CNN Debate: Cruz vs. Sanders

[Mr. 5020]

Is anybody else watching? What are your thoughts so far?

I strongly dislike this format of picking audience questions that emphasize empathy for heartbreaking situations. Empathy produces poor policy in my opinion.

 

[rexlunae]

Is anybody else watching? What are your thoughts so far?

I listened. It was more substantive than the entire general election this past year. I thought they both did as well as can be expected from their respective positions. Cruz just had the task of defending the indefensible.

I strongly dislike this format of picking audience questions that emphasize empathy for heartbreaking situations. Empathy produces poor policy in my opinion.

So much easier when you can treat the people impacted by your inhumane policies as mere abstractions. It hurts a lot more to tell someone to their face that you want to take away the insurance that's saving their lives as you speak to them.

 

[rexlunae]

Also, how much longer do you suppose Republicans are going to be able to talk about "repealing and replacing" Obamacare before their voters catch on that they aren't going to do it? They're stuck in a trap with no way out. They've promised not to throw people off their insurance. They've also promised a full repeal of the law. These two promises are mutually exclusive. You can't repeal Obamacare without kicking people off their plans. They've had seven, eight years to get their plan together. There is no plan. There won't ever be a plan, other than running out the clock. They control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Shouldn't they have already voted on a plan?

 

[jgarden]

After years of demonizing Obamacare, the Republicans are now discovering that with a GOP President and majorities in both the House and Senate, they are now obligated to deliver on their election promises by replacing it with something better.

The problem is that with any private insurance option which includes those with pre-existing conditions, it requires a majority of young healthy subscribers to remain financially solvent.

That would continue to require compulsory membership for all citizens, an approach which the Republicans have already denounced.

The 2 other alternatives would have EITHER a heavily government subsidized version of the current system to compensate for the lack of healthy members OR universal healthcare - that has already been adopted by every other modern nation in the world.

Both approaches would be far more expensive than Obamacare and run contrary to conservative principles.

If they haven't solved their dilemma by 2018, however, the Republicans face the very real risk of losing both majorities in Congress and leaving Donald Trump to the "tender mercies" of the Democrats!

 

[jeffblue101]

Also, how much longer do you suppose Republicans are going to be able to talk about "repealing and replacing" Obamacare before their voters catch on that they aren't going to do it? They're stuck in a trap with no way out. They've promised not to throw people off their insurance. They've also promised a full repeal of the law. These two promises are mutually exclusive. You can't repeal Obamacare without kicking people off their plans. They've had seven, eight years to get their plan together. There is no plan. There won't ever be a plan, other than running out the clock. They control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Shouldn't they have already voted on a plan?

stop it, replacing Obamacare is hard in part because they don't have a filibuster proof senate majority to remove many of the Obamacare regulations. repealing the Obamacare budget can be done through reconciliation but those regulations that make insurance expensive require a well thought out political solution that will break a filibuster by the democrats. isn't ironic that democrats will have to eventually try to filibuster a Republican plan that they repeatably said doesn't exist

 

[jeffblue101]

After years of demonizing Obamacare, the Republicans are now discovering that with a GOP President and majorities in both the House and Senate, they are now obligated to deliver on their election promises by replacing it with something better.

The problem is that with any private insurance option which includes those with pre-existing conditions, it requires a majority of young healthy subscribers to remain financially solvent.

That would continue to require compulsory membership for all citizens, an approach which the Republicans have already denounced.

The 2 other alternatives would have EITHER a heavily government subsidized version of the current system to compensate for the lack of healthy members OR universal healthcare - that has already been adopted by every other modern nation in the world.

Both approaches would be far more expensive than Obamacare and run contrary to conservative principles.

If they haven't solved their dilemma by 2018, however, the Republicans face the very real risk of losing both majorities in Congress and leaving Donald Trump to the "tender mercies" of the Democrats!

how about this third option, stop making insurance so unaffordable and undesirable for young and healthy people with unnecessary regulations

 

[jgarden]

how about this third option, stop making insurance so unaffordable and undesirable for young and healthy people with unnecessary regulations

The only way to reduce premiums for the young and healthy would be for insurance companies to drop older and/or those with pre-existing conditions who tend to make the majority of the claims.

America would then regress back to the "bad old days" before Obamacare, where many of those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale were forced to go without medical care!

The Republicans promised to replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better - unfortunately the financial facts of life just don't add up to support such a claim.

 

[Mr. 5020]

I listened. It was more substantive than the entire general election this past year. I thought they both did as well as can be expected from their respective positions. Cruz just had the task of defending the indefensible.

I thought they both did well. By the end of it, both were arguing against ACA.

So much easier when you can treat the people impacted by your inhumane policies as mere abstractions. It hurts a lot more to tell someone to their face that you want to take away the insurance that's saving their lives as you speak to them.

It was on both sides. Bernie had to answer why he was killing people's business. Cruz was asked why he wanted people to die. It's dumb.

Also, how much longer do you suppose Republicans are going to be able to talk about "repealing and replacing" Obamacare before their voters catch on that they aren't going to do it? They're stuck in a trap with no way out. They've promised not to throw people off their insurance. They've also promised a full repeal of the law. These two promises are mutually exclusive. You can't repeal Obamacare without kicking people off their plans. They've had seven, eight years to get their plan together. There is no plan. There won't ever be a plan, other than running out the clock. They control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Shouldn't they have already voted on a plan?

A couple weeks in? No.

The problem is that with any private insurance option which includes those with pre-existing conditions, it requires a majority of young healthy subscribers to remain financially solvent.

This is why ACA wasn't solvent.

 

[fool]

It hurts a lot more to tell someone to their face that you want to take away the insurance that's saving their lives as you speak to them.

Insurance is not saving anyone's life, Health care is.
Insurance is how they pay for their Health Care.

Two different things.

 

[Crucible]

Cruz was the poster boy for every naive conservative.

And like a boy, he didn't have the stones to do what needed to be done as president- he shuttered at Trump's presence.

Sorry if that sounds harsh
But
That's the objective truth as far as I'm concerned lain:

And
He was born in Canada.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Cruz was the poster boy for every naive conservative.

And like a boy, he didn't have the stones to do what needed to be done as president- he shuttered at Trump's presence.

Sorry if that sounds harsh
But
That's the objective truth as far as I'm concerned lain:

And
He was born in Canada.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Crucible]

What does this have to do with anything?

Everybody wants to insert their opinion, would be actions, narratives, anon anon.

I'm tired of hearing it.

Frankly, I just try to remind people of how these people failed in the first place.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Everybody wants to insert their opinion, would be actions, narratives, anon anon.

I'm tired of hearing it.

Frankly, I just try to remind people of how these people failed in the first place.

So it's not relevant. :up:

 

[Crucible]

So it's not relevant. :up:

Their opinions are not relevant :chuckle:

 

[jeffblue101]

The only way to reduce premiums for the young and healthy would be for insurance companies to drop older and/or those with pre-existing conditions who tend to make the majority of the claims.

America would then regress back to the "bad old days" before Obamacare, where many of those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale were forced to go without medical care!

The Republicans promised to replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better - unfortunately the financial facts of life just don't add up to support such a claim.

wrong!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanel...t-getting-bigger-all-the-time/2/#26a3ba05736e

The third tranche of tax relief we're going to see in Obamacare repeal and replace is the creation of a new age-adjusted, refundable, advanceable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance. This would allow anyone not offered health insurance through their employer, Medicare or Medicaid to purchase a plan affordably.

Here's how it would work: A family without coverage would be eligible for a tax credit to pay for insurance. This credit amount will be pegged to a typical pre-Obamacare cost of a plan. For older families the credit will be more, and for younger families it will be less. Each month, the credit would apply toward the insurance bill, with any overage the responsibility of the taxpayer. If a family chooses a plan cheaper than the credit, they can deposit the difference into their HSA.

Because the credit is not tied to income, as Obamacare's failed tax credit is, there is no need for phaseouts, background checks, or "gotcha" true-ups at tax time. The only variable is age. Many more healthy people will choose to join insurance pools as a result, which helps spread the risk of insurance more evenly.

Some will call this part, especially, "Obamacare lite." That would be irresponsible. It's true that Obamacare has a tax credit, and the replacement plan will also have a tax credit. But this tax credit works very differently, is much more likely to succeed, and will prove to be far more usable and popular. Obamacare's income-based tax credit encourages "job lock" and penalizes work. It has failed miserably, as evidenced by the implosion of Obamacare across the board.

Besides, conservatives have had a near consensus for decades now that this type of tax credit is the way to go for people who are not able to get health insurance in the two big ways we provide it in this country--via your job or via the government. There is no other practical way--outside of straight-up welfare--to get health insurance to people who can't get it anywhere else. It's this or nothing.

In order to help pay for this plan, employer-sponsored coverage would remain totally tax free for most Americans. Only the most gratuitously expensive plans--and only to the extent they are gratuitously expensive--would begin to lose tax-exempt status for workers. That's a small price to pay for a portable health insurance "backpack" (as the blueprint calls it) that follows you from job to job, and into retirement.

Tax relief is on the way--just not from where you expect it. If you want a tax cut this year, Obamacare repeal and replace is your best bet.

in my opinion these types of tax credits could potentially be the beginning of a basic income

 

[rexlunae]

stop it, replacing Obamacare is hard in part because they don't have a filibuster proof senate majority to remove many of the Obamacare regulations. repealing the Obamacare budget can be done through reconciliation but those regulations that make insurance expensive require a well thought out political solution that will break a filibuster by the democrats. isn't ironic that democrats will have to eventually try to filibuster a Republican plan that they repeatably said doesn't exist

Why dont you tell me all about it when it actually happens. Don't hold your breath. And by the way, the reconciliation scheme can't be filibustered. That's why they've talked about doing it that way.

 

[rexlunae]

Insurance is not saving anyone's life, Health care is.
Insurance is how they pay for their Health Care.

Two different things.

If health care can save your life, and you can't get health care without insurance, insurance can save your life.

 

[Tinark]

The one part I didn't understand is why all the examples of poorly run single payer healthcare that Ted Cruz brought up couldn't be said to be a criticism against Medicare? Yet Ted said he didn't want to abolish Medicare. I wish Bernie had pressed this point harder.

Additionally, what about a single payer system covering basic healthcare for everyone, with the option to pay extra for private insurance (which Medicare beneficiaries are already allowed to do, for example)? That way, if you don't like having to wait a few extra weeks for a knee replacement on the single payer insurance program, you can pay extra for a private insurance policy. Worried that your million dollar extraordinary care to live a few extra months when you are 90 years old won't be covered by the government system? Pay for your own end of life policy that will cover it (or pay out of pocket). Bernie should've brought this up as a possibility which would really kill most of the criticisms and examples that Ted brought up.

 

[Crucible]

America's healthcare is a tragedy.

Don't sprain your ankle here if you're not insured- a 15 minute doctor visit consisting of a fat ibuprofen and a plastic air cast will cost you 6,500 dollars.

And you can't rationalize that- that's what trips me out the most, really. People trying to defend that :freak:

Something needs to be done about it, it's that simple- just shut up otherwise.

 

[rexlunae]

I thought they both did well. By the end of it, both were arguing against ACA.

Of course, Bernie was arguing to expand it. The Medicaid expansion is where most of the gains in coverage occurred under the ACA, not the exchanges or the subsidies. His plan is expanding Medicaid even further, until it covers everyone.

It was on both sides. Bernie had to answer why he was killing people's business.

I liked his answer. Honest. No pandering. More courage than most politicians would have shown. Not to say the current solution is perfect, but I think there's too much whining about expecting "small" employers to provide insurance.

Cruz was asked why he wanted people to die. It's dumb.

He had no good answer. And he knows it. And, in his defense and to his credit, I don't think he's willing to charge ahead regardless. They keep talking about repeal and replace as a stalling tactic, but at some point, people are going to start asking what they're waiting for. Republicans passed several repeals with no replacement under the Obama administration because they knew Obama wouldn't sign them, but now that there's a Republican president, they can't do that anymore because anything Trump does would reflect on their party and hurt them. This should tell you how insincere their rhetoric has been to this point.

A couple weeks in? No.

They've been talking about "repeal and replace" for at least 7 year. They have nothing. Not even the beginning of a plan. Not even a plan to make a plan. Not even the vague possibility of a plan. I suspect that the plan is going to be cut-and-run: Repeal, but delay the repeal from taking effect until December 2018, after the next election, but the next Congress (unfairly) gets the blame. Either that, or they do nothing. Mark my words, it'll be one of those two things.

This is why ACA wasn't solvent.

Wasn't solvent? I'm not even sure what that means in this context.