If you’re talking Bernie vs Liz, yes, and I think the posting here largely reflects that.
If you’re talking either of them vs Pete or Biden or Bloom, you’re out of your mind.
1 Like
It’s not any more or less unrealistic than passing M4A in 2021 in one bill imo. Both are extreme long shots but a good place to stake out and maybe instead you get meaningful ACA reforms until the Boomers die. Neither is vastly superior in that aspect imo.
Because the odds of getting two healthcare reform bills passed in a three year window are like Bloomberg’s fortune to one.
1 Like
Are you expecting 60 D senators?
We may get one bill passed, we will not get two passed. Whatever the next step is, that’s where it’s holding steady for a minimum of four years and more likely for a decade or more.
I am hoping Bernie reverses on the filibuster.
Do you see how it looks to me like you’re holding two conflicting thoughts? 1) we need to stake out and unrealistic position to get more at the bargaining table - while 2) simultaneously dragging Liz for holding what you see as an unrealistic position.
Even if something doesn’t get passed, think of the long-term effects of the fucking movement that will be created in this country if working class people start seeing healthcare as THEIR right and start to get angry at the politicians that are preventing them from having it.
It will come eventually, but only if politicians start fighting for it instead of compromising from the start.
1 Like
Right. So again - reverse the filibuster - pass M4A in first term. Could happen - ok to shoot for.
Propose two bills - BOO THIS WOMAN - get your head in reality Liz.
I don’t really see Dems taking the Senate in 2020, so I think passing health care reform within the next four years will always rely on controlling the House and Senate after the midterms. That may be a long shot, but it’s probably the best shot. I think Warren is probably better at getting things done despite Republican control of the Senate and giving Democrats a case for why they should be in charge of everything.
Warren’s focus is on taking on the corruption that she sees as the biggest impediment to good government. I think there’s a legitimate case that you can’t get M4A before tackling that and going through an election to sweep out some of the bad actors. That might even be how she sees it.
She’s presenting her plan as the realistic and reasonable position to get progress, but her process is pie in the sky absurd.
Bernie is presenting his plan as the right thing to do in terms of morals and policy.
She’s saying basically, “Here’s something that can actually get done,” but the details on how she’ll get it done are hilariously unrealistic.
He’s saying, “This is the right thing to do and I’m fighting for it.”
1 Like
Couldn’t agree more. I just disagree that Liz’s plan is some kind of material compromise compared to Bernie’s.
And we all know plans change after elections anyway. So we’re really just arguing about campaign rhetoric. Both candidates are campaigning on real UHC - not freaking corporate give aways like the ACA. Both things are going to be incredibly hard to pass yet absolutely worth shooting for and setting expectations for a future sea change in attitudes.
Seems like you just pointed out the fatal flaw in Warren’s plan… But okay, great, two cycles (2022 & 2024) to force out the corrupt Dirty Ds who forced the public option on us in 2021 then pass it in 2025. Or we slam dunk, bend the Dirty Ds to our will and get M4A in 2021 as that other poster thinks.
Point is that it’s not just Rs that are blocking M4A, we have dirty rats in our midst and can’t let them hide.
If you think that’s a slam dunk you’re not in reality. The dirty rats beholden to the health care industry are probably like 90% of Dem congresspeople. It’s going to take time for that kind of purge.
I hate to say it but the best path for M4A in the next decade is probably Trump wins, gets destroyed in 2022, then a blue wave in 2024. Of course we have to fade losing our functioning democracy and deal with packed courts for the rest of our lives.
If a dem wins in 2020 we probably just muddle back and forth for a while. Which is still infinitely better than 4 more years of Trump.
Either way the biggest problem to me is how to unwind a big chunk of our economy in healthcare middlemen, overpriced drugs, etc. As microbet alluded to - that’s going to be a thornier problem than killing the filibuster or getting 60 votes. Maybe we can just ease it in over decades - lowering the Medicare age and expanding Medicaid until they meet in the middle.
Realistically I think we’re going to have to go through another depression and get another New Deal right about the time most Boomers are gone. There may be some mass persecution, and a light civil war or two along that bumpy road.
We won’t be trying to fade this, that implies we’re favored to keep our functioning democracy. If Trump wins in 2020 the o/u on years before having a president without the last name Trump is probably 20.5.
Stop that Obama defeatist attitude. I was told that four years ago by very serious people that a trade war w/ China would send us into a global depression. Guess what, nothing happened, the zomg super complex supply chains worked themselves out.
But if get another Obama, the Audacity of Blah, then you will be right and nothing will change.
It’s an Obama defeatest attitude when applied to Bernie’s plan, but calling out Liz’s plan as unworkable for reasons is just being realistic?
The reason that Liz’s plan knocked her out of the race is exactly because it was a shitty Obama audacity of blah defeatist move. No upside to it, just a stupid, pointless compromise her idiotic consultants came up with.
2 Likes
From my vantage point her drop had a lot more to do with her tussling with Bernie than her healthcare bill. Also WaPo decided to frag her right at the same time.