2016 Presidential Race

[CDu]

Sorry, the batteries on my sarcasm meter are running low. Are you being sarcastic? Are you saying Trump's nebulous "terrific" plan would lessen their Trump deficit projection?

I suspect that there are a lot of people who don't actually know what Obamacare actually is or how much it actually costs relative to our government's overall spending. Medicare and Medicaid are both substantially larger, both in terms of number of enrollees and in terms of budget.

Repealing Obamacare wouldn't make a dent in the debt. Especially if it is replaced by any other national plan.

[Jeffrey]

I think he was saying, you cannot project the impact of his plan on the debt or deficit at all because no one knows what the plan is.

Thanks, OPK, you speak my language! If everyone else would just get on the bus, we could have very effective communications.

[Jeffrey]

I suspect that there are a lot of people who don't actually know what Obamacare actually is or how much it actually costs relative to our government's overall spending. Medicare and Medicaid are both substantially larger, both in terms of number of enrollees and in terms of budget.

Repealing Obamacare wouldn't make a dent in the debt. Especially if it is replaced by any other national plan.

Thanks, CDu, for the education on it! The comparison with other developed, and more experienced, nations is, IMO, important and may be a good way to improve our program.

[OldPhiKap]

Thanks, OPK, you speak my language! If everyone else would just get on the bus, we could have very effective communications.

Just call me Cowboy Neal

[Jeffrey]

Just call me Cowboy Neal

OK.... please, look at the road every now & then. I know you do not need to, but it would calm my nerves.

[77devil]

In looking at the cost of the Affordable Care Act, looking at only the federal government's express costs misses a lot of the picture, given that the central features of the plan are the mandates that employers and individuals purchase the coverage.

Without commenting on the desirability of the plan, I'd humbly suggest that any consideration of the "cost" by necessity should include not only direct costs but the indirect costs and secondary effects.

While this, of course, is correct, the context of the discussion was the impact of the two candidates' policies on the federal deficit.

[dudog84]

I'm saying I do not know how you predict the income & expenses associated with vague Trump plans. I'd need a lot more details before I'd try to estimate Trump's financial impact.

OK. And my apologies to nebulas (nebulae?). They at least have some form. But they are terrific.

[CDu]

Thanks, CDu, for the education on it! The comparison with other developed, and more experienced, nations is, IMO, important and may be a good way to improve our program.

I agree. And just to be clear, I am not sure whether the ACA will actually turn out to be a good thing or not in the long run. We have a complicated system in that - between employer-sponsored coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc., about 85% of the population already had health insurance. So by definition a national plan like the ACA just isn't going to apply to many people. Only about 10 million folks are actually on it.

I just think that the vast majority of the public (that is not meant to be a partisan dig; I mean that across the entire political spectrum) has limited understanding of what it is, either in nature or especislly in scope. It is far from a no-cost plan, but it makes up less than 10% of government spending on healthcare.

Full disclosure: health policy happens to be my field of study, so it is one of the few areas of the political spectrum I can talk somewhat intelligently on (he says at great risk &#128556. So I apologize if I get soapboxy on the topic.

[Nick]

Wikileaks has released 50 hacked DNC voicemails.

Curious to see if this amounts to anything, there's no word on the contents of the voicemails yet.

[TampaDuke]

How would one begin to calculate those secondary costs... And secondary savings from people who no longer use the emergency room as primary care and who catch illnesses in yearly checkups they would not have had?

I wish I was knowledgeable enough to answer that, but I'm not. Economists and actuaries do such calculations and projections all the time in varied contexts, though. I have no doubt it would be complicated and require lots of assumptions, particularly at this stage in the ACA's implementation, but that doesn't make these non-government expenses and effects any less real.

While this, of course, is correct, the context of the discussion was the impact of the two candidates' policies on the federal deficit.

That's my point (inarticulately expressed) -- you really can't have much of a discussion about the impact of the candidates' ACA policies on the federal debt if you're not also looking at the impact on ACA costs/effects on the public. This seems particularly true if Trump's plan, whatever it is, aims to reduce the debt and the expense on the public as his quote (posted by Jeffrey upthread) is to be believed* ("I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people," said Trump).

*Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Trump supporter, and don't believe for a second he can scrap ACA, ensure coverage for most everybody, and lower costs for both the government and the public.

[CDu]

Interesting speeches tonight. Former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense to speak on international security. Biden to try to appeal to the working class white voters. And Bloomberg to appeal to (I would guess) the independents considering Johnson.

Don't know how it will play, but that seems to be the strategy so far tonight.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Biden killed it. Love the post quote from an analyst - Biden once said "the best way to stay popular is to not run for president.

Bloomberg on the other hand is not a strong speaker and showed why not running 3rd party was a good call.

[Furniture]

Biden killed it. Love the post quote from an analyst - Biden once said "the best way to stay popular is to not run for president.

Bloomberg on the other hand is not a strong speaker and showed why not running 3rd party was a good call.

Biden killed it!

[Olympic Fan]

I've been watching the Democratic Convention pretty steadily -- watching President Obama finish up as I type this.

I thought the first two nights were mostly about Hillary ... maybe 85/90 percent pro Hillary with a few shots at Trump.

Tonight was the anti-Trump night -- Biden, Bloomberg, Obama and a parade of lessor military and intelligence voices, mostly attacking the Republican nominee.

Even Bloomberg, who did position himself as an independent, spent most of his speech ripping Trump -- "I'm from New York and I know a con man" -- as a destructive businessman who has his clothing line made in sweatshops overseas, who opposes immigration reform, yet employs cheap illegal labor and uses bankruptcy to enrich himself while sticking it to the consumers and small businessmen that invested with him. That and using Trump's own boast that he's the "King of Debt" ... Bloomberg's not a great speaker, but his speech had to hit Trump where he lives.

Watching coverage on several networks, I think Trump made a horrible tactical mistake this morning when he joked (at least I think it was a joke) that if Russian intelligence was behind the DNC hacks, he hoped they would find and leak the e-mails Hillary supposedly deleted.

I understand what he was trying to say, but it merely reinforces the story that he's aligned with Putin and Russian interests. At least that was what I got watching CNN, CBS and MSCNBC this afternoon. What had been a fringe story is going more and more mainstream.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Tonight was the anti-Trump night -- Biden, Bloomberg, Obama and a parade of lessor military and intelligence voices, mostly attacking the Republican nominee.

Don't forget Kaine doing his job as attack dog, going with a full on impersonation of Trump. "Believe me!"

[OldPhiKap]

I am really curious to see ratings from both conventions, and day-by-day if that is available.

[elvis14]

I am really curious to see ratings from both conventions, and day-by-day if that is available.

Believe me, no matter what the ratings say, the RNC was watched by a huge number of people, many more than the DNC which we all know was terrible. I know conventions and no matter what the media reports, I am the one guy who knows that the RNC was more watched.

[dudog84]

My line of the night (paraphrased): Americans don't want to be ruled.

Struck me because I had this argument in a bar a few weeks ago. This guy I know (not well) said that Americans want a "strongman". Not a strong man but a strongman. I had to walk away.

[Olympic Fan]

I am really curious to see ratings from both conventions, and day-by-day if that is available.

The Democrats had more viewers for Monday night -- 26 millions to 23 million for the first night of the Republican convention:

http://fortune.com/2016/07/27/democr...on-tv-ratings/

The gap was even wider for night two -- 24.7 million for the Democrats, 19.75 million for the Republicans:

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/demo...nc-1201824854/

Too early to compare night three,but in a post Republican Convention story, the NY Times reported that the event in Cleveland did not live up to ratings projections:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us...ngs-trump.html

Interesting comment:

New York executives who flew here for the proceedings were perplexed. Watching delegates stream out of the Quicken Loans Arena one night at 10:30, just as viewership was peaking, one senior network figure asked a producer if the Republicans expected to fill the nation’s living rooms when they could not fill the seats in the hall.

[OldPhiKap]

The Democrats had more viewers for Monday night -- 26 millions to 23 million for the first night of the Republican convention:

http://fortune.com/2016/07/27/democr...on-tv-ratings/

The gap was even wider for night two -- 24.7 million for the Democrats, 19.75 million for the Republicans:

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/demo...nc-1201824854/

Too early to compare night three,but in a post Republican Convention story, the NY Times reported that the event in Cleveland did not live up to ratings projections:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us...ngs-trump.html

Interesting comment:

New York executives who flew here for the proceedings were perplexed. Watching delegates stream out of the Quicken Loans Arena one night at 10:30, just as viewership was peaking, one senior network figure asked a producer if the Republicans expected to fill the nation’s living rooms when they could not fill the seats in the hall.

By traditional standards, the Democrats have had a very good Convention to date. If Hillary can't get a really good bounce out of this -- strong speeches by Michelle Obama, Pres. Obama, Bill C., Biden, Kaine, Bernie on her left flank, etc. -- she is in deep doo doo. That's firing all the ammo that the Democratic Party has at its disposal.

I thought Kaine did well. President Obama, whether you agree with him or not, is an incredibly gifted orator. Hillary really has a tough act to follow, and I think her tone is more important than the substance of her speech. Adult without lecturing; resolute without screeching; humble without insincerity; hopeful without being Pollyanna. The less she mentions Trump, the better.

For the folks who don't like Clinton, I think they will see the lone real wart -- the #BernieOrBust folks -- as a sign of disunity. For most independents, I think they write those folks off as fringe (no offense to those who might be in that camp) so I don't think it is a major demerit.