Policy chat

Post Reply New Topic

I know personalities make for good gossip material, but do you ever want to talk a bit more about policy? To try and spur some substantive discussion, I thought I'd give my opinions on Joe Biden's policy platform for the 2020 US Presidential election. Although Donald Trump took the unusual step of not updating his policies from 2016, there are many differences between Hillary Clinton's policies and Joe Biden's policies.

I found most of these policies on joebiden.com/joes-vision, and Politico's summary but some came from my knowledge of interviews.

Some things I like about Biden's policies:

- His climate and energy policies are really strong. I have some expertise in this area and couldn't really ask for much more. Lots of investment in all the right areas, showing a good grasp of the scale and nature of the issue.

- His justice policies are also very strong. I'm a fan of his emphasis on preventing crime and reducing reoffending rather than focusing on incarceration. One area of disagreement I have is that I believe the private sector has a role to play in the justice system, although mostly only with less complicated service users.

- His healthcare policies seem reasonable. I don't have huge knowledge about this, but I think the public option is probably the way to go. The Sanders "Medicare for All" plan is unaffordable, and I think banning private insurance is immoral, but coverage does need to become more affordable which means a degree of extra government intervention is necessary.

- His direct COVID support ideas seem good, and his vision for America's role in the world is positive.

Some areas where I'm pretty mixed:

- While I would prefer a more radical immigration agenda, Biden's policies would address the least humane parts of the current system. There would be huge value to America in near-total immigration liberalisation, but I do accept that politically that's probably untenable.

- On disability, I'm happy with Biden's policies, but I do miss the detail and passion that Clinton's policies had. For example, Clinton had a dedicated policy for autistic adults, whereas Biden's policy talks in very broad strokes. It says the right things - I just prefer Clinton.

- Biden wishes to roll back Trump's tax cuts. I think this is sensible for income tax, as that will generate a lot of revenue, but if anything I think corporation tax should be cut further to ensure international competitiveness. If you wish to tax rich business owners, then tax dividends, not profits. I'm also not a fan of generic wealth taxes.

Some areas where I dislike Biden's policies:

- Economic nationalism. A big part of Biden's platform is "buy American". In particular, he wants the federal government to prioritise procuring from American companies, including ones ran by disadvantaged groups. This is a common policy worldwide, but not one I like - procurement should be awarded on the free market to the most competitive bid, without favouring bidders from a certain country. This has the effect of forcing American companies to source their supply chain from other American companies if they want to get government work, which sounds good but drives up costs in a similar way to tariffs.

- Related, but Biden's trade policy isn't really spelled out on his website. He has made noises about wishing to join CPTPP, but wants "representatives of labor and the environment" to be at trade negotiations. Leaving aside that asking someone to represent an abstract notion is ludicrous, I'm a big believer in the power of free trade and don't want it to be derailed by notions of "protecting workers" or such nonsense.

- Biden is very pro-union, particularly in the public sector. While I can see the case for private sector unions, public sector unions have a long history of being a disaster. Police unions are coming in for a lot of heat at the moment, but teacher's unions and transport unions also engage in loads of shady behaviour.

- Biden wants to hold social media companies legally liable for what is said on their sites. This would stifle freedom of speech and kill the free internet as we know it. It's a really stupid idea.

- Outside of justice and climate, there's a little bit of a lack of boldness. I look at John Delaney's idea to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, or Andrew Yang's advocacy for UBI (incidentally, very similar ideas), as well as some of the stuff Clinton came out with, and I can't help but be disappointed. While there was much to admire about Obama, it feels like Biden would be effectively Obama's third term, rather than a step forward like Clinton and some others would have been.

Well, that's my piece. Hopefully that's inspired you to give your own thoughts. Where do you think Biden is going right or wrong? Where am I talking sense and where am I talking nonsense? Are there some other policies you'd like to talk about instead? Have at it!

Well, here are my five cents on foreign policy:

To me, there is a discrepancy between Joe Biden's foreign policy (which is largely a return to Obama's policy) and his economic/trade policy - which I see as a "softer" version of Donald Trump's mercantilism.
https://joebiden.com/americanleadership/

I find it somewhat unfeasible that the United States can maintain its international leadership role if it can no longer (or to a much lesser extent) offer other countries good opportunities for exporting (especially manufacture) to the US.

It will also be difficult for the US to match the ambitions of China's Belt and Road Initiative, as a politically divided US is probably unwilling (and unable) to allocate such massive sums from pressing domestic concerns to foreign assistance and development.

... and the cold hard truth is that most countries in the world are probably much more interested in Chinese money than American ideals. You can only put the former in the bank, and the latter appears to be chemically unstable.

So I am sceptical about how much a Biden presidency would be able to achieve in an international context.

Here - at least - there appears to be some consistency in Donald Trump's foreign policy (I have no link here, but I assume his views are fairly well known); he seems to pursue a foreign policy agenda of both economic *and* political retrenchment for the US. The primary beneficiaries of such a policy would likely be Russia and (especially) China, of course.

Both Biden and Trump also claim that they want to end the "Forever" wars... But how?

Donald Trump just decided to pull almost half of US troops out of Iraq... which is consistent with such a policy...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/91103240 ... early-half

But what if Iran and Iraq drifts closer together - as some suspect is already happening? Won't the US come charging back in?

... and there is little solace to be had in ending the "Forever" wars in the Middle East if this simply means that the US (Biden or Trump) reallocates military resources towards China and starts a New Cold war.

You are entertaining, I'll give you that.

Biden good:
1. A 40 year career, liar , phony politician. So, likely won't do much of what he promises.
2. He will likely be easily controlled (bought) by business interests so capitalism should resurge.
3. He says NO to Medical for All.
4. Likely, very minimal change.
5. Pro LGBTQI

Biden bad:
1. Likely sympathetic to rioters.
2. Likely expand welfare programs.
3. Likely more open to foreign intervention.
4. Wants to raise taxes.
5. Wants to reinstate ACA penalty.
6. No mention if he will forgive postponed Social Security taxes.

The conflict between trade and foreign policy is very interesting. The perception is that Donald Trump won 64 out of the 74 swing electoral votes in the Rust Belt because of his protectionist promises. Until the Democrats become reliable favourites in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, those states are going to decide the election, and Obama-era trade policy is going to make people nervous.

Frankly if you want to confront China, then the best way to do that is to join CPTPP and try to encourage new members. It’s already a huge bloc, but add South Korea, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, the Philippines, and maybe even India, Mercosaur, and the UK, and suddenly you’ve got a monster. There would be huge incentive for manufacturers to move from China to SE Asia or Latin America.

MFA will cost too much? Well, perhaps if we weren't spending trillions to drop bombs on mutiple foreign countries ti make defense contractors rich, we could spend that money at home to take care of our people and rebuild our infrastructure.

It seems Biden is full of s**t, anyway, about the cost factor. There have been multiple studies that indicate it would actually save money.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... aves-money

Bernie Sanders MFA wants to BAN private health insurance.

Of course, cut quality, cut availability, cut robust services, and you can get it cheaper, however, that's going to be unacceptable to Americans who are use to first world health care.

I don't agree with banning private insurance, either. That's the one aspect of MFA I'd like to see gone. I believe the people have the power to enact change if we educate ourselves and get involved in the legislative process.

What is the solution to the millions of Anericans who can't afford health insurance? That's an honest question.

There are two important distinctions between generic “single payer healthcare” and Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All”.

1) Sanders’ plan is much more generous than any existent single payer system, covering dental, vision, hearing, long term social care in your home or a care home, IVF, everything you could ask for, for every citizen, with no co-payments. No country in the world offers that.

2) Sanders’ plan bans private health insurance.

I don’t object at all to single payer healthcare, although I don’t think it is inherently better than a multi-payer system. A single-payer system is probably slightly more efficient, but a multi-payer system means that a bad government is less likely to ruin your healthcare.

Also, single payer does not mean “free”. There are a few countries where most healthcare is free at the point of use for all - the UK, Canada, Denmark, Taiwan - but all these countries have some co-pays. There are also countries with single-payer systems where much treatment is not free at the point of use. In Sweden you have to pay for ambulances!

The current American system is the worst in the developed world unless you’re rich. The number of uninsured people, and the size of people’s premiums and deductibles, is unconscionable. But I am ambivalent about whether it should be single payer (like in the UK) or multi-payer (like in most of Europe and East Asia). There are many viable models.

Providing everyone with access to a public option is a solid first step. I think the second step should be capping annual fees for doctor’s visits or hospital visits to perhaps $200 - with the unemployed or low-paid receiving a lower cap. The costs would need to be funded by tax rises, as employers would probably stop contributing as much to costs (which I think is right - lots of people are too scared to change jobs in case they lose their insurance, which lets employers treat them like s**t).

I’d also suggest that the health system should be run by the states, and in geographically bigger states it should be divided up even further. While a federal system would benefit from economies of scale, most countries do not have truly national systems (even the UK’s “National” Health Service is actually four separate services). There are challenges to providing healthcare in Montana that don’t exist in Rhode Island, and vice versa.

What is the difference between single payer and multi payer health.What does that mean exactly.

I'm in the US but my health Care is free anyway because I'm at the lowest income level.

In this context ...

Single payer - just government pays, no private health insurance
Multi payer - both government + private health insurance

Single payer governs the funding - not necessarily the delivery - of health care services.

It is perfectly possible to have private providers of health care in a Single Payer system. In my country of Denmark, for instance, almost General Practitioners and Specialist Practitioners are private companies who provide services for the public health care system. There is no charge for the end user though, as the system is financed through general taxes.

Private hospitals are also used as buffers to increase capacity and avoid long waiting lists, either by the public health care system itself or by giving patients the right to choose (also free of charge) treatment at a private hospital provided that the treatment itself is covered by the public health care system (sorry chum, no cosmetic nose jobs at tax-payer expense).

However, to make such a system work one needs very efficient regulation with respects to (1) cost control, (2) medical standards and (3) patient rights. And this is likely the largest hurdle when it comes to adopting a Single Payer health care model in the US (which lacks all 3), where policy-making is:

- highly decentralized
- extremely conflict-laden (everything apparently has to be settled by SCOTUS) and
- easily influenced by special interest groups

The very reasons why the US health care system is so massively inefficient (ridiculous costs and low coverage) are thus also the reasons why it will be very difficult to implement a Single Payer model in the US - at the very least at the Federal level.

Biden's "public option" is likely to be a federal ACA plan like a current state ACA Medicare plan.

That would make it *available* nationally.

However, still very expensive.

I believe in an option for private healthcare—or to have public/private features in healthcare in general.....like Medicare Advantage plans.

Single payer healthcare is paid for by a single organisation. This could be:

- the national government
- a subnational government
- a national health insurance programme where one insurer covers the whole country/region for basic care

Every system will have some procedures that are not covered, and most if not all will occasionally require a co-pay, most commonly for prescriptions or dentistry.

A multipayer system has payments from multiple different sources. So maybe the federal government covers some of the costs through income tax, a state government covers some cost through property tax, and there is also a marketplace of insurers who are expected to cover a share of basic care.

A recent video from his Arizona retirement home Noam Chomsky portrays Trump as the greater threat to society but basically says were @#$%^&* big time with either candidate.Biden once had a nuance of progressivism (if that's spelled right)but the Clinton's and the DNC have cleansed Biden of any remote progressive platform or agenda he may have once had and now Biden is a bag man for the more conservative DNC agenda.It's going to be a doomsday election with no real winner.