|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
Kraftwerk posted:I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for it, I'm just saying that in this post factual society it seems like an extremely difficult fight and one which I can't visualize a path to victory for. Yeah it's not going to be easy, but what's the alternative. If a President proposes the kind of public option that people in here are assuming Buttigieg means, a Medicare-like public option so superior to private insurance that it collapses the industry, the insurance companies will fight it just as hard and run all the same Super Bowl ads and lobby behind the scenes to get the bill amended into something that can "compete on a level playing field" (ie make the public option so lovely that no one wants it).
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That works. Any public option is functionally equivalent to single payer, as the public option will outcompete in the market place. That's untrue, at least as far as the current Medicare for Some proposals. They would do little to ameliorate healthcare costs, they would require more "skin in the game" and hike Medicare out-of-pocket costs, they would impose ACA-type means-testing on Medicare, and they would leave private insurers and their profits intact (especially since private insurers make more profits on administering Medicaid/Medicare plans than they do on subsidized ACA plans). They would also create risk pools so small that any cost differentials would be essentially meaningless to consumers. Further, the insurance industry is as opposed to Medicare for Some as it is to Medicare for All (yes, that's counterintuitive bc Medicare for Some would line their pockets; I guess it's a slippery-slope sort of thing). I signed up for The Partnership for America's Health Care Future's mailing list, and the group is currently celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the ACA while dissing both M4A and any public option. So why not shoot for the real deal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Realistically Manchin will torpedo any climate bill so a century of war and plague is a reasonable policy goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for it, I'm just saying that in this post factual society it seems like an extremely difficult fight and one which I can't visualize a path to victory for. M4A is complicated and when you try to explain the technicalities of how it works or how you pay for it you lose a lot of people. People want sound bytes and easy to digest stuff and only one side of this argument has the financing and industry influence to fight this battle and it isn't ours. People are so indoctrinated against UHC that I can visualize a scenario where someone gets a healthcard that lets them go and get healthcare for free and they simply refuse to use it on principle because its socialist. I really don't think explaining "you get to go to the doctor and not have to pay anything and never have to deal with an insurance company if you don't want to" is gonna be nearly as hard as you imagine. We have the sound bites on our side for once. Medicare For All! Fight for 15! Free College! These are bold sound bites that attract attention, we should not be scared of embracing them. Contrary to D&D consensus, most normal voters DO NOT GIVE A poo poo about the policy details of how stuff will be implemented, so anyone concern trolling about "but will the bill be perfectly perfect in every way?" can be safely ignored in the context of winning elections by appealing to voters. And if people avoid using their free healthcare because they're scared of socialism? Well that's a pretty self correcting problem right there. ETA: Also I think it's possible because a large chunk of capital actually would love for the government to take over healthcare costs, it's just the healthcare industry that we have to fight (and really only the griftiest parts of it). I'm not convinced of the "companies love to use healthcare to keep people tied to their jobs" argument because food and rent costing money keeps people tied to their jobs, even if they had free healthcare. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Realistically Manchin will torpedo any climate bill so a century of war and plague is a reasonable policy goal. in the past the way to assuage him would be to pork the crap out of WV until he can't say no but we can't do that anymore so  onwards towards apocalypse I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:That's untrue, at least as far as the current Medicare for Some proposals. They would do little to ameliorate healthcare costs, they would require more "skin in the game" and hike Medicare out-of-pocket costs, they would impose ACA-type means-testing on Medicare, and they would leave private insurers and their profits intact (especially since private insurers make more profits on administering Medicaid/Medicare plans than they do on subsidized ACA plans). They would also create risk pools so small that any cost differentials would be essentially meaningless to consumers. His argument seems to be that, obviously, Buttigieg or Beto doesn't mean any of those proposals. What does Buttigieg mean exactly? Who knows!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That amounts to a debate over the exact content of the specific proposed public option. Like, technically speaking ,Medicare is a "public option," because you can buy private insurance on top of it. Sabotage isn't guaranteed and literally any health care proposal is vulnerable to this same kind of "well, it won't work because corporate interests will sabotage it" attack. 1. As I noted above, the insurance industry opposes a public option with the same vehemence it opposes M4A. Sabotage is guaranteed. 2. You cannot purchase a private insurance policy while on Medicare. You can purchase a government-regulated supplemental policy administered by private insurance, but costs of the insurance and the providers you see are regulated by the federal government. 3. A public option will be intentionally structured to be financially competitive with private insurers, and private insurers will likely respond by cutting premium prices for a year or two until the public option becomes financially unsustainable, as happened under the ACA with the non-profit co-ops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK so what can we conclude about the fact that anytime specifics for a public option have been proposed it's been a corporate wet dream that is so crippled as to be useless, and all the candidates proposing a public option refuse to give any specifics and are deliberately vague. If your argument is "we need to argue about the merits of a specific proposed policy" only one exists and that's Medicare-for-All, everything else is just buying a pig-in-a-poke. All of the above--with the added bonus that once Medicare Extra or Medicare for Anyone becomes the failure as intended, they will have negatively branded Medicare for All.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:All of the above--with the added bonus that once Medicare Extra or Medicare for Anyone becomes the failure as intended, they will have negatively branded Medicare for All. Then we can promise that full privatization will fix the markets that have been wrecked by government interference!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:A reminder: even countries with nationalized healthcare have optional private insurance. It is not contradictory to support both. Again: Every other country regulates insurance, pharma and provider pricing. It's silly to say "other countries have private insurance" without acknowledging this basic fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Explain to me exactly how a US president can end a multi billion dollar health insurance industry with tons of lobbyists and influence and big pharma backing them up? HMO contributed to the death of my father, almost killed my wife. I live to see their end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/1110301531306409986 https://twitter.com/theseantcollins/status/1110313222349967361
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:lol she's so fuckin bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:lol Holy poo poo she sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
as much as i hate her, its a pretty good bit of lawyering to completely adhere to the letter of the law of saying you're not going to AIPAC, while deliberately flaunting your disregard of the spirit of it
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
come the gently caress on. really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:as much as i hate her, its a pretty good bit of lawyering to completely adhere to the letter of the law of saying you're not going to AIPAC, while deliberately flaunting your disregard of the spirit of it
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:22
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:3. A public option will be intentionally structured to be financially competitive with private insurers, and private insurers will likely respond by cutting premium prices for a year or two until the public option becomes financially unsustainable, as happened under the ACA with the non-profit co-ops. Competitive with what level of private insurance though? Won't some companies still have an incentive to buy private insurance given they can count premiums as an expense to minimize tax exposure? Even if a public option ended up being superior for 50% of consumers and inferior for the remaining 50% would there not be incremental gains? Like private insurance would then be largely relegated to the more affluent, but you're still offering people something better than they can currently get on the ACA market place. It's certainly incrementalism and no more likely to be supported by the insurance industry nor republicans, but don't see why a public option must be pegged to the lowest-level private insurance plan.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/1110301531306409986?s=19 Not surprising.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean she's welcome to do that if she doesn't just put a picture of that on her official account. What was the point of her not going then? she's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Oh and literally at the same time she was doing that, the IDF was beginning a full-on assault on Gaza because one rocket hit a house. Like they've called up the reserves and everything. This will probably go on for awhile since it's election season in Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
I think Harris is terrible and needs to go away, and that meeting with AIPAC is dumb, especially now but... There's a huge difference between Having a meeting in your office with AIPAC during business hours and attending a multiday circle jerk conference espousing the imperative of AIPAC's goals. Edit: The caption is pretty terrible, but still, not nearly as bad as attending the conference IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
not really. you can't say i'm not going to the conference...but i AM gonna have them hang out in my office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:not really. you can't say i'm not going to the conference...but i AM gonna have them hang out in my office. But have you considered that you can? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
If this is her reaction move to being in fourth place behind Mayor Pete in that Iowa poll I don't think it's gonna work
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:But have you considered that you can? well yeah she did it. but it kinda defeats the purpose of not going to the conference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:But have you considered that you can? You can, but good luck getting people who wanted you to reduce your contact with AIPAC to vote for you
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Yes, I was completely serious in my post, which is why I used a very serious emoticon to convey the seriousness of what I was saying seriously. Thank you for explaining to me the drawbacks of doing what she did, that were not obvious to me or anyone with a functioning brain. MrFlibble fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Yes, I was completely serious in my post, which is why I used a very serious emoticon to convey the seriousness of what I was saying seriously. satire is dead and irony isnt real
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Yes, I was completely serious in my post, which is why I used a very serious emoticon to convey the seriousness of what I was saying seriously. that's usually the "i'm mocking your dumb take" emoji.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:I think Harris is terrible and needs to go away, and that meeting with AIPAC is dumb, especially now but... There's a huge difference between Having a meeting in your office with AIPAC during business hours and attending a multiday circle jerk conference espousing the imperative of AIPAC's goals. Let me fire up the electron microscope and the ol' ultraviolet laser to split that hair VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:that's usually the "i'm mocking your dumb take" emoji. Oh! Sorry, I didn't mean that. I was mocking that take, made by myself, for comedy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
overmind2000 posted:If this is her reaction move to being in fourth place behind Mayor Pete in that Iowa poll I don't think it's gonna work nah they explained to her israel runs an entire country as a prison and she got hard
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Realistically Manchin will torpedo any climate bill so a century of war and plague is a reasonable policy goal. I have a sneaking suspicion that Manchin is going to challenge Jim Justice for governor in 2020. It's been rumored for a while now, and he attacked him directly in a radio interview on one of the statewide media outlets a couple weeks ago. It's our one real hope to get rid of him in the Senate and replace him with someone that's an actual Democrat. quote:“He just won’t work,” Manchin said today. “Doesn’t show up. You can’t run the state from The Greenbrier. That’s just not the way it works. And you lead by example. All I’ll say is this, the state of West Virginia deserves and needs a full-time governor,” Manchin said. “I’ve held that position and I know what it takes. You’ve got to live it. You’ve got to eat it. You’ve got to breathe it and it’s 24/7. And you don’t have a surrogate running it for you. What I’m seeing now is not right. We’ll see what happens in the future.” http://wvmetronews.com/2019/03/14/manchin-and-justice-exchange-fire-again-over-w-va-road-conditions/
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:I think Harris is terrible and needs to go away, and that meeting with AIPAC is dumb, especially now but... There's a huge difference between Having a meeting in your office with AIPAC during business hours and attending a multiday circle jerk conference espousing the imperative of AIPAC's goals. Congratulations, you're a low information voter and a rube, taken by an audaciously obvious con.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/iramiof/status/1110337964347928576?s=21
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
heel turn posted:I have a sneaking suspicion that Manchin is going to challenge Jim Justice for governor in 2020. It's been rumored for a while now, and he attacked him directly in a radio interview on one of the statewide media outlets a couple weeks ago. It's our one real hope to get rid of him in the Senate and replace him with someone that's an actual Democrat. lol Trump won West Virginia by over 40%, if Joe Manchin leaves the Senate he isn't getting replaced with a Democrat. :edit: By comparison, Alabama only went Trump by 28% and the Republicans had to nominate a literal sex offender to lose that seat by 2%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
GyroNinja posted:lol Trump won West Virginia by over 40%, if Joe Manchin leaves the Senate he isn't getting replaced with a Democrat. Looks like West Virginian takes care of its vacancies by appointment so I believe he'd be getting to select his own replacement if he won.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Looks like West Virginian takes care of its vacancies by appointment so I believe he'd be getting to select his own replacement if he won. My understanding is that the legislature would rush through emergency measures to counteract that, should Manchin go through with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:I think Harris is terrible and needs to go away, and that meeting with AIPAC is dumb, especially now but... There's a huge difference between Having a meeting in your office with AIPAC during business hours and attending a multiday circle jerk conference espousing the imperative of AIPAC's goals. Uh no. It would have been better for her to attend AIPAC and remain ostensibly neutral than for her to just openly state: “Israel has the right to defend itself”—the 7 Words of Israeli fascism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 02:47
|
|
