DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
South_Mountaineer said:
Number of amendments is meaningless if we don't know what either the bills or amendments were about.
OK, here they are:
excerpt:
Bernie Sanders is a progressive who likes to get things done and his record of legislative accomplishments in the House of Representatives and the Senate shows it. Despite being independent from both the Democratic and Republican parties, he got more done in his first eight years in the Senate than Democratic Party superstar Hillary Clinton did in her eight years there. Before the people of Vermont elected him to the Senate in 2006, Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi dubbedSanders the “amendment king” of the House of Representatives noting:
“Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.”
We can talk about amendments and how much money they raised in one day all day long, but I don't think it says anything about whether or not they would be good Presidents.
Good column today by Paul Krugman:
Don’t Make Health Care a Purity Test; There are multiple ways to achieve universal coverage.
Meanwhile, however, there are some real continuing policy debates. They’re not mainly about goals: Whoever the Democrats nominate will profess allegiance to a progressive agenda aimed at reducing inequality, strengthening the social safety net and taking action on climate change. But there are some big differences about how to achieve those goals.
…
On one side, there’s “Medicare for All,” which has come to mean the Bernie Sanders position: replacing the entire existing U.S. health insurance system with a Medicare-type program in which the government pays most medical bills directly.
On the other side, there’s “Medicare for America,” originally a proposal from the Center for American Progress, now embodied in legislation. While none of the announced Democratic candidates has endorsed this proposal yet, it’s a good guess that most of them will come around to something similar.
The big difference from a Sanders-type plan is that people would be allowed to keep private coverage if they chose — but they or their employers would also have the option of buying into an enhanced version of Medicare, with substantial subsidies for lower- and middle-income families.
The most important thing you need to know about these rival plans is that both of them would do the job.
He notes that in annual surveys of the health care systems of major nations, the United States comes in last. The three leaders are Great Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands. But the three have different approaches.
What’s remarkable about those top three is that they have radically different systems. Britain has true socialized medicine — direct government provision of health care. Australia has single-payer — it’s basically Bernie down under. But the Dutch rely on private insurance companies — heavily regulated, with lots of subsidies, but looking more like a better-funded version of Obamacare than like Medicare for All. And the Netherlands actually tops the Commonwealth Fund rankings.
So which system should Democrats advocate? The answer, I’d argue, is the system we’re most likely actually to create — the one that will play best in the general election, and is then most likely to pass Congress if the Democrat wins.
And he notes what the argument should NOT be (but which he's seeing, and which is seen here on this message board).
What won’t be fine will be if activists make a no-private-insurance position a litmus test, declaring that anyone advocating a more incrementalist approach is no true progressive, or maybe a corrupt shill for the medical/industrial complex. As you might guess, my concerns aren’t drawn out of thin air; they’re things I’m already hearing.
Liked this part of the article. It sums up the problem. Particularly the last sentence.
A Medicare for All plan would in effect say to these people, “We’re going to take away your current plan, but trust us, the replacement will be better. And we’re going to impose a bunch of new taxes to pay for all this, but trust us, it will be less than you and your employer currently pay in premiums.”
nohero said:
Back in the 2016 primary, Paul Krugman had his head so far up HIllary's a** that you could not see his neck. Looks like he has not strayed far from his establishment perch. I used to like him, but now I avoid him at the NYTs and online. As a happy 1%er he does not have to give a crap about people and their health insurance, and it looks like does not because he's not stupid and he knows the Medicare for America plan is really scam for America. In 2016 he compared anything Bernie was proposing to unicorns and rainbows. This time, he does not attack Bernie directly, but tries to endorse the lame-o plan as equivalent, cause that's how he rolls.
If if you don't see the difference between getting rid of the insurance companies and trying a variation on Obamacare (which Beto himself said would be "expensive"), you should at least understand that when you negotiate any deal, you lead from a position of strength and go in with a "big guns" plan, knowing it will probably get watered down later. Going in with the wet noodle plan like Medicare for America will assure that the final offering will suck and might even be worse than what we had before.
Seriously, do not listen to the establishment on this--demand Medicare for All, or nothing else and this is a "purity" test worth fighting for. The fact that they are using the "purity" label tells you that this is directly from the establishment and they are not on your side.
Morganna said:
Liked this part of the article. It sums up the problem. Particularly the last sentence.
A Medicare for All plan would in effect say to these people, “We’re going to take away your current plan, but trust us, the replacement will be better. And we’re going to impose a bunch of new taxes to pay for all this, but trust us, it will be less than you and your employer currently pay in premiums.”
Fist off there are millions of people that don't have a current plan. Second, if you don't trust that statement, why do you trust the alternative statement that you can keep your current plan and if you don't like that you can just get a medicare plan and everyone is covered? Cause they are also telling you to "trust us."
They are not telling you that the Medicare for America Medicare plan will cost a lot of money (Beto said it would be expensive in one of his town halls). Also, that it will be a two network system, so that most doctors will only be in the insurance plan and not on the Medicare plan. If we have Medicare for All, every doctor and hospital will be in the same network.
Don’t Let Beto O’Rourke Kill Medicare for All
O’Rourke is touting a proposal called Medicare for America, a public option bill modeled off of previous work by neoliberal think tank Center for American Progress.
O’Rourke claims that this bill presents a pathway to Medicare for All. In fact, it does not. O’Rourke’s Medicare for America proposal would throw a lifeline to private insurers, keeping them afloat (and raking in profits) while derailing the demand for Medicare for All that Sanders has helped make wildly popular.
Medicare for America includes premiums of up to 10 percent of a person’s annual income and out-of-pocket maximums of $5,000. In a country where four in ten people don’t have the savings to cover a $400 emergency, these costs will either prove to be financially devastating or deter people from seeking needed care.
The proposal’s proponents argue that allowing Americans to opt into public insurance will gradually chip away at private insurers’ clienteles until the vast majority of Americans — or even all Americans — are covered under the same public plan. O’Rourke claims that the public option will become “the program of choice.” But by allowing private insurers to compete with the public plan, Medicare for America ensures that care will remain unequal and segregated.
This is why Medicare for America is not a pathway to single payer. Its multitiered and means-tested approach will inevitably pit working people against one another.
nan said:
If if you don't see the difference between getting rid of the insurance companies and trying a variation on Obamacare (which Beto himself said would be "expensive"), you should at least understand that when you negotiate any deal, you lead from a position of strength and go in with a "big guns" plan, knowing it will probably get watered down later. Going in with the wet noodle plan like Medicare for America will assure that the final offering will suck and might even be worse than what we had before.
Why not go in with "Socialized Medicine" that is, every healthcare provider would be a government employee? Delivery of healthcare would be like delivery of Police Protection. Would that not be leading from a position of strength?
Answer: By going to the extreme you so alienate your opponents that they might not even negotiate.
nan said:
Don’t Let Beto O’Rourke Kill Medicare for All
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/beto-orourke-medicare-for-all-universal?fbclid=IwAR3YwZh_H2_x_LENKqRfr08NX6CmIUB0QSaJf6RPmUJDqwsRUEvxWCsVpgE
O’Rourke is touting a proposal called Medicare for America, a public option bill modeled off of previous work by neoliberal think tank Center for American Progress.
O’Rourke claims that this bill presents a pathway to Medicare for All. In fact, it does not. O’Rourke’s Medicare for America proposal would throw a lifeline to private insurers, keeping them afloat (and raking in profits) while derailing the demand for Medicare for All that Sanders has helped make wildly popular.
Medicare for America includes premiums of up to 10 percent of a person’s annual income and out-of-pocket maximums of $5,000. In a country where four in ten people don’t have the savings to cover a $400 emergency, these costs will either prove to be financially devastating or deter people from seeking needed care.
The proposal’s proponents argue that allowing Americans to opt into public insurance will gradually chip away at private insurers’ clienteles until the vast majority of Americans — or even all Americans — are covered under the same public plan. O’Rourke claims that the public option will become “the program of choice.” But by allowing private insurers to compete with the public plan, Medicare for America ensures that care will remain unequal and segregated.
This is why Medicare for America is not a pathway to single payer. Its multitiered and means-tested approach will inevitably pit working people against one another.
Dangerously stupid commentary, but logical for nan, I know.
STANV said:
Why not go in with "Socialized Medicine" that is, every healthcare provider would be a government employee? Delivery of healthcare would be like delivery of Police Protection. Would that not be leading from a position of strength?
Answer: By going to the extreme you so alienate your opponents that they might not even negotiate.
Medicare for All is not extreme. Lots of countries have it. We are the richest country in the world so we should not have all these people dying and going bankrupt.
nan said:
Medicare for All is not extreme. Lots of countries have it. We are the richest country in the world so we should not have all these people dying and going bankrupt.
Do you read your own posts? You said "go in with a big guns plan knowing it will be watered down". Why then go in with a "not extreme" plan? By your logic if you start with total Socialism it could get "watered down" to "Medicare for All". If you start with "Medicare for All" it could get "watered down" to "Medicare for America".
Do "Democratic Socialists" agree with the following:
The Socialist Party stands for a socialized health care system based on universal coverage, salaried doctors & health care workers, and revenues derived from a steeply graduated income tax.
- We give critical support to the demand for the immediate abolition of all private health insurance companies through the creation of a single-payer health system. We see single-payer as an important step in the direction of a fully socialized national health program with full standard and alternative medical, dental, vision, and mental health coverage for all. This system would be publicly funded through progressive taxation and controlled by democratically elected assemblies of health care workers and patients.
- We call for public ownership and worker and community control of the pharmaceutical industry.
- We call for full community decision-making regarding the creation, organization or elimination of public health care facilities.
Source: Socialist Party USA: 2013-2015 National Platform , Nov 4, 2014
STANV said:
Do you read your own posts? You said "go in with a big guns plan knowing it will be watered down". Why then go in with a "not extreme" plan? By your logic if you start with total Socialism it could get "watered down" to "Medicare for All". If you start with "Medicare for All" it could get "watered down" to "Medicare for America".
It's the full plan we need, not some extreme thing. See the article I posted for details (4 posts up from your post)
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Dangerously stupid commentary, but logical for nan, I know.
Why do you launch a personal attack without supporting evidence? Makes you sound like a troll.
STANV said:
Do "Democratic Socialists" agree with the following:
The Socialist Party stands for a socialized health care system based on universal coverage, salaried doctors & health care workers, and revenues derived from a steeply graduated income tax.
Source: Socialist Party USA: 2013-2015 National Platform , Nov 4, 2014
- We give critical support to the demand for the immediate abolition of all private health insurance companies through the creation of a single-payer health system. We see single-payer as an important step in the direction of a fully socialized national health program with full standard and alternative medical, dental, vision, and mental health coverage for all. This system would be publicly funded through progressive taxation and controlled by democratically elected assemblies of health care workers and patients.
- We call for public ownership and worker and community control of the pharmaceutical industry.
- We call for full community decision-making regarding the creation, organization or elimination of public health care facilities.
But, no candidate running as a Democrat in 2020 agrees with that. Bernie Sanders and others who support the new Medicare for All bill agree with this:
What this bill does is it offers, first of all, comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country. We say that that includes primary care; it includes vision, dental, hearing; it includes mental health and substance abuse; it includes long-term services and supports, maternal healthcare, and more.
Everybody in the country will have access to healthcare when you get sick, not when you need an emergency room, not when you simply can't take your illness anymore, but when you actually get sick.
This bill is the first time that we will actually have long-term care supports and services included in this coverage. This is very, very important because it covers seniors, obviously, our elderly, as they get toward the end of their life, and it includes people with disabilities who have, traditionally, been left out of this entire sphere.
Pete Buttigieg is emerging as the voice of sanity in this din of national politicians with high name recognition. He went from 1% to 3% in the latest Emerson poll, which, while low, shows significant momentum in a short timeframe. Not sure who he's taking votes from yet, but probably Sanders.
dave said:
Pete Buttigieg is emerging as the voice of sanity in this din of national politicians with high name recognition. He went from 1% to 3% in the latest Emerson poll, which, while low, shows significant momentum in a short timeframe. Not sure who he's taking votes from yet, but probably Sanders.
Ok how about Warren/Buttigieg in 2020 (or Harris/Buttigieg) so We get our first woman president, then Buttigieg can be our first gay president (or openly gay anyway) in 2028.
So far I'd be okay if any of these folks got the nomination. Any of them would be a far more capable president than who we have now, and they all have stated beliefs and policies I'm mostly in line with.
I'm soured on Bernie but not because of him. It's the constant claims of victimization by the press which we consistently hear from his supporters that dampen my enthusiasm. Not that they'll care about my opinion. I will listen to his message and make my decision about who I vote for in the primary based on policies and leadership potential. It could be Bernie. And like I said before I'd be quite happy with President Sanders (based on what I already know about him)
I will say though that if I had my druthers it's time this country elects a woman as the Chief Executive.
Let's not repeat history and try for some bland watered down healthcare plan thinking it will be easier to pass and will be just as good.
nan said:
Let's not repeat history and try for some bland watered down healthcare plan thinking it will be easier to pass and will be just as good.
I was paying attention back then. I don't buy the revisionist history that clowns like this are pushing now.
nan said:
Back in the 2016 primary, Paul Krugman had his head so far up HIllary's a** that you could not see his neck. Looks like he has not strayed far from his establishment perch. I used to like him, but now I avoid him at the NYTs and online. As a happy 1%er he does not have to give a crap about people and their health insurance, and it looks like does not because he's not stupid and he knows the Medicare for America plan is really scam for America. In 2016 he compared anything Bernie was proposing to unicorns and rainbows. This time, he does not attack Bernie directly, but tries to endorse the lame-o plan as equivalent, cause that's how he rolls.
If if you don't see the difference between getting rid of the insurance companies and trying a variation on Obamacare (which Beto himself said would be "expensive"), you should at least understand that when you negotiate any deal, you lead from a position of strength and go in with a "big guns" plan, knowing it will probably get watered down later. Going in with the wet noodle plan like Medicare for America will assure that the final offering will suck and might even be worse than what we had before.
Seriously, do not listen to the establishment on this--demand Medicare for All, or nothing else and this is a "purity" test worth fighting for. The fact that they are using the "purity" label tells you that this is directly from the establishment and they are not on your side.
It is a purity test, because instead of appreciating shared goals, you're declaring that any disagreement on tactics makes the others practically Republican in your eyes.
nohero said:
It is a purity test, because instead of appreciating shared goals, you're declaring that any disagreement on tactics makes the others practically Republican in your eyes.
Medcare for All is not a "tactc." It's something that we should have had a long time ago. We need it now and the fact that the whole Democratic party is not on board with this together tells you a lot about their tactics. Fortunately, we have candidates that support both Medicare for All and A Green New Deal so we have good people to vote for and we don't have to pretend to like the others.
nan said:
Medcare for All is not a "tactc." It's something that we should have had a long time ago. We need it now and the fact that the whole Democratic party is not on board with this together tells you a lot about their tactics. Fortunately, we have candidates that support both Medicare for All and A Green New Deal so we have good people to vote for and we don't have to pretend to like the others.
Your case for Medicare for All would be a lot more convincing and effective if you could make it without smearing other Democrats (or the DNC) that don't agree with it. Same for your case for Bernie or Tulsi.
nan said:
Medcare for All is not a "tactc." It's something that we should have had a long time ago. We need it now and the fact that the whole Democratic party is not on board with this together tells you a lot about their tactics. Fortunately, we have candidates that support both Medicare for All and A Green New Deal so we have good people to vote for and we don't have to pretend to like the others.
Why is it so hard for you to consider that candidates who do not embrace your ideas are not sincere in their beliefs?
Gov. Insley believes that Climate Change is such a threat that he does not want to talk about anything else.
We all have our own opinions but most of us will allow that others may honestly disagree and we should all be open to considering other people's opinions. Otherwise what is the purpose of participating in this Discussion Board?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
leather couches $300
More info
Number of amendments is meaningless if we don't know what either the bills or amendments were about.