They are paying the owner, so I guess that's one way to get around "Buy an Ad!"

12/28/2019 1:52:24 PM

They pay other people to be official spokepersons. I just do the technology stuff. I'm just YangGanging here just like on my twitter (which probably has higher traffic than tww )

12/28/2019 2:14:17 PM

Makes sense, I don't have the first clue about how all those regulations work

12/28/2019 3:01:57 PM

Glad to see Yang getting called out for lying about M4A and his plan not even including a public option (!):
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/andrew-yang-pressed-health-care-plan-support-spirit/story?id=67959257

The reason this is important is that his plan is for other social programs to be further commoditized and privatized and to let the market solve problems, but he has tried to claim that healthcare is an essential right even though he clearly does not believe that.

Yang is a libertarian. Full stop. It's sad that some "progressives" have been so easily fooled.

Quote :

" . Is this thread an official campaign advertisement? "

He has implied before that he works for the campaign but declined to answer when questioned

[Edited on December 29, 2019 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2019 3:12:27 PM

not sure significance of campaign donations, but wouldn’t be surprised if Yang raises more than Warren Q4. Or close to it

12/30/2019 11:46:39 PM

^^ yikes man, you only see what you want to see. shrug.gif



^ the campaign released a statement that they expect to raise more than $12.5M in the fourth quarter. we know warren has at least $17M. once the FEC reports are filed hopefully there'll be some analysis on momentum through the 4th quarter, especially in December. Warren's EOY fundraising goal is $3M. Yang's was $3M as well but they upped it to $3.5M last night since donations were well on pace to exceed $3M.

Biden, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, Yang the only ones projected to raise over $10M in Q4. Booker and Klobuchar are around $5M apparently.

12/31/2019 9:48:22 AM

i haven't seen anything from yang's campaign that contradicts or adequately responds to the criticism that he has lied about M4A and his plan doesn't even include a public option

Biden's healthcare plan is somehow more progressive and fleshed out than Yang's

12/31/2019 12:08:24 PM

After he stopped lying about supporting Medicare for All, Yang started saying his plan was to compete with the private market and prove that the government can do it better. But if that's the case, where is the competition? Where's the public option? It seems obvious at this point that his whole game is actually the opposite - to "prove" that the private market can do it better, by enacting somewhat stricter regulations on them and then hacking away at Medicare and Medicaid like he wants to do with other programs.

His stance on M4A as compared to the Freedom Dividend was never logically consistent, this was always going to happen.

Crypto-libertarianism

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2019 12:21:54 PM

y'all seem so stuck on who is "opposing" bernie that you can't allow yourself to see or consider the ideas and approaches that other candidates are putting forth. which turns into slandering and lying about them with lazy name-calling, and in the process just pushing their supporters away from the Bernie coalition.

12/31/2019 12:46:16 PM

it's hardly about bernie or bust, i mean i can even find bloomberg's plan for expanding healthcare for fucks sake. but nothing on Yang's Medicare for All page or his his New Way Forward page explain how he wants to expand coverage (and his single payer page is gone). From interviews it sounds like it's maybe a longterm nebulous goal, for almost all other candidates (or all of them?) they recognize that it's a current need and while their plans are different and some better than others it's an issue they all want to fix.

and sorry that i didn't watch the long twitch stream you posted, but your other link didn't answer the question.

he responds with, "the plan to summarize again is medicare for all, modest copays but you have coverage, just one of those wonderful rights of citizenship, then we shift the burden from businesses and families to the public sector that can negotiate the costs..."

but here is the big huge problem that you are waiving off: his website where he is describing what medicare for all means to him explains a plan that he doesn't want to make any changes now and points to a "full plan" that includes no plans for expanding coverage.

other candidates have plans for expanding coverage, yang does not


[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 12:57 PM. Reason : i've watched the videos except the twitch stream]

12/31/2019 12:51:38 PM

let me ask a specific question:

does anything in the twitch stream talk about expanding coverage? the above video doesn't talk about it, it talks about costs, and i don't disagree that he understands that problem, but i watched that video from the beginning to well beyond the start point you used and he never got to coverage.


(also, you shouldn't make people watch hours of videos, videos are terrible for stuff like this. summarize your points, for something more in depth put out a policy paper)

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2019 1:08:57 PM

What precisely do you mean by "expanding coverage". There's a lot of ways that could be interpreted

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 1:31 PM. Reason : before the goalposts start moving]

i understand your point about not wanting to watch a video. my point was not to make you watch hours of video, I was pointing you to a specific timestamp in a video where he summarizes the vision, which he has done many times throughout the campaign.

i'm surprised the part you quoted from the video does not answer your question

Quote :

"the plan to summarize again is medicare for all, modest copays but you have coverage, just one of those wonderful rights of citizenship, then we shift the burden from businesses and families to the public sector that can negotiate the costs..."

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2019 1:29:39 PM

As a middle class person we just need to ditch the system where your employer picks your healthcare. Allowing providers to give employees a stipend equal to what they would otherwise pay, and let employees buy a plan would be an advancement over the current system. Adding a public option would be another advancement.

Paying these fees to Medicare and expanding it to everyone would work even better— you could even still allow private plans that supplement this coverage (like exists in a lot of European countries).

It does seem strange that Yang is not clearer with his thinking here when there’s a lot of options better than the status quo.

12/31/2019 1:33:33 PM

Quote :

" As a middle class person we just need to ditch the system where your employer picks your healthcare. "

this is exactly one of the primary points he makes when he talks about healthcare. employer-sponsored health insurance is bad for employees AND employers.

from his book, as quoted on the campaign site

Quote :

" Our job-based health insurance system does the very thing we most want to avoid – it discourages businesses from hiring. For employers, company-subsidized health insurance costs are a major impediment to hiring and growth. The costs get very high for senior people with families – my last company was spending more than $2,500 a month on certain people’s insurance plans. If these costs weren’t on our books we definitely would have hired more people. Health insurance also pushes companies to make as many employees as possible into part-time gig workers or contractors. On the worker side, tons of people hang on to jobs that they do not want to be in just for the health insurance. Economists refer to this as “job lock;” it makes the labor market much less dynamic, which is bad in particular for young workers. As jobs disappear, having one’s health care linked to employment will become increasingly untenable. The need for a different approach is growing."

and from his plan

Quote :

" As President, I will… Explore ways to reduce the burden of healthcare on employers, including by giving employees the option to enroll in Medicare for All instead of an employer-provided healthcare plan. "

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2019 1:37:06 PM

Quote :

"What precisely do you mean by "expanding coverage". There's a lot of ways that could be interpreted"

what is his plan to make sure every american has health insurance (or healthcare)

he says, "medicare for all" in interviews but when you go to his webpage he doesn't seem to actually have a plan for m4a

his m4a page basically says, "switching now to m4a is too fast, m4a vs public option is distraction, change the discussion, here are some smaller goals and a link to my full plan"

but when you go to his full plan it also doesn't describe how to expand coverage to all americans

Quote :

"i'm surprised the part you quoted from the video does not answer your question"

so this may be your main confusion and why you think i'm trolling. if you say "medicare for all" is how to give coverage, but then have a medicare for all page that says you only support the spirit and don't think we should actually have medicare for all, then what does that mean?

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2019 1:41:31 PM

^^
That sort of implies employers wouldn’t be required to subsidize healthcare costs of an employee chooses the public option though.

I guess I can appreciate Yang doesn’t have an extremely detailed outline of his plan, but that does seem like Yang is just putting buzzwords on his page to capitalize on the “Medicare for all” branding.

I believe he wants to make things better though but I don’t believe he’s put substantial thought into how things should work.

12/31/2019 2:04:47 PM

Quote :

" Quote : " As President, I will… Explore ways to reduce the burden of healthcare on employers, including by giving employees the option to enroll in Medicare for All instead of an employer-provided healthcare plan."

what does he mean by "Medicare for All"?

this is a circular reasoning problem

Quote :

"To be clear, I support the spirit of Medicare for All, and have since the first day of this campaign. I do believe that swiftly reformatting 18% of our economy and eliminating private insurance for millions of Americans is not a realistic strategy, so we need to provide a new way forward on healthcare for all Americans. As Democrats, we all believe in healthcare as a human right. We all want to make sure there is universal affordable coverage. We know we have a broken healthcare system where Americans spend more money on healthcare to worse results. But, we are spending too much time fighting over the differences between Medicare for All, “Medicare for All Who Want It,” and ACA expansion when we should be focusing on the biggest problems that are driving up costs and taking lives."

none of his "biggest problems" include people not having health insurance.



[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 2:12 PM. Reason : no m4a, no public option, no plan for universal coverage ]

12/31/2019 2:09:16 PM

Quote :

"I believe he wants to make things better though but I don’t believe he’s put substantial thought into how things should work."

I have a hard time believing the guy with 100+ plans hasn't put a substantial amount of thought into healthcare, the top issue for voters.

The simplest explanation, the one that keeps his policies logically consistent, is that he's muddying the waters to avoid detailing his actual plan until he makes it to the general. M4A is massively popular for Democrats, and if he hadn't come out for it in the beginning of his campaign, he would have drawn far fewer people.

12/31/2019 2:56:21 PM

I have the sense that me quoting these first principles again are not going to interest you, but it's the truth. While other campaigns may look at problems and react to solve the symptoms of that particular problem, Yang is trying to understand the source of the problem and solve that.

Quote :

" Instead of addressing the underlying problems driving unaffordability and access, we Democrats are spending all our time arguing over who is the most zealous in wanting to cover Americans. Over who has wanted to do so longer"

Quote :

" Fundamentally, we need to have a more productive conversation about healthcare in America. It’s time to take a step back from enrollment mechanisms and creative accounting to focus on lowering costs and improving quality. "

Democrats agree that Americans should have access to affordable, quality healthcare, right? And that the current system is not enabling that. So how do we change it?

Let's set aside M4A for a minute and compare approaches for higher education. similar problems (Americans should have access to affordable, quality higher education and the current system is not enabling that), so what are the proposed solutions?

Bernie has a Medicare College for All plan. There's no squabbling about enrollment mechanisms or College for All vs College for All who want it vs Public College Option. But the same dynamics in terms of personal choice exist. If I want to go to college, should I be forced to go to the public university? what if I like the private college I'm going to? what if I don't want to go to college? these questions seem pretty silly in this context, and the same is roughly true imo for healthcare. People want to be able to make their own choice for whatever their own personal life circumstances may include. Among the choices they have for their life, they want access and affordability.

Think about public K-12, which is a universally popular and well-regarded program (which was instituted and expanded as a result of industrialization and changing economic dynamics, sound familiar?). People get to enroll their kids if they want, it's just one of those wonderful rights of citizenship but you can also enroll your kids in a private school if you want to. And affordability is high because there's no extra cost to enroll (except for perhaps the effect of local property taxes which often are used to fund schools).

But when you look at the arguments today - Bernie mentions increasing cost of education but doesn't address WHY costs are high (like he does with the pharma industry on the healthcare side). He just says the government is going to start covering all the costs. Gotta be able to see how that's not going to work out.

Whereas Yang addresses the problem of cost, and that's the root of the problem that needs to be solved. And it's the same in healthcare. Policies have to optimize for a combination of freedom of choice, access to quality care, and affordability. for these 3 factors, the ACA did the worst at addressing the affordability and underlying cost incentives, and that's a big part of why we're still in a mess with our healthcare systems.

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2019 3:11:54 PM

fucking laugh out loud at that dodge

do you work for the campaign?

Quote :

"Yang is trying to understand the source of the problem and solve that."

just not the huge giant big problem of americans not being covered

this is you throwing in the towel and conceeding the point that yang does not have a plan for providing healthcare to all americans. the only question now is did you genuinely not realize it before or have you been intentionally trying to continue the lie and mislead people ITT

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 3:24 PM. Reason : dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge]

12/31/2019 3:20:45 PM

He does work for the campaign

https://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=651155

12/31/2019 3:26:04 PM

who's the one dodging? I just explained it to you and all you can do is lollerskates.gif

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 3:28 PM. Reason : Make dtownral Think Harder]

[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 3:28 PM. Reason : in bold]

12/31/2019 3:28:07 PM

you make a point about how they have different plans but you're ignoring that YANG DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A PLAN FOR HOW TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE TO UNINSURED AMERICANS

like not even an attempt

he's not even trying to solve that problem

other candidates have plans, they make an attempt. we can look at their plans and decide what we think is best. we can look at their plans and know what they are going to try to push our national discussion towards or push legislation if dems retake congress.

you can't do that with yang because he literally has no plan for how to provide healthcare to all americans

we're not talking about details, or how to pay, or anything like that -- we don't even have a high level grand vision for how yang wants to solve the problem of millions of americans not having health insurance


[Edited on December 31, 2019 at 3:35 PM. Reason : do we need to make a youtube video? is it a reading thing?]

12/31/2019 3:32:28 PM

if you don't think uninsured americans is a problem just go ahead and say that

12/31/2019 3:36:00 PM

We have a cost problem because of private insurance. The healthcare industry is not similar to the education industry.

Healthcare requires more people to pay into it than are served by it because 1 person getting cancer requires treatment options that encompass the costs of 20 people who never get critically ill in their lives. It must be socialized in order function at a high quality level... letting people opt-out of this leads to an untenable system (if you believe poor and marginalized people deserve healthcare).

Education is different because everyone who pays into an education uses that education. If there were a system where people could opt-out of funding public education this would actually lead to a crisis if too many people opt out. When parents go to private school, most places don’t divert their tax dollars from the public school system.

And M4A controls cost better than Balkanized private insurance networks because patients can then choose basically any provider thus letting a true market economy to develop. Insurance companies trying to pre-negotiate with small networks of providers incentives those providers to gouge the insurance companies which is what happens.

12/31/2019 8:44:36 PM

There was a time not so long ago when health insurance and healthcare was reasonably affordable.

There was a time not so long ago when higher education was reasonably affordable.

The public/private or even profit/non-profit dynamics of those two industries have not changed fundamentally in that time period. Changing these structural dimensions of these industries is not by itself guaranteed to bring costs down.

12/31/2019 9:53:36 PM

the campaign set a $3M end of year fundraising goal. we met it yesterday.
set a new goal of $3.5M and met that a few hours ago.
set ANOTHER goal at $4M and met that one too. $1.3M on 12/31 alone.

and this is pretty awesome if I don't say so myself

1/1/2020 12:35:00 AM

What is Yang's plan if doesn't make the debate in Jan?

1/1/2020 8:12:47 AM

^

$2k!

1/1/2020 10:01:20 AM

Quote :

"The public/private or even profit/non-profit dynamics of those two industries have not changed fundamentally in that time period. Changing these structural dimensions of these industries is not by itself guaranteed to bring costs down."

it's bonkers that you worked in an education related field and think that the profit/non-profit dynamic of higher education hasn't changed

absolute bonkers

[Edited on January 1, 2020 at 6:50 PM. Reason : yang to chose betsey devos for secretary of education confirmed]

1/1/2020 6:49:08 PM

^^^ Probably gonna make it. If the threshold wasn't raised once again, he was already there.

1/1/2020 7:58:27 PM

what i was saying is that the higher education marketplace has fundamentally remained a mix of private and public institutions. we have not responded to a lack of access to higher education or the increase in higher education costs in the private sector by outlawing all private schools. if we had, well we have found roughly the same cost increases present in the public system as well.



and as a result, now we have




and btw here's a video I liked and think you can appreciate on the M4A topic (and I know videos are not preferable for some to watch but hey gotta do the research if you want to be informed)

sources linked in the video
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/ (the most important one imo)
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Sanders-Medicare-for-All-is-all-bad-for-the-14902115.php
https://americashealthcarefuture.org/medicare-for-all-looks-like-a-political-loser/





[Edited on January 1, 2020 at 8:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/1/2020 8:04:23 PM

this PBS Iowa Press Roundtable interview is a much better way to get to know the candidates than the debates and cable news. good questions




and although it's not Yang campaign related at all, this is a very good documentary describing the changes to our economy, society and global geopolitics that Yang's campaign is calling attention to.

1/4/2020 11:37:20 AM

2% in last week's latest Iowa and NH polls

Tops out at 4% in the national polls from last week

1/6/2020 12:02:12 PM

I'ma hold out and wait for some other early state polls considering YouGov has publicly stated that they are systematically excluding survey participants



[Edited on January 6, 2020 at 12:30 PM. Reason : there's an Emerson poll due out tonight, we'll see that that one looks like]

1/6/2020 12:29:16 PM

Yea it's the methodology, it must be

1/6/2020 1:52:35 PM

YouGov is a B/C rated pollster. All they do is online surveys so yeah, not super high quality in the first place.

Qualifying for the January debate would be nice, but it's not make or break imo. the voting starts in a few weeks and the campaign is strong on the ground, reaching the voters directly. At this point I don't even sweat the media and pollsters nonsense, cus when we overperform expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire, it's just gonna make it that much sweeter.

1/6/2020 2:02:54 PM

He's targeting Super Tuesday already and will come to NC by then.

1/6/2020 2:12:55 PM

10/31

Quote :

"we're doing great in NH, most recent poll was 5% (UNH, B rated). Also had 4% in most recent SC poll (Change, C rated (Monmouth, A+ rated, at same time, said 2%) . no recent Nevada polls but 5% in Arizona yesterday which is a reasonable prox"

[Edited on January 6, 2020 at 2:19 PM. Reason : Bold is my text]

[Edited on January 6, 2020 at 2:19 PM. Reason : Yougov B-, all per 538]

1/6/2020 2:17:53 PM

two months ago these polls were more important because they were relevant for making the debates, which was necessary for the campaign to show viability and momentum. doesn't mean these polls weren't flawed then too, it just means they were what we had to deal with. Monmouth is generally a pretty reliable poll imo and his national polling average was within a point of that during October, so that's fine.

but we're at a different phase of the nomination race now. Yang qualified for every debate in 2019 and was 1 of only 6 candidates to do so. He has 400k donors and raised $16.5M in the 4th quarter, 65% more than in Q3. I'm not saying he has the same level of support today as Biden, Bernie, Warren or Buttigieg, but as the early states especially start considering the remaining candidates, Yang is positioned very well and continues to grow momentum. Like I said, we'll see what happens when the voting starts.

1/6/2020 3:34:30 PM

https://m.facebook.com/barstoolnewsnet/photos/a.1346598562099812/2680465082046480/?type=3&source=48

1/6/2020 6:14:24 PM

pretty good start



[Edited on January 6, 2020 at 7:25 PM. Reason : national poll coming soon. it's not qualifying but I wouldn't be surprised to see 6%+]

1/6/2020 7:24:52 PM

Polls don't matter right now

1/6/2020 7:38:05 PM

as i said before, they're not make or break at this point. flawed, but still a marginally useful directional signal

1/6/2020 7:40:40 PM

[Edited on January 6, 2020 at 7:59 PM. Reason : A]

1/6/2020 7:48:39 PM

i'll be frank in stating that I speak to a lot of people about the primaries and my group of friends wildly varies in their opinions, but I can say they have all previously been open to a non-establishment (whatever that really means) candidate at some point or the other.

So far I haven't heard any of them even bring up Yang in any of our discussions and I'm curious if that is because we're out of his typical demographic or if it is because his message just isn't that widely adopted.

@qntmfred what are your thoughts here? My group is from very early 30s to early 40s. Largely middle to upper middle class. Most are consistently voting moderate democrats (fiscally conservative but socially liberal, with strong views on gender and sexual orientation equality and environmental protections) with sizable tales on the moderate republican/libertarian side and Bernie bros.

Part of me wonders if there are just so many candidates right now that each niche has someone with whom they can identify and lock on, so that leaves less room for people who may hit a few pervasive policy points but not all of them.

1/7/2020 8:32:51 AM

Many members of Yang Gang are college students, say, between 18 and 30. His last position before running for president is the CEO of Venture for America, a non-profit organization and platform for young professionals/entrepreneur. He also wrote a book called Smart People Should Build Things, and was awarded by Obama.

That's also what his father--a professor/entrepreneur is good at. His father resides in Taiwan and has influenced many of his students/employees to pursue their dreams.

His family background is similar with Obama. Immigrant family;parents met at elite schools; father goes back home and serves as intellectual for his country, etc.

So Your sample pool is not his main target.^

1/7/2020 9:59:43 AM

Are there enough people within that target to capture an election?

1/7/2020 10:41:06 AM

Hopefully those targets will persuade/influence their parents and grand parents to join the gang and fight for him as well.

His another main stream of supporters are blue-collared workers whose jobs are threatened by the so-called 4th industrial revolution with uprising technologies like automation, robotics and AI. Mainly in the Midwest.



[Edited on January 7, 2020 at 10:50 AM. Reason : You should read his book: The War on Normal People]

1/7/2020 10:46:00 AM

I was thinking the other day about people from my HS on social media, and just people I know, who have "average" jobs and how $1000/mo would be transformational for their lives. They would be able to pay off bills and go on vacations or go to therapy or send their kids to summer camp and a lot of other things. These aren't challenges for upper middle class people-- the top ~10% of the country-- but 1000/mo would be big for most other americans.

I think this doesn't catch on though because people view this as legislatively infeasible, and therefore since this is basically Yang's main angle, not enough people take him seriously even people that would significantly benefit from this.

1/7/2020 12:03:26 PM