Author Topic: What are Democrats running on in 2020?  (Read 132510 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #150 on: June 16, 2019, 03:09:23 PM »
Regardless of whether things moved on, the point is that when embryonic stem cells were the most promising, who was it that called it amoral and stood in the way?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #151 on: July 10, 2019, 07:59:03 AM »
Quote
In Nashville, Beto O’Rourke says to immigrant/refugee group that “This country was founded on white supremacy. And every single structure that we have in this country still reflects the legacy of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and suppression.”

That’s a winning message. Yeah, go with that.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #152 on: July 10, 2019, 10:22:41 AM »
The price of modern versions of a drug that more than 7 million Americans need to live nearly tripled from 2002 to 2013, according to one study. Type 1 diabetics paid an average of $5,705 for insulin in 2016

And what happened to the price of the exact formulation that was used in 2002?  Not the better replacements from 2002 to 2013, but the 2002 version?  You can look at the UK system to figure this out because that's how they are "saving" money, they're still using the older drugs and the newer ones are just not available.

So are you really complaining that Americans have access to and are paying for better treatment than is even available in the UK?  Are you really complaining that doctors are prescribing and patients are filling prescriptions for new treatments rather than ones that are 5, 6 or 10 years old?

Quote
Most definitely not $4 at Walmart.

I was wrong it's $25 a vial at Walmart.  And I absolutely never said it's a good option.  But it's a lie that we don't have cheap options.

The problem with "cheap" is that it's decades off from the leading edge, and the leading edge has specifically been developed to solve an immense amount of the problems that the older drugs created.

Again though, it's a total dodge.  There are far more options, at far more price points, in the US than the UK.  And the $25 option does get prescribed (though it's actually over the counter) where it's a reasonable solution for non-life threatening cases.  It could be used in any case but it's an exceptionally bad match for Type 1 and would almost certainly lead to bad outcomes for many.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #153 on: July 10, 2019, 10:35:35 AM »
Cost to produce or time past since a drug was cutting edge seems to have little to do with cost to the end consumer. 

I get it, we need to keep them innovating and that takes money, but some of the pricing we put up with here, whether out of pocket, or just out of mind because insurance handles it, is absurd.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #154 on: July 10, 2019, 11:25:21 AM »
D.W., I feel arguing to me about prices is a massive goal post shift.  The entire mess of "prices" in the US system is the direct result of government manipulation and impact on the healthcare market.  It has little to do with how the market would operate if the Government pulled back the regulation and refocused on policing abuses. 

I mean honestly, insulin is a big business specifically because people have the money to pay for the treatments and they need them, but they don't generally pay the list price, neither does their insurance company, nor does medicare/medicaid.  Even when they paid out of pocket there use to be discount programs to try to bring the prices from the "list" to the real market price.  The entire reason list is not market is because of government interference.

So yes, drug companies have to charge the costs of developing the treatment (and the costs of their other research that didn't lead to a product) to the consumers, and that can be a large amount.  But the fact that "list" prices are grossly excessive, and that virtually no one pays them has little to do with that.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2019, 11:35:16 AM »
I was just bitching in general.  Not directed at anyone, just popped in there as it related to the general topic.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #156 on: July 10, 2019, 11:40:15 AM »
And if, "nobody pays list price" anyhow... Why not push to list them at what people should pay?  You don't view it as predatory (if not downright evil) to net those "foolish" enough to pay that list price, or unable / unknowledgable enough to find how to pay what "others" do instead of list price?

People are extorted for life saving medication.  Just because there is a way to earn your life back with the right knowledge or enough time jumping through hoops, instead of just paying excessive costs,  does not make it any less vile.

the health care market huh?   ::)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #157 on: July 10, 2019, 12:01:36 PM »
I hope you're kidding.  Have you read anything I've ever written on healthcare?  I have ranted about the fake prices probably 100 times.  They are 100% linked to government policy.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #158 on: July 10, 2019, 12:07:04 PM »
Jargon misfire.  Thought this was a snipe at ACA marketplace.  100% though huh?  Big Pharma are helpless here I suppose.  My mistake...

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #159 on: July 10, 2019, 12:23:42 PM »
I think you are confused about why the prices are fake.  Big pharma's goal is to maximize returns.  The prices are fake to manipulate and drive government reimbursement policies.  Take away the government manipulation, and Big Pharma's math gets real simple - same as it is for every other product on earth where in general the prices that list are the prices you pay.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #160 on: July 10, 2019, 12:34:55 PM »
Take away the government manipulation, and Big Pharma's math gets real simple - same as it is for every other product on earth where in general the prices that list are the prices you pay.

So that they can still fleece you, but they'll be upfront about doing it! Joking aside, that would be still be an improvement.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #161 on: July 11, 2019, 04:03:07 PM »
Quote
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will travel to Canada later this month with Type 1 diabetes patients seeking cheaper insulin as part of his ongoing efforts to highlight the hardships imposed by pharmaceutical companies on Americans, his campaign announced Thursday.

They're going to be so disappointed when they find out that they could have just gone to Walmart instead.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #162 on: July 11, 2019, 04:29:08 PM »
No kidding

Quote
"ReliOn is the only private brand insulin on the market, retailing at $24.88 per vial, and $42.88 per box for the 70/30 pens," Marilee McInnis, a Walmart spokesperson, said. The drug is technically considered, 'behind the counter,' since you can't pick it off a shelf, but have to get it through the pharmacy

You don't even need to show a pharmacist a prescription, just ask for it. That seems strange. But it will be interesting to see how the media covers it.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #163 on: July 12, 2019, 07:50:58 PM »
The price of modern versions of a drug that more than 7 million Americans need to live nearly tripled from 2002 to 2013, according to one study. Type 1 diabetics paid an average of $5,705 for insulin in 2016

And what happened to the price of the exact formulation that was used in 2002?  Not the better replacements from 2002 to 2013, but the 2002 version?  You can look at the UK system to figure this out because that's how they are "saving" money, they're still using the older drugs and the newer ones are just not available.

So are you really complaining that Americans have access to and are paying for better treatment than is even available in the UK?  Are you really complaining that doctors are prescribing and patients are filling prescriptions for new treatments rather than ones that are 5, 6 or 10 years old?

Quote
Most definitely not $4 at Walmart.

I was wrong it's $25 a vial at Walmart.  And I absolutely never said it's a good option.  But it's a lie that we don't have cheap options.

The problem with "cheap" is that it's decades off from the leading edge, and the leading edge has specifically been developed to solve an immense amount of the problems that the older drugs created.

Again though, it's a total dodge.  There are far more options, at far more price points, in the US than the UK.  And the $25 option does get prescribed (though it's actually over the counter) where it's a reasonable solution for non-life threatening cases.  It could be used in any case but it's an exceptionally bad match for Type 1 and would almost certainly lead to bad outcomes for many.

Nah. This is a misunderstanding at best. My doctor prescribed Tresiba - a current and, in my opinion, incredible medication, for me. Perhaps you all can help me in this. Google is saying anything from 800 a month to more or to almost nothing.

As an actual diabetic, I will point you back to your own points in the past about better insulins being produced. Even in the $25 case you alluded to, non life threatening is a variable term. I didn't die because I was stuck on that 25 dollar a bottle insulin. I did lose 50 pounds in a few months because  I got laid off from my job and lost my health insurance and had to ration the insulin that I *could* buy. The side effects from my body burning first fat and then muscle just to keep itself running made me so sick to the point I wasn't able to work. And I wasn't fat before that. I lost both normal fat tissue and actual muscle. I can't put this out there enough. The vast majority of people who need to inject insulin aren't a victim of fat person diabetes. They're suffering from a legit autoimmune disease.

Btw. The $25 dollar a bottle number is laughable. First off, diabetics need two types of insulin. A longer and weaker version, for just living. And a shorter and stronger version, for when you eat meals. And acting like one bottle a month will do you? Idiocy. So any diabetic on two insulins on two bottles of each a month. How much?

Also diabetics need to check their blood sugars. How much are the test strips?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #164 on: July 12, 2019, 08:12:24 PM »
I just want to point out that type 1 and type 2 diabetics are very different things.

I passed out in a food store a couple months ago, had an epileptic seizure, chewed a three centimetre gash in my tongue, and partially tore my rotator cuff when I misjudged my insulin dosage.

What happened after I woke up, you don't want to know lol.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #165 on: July 15, 2019, 10:03:41 AM »
DJQuag, that's a rough bit.  Since you are sharing, can you give us some personal feedback on how your prescriptions have changed over time?  Tresiba seems to be acknowledged as a great product, but it's only been on the market since 2015 in the US.  And as you pointed out you still need a short acting supplement, and I presume ever improving testing equipment and injection systems.

How often do you find yourself changing (or needing to change) because there is something much better out there?  If price was no object would it make a difference?

Do you have a sense of the out of pocket price difference from the list price, particularly when you are on insurance, but also if you ever took advantage of any discount programs.  I think it would be useful in trying to figure out where their real price point sits.

I'm not terribly adverse to moving permanent conditions like Diabetes onto a government payment system, they are health needs, not something that ever should have gone through a true insurance system.  But that change would mean that less money will flow into that product development and slow research into new drugs.  I mean honestly, if we had national health care Tresiba is probably never invented, or at best still 2 decades out in the future.  That's the trade off for "free."

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #166 on: July 15, 2019, 10:30:11 AM »
Quote
I'm not terribly adverse to moving permanent conditions like Diabetes onto a government payment system, they are health needs, not something that ever should have gone through a true insurance system.  But that change would mean that less money will flow into that product development and slow research into new drugs.  I mean honestly, if we had national health care Tresiba is probably never invented, or at best still 2 decades out in the future.  That's the trade off for "free."

One has to acknowledge a possible slowdown in innovation if prices are lower. The company that developed Tresiba, Novo Nordisk is actually a company in Denmark for whatever that's worth, and the drug was first available in the UK in 2013, with the FDA approval coming two years later.

NHS seems inconsistent on whether this is made available according to this forum

The NHS website says yes it is fine, but certain GPs seem to be reluctant. Perhaps this is them controlling cost, or maybe some are recognizing that not every patient needs it.

https://forum.tudiabetes.org/t/my-insurance-company-says-no-to-tresiba/61441]Meanwhile in the US, insurance companies are doing similar things

This thread describes struggles with insurance companies over getting Tresiba covered. There is also a lot of discussion about the discount card program with the company.

These are anecdotes about one drug and a few patients from two countries, so it isn't proof of anything. Just that its not a given that you can get the drug in the US and not in the UK.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #167 on: July 15, 2019, 05:17:09 PM »
Quote
I'm not terribly adverse to moving permanent conditions like Diabetes onto a government payment system, they are health needs, not something that ever should have gone through a true insurance system.  But that change would mean that less money will flow into that product development and slow research into new drugs.  I mean honestly, if we had national health care Tresiba is probably never invented, or at best still 2 decades out in the future.  That's the trade off for "free."

One has to acknowledge a possible slowdown in innovation if prices are lower. The company that developed Tresiba, Novo Nordisk is actually a company in Denmark for whatever that's worth, and the drug was first available in the UK in 2013, with the FDA approval coming two years later.

NHS seems inconsistent on whether this is made available according to this forum

The NHS website says yes it is fine, but certain GPs seem to be reluctant. Perhaps this is them controlling cost, or maybe some are recognizing that not every patient needs it.

https://forum.tudiabetes.org/t/my-insurance-company-says-no-to-tresiba/61441]Meanwhile in the US, insurance companies are doing similar things

This thread describes struggles with insurance companies over getting Tresiba covered. There is also a lot of discussion about the discount card program with the company.

These are anecdotes about one drug and a few patients from two countries, so it isn't proof of anything. Just that its not a given that you can get the drug in the US and not in the UK.

It is reluctantly prescribed on the NHS. To the point where I submit my medication requests early because often the pharmacy has to put in a special request or ask twice or something like that.

That being said, consider this. A car engine runs on gas. A brain runs on sugar. If there is something interfering with the levels of sugar, whether too high or too low, just like the engine, that brain will malfunction. In both acute and chronic ways.

Everyone knows that diabetics can develop complications involving blindness, amputation, kidney disease and the like. A lesser known complication is a higher likelihood of mental illness.

That ultimately is why I was prescribed Tresiba. I was dealing with stuff and the GP recognized it and prescribed what he thought would help me. And I can tell you now, it's a godsend. I can be sick or accidentally skip a meal and so long as I've taken the Tresiba and not been stupid with the Novorapid I'll be just fine.

Ya'll ever looked up insulin on Wikipedia?  Yeah, regulating blood sugar is it's main thing. Wiki lists roughly 2 or 3 dozen other things that it does and are still pretty damned important. Tresiba let's me make that injection and know that those things are covered without worrying I'll be overwhelmed and pass out in frigging public.

Seriati - I almost always respond from mobIle so I'll respond here. PS I always appreciate your responses it's just the whole thing gets broken up with quotes and the quote thing on mobile is so much a pain in the behind I can't bother. All I cam say is I always appreciate your response and you even make me consider my position from time to time.

I will tell you now, I didn't change much. The reason for that was because I grew up in the US and always had to consider the cost. Unfortunately, I never had the best insurance, even before Boogy Man Obama, and I only had certain things always available. Due to that, I stuck to the basics you've mentioned. Regular insulin and Novolin insulin. Cheap options that were available without a prescription.

It was only when I came here and was able to believe that no matter what was wrong with me, they'd help me, that I could open up and they then prescribed better things.

One last thing. I honestly think we're not taking into account the cost of test strips for blood monitors.

I'm *lucky*. I can feel when my sugar is dropping to dangerous levels, and I tend to have a 15 minute to 1 hour time scale to sort that out by chugging a Coke or a chocolate milk. (I really like chocolate milk.) Others aren't so lucky. They don't feel anything until they loss conciousness. Test strips are necessary, for some people 2-4 times a day. Loo up the cost of that. When I left five years ago it was like a dollar a piece.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #168 on: July 15, 2019, 05:20:15 PM »
All that being said Seriati, I really appreciate your willingness to cover certain conditions via government funds if necessary.

I'm a dual citizen, and I will never move back if there is even a chance I could see that situation again. It was the worst time in my life. I was too sick to work, and I couldn't afford the meds to make me better. I legit considered suicide.

The fact you, as a conservative, recognizes the issue there means a lot.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #169 on: July 15, 2019, 05:52:29 PM »
Well, honestly, I think the delusion that conservatives don't care is just that a delusion.  Believing that we can get better and cheaper medical results by leveraging the free market rather than suppressing it is an ideological position, it does not in any way mean that we don't want everyone to have effective health care.  I mean honestly, in my ideal world we knock 75% off the final costs just by simplifying everything (just jettisoning the massive infrastructure built up around government rent seeking gets you alot of the way there).  Once you get the prices to what people would actually agree to pay and to accept, then the average person can actually afford treatment, and picking up the fringe cases becomes much more possible.

It's interesting to me that you mention test strips.  A lot of the people in my neighborhood seem to wear electronic monitors that automatically test their blood sugar (with a report to an app on their cell phone).  Is that not available, or does it also use test strips?  That seems the kind of thing that an NHS wouldn't cover - an electronic convenience - but that a private insurance market makes standard.

But recurring life threatening conditions are really not about insurance, they are just a fixed cost, and they are the part of the market that suffers from the biggest power imbalance (what wouldn't someone pay to save their life).  I have no problem with any society, including ours, finding ways to share that burden.  We just have to be willing to accept the down side - ie slower advancement of technology, rationing and even government bureaucrats deciding things like 6 more months of a person's life are not worth the price tag.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #170 on: July 15, 2019, 06:19:39 PM »
I'm sorry you think it's a delusion. Fact is, most of conservatives, if I didn't have a second country to flee to, would have hung me out to dry. I don't mean that as an immigrant. I mean they would have taken my death as a normal thing.

By all means, you share these messages or those of another who was suffering not because they smoked or got fat by their own violation,  and they back you up? Thank you. I was losing hope. Please poInt me to those people.

Becsuse I thought it was all "If you don't have health insurance you deserve to die," and I was starting to despair because I do know good conservatives like you.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #171 on: July 16, 2019, 06:58:44 AM »
Perhaps I'm behind the times here, but I believe what you're referring to are insulin pumps, not blood glucose monitors.

Insulin pumps release a slow and steady stream of insulin into the body, the dosage being programmed in advance, via a needle that is inserted into the body. It can also release additional insulin on command. I've read reports on experimental devices that can be worn and detect sugar level through the skin, but they're just that. Experimental, and not widely released as medical devices.

Insulin pumps are a great piece of kit and I will acknowledge that they're a bit hard to get under the NHS. You have to show a need for them, such as disablity or mental illness causing you to forget to take an injection. That type of thing.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2019, 07:00:56 AM by DJQuag »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #172 on: July 16, 2019, 05:56:16 PM »
Actually, no, it seems to be called a CGM and they ones that both stick to your body, anywhere from a  week to 90 days before moving to a new location, and newer ones that are implanted under the skin.  They transmit to a monitoring device, and some of them are set up to vibrate if the receiver is out of range.  They provide constant feedback, and I have seen them around town.  What I can't tell is if they are used for a permanent solution or only as an advanced but temporary feedback and testing system.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #173 on: July 16, 2019, 06:23:35 PM »
Quote
On Monday, Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden unveiled his own health care plan, and issued a similar-sounding promise while speaking at a presidential forum sponsored by AARP in Des Moines, Iowa.

"I give people the option," Biden said, after dismissing his opponents' "Medicare-for-all" proposals, which would eliminate private health insurance entirely. "If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it."

Biden running on one of the biggest lies in Presidential history. Yeah, that’s a winner. Keep saying that.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #174 on: July 16, 2019, 08:11:49 PM »
Thanks for the info DJQuag.  I also though the insulin pumps included glucose monitors and were largely automated.  Were I in a position to need one I don't know if I'd like having a needle permanently jabbed in my side for something I still had to manually manage...  Then again, I don't like stabbing myself with a needle either, so I guess it depended on how comfortable the blasted thing was.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #175 on: July 16, 2019, 11:36:30 PM »
Quote
On Monday, Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden unveiled his own health care plan, and issued a similar-sounding promise while speaking at a presidential forum sponsored by AARP in Des Moines, Iowa.

"I give people the option," Biden said, after dismissing his opponents' "Medicare-for-all" proposals, which would eliminate private health insurance entirely. "If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it."

Biden running on one of the biggest lies in Presidential history. Yeah, that’s a winner. Keep saying that.

Does anybody actually like their health insurance plan after the ACA did it's thing to it?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #176 on: July 17, 2019, 09:18:48 AM »
I noticed no significant changes to my employer provided plan.  Well, correction.  The prices largely stabilized around the same time as ACA went through.  They did increase some, but our employer has been covering that gap.  Our own contributions are close to unchanged the last few years.  Prior to that the steady march upwards was never a high point of the year when they went over changes to our benefit package.  (the company we hire to manage benefits shops around when necessary)

While I dislike the Healthy Blue Living nanny system for tiered benefits, ACA didn't do anything to it.

So I guess I'm one of those unicorns who did get to keep their health insurance the way it was.  And others with pre-existing conditions I suppose got an improvement.  I think our prescription coverage has improved over the same time period, but I don't pay as close attention to that to say for sure.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #177 on: July 17, 2019, 09:43:09 AM »
Does anybody actually like their health insurance plan after the ACA did it's thing to it?

I still like my plan, though its far more expensive and I lost my primary care doctor, who decided to switch to conceirge practice (you have to pay $4000 to join the practice, then they take your insurance). 

The plans before and after Obamacare still fail to adequately treat mental health.  They still involve a ridiculous amount (like literally weeks of time a year) in negotiating through improper denials of benefits.  Post ObamaCare definitely shortened the list of medical professionals in my community that take any insurance, and lowered the quality of the ones that do take insurance (much more inexperienced doctors, who when they get experience switch to a new practice leaving you to find a new doctor).  Not withstanding mandatory online record keeping and sharing, not one doctor that I've had has been able to get any of my records without them been faxed or mailed to them (unless they have a contracted relationship with the other provider - which some do).  Much increased rate, post Obamacare, of being ordered to take tests from a "separate" facility in the same building owned by the same practice, because they can be separately billed, or being told I'd need a second appointment  for a second question (because if I talk about both, only one gets compensated).

But still I do like that I'm generally covered, after I max out my pre-tax medical savings every year, and hit my deductibles every year, and hit my out of pocket maximums every year, after paying my premiums every year (and my employer paying even larger premiums); assuming that my insurer doesn't ultimately reject something that costs a lot of money, after I spend months slogging through dozens of appeals and restarts as they lose paper work, claim I didn't file, claim I didn't use the right code - or the service provider didn't, or reject because 2 different family members saw a service provider on the same day and only one can be covered. 

Insurance is still a mess.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #178 on: July 17, 2019, 09:44:52 AM »
Quote
I still like my plan, though its far more expensive and I lost my primary care doctor, who decided to switch to conceirge practice (you have to pay $4000 to join the practice, then they take your insurance). 
One of my co-workers who is insured through his wife's university insurance had this happen as well. 

A mess indeed

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #179 on: July 17, 2019, 11:19:39 AM »
Quote
On Monday, Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden unveiled his own health care plan, and issued a similar-sounding promise while speaking at a presidential forum sponsored by AARP in Des Moines, Iowa.

"I give people the option," Biden said, after dismissing his opponents' "Medicare-for-all" proposals, which would eliminate private health insurance entirely. "If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it."

Biden running on one of the biggest lies in Presidential history. Yeah, that’s a winner. Keep saying that.

Does anybody actually like their health insurance plan after the ACA did it's thing to it?

I couldn’t afford insurance before the ACA. Lost jobs because of what my son did to my job’s insurance plan.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #180 on: July 17, 2019, 12:01:55 PM »
Quote
On Monday, Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden unveiled his own health care plan, and issued a similar-sounding promise while speaking at a presidential forum sponsored by AARP in Des Moines, Iowa.

"I give people the option," Biden said, after dismissing his opponents' "Medicare-for-all" proposals, which would eliminate private health insurance entirely. "If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it."


Biden running on one of the biggest lies in Presidential history. Yeah, that’s a winner. Keep saying that.

Does anybody actually like their health insurance plan after the ACA did it's thing to it?

Like others, I saw little to no change to my employer plan. But I didn't have a pre-existing condition, which ACA fixed. I also am in the privileged class that has 100% employer paid premiums, so it could have silently jacked up by 30% and I'd never see it. You know what? I'm fine with that if it means that people aren't left on the curb with no access to healthcare.

As far as some trashy tiny practice doctor, that wouldn't affect me either because I always get a PCP who has dozens of partners, five locations, labs, specialists, etc. AKA Corporate.

I did have the wonderful opportunity to shop for insurance on the open market before and after the ACA. My diabetic wife immediately eliminated insurance or jacked the premiums 3x before. After, nobody even asked me what my health problems were.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #181 on: July 18, 2019, 02:30:16 PM »
Thanks for the info DJQuag.  I also though the insulin pumps included glucose monitors and were largely automated.  Were I in a position to need one I don't know if I'd like having a needle permanently jabbed in my side for something I still had to manually manage...  Then again, I don't like stabbing myself with a needle either, so I guess it depended on how comfortable the blasted thing was.

Lol. It becomes easier when you die if you don't inject it/have a big needle permanently inside you. That's how I explain it to people who ask how I can stand to inject myself 4-5 times a day.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #182 on: July 18, 2019, 02:44:59 PM »
Seriati
 On the CGM's. You were right and I was wrong. Apparently the devices in question are starting to work their way out, which is a great thing. A diabetic colleague of mine called in sick a couple years ago. She didn't call in sick the next day, so the company asked emergency services to check it out. She was found dead. Hypoglycemic complications.

This technology will save lives, most especially for those who live by themselves.

As for your original question. I'm on the NHS, I suspect this type of device would be made available to someone who demonstrated need. Such as someone who is mentally ill or disabled, or someone who has shown a lack of hyposensitivity and has been in dangerous situations because of it. Something along the lines of me passing out in that cash and carry.

Here's the relevant Web page.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/type-1-diabetes/continuous-glucose-monitoring-cgms/

Honestly, the NHS is pretty straightforward in how they apply standards for medications and devices.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 02:47:15 PM by DJQuag »

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #183 on: July 18, 2019, 03:00:35 PM »
And I'll just say that yes, if I went all out, I could absolutely get both the pump and a CGM based on my history. I have zero doubt.

I guess...I dunno. I'm busy with work. They really do make you state you're helpless and weak if you don't have these things. The last ten years of my life in the States taught me that calling in sick for diabetes complications on an hourly job affected your hours the next week. Be a Google MD and take care of yourself. Even now I don't bother my employers with that stuff, when it happens, even though they're legally required to deal with it. Reflexive responses for rent for the win.

I get what you're saying about availability. I just disagree.

As it stands people who REALLY need these state of the art devices in the UK will get them. Regardless of what money they have.

A lot of people in the US will get them, even if they could get by on test strips, and those people who were too poor who DO need them won't get them.

I know which one you'll pick, but I feel we'll just agree to disagree.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #184 on: July 18, 2019, 03:29:30 PM »
There's just different degrees of need. For reference, I looked at my insurance provider (United Healthcare).

They talk about continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps in the following terms:

Quote
Insulin Delivery
External insulin pumps that deliver insulin by continuous subcutaneous infusion are proven and medically
necessary for managing individuals with type 1 or insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes.
For medical necessity clinical coverage criteria, see MCG™ Care Guidelines, 23
rd edition, 2019, Insulin Infusion Pump
ACG:A-0339 (AC).
Note: Programmable disposable external insulin pumps (e.g., Omnipod) are considered clinically equivalent to
standard insulin pumps.
Due to insufficient evidence of efficacy, the following devices are unproven and not medically necessary
for managing individuals with diabetes:
 Implantable insulin pumps
 Insulin infuser ports
 Nonprogrammable transdermal insulin delivery systems (e.g., V-Go)
Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)
CGM is proven and medically necessary for managing individuals with diabetes in the following
circumstances:
 Short-term use (3-7 days) by a healthcare provider for diagnostic purposes
 Long-term use for personal use at home for managing individuals with type 1 diabetes who meet all of the
following criteria:
o Have demonstrated adherence to a physician ordered diabetic treatment plan; and
o Are on an intensive insulin regimen (3 or more insulin injections per day or insulin pump therapy)
Due to insufficient evidence of efficacy, the following services and/or devices are unproven and not
medically necessary for managing individuals with diabetes:
 Long-term CGM for managing individuals with type 2 or gestational diabetes
 CGM using an implantable glucose sensor (e.g., Eversense)
 CGM using a noninvasive device

So if I'm reading that right, monitoring without a pump is not supported by insurance. Likewise, lots of options are not available. Maybe some of these options are stupid, and their exclusion is a good thing. I'm not going to try and read all the cited studies and references.

And NHS guidelines here

I do see that NHS restricts to people who have to test 8 times a day, where UHC is 3. It doesn't look like NHS requires a pump be involved. Saving 8 pin pricks per day is certainly a benefit without a delivery system. I think we'd probably find that some people who would qualify with UHC would be rejected by NHS, and vice versa.

Medicare also covers this system, and is the most advocated system for providing American national health care. Their criteria is an apparently arbitrary 4 fingersticks per day, probably those numbers are arrived at after figuring out how many patients would be excluded picking 4 rather than 3.

They cover either pump or injections, which is less restrictive than UHC.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #185 on: July 19, 2019, 07:22:03 AM »
Quote
On Monday, Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden unveiled his own health care plan, and issued a similar-sounding promise while speaking at a presidential forum sponsored by AARP in Des Moines, Iowa.

"I give people the option," Biden said, after dismissing his opponents' "Medicare-for-all" proposals, which would eliminate private health insurance entirely. "If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it."

Biden running on one of the biggest lies in Presidential history. Yeah, that’s a winner. Keep saying that.

Does anybody actually like their health insurance plan after the ACA did it's thing to it?

My is not as good as it was. Premium went up about 40%, copay went from $10 to $35, annual deductible nearly tripled. I still get pretty decent coverage but there’s no way I can afford for Democrats to fix it again.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #186 on: July 19, 2019, 09:44:18 AM »
So if I'm reading that right, monitoring without a pump is not supported by insurance.

That says monitoring through CGM is supported by insurance, you read it backwards, for those with Type 1 who require 3 injections or more a day.  It doesn't say you have to have the auto injector, though it says auto injectors are covered for Type 1 and certain Type 2 cases, so not clear why you wouldn't.  I have seen them for several years (I only know the time line because they wouldn't let a daughter of friend get one until she turned 12 and that was a couple years back).

Quote
I do see that NHS restricts to people who have to test 8 times a day, where UHC is 3. It doesn't look like NHS requires a pump be involved.

Did you note NHS changed the guidelines this year - lagging the cutting edge, which lets the costs go down - and on something where the benefits were almost immediately obvious.  It also appears to me that they believe the monitors are only appropriate for about 20% of Type 1 patients (100% are covered under the private plan), but I may be reading that incorrectly, but it definitely looks like they'll only pay for 20% of Type 1 patients.  So you have both delay and rationing.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 09:47:41 AM by Seriati »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #187 on: July 19, 2019, 01:57:48 PM »
My is not as good as it was. Premium went up about 40%, copay went from $10 to $35, annual deductible nearly tripled. I still get pretty decent coverage but there’s no way I can afford for Democrats to fix it again.

I'm so sorry you lost your cheap premium paid for by the denial of coverage for people with serious health problems. So much better for you to have to pay an extra 40 cents on the dollar than to have other people crash and burn on the rocks, eh?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #188 on: July 19, 2019, 02:05:12 PM »
That says monitoring through CGM is supported by insurance, you read it backwards, for those with Type 1 who require 3 injections or more a day.

I reread it and I don't know where I got the wrong idea, but you are absolutely right.

Quote
lagging the cutting edge, which lets the costs go down - and on something where the benefits were almost immediately obvious. 

Good. I don't mind an 18 month lag in exchange for half the cost to society at large, and avoiding the exclusion of the bottom N %. Should be noted that 10% of people in the UK opt for a private insurance, presumably jumping the queue.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #189 on: July 19, 2019, 04:40:10 PM »
Not sure I follow that TheDrake.  It's more like 4-5 year lag, they have been covered and standard for more than 2 years here.

And what about the rationing?  Do you mind that 100% of type 1 get them on the US insurance and only 20% in the NHS?  This is something that every Type 1 patient should have access to use.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #190 on: July 19, 2019, 05:38:21 PM »
My is not as good as it was. Premium went up about 40%, copay went from $10 to $35, annual deductible nearly tripled. I still get pretty decent coverage but there’s no way I can afford for Democrats to fix it again.

I'm so sorry you lost your cheap premium paid for by the denial of coverage for people with serious health problems. So much better for you to have to pay an extra 40 cents on the dollar than to have other people crash and burn on the rocks, eh?

Who did I subsidize? What were their illnesses?

I’m sorry you think you can steal from people. Didn’t you ever learn that stealing is wrong? 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #191 on: July 19, 2019, 06:09:54 PM »
Not sure I follow that TheDrake.  It's more like 4-5 year lag, they have been covered and standard for more than 2 years here.

And what about the rationing?  Do you mind that 100% of type 1 get them on the US insurance and only 20% in the NHS?  This is something that every Type 1 patient should have access to use.

I just gave you timeline that refutes that statement. Reread.

Not everyone actually needs that option. But the doctors here are happy to recommend it to patients that don't need it.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #192 on: July 24, 2019, 08:01:42 PM »
Not sure I follow that TheDrake.  It's more like 4-5 year lag, they have been covered and standard for more than 2 years here.

And what about the rationing?  Do you mind that 100% of type 1 get them on the US insurance and only 20% in the NHS?  This is something that every Type 1 patient should have access to use.

Just want to say your figure of 100 percent of American diabetics getting this technology is flawed from the outset.

Even if I give you that all and any insurance will pay for it, not all Americans are insured.

That's the issue here. Although I'll admit you have stated for chronic lifelong diseases you're willing to spend federal money.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #193 on: July 30, 2019, 02:08:35 PM »
Not sure I follow that TheDrake.  It's more like 4-5 year lag, they have been covered and standard for more than 2 years here.

And what about the rationing?  Do you mind that 100% of type 1 get them on the US insurance and only 20% in the NHS?  This is something that every Type 1 patient should have access to use.

I just gave you timeline that refutes that statement. Reread.

Okay.  Your NHS report is from April 2019, and flat out says they will reimburse for no more than 20% of Type 1 patients (Article 4) and has a long list of descriptors of who is covered (appendix A) to make sure that 80% of Type 1 patients are not covered.

Your US insurance says 100% of Type 1, and some Type 2 are eligible.  The standards are pretty low (3 injections a day and you qualify).  My own personal experience is that the monitors have been in use for several years here.

Here's a link to the Wiki on them, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_glucose_monitor.  I read that to say that the newest ones - the 14 day variety - came on the EU market within a year of being on the market (and they were faster on the implantable one).  No indication about whether their health services paid for them.  I think it's interesting that none of the earlier models are described as being made available there.

Looks like the exact story I've been telling.  The US system generates an expensive development chain that results in a life changing product, which the socialist systems then adopt.  But this is a summary there could be more detail.

Quote
Not everyone actually needs that option. But the doctors here are happy to recommend it to patients that don't need it.

I think the UK's appendix A excludes an awful lot of people for whom the device would be beneficial.  Are you really asserting that 80% of Type 1 patients wouldn't benefit from continuous monitoring?

I also note, just like I said about rationing, there's an express discussion in paragraph 6 of this being justifiable as a cost savings.  This document really is about cost, not patient benefit. 

I don't read it as reasonable to claim that US doctors are recommending it to patients "that don't need it" while it's the NHS guidelines that seem to arbitrarily exclude some who may need the treatment in the interest of saving money (not patient benefit).

And what about the rationing?  Do you mind that 100% of type 1 get them on the US insurance and only 20% in the NHS?  This is something that every Type 1 patient should have access to use.

Just want to say your figure of 100 percent of American diabetics getting this technology is flawed from the outset.

I said 100% on that insurance.  I already grant that US insurance coverage varies. 

For some perspective see the link below, it seems to say 30-40% of the US Type 1 population and an increasing amount of the Type 2 population are using pumps/sensors (not clear this is fully helpful without separating the two).

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/8/1579

Quote
Even if I give you that all and any insurance will pay for it, not all Americans are insured.

Less true than it's ever been, with the truly poor covered under Obamacare.  In any event, even adjusting for that fact, it looks like 50-100% more of the US diabetic population (total, not covered only) may be receiving this care than in the UK.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 02:10:59 PM by Seriati »

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #194 on: August 01, 2019, 11:07:47 AM »
I'm not following the debate on this thread, but I thought I'd add a list of the things Democrats agree upon according to David Brin, just to keep the ball rolling (and make sure there is input about what Dems are running on from those who are not Republicans):

Quote
Here again is my list of consensus items that ALL of the Democratic candidates are for.

* Electoral reform: end gerrymandering, rigged voting machines, voter suppression and other cheats,
* Election money transparency,
* Restore our alliances.
* Deter acts of war (cyber/electoral/trade etc.) against our nation/institutions,
* End "supply side" vampirism by the aristocracy we rebelled against in 1776,
* Infrastructure, paid for by ending supply side voodoo,
* DACA,
* Children out of cages, refugees given safe places to live and process,
* A Marshall Plan for Central America + holding their corrupt elites accountable,
* Medicare for all Children (a start so popular the GOP can’t dare refuse),
* Climate action,
* Restore science, R&D and technological leadership as national strengths,
* Protect women’s autonomy, credibility and command over their own bodies,
* Consumer protection, empower the Consumer Financial Protection Board,
* At least allow student debt refinancing. Analyze and start doing much more,
* Restore the postal savings bank for the un-banked,
* Basic, efficient, universal background checks,
* Basic-level Net Neutrality for consumers,
* A revised-throttled War Powers Act and limit presidential emergency powers,
* Civil Service protection,
* Reject racism, gender-phobia, nazism etc. as evils while calming all sanctimonies,
* Restored respect for things called facts. Support professions that use them,
* Restored rebuttal rules on "news" channels,
* Emoluments supervision. AUDIT the cheating, money-laundering oligarchy,
* Ease out of the damned drug war (at least don’t impede states),
* Anti-trust breakup of monopoly/duopolies,
* Allow pharma renegotiation and stop the tricks that stymie generics,
* Restore some of the social contract set up by the FDR-loving "Greatest Generation" (GG),

Anyone who shouts "socialism!" at that list is screaming at our parents, the GGs who crushed Hitler, contained Stalinism, took us to the moon, loved science and built the world's greatest middle class...

And if you think not, show us the democrats opposing any of those things! *  Better yet, look at the last time the dems had power to legislate, just two years (2009-2011) out of the last 26, when those "corporatist" dems were frenetically busy! Look at California and New York, where they've had more time. This "corporatist" malarkey comes right out of a Kremlin basement.

While some Democratic candidates want to go further than this list, remember that most changes need to go through Congress, too.  And, as we've been told about Trump, Congress will also moderate the President's wilder ideas.  These are just the ones that would pass a vast majority of the Democrats muster.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #195 on: August 01, 2019, 12:06:37 PM »
Interesting list, Wayward, and I agee there are some valuable items on it. However do you think Brin is talking about "Democrats", as in, regular people who go out and vote, or do you think he means it as the party 'representing' those people, as in "get off your butts and vote for them"? The difference may be staggering in certain cases, of which I'll point out a few:

Quote
* Election money transparency

I think a few Dem candidates may be for this, like Bernie and probably Gabbard, but the DNC is definitely not in favor of this as history has shown.

Quote
* End "supply side" vampirism by the aristocracy we rebelled against in 1776

Once again, corporate welfare and oligarchic privateering are bipartisan practices among 'the elite', and neither party wants this to stop; the only difference is how they execute it. The relationships of both parties to both Wall Street and the military sector are quite similar and of no distinction worth noting.

Quote
* A Marshall Plan for Central America + holding their corrupt elites accountable

This, too, has been a bipartisan issue, where both parties have been positively united on making sure Mexico and Central America are a giant trash bin. It's been made that way because it's suitable to certain interests. To be fair this isn't only about the parties and involves other unelected players, but in theory if the Congress and the parties were opposed to it then perhaps something could be done about it.

Quote
* Basic-level Net Neutrality for consumers

I'm not quite sure that the relationship is between elected officials and the government/corporate partnerships such as with Google and Amazon. However I'm skeptical that whatever actions are taken in the near future are going to contravene those arrangements, which have little to do with the good of the people.

Quote
* Restored respect for things called facts. Support professions that use them

This is a funny one, since the postmodern camp is surely on the Democrat side and yet is fundamentally opposed to the idea that there are objective facts. But the 2nd clause clears up where this point is coming from, which is less "admit there are objective facts" and more "admit that experts know more than you do." The problem is you can't get to the 2nd without the first, and that in turn requires rejecting a huge amount of what's being taught right now in liberal colleges.

Quote
* Ease out of the damned drug war (at least don’t impede states)

This probably is an issue that Democrats agree on, except that they would mysteriously still find resistance from unlikely places. At long as special interests are still highly relevant in politics the Democrat platforms will have a tough time overcoming their 'partners' on this one. Some powerful factions here are on the side of the drug war.

It looked like a pretty good list overall, however the common theme for my raising eyebrows at various parts of it ironically points to the one item missing from the list: campaign finance reform, which Bernie at any rate is for. And more than that, getting money interests completely out of politics. Many of Brin's ideas will only ever be that if people within the political infrastructure have their hands tied by bound agreements.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #196 on: August 01, 2019, 02:26:41 PM »
I'm not following the debate on this thread, but I thought I'd add a list of the things Democrats agree upon according to David Brin, just to keep the ball rolling (and make sure there is input about what Dems are running on from those who are not Republicans):

Quote
Here again is my list of consensus items that ALL of the Democratic candidates are for.

* Electoral reform: end gerrymandering, rigged voting machines, voter suppression and other cheats,

This one's a lie. Dem's "agree" on ending voting practices they believe harm their base (or more accurately that they can "say" harm their base), but fully support practices that are just as manipulative that help them.

A few specific examples, the SC just left in place two massive political gerrymanders, with MD - fully open and acknowledged Dem gerrymander being one of them.  Statistically, it's been shown that "non-partisan" processes favor Democratic interests (so no surprise they would favor them), and no - as in zero - Democrats support removing racial/minority favoring gerrymanders.

Voter IDs?  Dems hate them, no matter how free or easy to get.

Voter suppression, Holder ignored armed persons intimidating voters at certain polling stations.

Election fraud?  Dem's pretend it doesn't exist and resist any efforts to implement abilities to audit it.

How one focuses on election fairness is almost exclusively a function of political partisanship (and almost completely unfair).

Quote
* Election money transparency,

Sort of.  Dems have mastered crowd funding and donor intimidation.  So they are seeking to eliminate corporate donations (but not donations from Unions and other entities), and to force every person who donates to be fully and publically disclosed so that they can intimidate them, demand they be fired and otherwise poison a free debate (that's just what's already happened).

Quote
* Restore our alliances.

Lol.  Name one alliance we've broken or abandoned.

I think what's meant here is that Dems want to "restore" the balance where we let non-US actors favor their own interests over ours while we look the other way.

Quote
* Deter acts of war (cyber/electoral/trade etc.) against our nation/institutions,

Not a differentiator for the Dems.  Republicans are now and have always been harder line on this issue.

Quote
* End "supply side" vampirism by the aristocracy we rebelled against in 1776,

Lol, too bad decreased regulation and lower taxes has in fact resulted in increased real wages, record unemployment and excess job opportunities, particularly among the lower class that the Dems claim they want to help.  I think it's interesting that Brin put this in while simultaneously citing to wanting "facts" to govern below.

Quote
* Infrastructure, paid for by ending supply side voodoo,

We all want infrastructure.  Linking it to favoring an anti-economic agenda seems to be cramming your shoulders into the hole along with your head.  Meanwhile while we ignore infrastructure that is the responsibility of the federal government, we spend ever more on entitlements that are no where mentioned in the Constitution.

Quote
* DACA,

I agree the Dems "say" they want this.  Meanwhile, even when Trump expressly offered it, they have failed to support any practical legislative implementation of it.  In fact, their sole action has been to ignore the issue in favor of trying to tie it up in the courts.  Still fascinated that the court's have enjoined the termination of an unConstitutional executive action.  But the Dems clearly have better activist lawyers than the Republicans.

Quote
* Children out of cages, refugees given safe places to live and process,

Lie, or they would authorize funding for it.  Seems a simple issue to me, yet they had to fight off an internal revolution to even grant emergency relief.

This is one of those virtue signalling issues where the base has a strong "moral" stance and the leaders fail to deliver deliberately to keep the fire going.

Quote
* A Marshall Plan for Central America + holding their corrupt elites accountable,

Lol, this is a lie.  This would mean adopting the neo-Con program of invading and/or toppling some of those countries.  There is no real support for any process of interference on the left.  No matter how much they claim it up front there is absolutely no action that the US can take that the moral relativists will not criticize as evil and unjustified.

Quote
* Medicare for all Children (a start so popular the GOP can’t dare refuse)

Why would I, or anyone of the vast majority of the country on private insurance, want to force our children onto the much inferior Medicare?

Poor children without insurance can already obtain this federal funded insurance.

Quote
* Climate action,

I'll grant "action," but most of it is "economic redistribution that harms the climate" action.

Quote
* Restore science, R&D and technological leadership as national strengths,

Is this like MAGA?  Is there some view that these are not currently national strengths?  Funnily enough, virtually all of the cutting edge development is the result of private industry, which the above policies want to limit and control. 

This seems like one of those irreconcilable positions of the left (like supporting green efforts and union coal miners).

Quote
* Protect women’s autonomy, credibility and command over their own bodies,

None of which is at risk.  I think you meant to say protect abortion rights.

Quote
* Consumer protection, empower the Consumer Financial Protection Board,

CFPB should be disbanded for the unConstitutional and authoritarian organization it is.  There's absolutley no legitimacy to it.

Consumer protection?  The FTC is doing as good a job under Trump as under Obama.  There's little difference for the most part. 

What this really means is a desire to corrupt consumer protection to control corporations.  Just like how the left warped the NRLB from what was supposed to be a neutral arbiter between companies and unions into a Union hammer, and the EPA from what was supposed to be a duty to balance economic and ecological goals into an extremist ecological avenger, this is an attempt to pursue leftist wishlist goals free from the requirement of passing laws that accomplish those goal.

If Congress can not pass a law making pay day lending illegal, why would it be okay to create an unaccountable bureaucracy to do it?  Why would a party that claims to care about voting and the voice of the people endorse such an anti-democratic process?

Quote
* At least allow student debt refinancing. Analyze and start doing much more,

Everything about college funding has been manipulated by the government.  Would love to "undue" the mechanisms they mandated to try and restore economic controls to the prices involved.  But it's funny to me to see deliberate leftist policy choices later being decried by the left.

Student debt refinancing was deliberately prohibited, as was discharge in bankruptcy, and federal guaranties were added to protect those lenders specifically to ensure that lenders had no interest in discriminating against students based on their current or future prospects to pay them back.  Once again, the left creates an unintended consequence with "progressive" policies and then blames the system for the harm.

Quote
* Restore the postal savings bank for the un-banked,

I'm not adverse to banking reform, but this one makes little sense to me.  Trying to force banking into every post office would create an enormous amount of fraud risk and require redesign of every building and retraining or replacement of staff.

Quote
* Basic, efficient, universal background checks,

For what?  Immigration?  We know that's not true.  Voting?  Nope not true there either.

I'm guessing this is for gun control?

Quote
* Basic-level Net Neutrality for consumers,

I agree Dems want this as an "abstract concept."  Not seen one bit of evidence they really want it as applied, or that they remotely understand the negative consequences.

Quote
* A revised-throttled War Powers Act and limit presidential emergency powers,

None of which is consistent with the Constitution.  The War Powers Act itself may not even be Constitutional - you'll note Congress has never tried to enforce it when Presidents have ignored it.

In any event it's untrue.  What they want is a revision that applies to Republican Presidents but not Democrat ones.

Quote
* Civil Service protection,

Yep, Dems love massive union protections that prevent even the incompetent from being fired (well other than for "wrong" political views, then it's okay).

Quote
* Reject racism, gender-phobia, nazism etc. as evils while calming all sanctimonies,

General US principal of both parties.  I notice you don't mention anti-semitism, lol.

Quote
* Restored respect for things called facts. Support professions that use them,

I think everyone respects facts.  What's missing is the critical thinking skills to differentiate "facts" from "opinions" and that's at least as common among the Dems as the Repubs.  I think what's happened is that journalistic ethics have collapsed, with more and more believing it's their duty to be a shepard for sheep that can't think for themselves (with the attendant duty to manipulate what they hear) than to an educator putting the facts in front of the reader to inform their own decision.

There's no support whatsoever for journalistic reform that would require the media to get out of the Democrat's pocket and report on things neutrally.

Quote
* Restored rebuttal rules on "news" channels,

Lol.  Have you ever watched Fox and CNN?  Only the former gives it's opponents the chance to say what they want.  Fact is these fairness rules were never applied fairly.  If you want to force MSNBC, CNN, and the other MSM news channels to give fair time to conservative voices, go right ahead.

Quote
* Emoluments supervision. AUDIT the cheating, money-laundering oligarchy,

Already have emoluments supervision.  Sounds like this is advocating for ignoring the presumption of innocence and eliminating the requirement that the government have probable cause prior to getting a warrant.

Nice words for a nasty anti-civil rights agenda.

Quote
* Ease out of the damned drug war (at least don’t impede states),

Mixed bag on this one.  Hard to explain it when we are at the same time demanding a war on drug companies to end the opiod crisis.  Do we want wars or not?

Quote
* Anti-trust breakup of monopoly/duopolies,

I'll sort of give him this one.  Republicans do tend to look the other way more on large companies.  It's pretty clear that both Google and Amazon are monopolies and that they have abused their positions.

Quote
* Allow pharma renegotiation and stop the tricks that stymie generics,

Sort of.  Mostly though this is just a continuation of general socialist/redistribution thinking.  Party A developed a drug that can benefit all, therefore we should take the drug and distribute it to all.  It's a destructive game that doesn't believe that Party A deserves to be rewarded for taking the risks and expending the resources to generate the great product they developed.

I do agree that patents - and all copyrights - need to be revisited to expire without tricks.

Quote
* Restore some of the social contract set up by the FDR-loving "Greatest Generation" (GG),

What exactly?

Quote
Anyone who shouts "socialism!" at that list is screaming at our parents, the GGs who crushed Hitler, contained Stalinism, took us to the moon, loved science and built the world's greatest middle class...

Lol, none of which they did through socialism.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #197 on: August 01, 2019, 10:20:32 PM »
Lol.  Name one alliance we've broken or abandoned.

Ukraine, when Russia seized control of Crimea. Oh wait, that happened under Obama. And it technically didn't violate any treaty or agreement. It simply was a "breach of faith."

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #198 on: August 01, 2019, 10:54:58 PM »
Lol.  Name one alliance we've broken or abandoned.

Ukraine, when Russia seized control of Crimea. Oh wait, that happened under Obama. And it technically didn't violate any treaty or agreement. It simply was a "breach of faith."

Ukraine, when we fomented the antiDemocratic Coup D’etat that persecuted the 40%of Ukrainians who are ethnic Russians, provoking Putin to take the heavily Russian Crimea in the first place.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« Reply #199 on: August 01, 2019, 11:46:55 PM »
Lol.  Name one alliance we've broken or abandoned.

Ukraine, when Russia seized control of Crimea. Oh wait, that happened under Obama. And it technically didn't violate any treaty or agreement. It simply was a "breach of faith."

Ukraine, when we fomented the antiDemocratic Coup D’etat that persecuted the 40%of Ukrainians who are ethnic Russians, provoking Putin to take the heavily Russian Crimea in the first place.

Which can also be placed at the feet of the Obama Administration.