the only problem with that 'logic' is that medicare for all isn't running against any concrete proposals by other candidates that are better, but against the current state of america's healthcare system and vague promises (at best) by politicians that received hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars from the insurance industry and big pharma, who are lobbying like crazy to prevent any change.

again, the topic of this discussion is not 'what is the ideal system in your opinion?', but 'which position, that is actually held by candidates, is more popular with potential voters' - and your initial claim, that ppl would be kicked off their insurance no matter if medicare for all was introduced or not, is simply a lie.

btw, the approval numbers you're jerking off to, are again the worst possible framing you could come up with: something that evades the main focus of targeted fearmongering campaigns, a proposal that NO candidate actually has a concrete plan for, unsurprisingly out-polls medicare for all. great, and which candidate will implement it? *crickets*

Everyone agrees that the current system is a mess and that there's millions of dollars lobbying to keep it that way. However... this does NOT mean that any plans presented by the candidates are decent or workable.
We learned that jumping on the first plan to come along isn't a solution... aka, Obamacare.

You can't count on Medicare for all by taxing the wealthy, unless you've already successfully... taxed the wealthy. This was where Obamacare failed. It counted on things NOT already approved, and successfully passed into law.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-much-smaller-top-11-135207454.html

high-level analysis on what the top 11 billionaires net worth would look like if Sanders or Warren's tax plans were in place since 1982.

summary: about $500-$600B would have been skimmed over the past 38 years. so around 1% of what it would take to enact a $52 trillion tax plan

did u see Yang on breakfast club? he had to like stifle a laugh at how bad Warren's math is.

only really stumbled on the bullshit "what specifically are you going to do for the black community" question which is a dumb talking point with a stupid high bar to pass for the hardliners in the black community. it's reparations or bust for those ones.

i did not but i’m sure he killed it

>specifically you will get $1k a month free which is $1k more than Obama offered you and more than Trump would too

wish he woulda answered it that way.

"What are you going to do specifically for the black community" - Charlamagne

(goes on to explain how his platform will help the black community more than any other with a long list of policies designed to help the lowest class economically) - Yang

"he didnt even answer the question" - youtube comment section filled with people too dumb to understand what policy means.

if he said he'd give every black household a special tax break they'd cheer. give them jobs, 1k/month, protection from overpolicing, lowered drug sentences, legal pot, etc. and they fucking boo.

hopefully they just dont ever vote, and by hope i mean i'd bet my bank account on it.

We have a Central Bureau that pretty much all parties send their plans to and they'll model/calculate the outcomes of the policies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_for_Economic_Policy_Analysis )

Is there something equivalent in the US or do parties just hire independents/make up the numbers themselves?

I think the Congressional Budget Office calculates detailed and nonpartisan estimates for the costs and benefits of proposed legislation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office

The caveat is that they only provide this analysis for legislation which has been proposed in Congress, not for campaign promises.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 14 2019 10:29am

Aha. Yeah we have all the party programmes run through the calculations before an election.

Yes basically this as i understand it.

although there are several watchdogs out there. from media to universities that study costs and economic impact of proposed laws by candidates.

it just never comes to fruition because they smokescreen. just as trump did when it was proven his plan to pay for a wall maybe cleared 25% of the costs. he said he'd eliminate "waste and fraud". so far his budget has only gone up.