect a candidate who believes in it and will fight for it.

    I find Amy to be dishonest regarding progressive policies, I get that your point is that you find her to be very pragmatic explaining what she portrays to be realistic in getting passed. I can see that point.
     
  16. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,147
    Likes Received:
    25,187
    Haven't read their plans in detail but my hunch is that the moderates still there (Biden included) will stick to Obamacare and just properly fund it. If anyone ever calls them out on it, then they might give one policy difference just to look different.

    Warren's bold healthcare declarations merits more detail but we aren't in that phase and she has more to lose disclosing details than withholding then.

    I don't think anyone is satisfied with Obamacare given how fragile and polarizing it is.

    Not sure when "moderate Democrats" became the masters of selling the virtues of **** sandwiches with a side order of "realism", but it's definitely a lingering problem.

    I mentioned Booker, who cited NeoLiberal dogma as the solution when it was one of the root causes for bringing up UBI. Not sure whether it's more because the politicians lost their ability to imagine or more because the people who elect them have become risk adverse into resigning themselves to settle for less.
     
    ThatBoyNick likes this.
  17. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    Warren/Bernie's plan will NOT lead to cost going down for all Americans. People that are making upper middle incomes will end up paying in more taxes than they save in premium. At least under Bernie they will and he admits it. Under Liz we can't say that honestly because she won't be honest about the issue, but we really know for her too.
     
  18. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,690
    Warren gave a tell tonight if you caught it. She said M4A she supports because it’s the best plan “that’s been released”.

    I think she’s waiting to release a plan honestly, but when she does, she needs Bernie out of the race or she knows he’ll trounce her with the progressive wing.

    The reason why she’s dodging is because she’s buying time. Not because she’s unprepared or that she wants to secretly make life more expensive for the middle class.

    Anyone running at her with that disingenuous argument that Biden and Pete were trying to go at her with are just looking like an ass trying to make that argument. Everyone knows Warren and knows she’s not in it to make the middle class go broke.

    I think she’ll have a pretty robust plan strategically AFTER Bernie drops out or at least until it’s only the 3 of them with Bernie unlikely to win.
     
    Rashmon, Nolen and FranchiseBlade like this.
  19. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,698
    Likes Received:
    18,478
    did he actually admin to that? Never heard him said that.

    I think focusing only on tax is misleading. Some will probably end up paying more in taxes than save in premium, if you have no health cost. Once you have health cost, you probably are immediately ahead.

    How do you put a price tag on and over the benefits of never worrying about your health care - about dealing with insurance - unknown and unreliable cost / denial of coverage and services / limited access to certain providers / etcs, about bankruptcy for health emergency, about freedom to move wherever and not tied down to your job because of company provided health plan , about choosing between health care and saving some $, ...

    I get the is my tax going to go up, but I see the laser focus on that to be too narrow and boring. Of course Bernie and warren job is to expand it and explain all these other benefits, but that doesn’t usually work for sound bites and Twitter.
     
  20. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,147
    Likes Received:
    25,187
    [theweek]Pete Buttigieg's disingenuous attack on Medicare-for-all
    In the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night, once again Medicare-for-all was a major focus of discussion. Once again, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren defended the plan against all comers — most especially Pete Buttigieg, who had a number of slick arguments about how universal Medicare would be a disaster.

    There's just one problem: None of Mayor Pete's arguments are true.

    Buttigieg leveled two main attacks. First, along with the moderators, he pressed Warren to admit that she would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for her Medicare-for-all plan. After the New York Times' Mark Lacey asked her if she should "acknowledge" she would raise taxes, she partly dodged the question, saying: "So the way I see this, it is about what kinds of costs middle-class families are going to face. So let me be clear on this. Costs will go up for the wealthy. They will go up for big corporations. And for middle-class families, they will go down."

    Buttigieg pounced: "Well, we heard it tonight, a yes or no question that didn't get a yes or no answer. Look, this is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular."

    It's very obvious why Warren refuses to say this outright, and it is arguably more accurate for her to do so. In the hegemonic neoliberal framework of American political rhetoric, taxes are always a net cost by definition — something that is taken from the American citizenry and spent on government boondoggles or welfare for poor people. Warren doesn't want to hand Donald Trump any attack lines about how she will raise taxes by focusing on what matters — namely, net costs for average people.

    And as HuffPost's Arthur Delaney notes, Medicare-for-all critics are leveraging this framework.

    The tax question is a trap, premised on the idea that raising taxes is always bad politics. The moderator already knows the candidate's position. Both the moderator and the candidate believe that answering with a simple “yes” would launch a thousand Republican attack ads. Not answering doesn't work either. After the September debate, TV analysts and the Republican National Committee bashed Warren for not disavowing taxes and not embracing them. [HuffPost]
    What really matters here is that, while Medicare-for-all would require some additional taxes on the middle class, those increases would be more than compensated for by zeroing out premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. As economist Gabriel Zucman explains:


    Now, one could take a different view on the best way to respond to this type of question. Bernie Sanders forthrightly admits that Medicare-for-all would require some additional taxation on the average citizen, but that would be more than compensated by reduced cost: "Under the Medicare-for-all bill that I wrote, premiums are gone. Co-payments are gone. Deductibles are gone. All out-of-pocket expenses are gone … the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills. But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up."

    Second, Buttigieg claimed that Medicare-for-all would cost trillions: "No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this Medicare-for-all plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in." On the specifics, Buttigieg is wrong — actually, the Sanders Medicare bill (which Warren supports) has a lot of funding mechanisms outlined.

    But on a deeper level, Buttigeig's argument is even more deceptive. He was likely referencing the study from the libertarian Mercatus Center about how much additional tax revenue would be needed to finance Medicare-for-all — just over $30 trillion, as Joe Biden said later. What that figure leaves out is that total health care spending under universal Medicare would go down by some $2 trillion over a decade.

    And what it further leaves out is that the Mercatus Center is a hack propaganda shop whose work is heavily biased against progressive policy. As I have previously explained in detail, what Medicare-for-all would cost depends entirely on how much policymakers want to crack down on waste and fraud, and squeeze down the prices of providers. Indeed, we could have universal Medicare without a dime in additional taxes if we crushed prices down to Canadian levels.

    These savings would come from eliminating duplicative administration and the price-setting power over providers that universal Medicare would provide. Those savings would necessarily be less in more fragmented systems which would preserve private insurance — like the one proposed by Pete Buttigeig.
    In other words, Mayor Pete's plan would be more expensive than Medicare-for-all. He would "pay for that" by keeping more of the cost burden on the shoulders of individual Americans.

    I, for one, have had quite enough of Buttigieg's glib turbo-wonk shtick. He simply is not being straight with the American people.​
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now