The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Full quote is about healthcare...not about the economy at large:

 

His deregulation of healthcare and removing state funded hospitals (which controlled price setting for services/goods) caused a 20 year spiral that we're reaping the 'benefits' of.  His deregulation caused increased competition but the prices went up instead of down and nothing has or will take that away.  In a free market, GREED has to be removed to drive prices down and you can't do that through deregulation. 

 

Company profits will always be put before sick people.  That's greed.  That's what I'm referring to.  I'm not talking about any other area of the economy.  Hence why I said you bringing up Amazon or any other sector of business is a straw man.

 

So your claim is that competition and transparent pricing would not cause healthcare and pharmaceutical prices to go down?

[ActualCornHusker]

11 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

My claim is that deregulation and competition in healthcare HAS NOT caused prices to go down for the past 20 years...since the deregulation I mentioned to you by Ward happened in the early 1990's.  The proof is in the pudding.

 

Transparent pricing won't do anything about price fixing and as long as they aren't regulated on what they charge, it can be any amount.

 

I'm not having luck finding anything, so if you'd share a link, I'd appreciate it.

[Ratt Mhule]

2 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

You are not wrong. Large companies do so not only through lowering prices - they also lobby for greater regulation on their industry (including min wage) because they can absorb the additional cost and their smaller competitors can't. This is the exact method of pharmaceutical companies - which is one actual legitimate role of government: 1) to break up monopolies when needed, and 2) to facilitate a business friendly atmosphere (minimal regulations & taxes) so that there is ability for new competitors to emerge. That's great for everyone, because businesses don't just compete for customers - they also compete for workers. So if companies want better employees, they have to offer higher wages and better benefits.

 

I'd also segue to the claim of our upper income tax rates being too low:

 

LINK

 

The tax cuts lowered it to 21% but the effective rate was 11.3%. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/16/corporations-paid-percent-tax-rate-last-year-steep-drop-under-president-trumps-law/%3foutputType=amp

[Ratt Mhule]

2 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

So your claim is that competition and transparent pricing would not cause healthcare and pharmaceutical prices to go down?

This is a good video of AOC talking about elasticity of demand of healthcare and why a free market in healthcare wouldnt work. Say what you want about her policies, I already know you dont agree with them and thats fine but she is one of the best in congress at doing her research and questioning witnesses during hearings, see Michael Cohen. This hearing actually got the company to give up their patent on the drug I think a few years earlier than it was meant to be. 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

2 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

This is a good video of AOC talking about elasticity of demand of healthcare and why a free market in healthcare wouldnt work. Say what you want about her policies, I already know you dont agree with them and thats fine but she is one of the best in congress at doing her research and questioning witnesses during hearings, see Michael Cohen. This hearing actually got the company to give up their patent on the drug I think a few years earlier than it was meant to be. 

 

 

Thank you for sharing. It's one of the few instances where she actually said something intelligent, and she's definitely correct about that. 

[Danny Bateman]

An interesting look ahead to what a Sanders administration would actually look like, and what it would likely set out to do:

 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

14 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

I've been told by numerous authorities in this thread that there is NO WAY Warren becomes his VP.  I trust them over Politico.

 

Who would be the top ppl he'd consider for VP if he wins the nomination? 

[ActualCornHusker]

6 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

I said that tongue in cheek actually.  I was pretty much told I didn't know what I was talking about when I said Sanders/Warren on a ticket.

 

I see. I'm not sure who else he'd consider honestly. Kamala possibly so he gets a little pull from black voters since that's his struggling demographic from the sounds of it (which is silly imo)

[Danny Bateman]

9 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

I said that tongue in cheek actually.  I was pretty much told I didn't know what I was talking about when I said Sanders/Warren on a ticket.

 

Conventional wisdom says it would be a really foolhardy idea.

 

Thing is, Bernie is anything but conventional.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

Thing is, Bernie is anything but conventional.

Pardon me if I’m tired of hearing this as a good thing about a President. 

[Ratt Mhule]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Pardon me if I’m tired of hearing this as a good thing about a President. 

I think what he means is he is one of the only politicians that doesnt blow with the political winds if you will. For example, when have you ever heard a candidate for president say we need to treat palestinians with dignity and respect. That is what I think he means by not conventional. 

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

I think what he means is he is one of the only politicians that doesnt blow with the political winds if you will. For example, when have you ever heard a candidate for president say we need to treat palestinians with dignity and respect. That is what I think he means by not conventional. 

I know. Just tired of the phrase. 

[Landlord]

5 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

It's one of the few instances where she actually said something intelligent, and she's definitely correct about that. 

 

What she said is correct. What you said is not  

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I know. Just tired of the phrase. 

 

More or less tired than you are of the conventional power game that is D.C. politics?  

[NM11046]

7 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I see. I'm not sure who else he'd consider honestly. Kamala possibly so he gets a little pull from black voters since that's his struggling demographic from the sounds of it (which is silly imo)

Kamala has shockingly low support with AA voters - Bernie gets more on his own - so she may be an excellent candidate but its not because of her ethnicity and who she might bring with her.

[sho]

3 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Kamala has shockingly low support with AA voters - Bernie gets more on his own - so she may be an excellent candidate but its not because of her ethnicity and who she might bring with her.

 

Exactly, you have to look where Bernie polls the lowest to see which candidate may help him.   He polls well within the AA community.   The reason why Warren gets mentioned a lot, is there seems to be very little cross-over with their supporters in terms of demographics.   I think he'll go with someone closer to the center and someone who isn't an old white male.   In fact, I don't think he'll go with a white male if he gets the nomination.  My uneducated guesses would be Val Demings, from Fl, may help him in a swing state.   Former Chief of Police for Orlando, credited for bringing down the crime rate in Orlando.   If not Val, I could see Tammy Baldwin, from another battle ground state of Wisconsin.   First openly gay member of the US Senate.   Though she may be too far left to help Bernie get centrist votes.