Howard Schultz or any independent presidential bid (1 Viewer)

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
3,665
Age
56
Online
Sticky Post
Howard Schultz is seriously considering running for president as an independent. He's a centrist democrat, so he could run as a Democrat, but believes he would be disengenous running as a Democrat. I listened to a part of an interview, and he sounds very reasonable. The latest poll I saw says that Trump has his solid 28% that will vote for him no matter what, and another 14% that will consider voting for him. That is why he occasionally has a 42% approval rating. There are 57% that will not vote for him, which means that practically any one person can beat him, but if you split the 57% between 2 candidates, then each only gets 27.5% of the vote. It will then come down to who can win those 14% of possible Trump voters. A centrist candidate could draw some of that 14%, but those 14% are probably largely conservative, so it would probably require a right leaning centrist. A man like Schultz will have a very hard time drawing away any of those 14%, so it would probably result in Trump getting about 40 to 42% of the vote, while the other 2 candidates split the remaining 57 to 60%. The only way a 3rd party candidate makes sense for the country is if we used rank voting, otherwise we are practically guaranteeing that the least desirable candidate will win. Here is an article on it:

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689536814/why-howard-schultzs-independent-bid-for-president-is-a-radical-idea
 
Last edited:

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,952
Reaction score
42,397
Location
70005
Offline
Harris already has softened her Medicaid for all stance (saying, she's obviously open to other ideas). She's making a point about how heath insurance companies can complicate the process and deny coverage and make people work to prove it.
I don't see why "Medicare for All" couldn't work the same way the NFIP works for flood insurance. Private companies write most of the flood insurance business, not the NFIP directly. So, the government farms out the majority of the underwriting and policy maintenance work for what probably comprises 80% of flood policies out there. These companies also offer private flood insurance which isn't a WYO (Write Your Own) product that's part of the NFIP. It's for people who want more coverage than the NFIP allows and better coverage on their contents/personal property by offering replacement cost valuation instead of actual cash value.

I think the same could work for "healthcare for all" - but that's just, like, my opinion.
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,605
Reaction score
14,194
Age
43
Offline
In a way, I may be uniquely qualified to complain.

I've had HMO plans. I've had PPO plans. I've had an HDHP PPO plan. I've had some experience with Medicaid for the kids. I've had some experience with the public health for the needy and hospital charity insurance.

I've also dealt with non-coverage for procedures, because of billing code combinations...

It really does shine a light on the total BS of medical pricing.

Anesthesia is $600, but our insurance contract rate is $152. So, most of your patients come with insurance, so you mostly get $152 or close. So, why is it $600 cash? That's stupid and total opaque.
It's their charge master price. The "charge" $600 without insurance to justify charging the insurance company $152 and be able to say they're giving them a discount.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,907
Reaction score
34,608
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
It's their charge master price. The "charge" $600 without insurance to justify charging the insurance company $152 and be able to say they're giving them a discount.
I know, but it sucks. A 75% discount? Or a 395% markup (depending on which price you want to start from).
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,907
Reaction score
34,608
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I don't see why "Medicare for All" couldn't work the same way the NFIP works for flood insurance. Private companies write most of the flood insurance business, not the NFIP directly. So, the government farms out the majority of the underwriting and policy maintenance work for what probably comprises 80% of flood policies out there. These companies also offer private flood insurance which isn't a WYO (Write Your Own) product that's part of the NFIP. It's for people who want more coverage than the NFIP allows and better coverage on their contents/personal property by offering replacement cost valuation instead of actual cash value.

I think the same could work for "healthcare for all" - but that's just, like, my opinion.
From the little I understand, that's kind of how Medicare works. The single payer is the State. I'm not sure if Humana won the contract for the whole state, or that was the one we happened to get at the time.

But, based on Harris' comments, she was talking about removing Insurance company red tape from the equation. But, she's open to ideas.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,952
Reaction score
42,397
Location
70005
Offline
From the little I understand, that's kind of how Medicare works. The single payer is the State. I'm not sure if Humana won the contract for the whole state, or that was the one we happened to get at the time.

But, based on Harris' comments, she was talking about removing Insurance company red tape from the equation. But, she's open to ideas.
Here the choices for me thru the exchange were BCBS or Vantage (based out of Shreveport). BCBS had like 30 options while Vantage had a few. And most of the BCBS plans were HMO's which I didn't even consider.

I think if they ran it like the NFIP it would remove the red tape and still offer private insurance plans for those who want it. Of course I'm talking in broad strokes here and simply making a comparison to an insurance plan that's mandatory (for the most part) for any American who buys a home. For those that it isn't mandatory, it's because they're (the property) in a preferred risk pool and have really low rates. The same could be applied to the health care market and pool of applicants. The simple solution to get and keep the NFIP out of the red would be to make flood insurance mandatory for all homeowners - especially considering the number of claims each year that come from uninsured people living in these preferred risk areas (being something like 30% last year). I guess I just don't think it'd be as hard as it's made out to be because of the politics of it.
 

APSaintsFan

All-Pro
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
1,173
Reaction score
182
Location
North Carolina
Offline
I get what you are saying about 85% being reliable to vote for one party or the other, but the dynamic that can change that is if one side isn't excited, then they tend to stay home or vote for a non-factor candidate. I think we saw a lot of that in Democratic voters last time, because they weren't enthusiastic about Hilary(even though she got more votes than Trump, but she didn't get enough in certain places). I think Democratic voters will be more energized this time than Republican voters, and may have the discipline to stay away from a shiny new, centrist democrat running as a third party candidate. I think if Shultz runs, you will likely see a full-court press by Democratic candidates to dismiss him as a vanity candidate who is being reckless in creating a situation where we may get 4 more years of Trump. I also think he has a name recognition problem. Most people have never heard of him. They have heard of Starbucks, but not him.

I am going to disagree with those who say the Democrats need a centrist. I think they need to excite Democrats. That's what Trump did for most Republicans last time. I think if they get too caught up in playing it safe, Shultz might look better to Democratic voters. There are a lot of people who are coming around to single-payer health care, and some of those people are people who normally vote Republican. I think a strong progressive message will resonate in this election afer 4 years of Donald Trump. I think if the Democrats run as Republican-lite, they will demoralize their base and lose this election.
I admit that i did not vote for Hillary and voted Gary Johnson. I was always in the Hillary or Gary Johnson camp never was going to vote for Trump. I saw BS right away and knew it and tried to tell everybody i knew about it. I will not vote for Shultz or Trump maybe Harris or Beto if he gets in the race. Biden is to old now, to me at least. I quite a few youngsters at my part time job that voted in 2018 but it did not amount to much here in North Carolina but in other states(Virginia, Pennsylvania and in Georgia)(Where i have friends their too) they voted Democrat because those people identified with those candidates.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,907
Reaction score
34,608
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Here the choices for me thru the exchange were BCBS or Vantage (based out of Shreveport). BCBS had like 30 options while Vantage had a few. And most of the BCBS plans were HMO's which I didn't even consider.

I think if they ran it like the NFIP it would remove the red tape and still offer private insurance plans for those who want it. Of course I'm talking in broad strokes here and simply making a comparison to an insurance plan that's mandatory (for the most part) for any American who buys a home. For those that it isn't mandatory, it's because they're (the property) in a preferred risk pool and have really low rates. The same could be applied to the health care market and pool of applicants. The simple solution to get and keep the NFIP out of the red would be to make flood insurance mandatory for all homeowners - especially considering the number of claims each year that come from uninsured people living in these preferred risk areas (being something like 30% last year).
Agreed.

I think this was kind of the point NPR was making today. A majority of Americans support a single payer health care or Medicare for all. But, it depends on the details. How it would run. Costs. How is it paid for.

I like the idea that if you take the cost away from Business, especially small business, you can possibly pay people more, but that always ends up not actually happening..
 

mb504

Word.
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
5,844
Reaction score
11,695
Location
Downtown Carrollton
Offline
It's their charge master price. The "charge" $600 without insurance to justify charging the insurance company $152 and be able to say they're giving them a discount.
Right -- and while they just got paid $152, they get to report a paper "loss" which will keep behemoth "not for profit" (LOL!) medical corporations (like Ochsner in the New Orleans area) from having to face the same tax burdens as normal companies while paying enormous salaries to their executives and gobbling up property and all of their competitors.
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,605
Reaction score
14,194
Age
43
Offline
Agreed.

I think this was kind of the point NPR was making today. A majority of Americans support a single payer health care or Medicare for all. But, it depends on the details. How it would run. Costs. How is it paid for.

I like the idea that if you take the cost away from Business, especially small business, you can possibly pay people more, but that always ends up not actually happening..
I think corporate and business tax contributions HAS to be a part of paying for a medicare-for-all health care system. They have a vested interest in their employees health and should contribute to it. No way they get to pocket what they now contribute to the employees health care plans if we decide as a nation that we want better and more affordable health care.

They'll likely save money in any scenario if we do switch to a single payer system, so I don't see why they would fight it.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,907
Reaction score
34,608
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I think corporate and business tax contributions HAS to be a part of paying for a medicare-for-all health care system. They have a vested interest in their employees health and should contribute to it. No way they get to pocket what they now contribute to the employees health care plans if we decide as a nation that we want better and more affordable health care.

They'll likely save money in any scenario if we do switch to a single payer system, so I don't see why they would fight it.
They have a vested interest in their employees productivity and profitability.
 

Fanincowboyland

Rookie
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
200
Reaction score
162
Offline
I think corporate and business tax contributions HAS to be a part of paying for a medicare-for-all health care system. They have a vested interest in their employees health and should contribute to it. No way they get to pocket what they now contribute to the employees health care plans if we decide as a nation that we want better and more affordable health care.

They'll likely save money in any scenario if we do switch to a single payer system, so I don't see why they would fight it.
I understand the advantages you have in getting businesses to help pay for their employees participation in a single-payer system, but if that means their employees can participate more cheaply than an entreprenuer, I think we miss a great opportunity to make creating small businesses a much more attractive option for people. It could spur the 1099 economy and make it a more responsible option. The more I look at the nuances of the recent polling, I think we should simply add the public option to Obamacare that was intended to be there in the first place. It was conservative democrats who got it removed at the last minute. That would give folks a chance to get a look at what a single-payer system could do for people who don't have employer-based health insurance. Who knows, it might even be the panacea that would get most people insured and let us stop overhauling the health insurance system for a while, and move on to other economic justice issues.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,897
Reaction score
17,188
Offline
If our goal is truly a 70% top tax rate, maybe we should structure it so it is implemented gradually. If it only takes full affect after half the people voting are gone, we might actually get it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom