Who won the Obamacare debate tonight?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:39:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Who won the Obamacare debate tonight?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Who won the Obamacare debate tonight?
#1
Bernie Sanders
 
#2
Ted Cruz
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 83

Author Topic: Who won the Obamacare debate tonight?  (Read 3178 times)
UWS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 07, 2017, 10:51:45 PM »

Who won the Obamacare debate tonight?
Logged
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,238
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2017, 10:57:17 PM »

Sanders, but barely.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2017, 10:58:19 PM »

In terms of style, Cruz unfortunately. He said a lot of outrageous things and Sanders failed to respond to them adequately.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2017, 10:59:15 PM »

I only watched a quarter of it since I don't have cable, but presumably Crazy Bernie.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2017, 11:00:40 PM »

Cruz's evasiveness and distractions really struck me as annoying. No wonder Trump calls him Lyin' Ted. He does not explain things clearly enough.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2017, 11:01:38 PM »

Sanders, I thought. However, as it relates to the 2020 race this debate is irrelevant.

Time will tell whether or not repeal of the ACA will end up as successful as Cruz assures us. If the free-market insurance system truly lowers costs and more Americans can afford care, or if millions lose coverage and heathcare costs/premiums/prescription prices skyrocket, that will set the playing field for an appropriate debate. If the latter prediction plays out, I would wager we'll be hearing quite a bit more about Medicare-for-All.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2017, 11:06:16 PM »

Cruz is definitely the more polished speaker, much as it pains me to say. In terms of who "won", that depends on what the goal of the debate was trying to determine. If the goal was to protect the status quo under Obamacare, Cruz won easily, since Sanders himself acknowledged many of the issues that exist. If the goal was to provide a reason why Obamacare must be repealed, rather than simply modifying some of the provisions, Sanders won.
Logged
wjx987
Rookie
**
Posts: 145
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2017, 01:07:28 AM »

Cruz had pretty good rhetoric compared to Bernie, who evaded some questions, but in terms of substance, Bernie all the way, as Cruz's logic and math in some parts just didn't add up.

So I'd say Bernie won, but some may not see it that way.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2017, 01:21:09 AM »

Of course I think Bernie won, but I will admit that Cruz is a good debater.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,067


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2017, 03:36:20 AM »

It's weird, AH.com, which is more liberal than Atlas, is unanimous that Cruz wiped the floor with Bernie.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2017, 06:46:31 AM »

It's weird, AH.com, which is more liberal than Atlas, is unanimous that Cruz wiped the floor with Bernie.

Isn't aurora a private organization which will stand massively to lose in a Medicare for all program?

Ted Cruz's free market stuff will massively help them!
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2017, 07:00:21 AM »

I thought Bernie won but Cruz did fantastic as I had predicted. But to beat him, Bernie has to go after him point by point & prove him wrong but in that case you don't discuss the damn topic.

Ted Cruz had no good policies, evaded all questions & got away with it by going into speeches about Medicare, ACA etc. Fantastic lawyer & debater. By pure policy, questions, etc he did bad. But he weaseled his way out.

 On that account I will give Bernie only a narrow win!
Logged
SCNCmod
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2017, 08:05:26 AM »

The responses so far see a bit odd... "Dems" on the board seem to be less than happy with Bernie's performance... While "R's" seem to be less than happy with Cruz?

I haven't watched yet... but now I am interested in doing so.
Logged
Strudelcutie4427
Singletxguyforfun
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2017, 08:27:00 AM »

Gotta say Teddy C won this one
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2017, 08:35:34 AM »

As per usual, nobody really wants to be honest that providing health care for all, at the quality level it is now for those who have it, is going to be very expensive, and somebody will have to pay for it, as to those who cannot afford it (maybe 40% of the population or something). Obamacare had a chunk of those paying the subsidies being healthy young folks, who pay too much in premiums, which I hate. I would prefer the taxpayers pay such subsidies in taxes, and that all subsidies be means tested, so folks like myself cease to be subsidized. Finally, the system needs to move to an HMO system, particularly for the olds.

All of this is just too politically toxic, so we get the debates like we got here, that are not very helpful. I don't like single payer, because it affords consumers with no choices, and that is unnecessary. Let folks pick and choose.  The main thing is that many just cannot afford the premiums.

Oh, and again, force drug companies to charge US consumers what they charge the government of France, less any volume discount for lower costs of delivery that may be justified. The end.
Logged
SCNCmod
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2017, 09:49:08 AM »

Both of them did fine, as expected. Three observations:

(1) It was obvious that each was arguing from a different ideological framework and sets of values - and they acknowledged as much. This was refreshing even if Cruz was pretty evasive about the grim and brutal realities of not treating healthcare "as a right."

(2) Neither Senator had a concrete plan that they were uncritically defending, and this allowed them to get away with a lot. Sure, Sanders was speaking in defense of Obamacare, but he repeatedly acknowledged the law's flaws and advocated for a single payer system. Similarly, Cruz was very critical of Obamacare, but he didn't have a single Republican replacement plan for he which advocating. He didn't even have an outline and even resorted to the "purchase insurance beyond state lines" claptrap, as if that's going to be universally affordable, as if that's going to make up for losing most forms of free-at-point of access preventive treatment, and as if access to cancer treatment in a Delaware hospital would make any difference to someone living in, say, Nebraska.

(3) The rhetoric about "health care as a right" would be more convincing if it were framed as health care as an obligation or responsibility. We have a responsibility to take care of ourselves, and each other. I think you can sketch out the basic question - Should emergency departments be permitted to turn sick and injured people away? Should hospitals be permitted to lock out pregnant woman who need care? - and justify a great deal of intervention from there, both public and private, both medical and non-medical: Complete streets and sidewalks; clean air, water, and soil; mandatory vaccinations; preventive care, especially for pregnant women; better nutrition; cigarette, alcohol, and soda taxes etc. If you want to get into the emergency department when you need care, you need to work on all of these things. All of them improve health and usually they will be more affordable than critical care.

Of course Sanders political instincts are better than mine, and American voters have an extreme allergy to accepting any kind of responsibility (e.g. childish tantrums about paying taxes, jury duty, etc.).

Very important and correct point: The rhetoric about "health care as a right" would be more convincing if it were framed as health care as an obligation or responsibility.
Logged
SCNCmod
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2017, 09:52:11 AM »

I haven't watched the debate yet... But I think the best argument for Dems going forward is to push for a public option... (which will also provide competition to private insurers). 

This is very logical, easy to grasp... and incorporates the argument of "competition" as a mechanism of bringing down cost.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2017, 10:20:05 AM »

I don't like single payer, because it affords consumers with no choices, and that is unnecessary. Let folks pick and choose. 

What exactly are you referring to?
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2017, 12:18:57 PM »

I haven't watched the debate yet... But I think the best argument for Dems going forward is to push for a public option... (which will also provide competition to private insurers). 

This is very logical, easy to grasp... and incorporates the argument of "competition" as a mechanism of bringing down cost.

Even if Obamacare is eventually canceled or suspended?
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2017, 12:24:42 PM »

Would a Trump or David Koch use ACA? No. Most people signing are one's who need the Insurance not uber rich. And they are subsidizing people with Pre-existing conditions, old people etc. And with premiums rising this lot will get angry, unhappy & would leave leading to the problem of adverse selection. Fewer people subsidize n more unhealthy people sign up leading to exploding premiums which will ultimately lead to a collapse. And many of these dissatisfied fed up people are young Dem voters.

Other than, it is not that that costs will be the same in Single Payer? British pay 1/3rd of the US, most countries pay around 1/2 to 2/3 the cost.

Single payer is cheaper & has many advantages. One giant entity managing Millions of units of production (healthcare services) which will mean fixed costs per unit of product/service sold is low (fixed costs barely increase, you sell more units). Think of a car factory selling 1000 units vs selling 100,000 units. Who will be able to sell at a lower price? The big company can afford expensive machines to improve productivity, bargain better with suppliers to get cheaper parts. Both will have similar fixed costs - Like a factory, R & D etc but the bigger company gets a much larger profit.

Doing large volume brings down per unit cost & if the government does it, then the costs don't rise due to a monopoly (over-charging, lobbyists writing rules which will happen in a private monopoly). And you deduct the cost of private profits which further bring costs down.
Logged
Medal506
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,802
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2017, 01:14:36 PM »

Obviously our future president Ted Cruz won that debate
Logged
Cruzcrew
Paleocon
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 568
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2017, 05:38:09 PM »

I thought it was clear Cruz won in terms of debating, regardless of personal views on the subject. Cruz repeatedly cited statistics, more detailed stories, and facts while Bernie Sanders used the more common appeal to emotion. Cruz also did a better job answering the questions towards those asking the questions. We saw with the hair salon owner, Bernie clearly didn't succeed in addressing her concerns of how she would afford to pay for health insurance for all of her employees in that type of business. Then Bernie tried to argue that if she just lowered prices, so many more people would buy it that she would get enough money to cover every employee and more potential ones on health insurance. It seems like the idea of Maximum Revenue was foreign to him as there's a certain point where when you decrease prices too much, you lose money more significantly. At the small business owner's point presumably around maximum revenue, decreased prices simply can't cover additional benefits for her employees let alone prevent losses. Then, when Ted Cruz argued that Bernie Sander's Medicare for All plan would increase government spending by over $2 trillion per year and triple taxes paid, despite the latter claim being more dubious, Bernie failed to adequately address that while claiming that with his plans, Americans would have more disposable income. I understand that Ted Cruz did make some sketchy claims, yet he seemed to have been the better debater overall that night.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2017, 06:24:41 PM »

Would a Trump or David Koch use ACA? No. Most people signing are one's who need the Insurance not uber rich. And they are subsidizing people with Pre-existing conditions, old people etc. And with premiums rising this lot will get angry, unhappy & would leave leading to the problem of adverse selection. Fewer people subsidize n more unhealthy people sign up leading to exploding premiums which will ultimately lead to a collapse. And many of these dissatisfied fed up people are young Dem voters.

Other than, it is not that that costs will be the same in Single Payer? British pay 1/3rd of the US, most countries pay around 1/2 to 2/3 the cost.

Single payer is cheaper & has many advantages. One giant entity managing Millions of units of production (healthcare services) which will mean fixed costs per unit of product/service sold is low (fixed costs barely increase, you sell more units). Think of a car factory selling 1000 units vs selling 100,000 units. Who will be able to sell at a lower price? The big company can afford expensive machines to improve productivity, bargain better with suppliers to get cheaper parts. Both will have similar fixed costs - Like a factory, R & D etc but the bigger company gets a much larger profit.

Doing large volume brings down per unit cost & if the government does it, then the costs don't rise due to a monopoly (over-charging, lobbyists writing rules which will happen in a private monopoly). And you deduct the cost of private profits which further bring costs down.

Eventually, there will be the closing of the insurance industry and either nationalization or bailouts will follow.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2017, 06:37:10 PM »

Sanders kept veering between defense of the ACA and support for just replacing it with single-payer, and his interaction with the hair salon lady from Texas (where he effectively said she should be responsible for providing insurance for her employees, and she responded that she couldn't even afford insurance for herself) was absolutely disastrous. Cruz starting off every answer with some attempt to relate to the questioner (including the particularly strange, incest-vibey comment when he told a pregnant woman who already had a son named Samson that she should name her future daughter Delilah) was especially annoying and came off as very politician-y, but he certainly made no critical mistakes the way Bernie did.

Voted Cruz, but it was much more so that Bernie lost than Cruz won, in my opinion. I'd have to rewatch it to see if there's a soundbite that could be used in an ad that captures the whole thing, but again, Bernie's interaction with the hair salon lady was disastrous. That lost the debate for him.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2017, 06:42:28 PM »

As per usual, nobody really wants to be honest that providing health care for all, at the quality level it is now for those who have it, is going to be very expensive, and somebody will have to pay for it,

Huh

I literally never have heard anyone claim that providing health care for all Americans is not expensive, or that “somebody” (?) will not have to pay for it. And you’re using the wrong tense: It should be is, not is going to be, because we are already paying for health care for everyone.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Children, the elderly, and other dependents alone would get you close to 40% who are unable to pay even for heavily regulated and subsidized health insurance. It is exceptional for an individual to be capable of covering the cost of the care that he or she might need.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This makes about as much sense as saying we that shouldn’t have an army because it means forcing “healthy young folks” to fight and die on behalf of the old and the rich.

Most elderly people in the United States would be living in or near poverty without Social Security. Few of them have anything even approaching adequate retirement savings. Even fewer would be able to afford any kind of health insurance on a private market. And most of them are extremely unhealthy. The fact that a substantial minority of the elderly make up the the wealthiest sizable group of Americans in the country is comparatively unimportant.

This is the inescapable reality of health insurance markets: Either the young and the healthy subsidize the old and the sick, or the old and the sick go without care and die.

Obviously this can happen through taxation and subsidies rather than regulated premiums, and that would be a relief for the great majority of young Americans who don’t have very much to spare. But it’s striking to see the idea that we have a responsibility to take care of the elderly treated as if it were one of the world’s great injustices. Your line might resonate with young adults if you bring up in conversation, but you’re deluding yourself if you really believe that this is a ridiculous and unfair condition. All of us will benefit from the same social compact someday. If your lot hasn’t succeeded in dismantling it by then, at least.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is not a good way to means test health insurance coverage. We are living through a horrifying example in this right now: Look at what is happening to people who fall just above the income level for Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. There are policies that would improve this, but as long as some people are eligible and others are not it will remain a challenge, and it will cause suffering.

Means-testing means that you leave people wrangling with confusing eligibility and income reporting requirements that cause frustration and, much worse, lapses in coverage. It means switching insurers and going to a different doctor when your income changes. It also makes the political sustainability of universal coverage more challenging – voters tend to sour on programs that are only for the poor. Most of all, most of us are better off when even the most affluent among us need to care about the quality of any public service. You always frame this line as some kind of noble sacrifice that runs against your own interests, but that's not true, because this is a policy that protects your ability to ignore what it's actually like to use a public service or payment system because you can just purchase whatever you want and not worry about anyone else.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

HMOs were hated by almost everyone and were only mildly effective at reducing cost growth and unnecessary use of health care. They did not improve quality of care. They did not improve health outcomes. I doubt that there are many health economists who would seriously argue that the United State should move back toward them. They just don’t work well given the existing elements of the health care system in this country.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a political spectacle. Why would you tune expecting a detailed and nuanced comparative policy analysis? This was Bernie Sanders debating Ted Cruz on commercial cable television, not Katherine Baicker debating Uwe Reinhardt on CSPAN. Both Senators were clear enough for someone with basic knowledge to understand what their priorities were. That is what politicians should do, and the event didn’t need to be anything more than that.

Moreover, it’s not a matter of avoiding harsh but necessary truths: Your views are unpopular. They are unpopular among Republicans, they are unpopular among Democrats, and they are unpopular among unaffiliateds and non-voters. Maybe it’s worth considering that this is because your preferred policies would not actually work in the interests of most people.

(Your views are also unpopular among health economists and policy experts – the specifics, I mean, not the pablum about “someone needing to pay for it.” It’s as if you skimmed a few white papers in the early nineties and decided that you had cracked the code and became so proud of you learned then that you haven’t read or listened to anything on the subject since then.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Consumers." Roll Eyes I think the word you are looking for is patients.

Also, I must be missing something: You object to single payer because it "affords [patients] with no choices," (which is false, by the way), yet you prefer "an HMO system." Surely you must realize that managed care works - if it works at all - by limiting your choices? Why is one objectionable but not the other?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it really? Or is that the costs driving those premiums have been increasing for decades? And that these costs have become decoupled from improvements in life expectancy and well-being? And that, in the aggregate, they don't buy Americans better health outcomes than people living in other wealthy countries. These health policy conversations should never lose touch with the realities of mortality and chronic disease. In the final analysis, who really cares about insurance or care if they're not improving length or quality of life? This can't be taken for granted.

yeah, for some reason much of the left hates means testing. I love it. We will just have to disagree on this one. Sure, you need intelligent phase outs, rather than a bright line, where it is all or nothing depending on which side that you are on. As it is, we means test for Medicaid. We already do it. It just needs to be made more universal. Much of the left seems to prefer everybody being in one plan. I don't like that. I want to be able to fire my service providers, and if I want to get some extras, not have to be put in a position, that what I otherwise get "for free" (paid for by the taxpayers), suddenly turns into something where I get nothing at all - the ultimate cliff mechanism, which I decried above.

No, I am not going to persuade you. We just have different values on this one. And that I think is what it is really about, rather than flaws in the mechanisms, which as I say, can be fixed.

Oh yes, premiums are going up in large part due to medical technology. Maybe some of that should not be subsidized. Maybe we do too much health care at the final exit (the death panels thing). That is another discussion. HMO's would help here too. There will be no incentive to over treat.

On HMO's, hopefully there will be many of them, with different levels of coverage (with a prescribed minimum, that is used to calculate the amount of the subsidies to be paid on a means tested basis. So there will be choice. Single payer in effect means that you have but one HMO. Of if not that, single payer will tend to squeeze out everything but what the single payer wants. Let the consumers (patients consuming health care), decide what they want, when given the money. Kind of like school vouchers, which you probably hate too, but I digress.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 16 queries.