|
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 | ||
|
On the subject of M4A, I wonder what would happen to its support if someone had the guts to call for an actual nationalized health system in America (a la the NHS). Right now M4A enjoys the advantages and disadvantages of being the leftmost health policy with any significant support in America, but there's no reason that should continue to be the case.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Even when you try to sandbag it with misleading questions it gets anywhere from 43-51% support and that's with both parties relentlessly attacking it. Sure you can move the percentage points to where it would need to be for say the Manchins of the party to be willing to sign onto it, and get leadership to believe it's not as risky a proposition politically. But I'm really skeptical it would be "immensely popular", at least not until it's already been implemented and people have gotten used to it. Now I think it will eventually become immensely popular. But again I don't think that will happen until at least a couple years after full implementation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
cool that we got the aca when nearly 70 percent of americans thought health care was the government's responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
That's all you need though. We tried the alternative, let the insurance companies and the pharma industry write a horrible bill that everyone would hate upon implementation, and that turned out to be a bad strategy. You know with the catastrophic electoral losses and the consequent piecemeal dismantling of said bill
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Write the poll question that you'd be satisfied with clearly defined what "M4A" is, what it accomplishes, and how. "Would you rather pay a fixed payroll tax that funded medical, dental and eyecare coverage with no out-of-pocket costs, or would you prefer to stay with private insurance that comes with annual increases, $7,000/year deductibles, and no out-of-network coverage?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:On what basis? It should be able to survive Sebelius. What exactly about this court makes you think they give a single gently caress about laws and precident that contradict their desire to be evil?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:M4A will not happen without court packing. But there's no reason to assume a watered down plan would do any better. The GOP are actively trying to kill the ACA and remove the ban on recission; there's no reason to assume that Medicare buy-in would perform better among the Trump judges than any other proposal, particularly if you're taking for granted that they'll just rule whatever they want without caring what the law or precedent says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
If tomorrow Fox News decided its biggest target was hamburgers and beer, and spent a few weeks attacking them, the national popularity of hamburgers and beer would plunge too. Hell, they plunged the popularity of *football*. It should absolutely be taken as a given that the popularity of *anything*, whether it's M4A, Bernie Sanders or the abstract concept of "justice", will plunge when the Eye of Right-Wing Media alights on it, but it should also be taken as a given that the plunge doesn't really mean that much because 45% of the country is functionally lost to us no matter what we do or say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:I'm skeptical of that. People have loss aversion. It's going to be difficult to get people to overwhelmingly support eliminating private insurance. Especially as it will be hard for people to understand why it's necessary. Fortunately we don't need to convince people to support it (though it's still helpful). As long as they aren't so strongly opposed to it that they refuse to support the candidate who does support it, that's enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Fortunately we don't need to convince people to support it (though it's still helpful). As long as they aren't so strongly opposed to it that they refuse to support the candidate who does support it, that's enough. The obstacle with passing M4A was never getting a President in office who supports it. It's getting an actual bill that'll be signed off on by 50 skittish Senators dealing with angry town halls in the face of voters outraged by the right-wing propaganda machine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:50
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:"Would you rather pay a fixed payroll tax that funded medical, dental and eyecare coverage with no out-of-pocket costs, or would you prefer to stay with private insurance that comes with annual increases, $7,000/year deductibles, and no out-of-network coverage?" Yeah, I think this is quite biased. The people that are risk-averse regarding their private insurance don't have $7,000 deductibles in addition to monthly premiums and cost sharing. Nor does a fixed payroll tax actually address what the % is, caps on payment similar to SS, ability to deduct from income taxes, etc. Which is why I feel haggling over the polling of this is pretty silly. Simply telling consumers they'll get everything while downplaying the possibility any downsides/losers will poll well. It's not something like "Do you support gay marriage y/n." If you think 100% equitable single payer M4A is the the best path forward in terms of good policy while also being feasible to pass no later than other alternatives, go for it. If you think M4A opt-in with supplemental private insurance is, then go for that. I'm for the former, but don't find it unreasonable people believe in the latter. The polling doesn't doesn't really matter because the layman consumer doesn't know what any of this really means, which is why polling varies so widely depending on how the question is framed.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
there aren't any downsides for the vast majority of americans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Well, of course M4A is less popular when the Right attacks it, why is this surprising to anyone at all? Because the prevailing narrative has been that socialist policies will still win over red voters because of economic materialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
"Would you support expanding Medicare coverage to all Americans?" I don't see why this needs to be about replacing or removing insurance companies. People get skittish when they think their options are being taken away. Also a lot of people don't know how Medicare works and only have private insurance as a reference. Just say, "we're giving you Medicare but you can keep your private insurance if you want." I think Bernie is wrong to make this an overt fight with the insurance companies. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
he's not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The obstacle with passing M4A was never getting a President in office who supports it. It's getting an actual bill that'll be signed off on by 50 skittish Senators dealing with angry town halls in the face of voters outraged by the right-wing propaganda machine. Yeah, but that's also not really connected to public support. The policy politicians support has little connection to what the public supports. It's still obviously a big problem, but we can at least confidently state that the solution isn't to support more moderate positions, since that carries zero benefit. At least by continuing to support the desired option you preserve the possibility of it gaining enough support in the future to make not supporting it untenable for politicians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Because the prevailing narrative has been that socialist policies will still win over red voters because of economic materialism. A little early in the race to declare this strategy a failure, don't you think? e: Plus it's not about converting red state voters who are poisoned by Fox News propaganda; it's about getting people who don't usually vote out to vote for the Dem candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:he's not. Hmmmmmm, maybe
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Winning over GOP voters isn't even the strategy, the strategy is to win over working-class nonvoters. Of course, the centrists are a delusional bunch and cannot conceptualize working class people as anything besides the crudest redneck caricature, and thus they keep making this mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:he's not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, but that's also not really connected to public support. The policy politicians support has little connection to what the public supports. That's not to say that repeatedly ignoring public opinion in a democracy while cynically claiming to do otherwise doesn't have an effect - we're living through them now. But it doesn't have an effect at the level of granularity pundits like to pretend it does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:he's not. He isn't? Kalli posted:An actually good candidate:
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Kalli posted:He isn't? He's not wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:If tomorrow Fox News decided its biggest target was hamburgers and beer, and spent a few weeks attacking them, the national popularity of hamburgers and beer would plunge too. Hell, they plunged the popularity of *football*.  it's not just Right Wing Media trashing M4A.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Which is why I feel haggling over the polling of this is pretty silly. Simply telling consumers they'll get everything while downplaying the possibility any downsides/losers What are the downsides and who are the losers (besides the CEOs of Aetna and BCBS)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
True, but I think they're the ones largely impacting public opinion (because the right-wing media machine is incredibly effective, whereas no one really knows or cares about what centrist Dems say) VitalSigns posted:What are the downsides and who are the losers (besides the CEOs of Aetna and BCBS) Maybe this isn't what he was saying, but IMO there's a big difference between actual downsides and the made-up downsides the right will claim. Like, in a world where voters were presented with accurate information in a fair context, I think it'd be hugely popular, but the right-wing is absolutely gonna scream about death panels and how this will bankrupt you and a decent amount of voters are going to listen. The problem isn't just "we present it and then people will love it when they know the truth!" because the people are listening, in equal measure, to a bunch of people actively lying and claiming THEY'RE telling the truth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Just give people Medicare and have it set drug prices. Let private insurance wither on the vine without scaring people who "like" their insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Maybe this isn't what he was saying, but IMO there's a big difference between actual downsides and the made-up downsides the right will claim. Like, in a world where voters were presented with accurate information in a fair context, I think it'd be hugely popular, but the right-wing is absolutely gonna scream about death panels and how this will bankrupt you and a decent amount of voters are going to listen. The problem isn't just "we present it and then people will love it when they know the truth!" because the people are listening, in equal measure, to a bunch of people actively lying and claiming THEY'RE telling the truth. OK but push-polling Republican propaganda on everyone isn't going to get the same result as a public debate with only Republicans listening to Fox News
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:55
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What are the downsides and who are the losers (besides the CEOs of Aetna and BCBS) 1) Those with good employer insurance where the cost is heavily subsidized by their employer 2) Those currently on Medicare that will not have their good healthcare as heavily subsidized by those enrolled on private insurance 3) People that current utilize low amounts of healthcare for various reasons (young people, healthy/fit people) and believe that'll continue 4) Reasonably high income people that will face higher taxation, be it an uncapped payroll tax or a highly progressive income tax 5) Anyone tangentially involved with providing healthcare to people given their reimbursement rates will be lower aka revenues Hospitals/clinics and their HCPs don't refuse to take current Medicare/Medicaid patients because the money they make off them is Too drat Good. And even those that do are often losing money on them and make up the difference with patients on private insurance. While M4A would drive down costs based on admin hassles alone, it's disingenuous to believe that everything else will remain status quo after M4A, especially if there's a desire to push per capita healthcare costs to $5k in line with EU-5 and other OECD countries. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Private for-profit insurance is completely pointless. But a lot of very-left M4A advocates intentionally (and wisely) frame the argument in terms of consumer benefits and-wave away the concerns about the subsequent knock-on supply side effects. Likely because they naturally don't care nor sympathize about the viability of healthcare providers and their employees because they're highly paid and believe that income should be much much lower based on the belief no one should "profit" on healthcare, despite revenue and profits reaped by shareholders are different things. They may be morally right or even have a politically winning message, but it's not like everyone that raises supply-side concerns is lying about them. And the Republicans will support the perceived credibility of AMA and others that have yet to publicly endorse a single M4A single payer plan, much less any specific proposal.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:1) Those with good employer insurance where the cost is heavily subsidized by their employer KingNastidon posted:2) Those currently on Medicare that will not have their good healthcare as heavily subsidized by those enrolled on private insurance KingNastidon posted:3) People that current utilize low amounts of healthcare for various reasons (young people, healthy/fit people) and believe that'll continue  You work in insurance and you think "I'm invincible" is a good bet to make?! Next. KingNastidon posted:4) Reasonably high income people that will face higher taxation, be it an uncapped payroll tax or a highly progressive income tax KingNastidon posted:5) Anyone tangentially involved with providing healthcare to people given their reimbursement rates will be lower aka revenues
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
"M4A won't poll well if the downsides are truthfully explained" What downsides, and for whom? "For the 1% of the population that already hate M4A anyway either because they're rich or because they benefit from a broken system"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I heavily support breaking up Monsanto https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1110938323739119618
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:That doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Private for-profit insurance is completely pointless. But This is the for profit healthcare version of "I'm not racist but" quote:based on the belief no one should "profit" on healthcare, despite revenue and profits reaped by shareholders are different things.  why wont anyone consider the profit and revenues You are the pinnacle example of this Sinclair quote quote:It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! WampaLord fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
I think it's extremely unlikely Warren will get the nomination, but I really hope whoever does works closely with her on crafting policy and hopefully helps elevate her to a more powerful role in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Why do people think court packing is going to result in anything but 999 conservative judges?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:21
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is worse than free, next It is not free. I can guarantee you that my health insurance costs via M4A taxation will be higher than my premiums and OOP this year and next. This may change if I'm diagnosed with cancer. Financial self-interest isn't my primary motivator in politics, but it certainly is for some people quote:Medicare has copays and deductibles and premiums, this is worse than free, next And now those premiums and copays and deductibles will be converted into their taxes. And those taxes *should increase* given the people's healthcare we will be improving most significantly is not current Medicare patients (otherwise we wouldn't be advocating under the M4A nomenclature), but uninsured and under-insured people on private insurance. quote:
I don't work in insurance. I like M4A because I'm a very risk averse person and I don't like my health being tied to my employment. But not everyone thinks like me. quote:Those people aren't numerous enough to matter, next. We don't know how numerous they are because there's no plan that explicitly lays out how M4A will be funded and by whom. quote:Those people aren't numerous enough to matter, next. Healthcare makes up 20% of our GDP. Presumably a meaningful amount of people work and/or benefit from that 20% to be meaningful. And even if they aren't meaningful in terms of raw numbers of people, they're generally affluent and politically connected such that they can exert greater political force than the average person can. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:Why do people think court packing is going to result in anything but 999 conservative judges? Court packing is a stopgap measure on the road to reforming how judges are appointed and serve, which will only happen when court packing functionally 'breaks' the system
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
"In a 5-4 decision" becomes "in a 500-499 decision", mission accomplished
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Your Parents posted:Why do people think court packing is going to result in anything but 999 conservative judges? because if you packed the courts and made the country at least semi-democratic they'd never hold the executive ever again (and have a hard time taking the house). the conservatives already packed the courts. otherwise we win majorities, any poo poo passed is struck down, conservatives taken power again because nothing gets done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:22
|
|