Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Elizabeth Warren Pres. Candidacy.....

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

But moderates are more likely to deny rights to  the LGBT community than a progressive.   Isn't that part of your agenda?

Warren will be very pro-LGBT-rights.    

 

No, I uh... was probably drinking a bit when I said such things. I think identity politics is really annoying nowadays but have no ill will towards them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Moderates can get bent for all I care.  Pick a side and fight.

The moderates (of which I am one) have picked a side and are fighting.

13 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

I'm not sure if Warren is telling the truth about Sanders being sexist but she did also say she was going to lower the price of insulin (a campaign promise I really get behind). If she is nominated, i will actually vote for her. I don't see any similarity between Warren and Klobuchar besides the fact they're women. I wouldn't vote for Klobuchar if you forced me at gunpoint.

How is Warren going to lower the price of insulin?   She can't.  Only Congress could regulate prices of medications and that would be extremely difficult to accomplish.  I do support taking steps to lower costs of all healthcare in America, but let's be realistic.  You have to get the GOPers out of control of House and Senate first.

As for the NYT endorsement, haven't actually read it (on my to do list for today), but what I have heard and read seems contradictory.  How can they endorse two people with very divergent ideas?

I still think Klobuchar is the best candidate, but recognize she has a very difficult path ahead.  Biden still remains the most likely one to actually defeat Trump in 2020, if anybody can.

Warren and Sanders will lose the Electoral College for sure and probably even the popular vote.  Obama and Clinton won as moderates, not progressives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

I'm not sure if Warren is telling the truth about Sanders being sexist but she did also say she was going to lower the price of insulin (a campaign promise I really get behind). If she is nominated, i will actually vote for her. I don't see any similarity between Warren and Klobuchar besides the fact they're women. I wouldn't vote for Klobuchar if you forced me at gunpoint.

I think one could be of the opinion that a woman could not beat Trump and not be sexist.  It may be a sad remark but perhaps that is what some people might think in this climate.  So, even if Warren heard Sanders say that I'm not sure that even she would think that he is sexist.  Maybe more like a man with no imagination.

Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes and she was toxic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

The moderates (of which I am one) have picked a side and are fighting.

How is Warren going to lower the price of insulin?   She can't.  Only Congress could regulate prices of medications and that would be extremely difficult to accomplish.  I do support taking steps to lower costs of all healthcare in America, but let's be realistic.  You have to get the GOPers out of control of House and Senate first.

 

Don't shoot the messenger but I believe with regards to lowering the cost of insulin Warren said in the last debate that it would be done with executive order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton also repeatedly alluded to what she suggested was sexism in Sanders's campaign.

6RXKJWBUNYI6TA3V4POPNNUFLA.jpg
 

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician,” Clinton said in “Hillary.”

KPTVUJQMQ4I6NCVYTLIFB53NPU.jpg
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's L.A. Times Election 2020 front page article is:  Warren puts her focus on gender.      Basic point was that Warren's focus was mostly on class but now she is going to make the focus on gender.      E.g.  getting endorsements from Women groups (e.g. Planned Parenthood etc..) and targeting women voters all under the banner of  only a women can (should?)  represent you.

Identity politics will likely cause the Dems to lose yet again.     I'll still vote for anyone-but-Trump but when the focus is on identity politics the difficultly is getting those "others" to do so.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Don't shoot the messenger but I believe with regards to lowering the cost of insulin Warren said in the last debate that it would be done with executive order.

Looks like a Warren admin would function very similar to the Trump admin;   Congress is still deeply divided and can't put forward any compromise legislation,  and even if they could the President singles they will just veto it and 95% of the time there are not enough votes for an override.     President issues executive orders.    A court halts an order.     An  order makes it way up thru higher and higher courts,    keeping things in limbo for months if not years.     SC finally rules order was outside scope of Presidential powers.     President gives press conference saying "see I tried to get this done,,,  but was block!".      President redefines the order,   rinse and repeat.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Don't shoot the messenger but I believe with regards to lowering the cost of insulin Warren said in the last debate that it would be done with executive order.

Thanks, but I don't see how that is legally possible.  This would amount to price controls on a specific product.  I know there have been price controls before, but they created a lot of problems and almost never proved successful.

This is what scares a lot of people about Warren, Sanders, AO-C, et. al.

What happens if the companies just say to heck with it; we have enough products that we make billions from already.  So, they stop producing insulin.

Good idea, but really need to see the details on how it could be accomplished without creating a massive shortage of insulin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Thanks, but I don't see how that is legally possible.  This would amount to price controls on a specific product.  I know there have been price controls before, but they created a lot of problems and almost never proved successful.

This is what scares a lot of people about Warren, Sanders, AO-C, et. al.

What happens if the companies just say to heck with it; we have enough products that we make billions from already.  So, they stop producing insulin.

Good idea, but really need to see the details on how it could be accomplished without creating a massive shortage of insulin.

CA is setting up it own exchange to purchase generic drugs from cheaper sources (e.g. Canada) instead of paying the Medicare price controlled amount,  that is way too high for many generic drugs.

So first there are already  price controls;  Medicare,  Worker's Comp fee schedules and other nations' price controls formula.   

Since insulin,  as well as most generic drugs,  are  produced by multiple companies fear of enough companies NOT producing a specific drug are way overblown.    The companies still make a very good profit on generic drugs.       I just worked on a WC study that makes this clear.         

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

CA is setting up it own exchange to purchase generic drugs from cheaper sources (e.g. Canada) instead of paying the Medicare price controlled amount,  that is way too high for many generic drugs.

So first there are already  price controls;  Medicare,  Worker's Comp fee schedules and other nations' price controls formula.   

Since insulin,  as well as most generic drugs,  are  produced by multiple companies fear of enough companies NOT producing a specific drug are way overblown.    The companies still make a very good profit on generic drugs.       I just worked on a WC study that makes this clear.         

 

I don't see Medicare, Medicaid, insurance, Workers Comp, etc. as being price controls.  Those are negotiated prices for certain drugs and many have co-pays that the individual has to pay.

There are only three companies in US manufacturing insulin.

The below link is a working group report on insulin availability and pricing.  Skip to end for conclusions and recommendations.  I did not see one where it recommended the President of the United States unilaterally establishes cost controls.  In fact, I didn't see a recommendation that the government get involved in costs at all.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/6/1299

From what I have heard, hasn't the government and Congress been debating cost controls for years with no success?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

I don't see Medicare, Medicaid, insurance, Workers Comp, etc. as being price controls.  Those are negotiated prices for certain drugs and many have co-pays that the individual has to pay.

There are only three companies in US manufacturing insulin.

The below link is a working group report on insulin availability and pricing.  Skip to end for conclusions and recommendations.  I did not see one where it recommended the President of the United States unilaterally establishes cost controls.  In fact, I didn't see a recommendation that the government get involved in costs at all.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/6/1299

From what I have heard, hasn't the government and Congress been debating cost controls for years with no success?

 Medicare has a very comprehensive medical fee schedule.   This sets the cost the Feds pay on a per fee basis;   E.g. the max cost for an x-ray.   A lab test.    Drugs and supplies.    Office visits.   Surgeries.      Per-diem caps for inpatient hospital stays etc....     Fee schedules are price controls.      These price controls are the reason some medical doctors refuse to see Medicare patients (as well as Work Comp ones since 46 states base their WC fee schedules on the Medicare fee schedules ).

For Group Health and payment by private insurance companies and medical providers:   insurance companies pay based on the Medicare fee schedule;   E.g.   Medicare plus 10%.  I agree that these arrangements are NOT price controls in that they are NOT mandated,   but instead negotiated as part of an HMO or PPO network.    These networks were created primarily for setting up these arrangements.     Insurance companies send their insurers to these medical providers and the medical providers agree to accept the agree upon payment (e.g. Medicare plus 10%).

Medicare for All is still Medicare so the existing price-controls would be in place.      It wouldn't even take an executive order;  a bureaucrat could set the mark-up for all drugs, as well as services.     If the vast majority of Americans were on Medicare most medical providers and pharmaceutical  companies couldn't  deny service because they are not making the profit they desire.  

One mistake I did make was implying that the price of insulin , specially,   could be lowered.     If the Medicare fee schedule already results in  a "low" margin of profit for those 3 manufacturers,  then there is no "room" for a further reduction in cost.        Interesting link so thanks for providing that.     Another area Warren has mentioned is removing the middle-man;   PBM's take profit from the overall healthcare system for doing next to nothing.      Removing them,  as well as other "middlemen" is another way to reduce cost.  E.g. mail order distribution directly from a pharmacy clearing-house right to the patient.     This would only involve 3 parties; manufacture,  clearing-house and patient.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

 Medicare has a very comprehensive medical fee schedule.   This sets the cost the Feds pay on a per fee basis;   E.g. the max cost for an x-ray.   A lab test.    Drugs and supplies.    Office visits.   Surgeries.      Per-diem caps for inpatient hospital stays etc....     Fee schedules are price controls.      These price controls are the reason some medical doctors refuse to see Medicare patients (as well as Work Comp ones since 46 states base their WC fee schedules on the Medicare fee schedules ).

For Group Health and payment by private insurance companies and medical providers:   insurance companies pay based on the Medicare fee schedule;   E.g.   Medicare plus 10%.  I agree that these arrangements are NOT price controls in that they are NOT mandated,   but instead negotiated as part of an HMO or PPO network.    These networks were created primarily for setting up these arrangements.     Insurance companies send their insurers to these medical providers and the medical providers agree to accept the agree upon payment (e.g. Medicare plus 10%).

Medicare for All is still Medicare so the existing price-controls would be in place.      It wouldn't even take an executive order;  a bureaucrat could set the mark-up for all drugs, as well as services.     If the vast majority of Americans were on Medicare most medical providers and pharmaceutical  companies couldn't  deny service because they are not making the profit they desire.  

One mistake I did make was implying that the price of insulin , specially,   could be lowered.     If the Medicare fee schedule already results in  a "low" margin of profit for those 3 manufacturers,  then there is no "room" for a further reduction in cost.        Interesting link so thanks for providing that.     Another area Warren has mentioned is removing the middle-man;   PBM's take profit from the overall healthcare system for doing next to nothing.      Removing them,  as well as other "middlemen" is another way to reduce cost.  E.g. mail order distribution directly from a pharmacy clearing-house right to the patient.     This would only involve 3 parties; manufacture,  clearing-house and patient.

 

 

 

Good in theory.  I just don't think it is politically practical in US today or in near future.

As I understand it, there is little difference between the PBM's and "clearing houses."  If so, why do government plans use PBM's instead of clearing houses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Good in theory.  I just don't think it is politically practical in US today or in near future.

As I understand it, there is little difference between the PBM's and "clearing houses."  If so, why do government plans use PBM's instead of clearing houses?

There is a different.   E.g. Cigna has it own mail-order clearing house;    I.e. they get drugs directly from the manufactures and distribute them directly to insurers (patients). 

My group-heath  employer provided insurance carrier is Cigna.   If I get my medications directly from Cigna my co-pay is a lot less (often zero for generics),  than it is if I get the same medications from a local pharmacy,  Walmart pharmacy or any other pharmacy.    The reason is because Cigna passes on what they save to the insurer.      

As for "good in theory":   What I stated isn't "theory" but how Medicare works.   (so I assume you mean from a political POV).  Medicare for All would work the same way but even better since it would cover more people.   The only major concern would be major decrease of new individuals and medical providers (doctors,  nurses,  hospitals,   labs etc...),   because the compensation for their services is now regulated and they can't make what they feel they are worth.        This is a serious concern and would have to be closely monitored by some type of 3rd party agency.    

Hey,  I know your against Medicare for All and I'm not for it either (again, I like the Swiss system),  but Medicare for All would be a major improvement over the existing system of for-profit-insurance administrators doing little but getting way too much from the overall trillions spend on healthcare in the USA.     As for the political will?   Granted it doesn't matter that a Dem President would be for this since it would have to be passed by Congress.      This is another reasons I'm for the Swiss system;   that might be politically doable.   But of course the insurance industry would fight hard and they have a lot of pols under their "control" based on how they fund their campaigns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

There is a different.   E.g. Cigna has it own mail-order clearing house;    I.e. they get drugs directly from the manufactures and distribute them directly to insurers (patients). 

My group-heath  employer provided insurance carrier is Cigna.   If I get my medications directly from Cigna my co-pay is a lot less (often zero for generics),  than it is if I get the same medications from a local pharmacy,  Walmart pharmacy or any other pharmacy.    The reason is because Cigna passes on what they save to the insurer.      

As for "good in theory":   What I stated isn't "theory" but how Medicare works.   (so I assume you mean from a political POV).  Medicare for All would work the same way but even better since it would cover more people.   The only major concern would be major decrease of new individuals and medical providers (doctors,  nurses,  hospitals,   labs etc...),   because the compensation for their services is now regulated and they can't make what they feel they are worth.        This is a serious concern and would have to be closely monitored by some type of 3rd party agency.    

Hey,  I know your against Medicare for All and I'm not for it either (again, I like the Swiss system),  but Medicare for All would be a major improvement over the existing system of for-profit-insurance administrators doing little but getting way too much from the overall trillions spend on healthcare in the USA.     As for the political will?   Granted it doesn't matter that a Dem President would be for this since it would have to be passed by Congress.      This is another reasons I'm for the Swiss system;   that might be politically doable.   But of course the insurance industry would fight hard and they have a lot of pols under their "control" based on how they fund their campaigns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what I read on Wikipedia, the "insurers" under Part D of Medicare also use pharmacy benefit managers.  While the government may place limits on costs to some degree, it is up to beneficiaries to pay for amount of coverage they want.

DOD Tricare is one of Federal government's largest health care plans and it uses a PBM for pharmaceuticals.   On the other hand the VA operates its own internal PBM.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Costs_to_beneficiaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
As Biden keeps fading, I don't know at what point the DNC realizes it has to get behind Warren to keep Sanders from the nomination,
but whatever point the DNC figures that out at will *probably* be too late.
 
That's the DNC's history of short-sightedness.
 
see: twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1220003452564144130
<_<
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:
 
 
As Biden keeps fading, I don't know at what point the DNC realizes it has to get behind Warren to keep Sanders from the nomination,
but whatever point the DNC figures that out at will *probably* be too late.
 
That's the DNC's history of short-sightedness.
 
see: twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1220003452564144130
<_<

At least Seth is transparent about his support for DNC corruption.       The DNC shouldn't '"get behind" any candidate in the Dem primary.

Dem voters YES,   DNC,  NO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:
 
 
As Biden keeps fading, I don't know at what point the DNC realizes it has to get behind Warren to keep Sanders from the nomination,
but whatever point the DNC figures that out at will *probably* be too late.
 
That's the DNC's history of short-sightedness.
 
see: twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1220003452564144130
<_<

Biden is fading?   While he may not have a massive lead anymore, he is still the leading candidate overall.

Let's wait until after IA, NH, SC and NV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

Biden is fading?   While he may not have a massive lead anymore, he is still the leading candidate overall.

Let's wait until after IA, NH, SC and NV.

This is just Seth exaggerating to assist Warren.       Same with the timing of Hillary's comments about Sanders.

Politics is a dirty business.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Here's why I'm happy to support

for president.

For me, as with most of her supporters, choosing her above others has nothing to do with denigrating the competition! A couple of them in particular have great potential.

But I choose Sen. Warren because of these reasons.....

I'm registered as an independent, and I like pragmatic progressives.

is a bold leader with a brilliant mind, keen insights into economics, and a compassionate approach to everything from reproductive rights to sexuality and gender expression and beyond.........

She's always listening & learning. I don’t want a leader who remains stuck in their ways without being open to growth. I don’t want a president who can’t admit when they’ve made a mistake and can’t course-correct. When she makes a mistake, she owns it & apologizes. I respect it. ........

I admire her ability to communicate complex concepts in an accessible way

. I love her commitment to celebrating a diverse, multicultural America by taking real action that actually affects communities most affected by white supremacy and patriarchy..........

https://twitter.com/SaraJBenincasa/status/1220433495123808258

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mr6666 said:
 
Here's why I'm happy to support

for president.

For me, as with most of her supporters, choosing her above others has nothing to do with denigrating the competition! A couple of them in particular have great potential.

But I choose Sen. Warren because of these reasons.....

I'm registered as an independent, and I like pragmatic progressives.

is a bold leader with a brilliant mind, keen insights into economics, and a compassionate approach to everything from reproductive rights to sexuality and gender expression and beyond.........

She's always listening & learning. I don’t want a leader who remains stuck in their ways without being open to growth. I don’t want a president who can’t admit when they’ve made a mistake and can’t course-correct. When she makes a mistake, she owns it & apologizes. I respect it. ........

I admire her ability to communicate complex concepts in an accessible way

. I love her commitment to celebrating a diverse, multicultural America by taking real action that actually affects communities most affected by white supremacy and patriarchy..........

https://twitter.com/SaraJBenincasa/status/1220433495123808258

 

 

 

Sara is a comedian.   Really this is spam!!!! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Endorsement: Elizabeth Warren will push an unequal America in the right direction

 
The Register's editorial | Des Moines Register | 2 minutes ago

icon-sms_24.svg icon-facebook_24.svg icon-twitter_24.svg icon-mail_24.svg

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
 
  • Many of her ideas aren't radical. They are right.

  • she must show that her vision will lift people up rather than divide them.

  • She cares about people, and she will use her seemingly endless energy and passion to fight for them.

  • The outstanding caliber of Democratic candidates makes it difficult to choose just one

"........Warren’s competence, respect for others and status as the nation’s first female president would be a fitting response to the ignorance, sexism and xenophobia of the Trump Oval Office. 

She is a thinker, a policy wonk and a hard worker. She remembers her own family’s struggles to make ends meet and her own desperation as a working mother needing child care.

She cares about people, and she will use her seemingly endless energy and passion to fight for them. 

At this moment, when the very fabric of American life is at stake, Elizabeth Warren is the president this nation needs."

https://amp.desmoinesregister.com/amp/4562157002?__twitter_impression=true

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren Brilliantly Trolls Chief Justice Roberts ― And He’s Not Happy

Does the chief justice presiding over a trial with no witnesses contribute to “the loss of legitimacy of … the Supreme Court?” Warren asked.

 

..........."Warren knows how to leverage power. She knows that Roberts cares most about his legacy as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And she is laying down a marker that this trial will define him. Brilliant. "...........

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-chief-justice-roberts-impeachment_n_5e336e6cc5b611ac94d1fefd?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Elizabeth Warren Brilliantly Trolls Chief Justice Roberts ― And He’s Not Happy

Does the chief justice presiding over a trial with no witnesses contribute to “the loss of legitimacy of … the Supreme Court?” Warren asked.

 

..........."Warren knows how to leverage power. She knows that Roberts cares most about his legacy as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And she is laying down a marker that this trial will define him. Brilliant. "...........

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-chief-justice-roberts-impeachment_n_5e336e6cc5b611ac94d1fefd?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

This is brilliant since most Americans are such dummies they believe the CJ has any power to leverage in this unique so called trial  (to me it is a proceeding and not a trial).     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
I'll support and work for any Democrat who wins the nomination,
but I'm pulling for Elizabeth Warren.
I'd love to see her open a large can of whup-**** on Trump in the debates.
================================
 
 
(ENDORSEMENT) Please RETWEET if—like me—you enthusiastically endorse

for President of the United States.

I've lived and voted in both Iowa and New Hampshire and

—while I'll #VoteBlueNoMatterWho

—I believe Warren is the *right choice* for the Democratic Party and America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...