|
SousaphoneColossus posted:It's not inherently opposing single payer to support and hope to pass a 55 and up medicare buy-in in the interim. Yes it is, people stop supporting something when they get it. Medicare at 55 means most people 55 and up will stop giving a poo poo about Medicare for all
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:Yes it is, people stop supporting something when they get it. Medicare at 55 means most people 55 and up will stop giving a poo poo about Medicare for all Is supporting Medicaid expansion at the state level inherently opposed to M4A then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Is supporting Medicaid expansion at the state level inherently opposed to M4A then? It was in 2009
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:It was in 2009 So if you've voting in your state's Governor's race, and one candidate supports Medicaid expansion and the other candidate opposes it, do you vote for the candidate opposing it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:everyone in this thread knows the only REAL ranking of how progressive an elected official will be is how he makes me feel down in my loins, instinctively You joke, but this is closer to reality than stack ranking Senators by the second derivative of their mean vote-to-attendance ratio or whatever stupid pseudo-intellectual bullshit you want to peddle to justify losing a thousand legislative over the past decade and Nazis marching in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Right, but what if a person signed on to $15/hr in 2009, and says in interviews "I still support $15/hour but right now I'm focusing on $12.50/hour." Because that's the comparison. I’m not saying he’s bought off, just that he isn’t advocating for single payer and his excuse is that he prefers an equally unlikely Medicare buy-in plan for boomers only and is justifying it on the grounds that he wants to support something bipartisan. That gives me absolutely no faith he’d support true later MFA when he refuses to do so now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:It was in 2009 bernie sanders voted for obamacare so i guess he opposes m4a too
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Either: 1. Brown never honestly supported a real single payer plan 2. Brown used to support a single payer plan but has changed his mind 3. Brown’s political acumen is so poor as to believe Republicans would pass a Medicare buy-in for olds before 2020. Even if you believe it is #3 that’s a damning conclusion for a candidate in this political atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Maybe he just sees Bernie as stealing his thunder and its purely ego.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Maybe he just sees Bernie as stealing his thunder and its purely ego. in politics the "he's just a stupid rear end in a top hat" option is, of course, always on the table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:It's not inherently opposing single payer to support and hope to pass a 55 and up medicare buy-in in the interim. Hey, you know what else has 55+ Medicare as its first step toward single-payer? quote:Phased in over time. The Sanders plan wouldn't extend insurance to all Americans immediately; rather, it would do it over four years (and would, as stated above, greatly change the program). The first year, the Medicare eligibility age would be lowered to 55. That would move to 45 and then to 35 over the following two years, until finally, in the fourth year, everyone would be covered. So it's kind of intellectually dishonest for Brown to claim that he supports M4A but first wants it phased in for 55+. If he wants both those things he should sign onto Bernie's plan, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yes, it sure is baffling why Sherrod Brown is not a strong advocate of single-payer healthcare. Welp. Thats a downgrade from 'good, I guess' to pure succ. Thanks for the research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
No; you see, it's just the valiant janitors + secretaries of insurance, hospitals and nursing homes donating those tens of thousands of dollars to Brown. And the contributions could come from life-insurance janitors, not necessarily health-insurance janitors. And besides, Brown needs their corporate money this year. And some lobbyists are do-gooders, didn't you know? I'm sure his no. 1 contributors only have Americans' health and financial well-being in mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
He's running for Senate in Ohio and thinks this is his best path to attract votes from moderate independents while still keeping his base support in line. Guess we'll find out if it worked in a couple days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:He's running for Senate in Ohio and thinks this is his best path to attract votes from moderate independents while still keeping his base support in line. Guess we'll find out if it worked in a couple days. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/ohio/ I think it's gonna work, fam
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Yeah, he seems to know what he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:in politics the "he's just a stupid rear end in a top hat" option is, of course, always on the table. Yeah, it explains way more than we're usually prepared for. Of course I doubt the money hurts either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
I suppose he could sign on right after midterms. Still seems like a betrayal to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I suppose he could sign on right after midterms. Still seems like a betrayal to be honest. "Swing to the left post election" has never been a thing, ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I suppose he could sign on right after midterms. Still seems like a betrayal to be honest. You're almost there!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
This is literally the only time these guys will listen to pressure from the left, after the election they will continue not giving a poo poo again and keep on trucking to that sweet sweet donor money
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:So if you've voting in your state's Governor's race, and one candidate supports Medicaid expansion and the other candidate opposes it, do you vote for the candidate opposing it? I resign myself to the fact that neither candidate will ever pass a medicare for all bill and vote for the lesser evil obviously
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1059205268460986368 Godddddddd
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Jeff Merkley has spent the last month in Iowa and New Hampshire stumping for local candidates so he's probably running.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:He's running for Senate in Ohio and thinks this is his best path to attract votes from moderate independents while still keeping his base support in line. Guess we'll find out if it worked in a couple days. Sure, but those can also be the exact reasons why he would make a poor leader of the Democratic Party and a poor 2020 candidate. If we have a candidate in 2020 that when given the option between two fantasy plans picks the more conservative one, they will be a drag on the party not a boost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:Yes it is, people stop supporting something when they get it. Medicare at 55 means most people 55 and up will stop giving a poo poo about Medicare for all  In my experience, being medicaid eligible makes you immediately think, "wow everyone should have this."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Is the rationale "while we're the minority party" there's no point in trying for single payer? It really is baffling. He's got one of the farthest left voting records and has supported single payer for decades. Maybe this is so nobody bothers asking him to run for president. Or maybe he turns around and cosponsors right after midterms. Voting records (in the form of metrics that look across all votes) are not particularly useful for determining how left-wing someone is, since the range of ideology represented by the bills voted on doesn't extend that far to the left (and most of the metrics based on this - like the one posted by SousaphoneColossus - don't weight different votes differently). One of the best measures is probably looking at what politicians don't do, or the bad things they do. For example, the thing from Brown quoted above is, by itself, sufficient to nix the idea that he genuinely desires a shift to MfA (or at least desires it anytime soon). If an opportunity comes to actually do something left-wing and they waffle or hesitate, it is reasonable to conclude that they can't be relied upon. SousaphoneColossus posted:It's an easy narrative to assume that health insurance lobbyists opened a briefcase full of cash and Brown had cartoon dollar signs popping out of his eyes but as always it's probably more complicated than that. It is actually rational to assume the worst in these situations, though. You have basically nothing to gain from credulously assuming the best about politicians unless absolute proof of ill intentions is provided, and a lot to lose from making excuses for the inexplicable bad things they do. The conflict of interest from receiving money from insurers is just a bunch of extra supporting evidence casting doubt on how genuine his support is for the idea. Like, the best case scenario here seems to be "he is just kinda stupid and genuinely believes it is harmful to advocate for single-payer now and that advocating for medicare expansion is better for some reason." Mukaikubo posted:everyone in this thread knows the only REAL ranking of how progressive an elected official will be is how he makes me feel down in my loins, instinctively Subjectively judging a politician based off perception of their words/actions is unironically superior to coming up with a goofy metric that isn't even accurate; at least the former doesn't try to pretend like it's somehow scientifically proven that ideological alignment of politicians. Hellblazer187 posted:Right, but what if a person signed on to $15/hr in 2009, and says in interviews "I still support $15/hour but right now I'm focusing on $12.50/hour." Because that's the comparison. If someone did this, the reasonable conclusion would be "they don't actually support $15 and are withdrawing from that position now that it's gaining enough momentum to be a realistic possibility." Either that or the not-much-better "they're an idiot who believes that backing away from the better proposal is politically necessary" (which in practice is basically the same thing). edit: This post basically lays it out more clearly: Trabisnikof posted:Either: Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
i am harry posted:
And in my experience, being Medicaid eligible makes you think “boy am I glad I have health care. Now that I’m taken care of, time to focus on something else”
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
See also: Folks who benefited from the pre-existing conditions bit of the ACA and how much they don't give a poo poo about the people it left behind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Ytala, you're absolutely right, especially the part where it's rational to assume the worst. Also thanks for not being a huge dick about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
it's always rational to assume the worst
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:See also: Folks who benefited from the pre-existing conditions bit of the ACA and how much they don't give a poo poo about the people it left behind. Its like pork projects. For the people they benefit its a huge boon and they just become blind to the negatives. The pre-existing conditions thing was absolutely amazing for a bunch of mostly middle class white people and it is literally impossible for them to consider that there were ever any downsides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NYTnickc/status/1059517861205557249 I thought he was running. Does he know he's running? I'm getting very disconcerting Clinton vibes out of this attitude if he really is running.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Sulphagnist posted:https://twitter.com/NYTnickc/status/1059517861205557249 he is running, and you are reading him correctly i wish I could remember who said it, but before the Tea Party, the first black president of the United States was supposed to be a Republican, and his name was supposed to be Cory Booker
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Is there any constituency for Cory Booker for President? If you're centrist scum you already wants Biden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Is there any constituency for Cory Booker for President? If you're centrist scum you already wants Biden. Uncle Phil and Aunt Viv from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Uncle Phil and Aunt Viv from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air.  As to an actual answer, there's a wide gulf between Biden and Booker on economic issues-in rhetoric, in voting, and in sponsorship. That much of the thread considers each candidate to be insufficient doesn't erase that. Booker's wheelhouse (from a policy voting perspective) would be voters motivated by criminal justice reform and progressive social issues who also want economic reform but feel that Sanders and/or Warren go too far or are otherwise untrustworthy. Of course, we know that voters choose candidates for a thousand moronic reasons beyond wonkishly breaking down policy proposals. I find it hard to predict how Booker's identity and mediafriendliness will break for him in the primary, given they've been both assets and drawbacks throughout his career.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Of course, we know that voters choose candidates for a thousand moronic reasons beyond wonkishly breaking down policy proposals. I find it hard to predict how Booker's identity and mediafriendliness will break for him in the primary, given they've been both assets and drawbacks throughout his career. Fine. For the 'low information' voter Booker seems friendly enough but he doesn't have that Obama charm so another black guy seems like a stretch, and while Biden might give off creepy uncle vibes lots of people ignore molester uncles all the time and he's an old white dude associated with Obama who can turn on the charm for a few minutes. Biden beats Booker with your average white voter. Booker wins with the liberal crowd though because those idiots think wonk policies matter. If I had to bet and it was just those two, I would say Biden wins the early primaries, then Biden's himself out of the running and Booker takes the nomination. Given that its going to be a clown car though, Booker is going to get drowned out by the other wonk nerds and Biden dunks all over them by being able to smile convincingly on camera. By the time Biden flames out it will be too late for Booker to matter and someone like Harris takes the nom. I'm assuming that in this, the worst possible of all time lines, the Dems gently caress Bernie over again
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:loving What is Chloe supposed to mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Brony Car posted:What is Chloe supposed to mean? It's the look you give someone when you ask them, "Are you loving serious?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 21:20
|
|
