Taerkar posted:

Personally I'd be surprised if even a majority of the people that buy Hillary's book will open it to read, let alone more than a chapter of it. Those kind of books are more symbol books than anything else.

Potato Salad posted:

this continued left v liberal poo poo is going to get us all killed.

and I'm saying this with two decades of bernie canvassing under my belt

Condiv posted:

in any case, i'm just glad my home state is a little less red than it used to be

Potato Salad posted:

This is superficially incorrect, did you mean something other than "Medicare for All is more generous than any nation's healthcare? "

Vox posted:

The plan is significantly more generous than the single-payer plans run by America’s peer countries. The Canadian health care system, for example, does not cover vision or dental care, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, or home health services. Instead, two-thirds of Canadians take out private insurance policies to cover these benefits. The Netherlands has a similar set of benefits (it also excludes dental and vision care), as does Australia.

What’s more, the Sanders plan does not subject consumers to any out-of-pocket spending on health aside from prescriptions drugs. This means there would be no charge when you go to the doctor, no copayments when you visit the emergency room. All those services would be covered fully by the universal Medicare plan.

This too is out of line with international single-payer systems, which often require some payment for seeking most services. Taiwan’s single-payer system charges patients when they visit the doctor or the hospital (although it includes an exemption for low-income patients). In Australia, people pay 15 percent of the cost of their visit with any specialty doctor.

Taerkar posted:

A hypothetical primary challenge from the left in 2012 would have likely resulted in Mitt "47%" Romney becoming president.

awesmoe posted:

that's why its good that when leftists get advice from someone who has personal experience with the situation (say, a page in her book and a few minutes in an interview talking about 'hey, here's how these specific actions made the loss more likely' ) they are able to calmly digest that and accept those criticisms without lashing out.

Hellblazer187 posted:

Yes, of course. I'm not suggesting a balanced budget is necessary. But a single payer plan is literally trillions of dollars. It would run out of that room pretty quickly.

There's literally nothing in there about paying for it.

Majorian posted:

I mean, I agree, to the extent that if the backbiting stops here, it won't have any effect at all. But I don't think that rabid Clintonistas like Brian Fallon, Peter Daou, or Joy Reid want to bury the hatchet. They feel like the Bernies backstabbed them, and they want their pound of flesh now.

Cerebral Bore posted:

lol gently caress no. You can't seriously have this bad of an understanding of politics, can you?

Jazerus posted:

(c) Funding-

(1) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated to the Medicare for All Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
[NOTE: the following part of H.R. 676 describes only one idea for the funding. After sufficient support is established in the U.S. House of Representatives, many funding options will likely be debated. It will be important for some citizens to monitor the progress and give input at that time. In the meantime, any ideas or wishes you have for funding should be sent by letter in the U.S. Mail to your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators.]
(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(to do: need to communicate what level of income this means)
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
[Current Medicare tax: 1.45% paid by employers and employees.]
(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.
[This is an additional source of funding … added to the H.R. 676 that was proposed in the previous session of Congress. The expected percentage is not yet available. H.R. 676 will not be given an economic evaluation by the Congressional Budget Office until it gets to at least 100 cosponsors<.]
(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

Hellblazer187 posted:

No country offers a plan as generous as the one Sanders put forward today. Yes there would be reductions in administrative costs and waste, and yes the government has the negotiating power to lower prices across the board. But even if we assume the lowest per capita spending of all 1st world countries with UHC, and apply that across the US population, it's an enormous government program.

We need to sell the fact that even if taxes go up you still wind up with something better. You pay $2k more in taxes but $3k less in premiums, you're better off. But we can't start making that argument until we have the tax (or, ideally, tax plus military cuts) side of this figured out.

quote:

Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.

Potato Salad posted:

There are a *lot* of not-yet-aware-of-it socialists in tge GA GOP's voter pool.

I think dixiecrats and their kids might be a little fed up with the southern hick know-nothing bible-thumping racist republican brand.

Hellblazer187 posted:

Yes, of course. I'm not suggesting a balanced budget is necessary. But a single payer plan is literally trillions of dollars. It would run out of that room pretty quickly.

There's literally nothing in there about paying for it.

Taerkar posted:

Explain then how I'm wrong.

Taerkar posted:

Explain then how I'm wrong.

Condiv posted:

a primary challenge doesn't weaken candidates. it gives them practice for the general and shows them how to connect to their base

Hellblazer187 posted:

OK, not literally nothing. Not enough, but that's better than what the articles I've read have led me to believe about the funding.

Taerkar posted:

Explain then how I'm wrong.

Hellblazer187 posted:

I am absolutely all for a single payer plan. But a single payer plan without the pay fors isn't actually a plan. It's a wish.

Condiv posted:

i'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but i certainly hope you're not

FlamingLiberal posted:

Correct. Reid and Daou in particular go after leftists more than Republicans and that's telling. They are afraid because elitist Democrats failed miserably to beat an awful awful candidate. Rather than reflect on this they put the blame on anyone to the left of Hillary.

Taerkar posted:

The last time there was a serious primary challenge for the Democratic Party it shattered them and killed the hard left for decades. (There was also an assassination)

Cerebral Bore posted:

Because Obama, being massively popular with the people who vote in the dem primaries, would at worst have wrapped up the nomination a few weeks later than when he did.

Now how about you explain exactly how your little fantasy scenario is within the realm of the significantly probable?

Taerkar posted:

I can't immediately think of any 'Primary the sitting president' event in US history that did not end badly for the party in question, at least not any serious one.

Scent of Worf posted:

Just last year liberals were attacking anyone who dared criticize the ACA or wanted to push for single-payer. That all changed in under a year. Because of leftists. I'm pretty sure we're going to keep pushing and not let centrists like you gently caress things up like you did for 8 years.

Hellblazer187 posted:

Are you serious? You think we could just print our way to utopia?

Whatever the monetary situation right now it doesn't mean it will be that way in perpetuity. Even FDR had to pay for his programs. Was FDR a "neoliberal/conservative"?

Taerkar posted:

Trabisnikof posted:

This is actually a good thing to be honest. No one with any power in the Democratic Party likes Daou. Even the people running Hillary's campaign didn't like him. The more people like him are associated with those views the better.

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

Obama criticized the ACA frequently. No one anywhere in the party has been saying the ACA is flawless, or an end point for health care in the US.


How much money we can print at various levels of inflation seems like it would be both really important to know and fairly straight forward to calculate, yet I've never heard or seen such calculations. If they exist on the internet, googling them seems impossible given the quantity of libertarian bullshit any mention of deficit spending, the federal reserve, or inflation brings up. Its clear we can print a whole lot more, but how much exactly?

Jaxyon posted:

All existing single payer systems cost noticeably less than the US currently spends per capita out of public funds alone. Not even half of our total spending per capita.

Jaxyon posted:

You should consider that the mainstream "both sides bad" line on single payer will always be "but what bout the money" no matter what, despite the actual established fact of it being a cheaper system than our current one.

It's counter-intuitive that a less comprehensive system costs more, so that plays really well.

RuanGacho posted:

My sloppy numbers say eat the rich, problem solved.

To me it's not really a how, it's a when. I mean that money exists, you just have to win the hearts and minds that it's ok that there aren't any billionaires anymore.

Taerkar posted:

The last time there was a serious primary challenge for the Democratic Party it shattered them and killed the hard left for decades. (There was also an assassination)

RuanGacho posted:

My sloppy numbers say eat the rich, problem solved.

To me it's not really a how, it's a when. I mean that money exists, you just have to win the hearts and minds that it's ok that there aren't any billionaires anymore.

quote:

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Wednesday revoked the $5 million bail of Martin Shkreli, the infamous former hedge fund manager convicted of defrauding investors, after prosecutors complained that his out-of-court antics posed a danger to the community.

While awaiting sentencing, Shkreli has harassed women online, prosecutors argued, and even offered his Facebook followers $5,000 to grab a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair during her book tour. Shkreli, who faces up to 20 years in prison, apologized saying that he did not expect anyone to take his online comments seriously.

“He does not need to apologize to me. He should have apologized to the government, the Secret Service, and Hillary Clinton,” said U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, in revoking his bond.

“This is a solicitation of assault. That is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Shkreli was taken into custody immediately after the hour-long hearing. He did not visibly react though he appeared more nervous than when he entered court. He will remain jailed until his sentencing hearing, later this fall.

Shkreli’s attorneys argued that his comments, while distasteful, did not make him dangerous. “I understand now, that some may have read my comments about Mrs. Clinton as threatening, when that was never my intention when making those comments,” Shkreli said in an earlier letter to the judge.

“It never occurred to me that my awkward attempt at humor or satire would cause Mrs. Clinton or the Secret Service any distress.”

Shkreli’s attorney called his client’s conduct “stupid” but begged the judge to give him another chance.

“He has a way of courting controversy” that has continued since he was convicted, Matsumoto said.

Majorian posted:

If you're referring to 1968, neither Bobby Kennedy nor Eugene McCarthy were particularly "hard left"; McCarthy was just anti-war. The same would later be true of McGovern. What killed the hard left for decades was the Democratic Party very deliberately removing labor and economic justice as core values. I know I curse Fred Dutton's name a lot, but seriously, what an unbelievable moron that guy was.

Hellblazer187 posted:

Same, but that's the part that needs selling IMO. Majorities are on board for the benefits.

Taerkar posted:

There, I bolded the key part of what I said earlier that is being ignored.

Majorian posted:

I think the 2016 election showed pretty conclusively that the electorate is not that interested in the wonkish bean-counting or the respect for proper legislative procedure. To use Clinton's analogy from the book, 2016 was not a year to respond to, "All Americans deserve a pony!" with, "Well, but how are you going to pay for that pony?" Like, I get why she thinks that's a reasonable response, but that just perfectly illustrates how badly she misread the country's political mood, on a fundamental level.

Instant Sunrise posted:

Haaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Martin Shkreli jailed after Facebook post about Hillary Clinton

Instant Sunrise posted:

Haaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Martin Shkreli jailed after Facebook post about Hillary Clinton

Instant Sunrise posted:

Haaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Martin Shkreli jailed after Facebook post about Hillary Clinton

Crowsbeak posted:

How is some twitter trolls actions in any way political?

RuanGacho posted:

As mentioned, it's not a real concern, single payer costs less and we're rich.

RuanGacho posted:

As mentioned, it's not a real concern, single payer costs less and we're rich.