|
KingNastidon posted:What position? That you don't care whether a public option is any good, keeps one person from dying, or one family out of bankruptcy, as long as nothing changes for you, personally. And you wonder why people call you a ghoul. But I'm not going to do that, instead I will appeal to your self-interest. You should care whether a public option is any good, because under the status quo if you like your insurance you do not get to keep it. Millions of Americans lose their insurance every year because they change jobs or lose their jobs or their employer switches insurance plans on them. It can happen to you. And it is a lot more likely that you'll need a public plan sometime before you retire than that you'll become a multimillionaire who can just pay for cancer treatment out of pocket if you need to.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
also the debate was loving insane. multiple dem candidates decrying using taxes to pay for social services. rich boy beto whining that wealth taxes would pit one group against another. it'd affect less than one percent of americans jesus loving christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
A public option is a political nonstarter anyway. Remember the past? Obama dropped his public option immediately because all the healthcare companies were lock step against it. Specifically because it would be too good compared to private plans. So if you go for a public option you're going to face just as much opposition as if you went for Medicare for All, but without the public support Medicare for All has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
I love that so many serious media people will never understand that 'something happened on twitter' doesn't mean that it's only 'twitter people' doing it. Like, the Warren surrogate who tried to gaslight us queers telling us Sanders 'never showed up' for us and then got busted, shockingly, being a huge racist and homophobe before wasn't just 'an annoying supporter' she was a major campaign surrogate who Warren had personally praised multiple times. But yea, Dave, her and Bernie5Ever69 who called Warren a bitch are exactly the same because they both used twitter and thus it's pointless to talk about their differences. If Warren wins this and when she gets destroyed by Trump we're 100% gonna get another round of 'BERNIE DIDN'T EVEN CAMPAIGN FOR HER' like the Clinton freaks tried and guys like Dave who were all up in this poo poo before are gonna just quietly ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
i don't know if i can handle "bernie would've won" being proved right again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i don't know if i can handle "bernie would've won" being proved right again. It will be proved by Bernie winning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
I wonder why Pressley hasn't endorsed anyone yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Do Warren literally say she has no problem with billionaires last night?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:If Warren wins this and when she gets destroyed by Trump we're 100% gonna get another round of 'BERNIE DIDN'T EVEN CAMPAIGN FOR HER' like the Clinton freaks tried and guys like Dave who were all up in this poo poo before are gonna just quietly ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:07
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That you don't care whether a public option is any good, keeps one person from dying, or one family out of bankruptcy, as long as nothing changes for you, personally. And you wonder why people call you a ghoul. The implementation of a public option is less interesting to discuss because everyone within this thread will reject a public option while M4A is still on the table. It's an entirely pointless discussion. Should debate moderators and journalists be asking about the details of a public option? Hell yes. But look at the debate tonight -- the healthcare discussion is painfully simplistic. None of the candidates, Sanders included, are knowledgeable enough to talk to the details of their plans even if there was time to do so. It's all broad strokes meant to appeal to different consumer mindsets. Everyone but Sanders is taking the view that a vague and ambiguous public option or one-off policies like drug price regulation is less scary than single payer. You're not wrong that the details of a public option should matter to people given how frequently change jobs or the existence of economic cycles. But most don't think they'll be the one to lose their job or good private insurance and get cancer.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Should debate moderators and journalists be asking about the details of a public option? Hell yes. But look at the debate tonight -- the healthcare discussion is painfully simplistic. None of the candidates, Sanders included, are knowledgeable enough to talk to the details of their plans even if there was time to do so. It's all broad strokes meant to appeal to different consumer mindsets. Sanders literally wrote the drat bill. He released a very detailed policy proposal for completely changing the healthcare industry. I'm pretty sure he's knowledgeable enough to talk to the details of it if given the time to do so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:I wonder why Pressley hasn't endorsed anyone yet She voted for that anti BDS bullshit so she's out of the squad as far as I'm concerned
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:The implementation of a public option is less interesting to discuss because everyone within this thread will reject a public option while M4A is still on the table. It's an entirely pointless discussion. No it isn't, if you make an affirmative claim that a public option from Candidates X Y or Z would be equivalent to or better than M4A, you need to back that up by citing their something in their proposals showing that. If you can't back up what you're saying, then it's stupid to complain that people don't accept the argument! "Hey, you can either have this insulin for your diabetes or this pig-in-a-poke, now don't be all unreasonable and choose the insulin. For all you know they're exactly the same, no you can't look inside the poke mkay just pick that one all right"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Everyone but Sanders is taking the view that a vague and ambiguous public option or one-off policies like drug price regulation is less scary than single payer. You're not wrong that the details of a public option should matter to people given how frequently change jobs or the existence of economic cycles. But most don't think they'll be the one to lose their job or good private insurance and get cancer. Is your position that we should run on the best possible policy, or is your position that policy is unimportant to the stupid apelike voters and it's all about what you can trick them into voting for which we determine by polling. If it's the former, then you need to come to the table with a sound public option proposal from one of the candidates and a solid policy argument for why it's superior to M4A. If it's the latter then (a) shut the gently caress up about reimbursement rates because aint no voters care about that poo poo, and (b) you've already lost because M4A polls show it's incredibly popular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
wealth taxes, medicare for all, and the green new deal are all very popular and it's insane that maybe 1.5 candidates aren't running away from them and arguing against them on national tv.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:39
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it isn't, if you make an affirmative claim that a public option from Candidates X Y or Z would be equivalent to or better than M4A, you need to back that up by citing their something in their proposals showing that. Except I've never personally made the argument that a public option would be equivalent or better than M4A! Especially given no information exists to inform that opinion! But I do not think it's appropriate to automatically assume a public option or any other policy is automatically a net negative. It's dishonest and some weird performative tactic to maximize the separation between M4A and any other possible alternative. Scroll up and read back the back-and-forth between CS and Unoriginal Name that I responded to. VitalSigns posted:Is your position that we should run on the best possible policy, or is your position that policy is unimportant to the stupid apelike voters and it's all about what you can trick them into voting for which we determine by polling. My position is I think M4A is the best possible policy and plan to vote for the person that holds that policy. Yet, I'm capable of understanding why other people may prefer more incremental approaches and why a majority of the candidates are catering to those voters. I don't think either the voters nor the candidates are ghouls for that choice under assumption it's a net positive. https://twitter.com/KFF/status/1184109430306197504
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
it'd probably help if most of the democratic field wasn't attacking it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Remember that this guy is still the front runner in most polls. In a Democratic primary. https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1184296664753983488?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
where does he think all 12 months come from now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it'd probably help if most of the democratic field wasn't attacking it. I think it's actually good that M4A has now been clearly defined as "what bernie wants" and is still polling at 51%
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:My position is I think M4A is the best possible policy and plan to vote for the person that holds that policy. Yet, I'm capable of understanding why other people may prefer more incremental approaches and why a majority of the candidates are catering to those voters. I don't think either the voters nor the candidates are ghouls for that choice under assumption it's a net positive. Serious question: what do you get from "seeing the other side" in this way when you admit that M4A is the best possible policy and plan? The reason M4A has enjoyed relatively high support is because people want better healthcare. The reason that its support is falling off is because it's being attacked by people who have a personal stake in the status quo. The way to counter that is to make it clear that M4A is the best policy and that more incremental solutions are objectively worse. Equivocation solely for the sake of appearing reasonable and moderate is an incredibly childish and counterproductive way to behave. If you believe in a policy, then support it. You don't need to hedge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Except I've never personally made the argument that a public option would be equivalent or better than M4A! Especially given no information exists to inform that opinion! It could certainly be, and in the absence of any specific proposal it is absurd to demand that people imagine a good proposal and treat that like it's what the candidates will do. No one here is buying a pig in a poke, if you don't like it take it up with Buttigieg and his lack of substance. If a public option doesn't fix the glaring problems in our healthcare system (and a bad public option like the one that was in the House bill would not), then those problems will be blamed on the public option just like the unfixed problems in our healthcare system were blamed on Obamacare, and lead to another series of disillusionment and backlash like we saw 2010-2016. And by your own arguments this is inescapably true, because you assert that voters don't understand healthcare or policy. So it is indeed very possible that a bad enough public option could be a net negative. KingNastidon posted:My position is I think M4A is the best possible policy and plan to vote for the person that holds that policy. Yet, I'm capable of understanding why other people may prefer more incremental approaches and why a majority of the candidates are catering to those voters. I don't think either the voters nor the candidates are ghouls for that choice under assumption it's a net positive. So even with both parties attacking it with everything they have it still gets a majority. Seems bad for your position. Oh wait let me guess, mysteriously the polls only matter when they support policy you like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:12
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Serious question: what do you get from "seeing the other side" in this way when you admit that M4A is the best possible policy and plan? Because discussion about the primary, both here and elsewhere, can take multiple forms. One way, what policies do I personally like and why. Another, what are the beliefs of voters, what are the policies of each candidate, and how do those things help us understand who will eventually win the primary and their likelihood to win the general. Discussion about the latter is much more common. And far more interesting within the context of this thread where any ideological or policy disagreement exists between those supporting Sanders and some imaginary person to his left that isn't running.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So even with both parties attacking it with everything they have it still gets a majority. Seems bad for your position. weird, seems like the frontrunner from one of the parties is actually supporting it
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:20
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So even with both parties attacking it with everything they have it still gets a majority. Seems bad for your position. What position VitalSigns? God drat VitalSigns posted:Oh wait let me guess, mysteriously the polls only matter when they support policy you like. 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:weird, seems like the frontrunner from one of the parties is actually supporting it Why are they the frontrunner, CC? Is it because they are supporting policy that voters want, or are they jedi mind-melding voters into supporting someone whose policies they hate. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Warren's support isn't solid, it's the begrudging brief favour of a desperate, dying establishment that's searching for something, anything to get the attention away from He Who Must Not Be Named at all costs. They're watching with itchy trigger fingers for the first excuse to drop her for a proper establishment ghoul who won't even put up the pretence of giving young people anything but empty platitudes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/shaun_vids/status/1184419021749391361
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
CC raises a good point. The new frontrunner is aggressively campaigning on abolishing private insurance. If that's so unpopular, then why is Warren doing so well? Why isn't Medicare For Some Lives Matter rocketing Buttigieg to the top of the polls? Why doesn't Biden make up lost ground every time he repeats the words voters are allegedly dying to hear: "if you like Blue Cross Blue Shield killing you for profit, you can keep Blue Cross Blue Shield killing you for profit"? Private insurance is so popular yet somehow it seems to be losing the election, and winning elections is the only justification private insurance has for continuing to exist because god knows it isn't efficiency or delivery of care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:What position VitalSigns? God drat Yo, as a casual observer you seem to advocate policy consistent with neoliberalism and try to cloak that behind accusations of the thread being a hive mind. People don't trust you because the cheques you write seem to be signed "the status quo is fine". Here's a simple question for you to fill in so we can move on to some perhaps more productive discussion: "The most important policy for the Democratic party is ____________"? Because that draws the line in which candidate is best for your values.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/factcheckdotorg/status/1184476678971674624
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Just lol if someone still hasn't realized that "fact checking" is just plain old punditry disguised with a thin veneer of objective-sounding language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
quote:Sanders referred to climate change as an “existential threat.” Scientists agree climate change does pose a threat to humans and ecosystems, but they do not envision that climate change will obliterate all people from the planet. Jesus wept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:Jesus wept. "well if 90% of the people on earth die i'm sure i'll be fine so it can't be that bad"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
if the global biome collapses what do they think happens to humans long term? it's not like we did the space colonization thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:Jesus wept. Did they hire fishmech as a writer or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
My deductible more than tripled today from 700 to a bit over 2200. Oh and 6750 out of network Out of pocket maximum from 5600 to 9000. From 9600 to 27,000 out of network John Wick of Dogs fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Oct 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:A public option is a political nonstarter anyway. Remember the past? Obama dropped his public option immediately because all the healthcare companies were lock step against it. Specifically because it would be too good compared to private plans. So if you go for a public option you're going to face just as much opposition as if you went for Medicare for All, but without the public support Medicare for All has. Edit: I am for good care that's not horrible in costs to us. I give zero fucks about whether it's public or private conceptually. I dislike that people think private insurance is great in any way because they've been brainwashed into conspiring with the system that makes "lose my insurance plan = lose my doctor and care" the underlying paranoia / fear. necrobobsledder fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Oct 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:My deductible more than tripled today from 700 to a bit over 2200. i haven't seen the hit from our increases (will see it friday) but i got no doubt it's gonna more than wipe out whatever the tax cut got me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Except I've never personally made the argument that a public option would be equivalent or better than M4A! Especially given no information exists to inform that opinion! It's almost like universal healthcare has been the subject of a multibillion dollar decades long propaganda campaign in the US or something. Weird. Better just do what the pharma ghouls want and offer a $380/mo high deductible public option to compete with the $410/mo cigna plan. Maybe bring back that mandatory healthcare coverage mandate and sprinkle 5% more subsidies on it. Groovelord Neato posted:*snip* My brain is loving bleeding. Jesus christ. AlBorlantern Corps posted:My deductible more than tripled today from 700 to a bit over 2200. As much as that sucks rear end, that's still kind of good! America  e: took out the tweets to make post smaller, also necrobobsledder posted:Your point is true but how can we get M4A through the same Congress then? Can you give me a strategy that sounds viable? Replace congress. That's how movements work. And a large political movement is the only way we're getting any healthcare reform that isn't what I just posted above. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Oct 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 17:18
|
|
