I believe that’s what they refer to as Midwestern values.
Nope. It’s not that. It’s to counter the “no one likes their plan” narrative. We do exist. That doesn’t mean I don’t want everyone to have health care.
The end goal for all of us is to get everyone health care, right? Are we agreeing on that?
Give me a break. Like you’re bent out of shape that I have Pete second, with Warren first and Bernie third? I’m also on the record that I’ll be casting a strategic vote for the best person who has a chance to win, so if it’s a two horse race between Bernie and Biden, I won’t be voting for Pete. If it was a three-way race between those three, I’d vote for whoever had a better chance to win the primary between Bernie and Pete.
So your concern over this is ridiculous.
In addition, Pete is the most outspoken, progressive and combative candidate in the race on democracy reform… and guess what, every single progressive agenda item that you or any of us want to see passed is WAY more likely to get done if we get democracy reform done. It’s also essential to our survival as a democracy.
On the issue of healthcare, I’m for single payer, but I’m also willing to recognize that it’s going to be extremely hard to get true single payer done in 2021. At least Pete’s version of “Medicare” for All has the stated goal of directly leading to single payer (I’m like 99% sure I’ve heard him state that).
My main concern with positions like his, Castro’s, Biden’s, Harris’, etc, is that if we start from a compromise position, we’ll get something even more watered down.
However, on the flip side, I am concerned that Bernie wouldn’t be willing to cut a deal as POTUS, and I think that in a world where we have the presidency, the House and 50-52 seats in the Senate, it’ll be extremely difficult getting to 50 votes for true single payer. I’m not even sure Schumer is a yay.
I think the Dem candidate needs to be willing to compromise on healthcare to get something done, but it’s important to know what they can and cannot compromise on in the interest of long-term success. For example, I think doing the public option (opt-out version ideally, opt-in at worst) is okay… But doing a slow transition that will allow the GOP to start gutting it before it takes effect would be disastrous. Whatever plan goes into place needs to go into place FAST and it needs to be VERY difficult for the GOP to tear down, because we all know they’re going to demonize it and try.
Oh, and on that note and swinging back to Pete, imagine how much tougher it’ll be for the GOP to tear it down if we’ve got two senators from DC and two from Puerto Rico.
2 Likes
There are very few of you. I think Warren makes a good point when she mentions that she meets a lot of people who love their doctor, love their nurse, love their physical therapist, etc… and very few people who love their health insurance company.
I also think that a lot of people who love their health insurance plan/company are under informed, and I assume that’s not you because obviously you’re extremely well informed on politics… but that only places you in an even smaller minority of well-informed people who like their plan.
I think a lot of the people who love their plan think that it only costs whatever their contribution is, and don’t realize the total cost. I think if they had the option of keeping their contribution and getting paid their employer’s contribution, taking Medicare and paying whatever the monthly tax cost would be for Medicare, they’d do it. But that information isn’t transparent enough for most people to realize it.
Also, one of my big concerns is that the nominee ends up saying some form of, “If you like your current plan, you can keep it.”
That’s going to walk right into the buzzsaw retort of, “That’s what Obama said about keeping your plans and doctors with Obamacare, and how’d that work out?”
Whereas with single payer it’s pretty easy to explain that every single doctor is going to have to take it, so you’re guaranteed to be able to keep your doctor.
My political goals for healthcare are:
-
Get everyone coverage.
-
Minimize the per capita costs of healthcare in the United States while maintaining/improving health outcomes.
There are a lot of ways to do #1, but I think single payer is the only way to do #1 and #2. I know it’s the best way.
So while I’m willing to support/understand that it may be a two or three step process to get there, and the first step could be something like Pete or Castro’s plan, I still prefer trying to get single payer done ASAP, preferably in 2021.
1 Like
Well, I’m flattered someone considers me a “big poster”.
As for health care, please direct your attention to question 17 and 17A in the following poll:
What Tabbaker should really be scared of is that I’m actually not posting here as much as I could be…it’s that I’m out there every week at local events talking up Pete, handing out information and hosting debate watch parties and meetups. That I’ve founded a grassroots group of over 300 volunteers (some more dedicated, some come out when they can) here that is helping me do more because I can’t be in 3 places at once. That I’m putting in work by making a website and a network and email lists. And the San Diego group isn’t nearly as active as some of the others around the country.
Just under 5 months to go. I can do anything for 5 months, including boots on the ground in San Diego, Iowa, wherever I’m needed. I know some of you find it hard to believe that Pete inspires anyone, but there are more of us out there than you know, and we’re pretty organized.
I like my healthcare fine, I’d just rather not pay $1000/mo for it. And my income swings widely from that being a big burden to not. I’d rather let taxes take care of varying the amount I pay than having to prove I’m poor if I need a means tested lower rate, only to undo that when I make too much money, only to maybe need it again later. Not to mention pride/humiliation or whatever. I had money losing years when I started business and still never applied for a charity rate.
And still, a lot of people, including some I know, don’t have health insurance and just go to the county hospital, emergency rooms, or urgent care all ad hoc.
If Medicare for all who want it comes out with $500/month then great. If it’s a means tested charity program, I’ll likely stay with private insurance.
3 Likes
This is one of the many times that I’m reminded of the scene in the West Wing where Joey tells Josh that the bad poll numbers they got don’t mean they need to give up on their policy goal, they mean they need to do a better job leading and telling people why they should support their idea.
Single payer is the best system for the country in terms of covering the most people and minimizing the amount we pay as a nation for healthcare, true or false?
Assuming you answer true, which I think most people who are well educated on the subject matter would, then why should we follow that polling and give up and try to protect the private insurance system to the detriment of the country rather than trying to improve messaging and strategy to get the point across?
Oh, and by the way, what percentage of the 33% of people who want to keep private insurance around forever do you think work in a field that directly benefits from the private health insurance system? I would set the o/u at around 15% of them (so ~5% of all respondents), maybe more. And another chunk is people that know that single payer is better in general, but think that their current plan is better and cheaper to them personally based on their job, etc, so they oppose it.
So I think we should be careful about drawing conclusions from that poll, ESPECIALLY conclusions about the proper strategy going forward.
I think what you’re doing is great, even though he’s not my #1 choice. I think he’s pretty inspirational in a lot of ways, although I’ve soured on him a bit for a number of reasons - basically I think he’s struggling mightily from a strategic standpoint. I don’t like the campaign he’s run the last couple of months, and I think he’s done very poorly in the debates and missed some critical opportunities. I was particularly disappointed that he seemed to handle Biden’s horrible answer with kid gloves, because while he said a lot of the right things about race, by being too nice to Biden (in my opinion), it basically flew under the radar and didn’t get the attention it needed to get. Likewise I think he’s been too hesitant to jump in during debates to criticize other candidates.
I am pretty sure I get what he’s doing, and I am pretty sure I understand what his strategy is… but I don’t think it’s going to get him into contention in this race. It does make a ton of sense if he’s just trying to position himself for VP or a cabinet appointment, though.
But either way I am thrilled we have him in the race, especially to fight for democracy reform (which is inspiring IMO), and I hope that he’s able to land in a cabinet-level position or better to set himself up for 2028.
1 Like
I definitely wouldn’t interpret that poll as meaning that people like their current coverage, it’s just that the way the question is phrased it sounds like there’s no downside. The question is basically “would you like everyone to get a new car, or everyone to get their choice between a new car or the car they already have?”. Obviously you go option B there because it sounds like it’s just option A plus extra choice. You could get a plurality to go for Medicare For All by posing systemic questions rather than consumer-choice questions, for example asking people whether healthcare should be a for-profit enterprise.
The polling on the issue is kind of complex, because people don’t understand how it works - like the idea that losing their private insurance means they’ll lose their doctor and the way their healthcare is provided etc etc.
1 Like
A question for those who support opt-in Medicare for all:
How is it paid for? Do you only pay higher taxes once you opt-in?
Because if you do many of the young, healthy and/or high income earners will not opt-in. This will result in an more expensive (per capita) M4A patient pool and decreased tax revenue to pay for it.
1 Like
So people definitely learned the wrong lesson from the ACA. Everything that happened afterwards wasn’t because it went too far too quickly, it’s because it didn’t go far enough. It created a program that could be torn apart little by little by the interests of the private insurance companies. You have to kill the for profit medical industry for real healthcare reform to happen or you leave in place an apparatus that will do everything it can to kill positive reform.
The other issue with opt in policies is that it doesn’t actually solve the problem of the millions of uninsured people currently in this country. Most of these people don’t currently have insurance because they either can’t or don’t want to pay for it. Giving them another option doesn’t change that equation for them. You have to cover everyone and have the system paid for everyone being enrolled in it. The lack of a true mandate for coverage is what helped the Republicans and the private insurance industry tear apart the ACA. The lack of a mandate to be covered under the public insurance will have the same result.
5 Likes
I will tell you that this is an incredibly privileged position to take. And “taking away” private for profit health insurance is a Republican talking point.
4 Likes
Hopefully convincing their voters or potential voters to vote for someone better.
Enough with the gatekeeping around who is ok to discuss. Pete wants to be treated like a tier one candidate. His supporters pretend he is. But we’re not allowed to point out that he’s got problems?
1 Like
What does this mean?
[quote=“catfacemeowmers, post:2261, topic:68, full:true”] But we’re not allowed to point out that he’s got problems?
[/quote]
You can say what you want but it just seems like Biden or Trump should be in the crosshairs.
This is the shame shit Hillary fans said in 2016, and as far as I know we don’t have any Biden fans here to persuade.
1 Like
You mentioned you were in the service right? Is the healthcare plan that you like Tricare?
1 Like
It’s in play, sure. But I’m seeing very few paths to victory where Florida is the tipping point state.
If there was a senate race there in 2020, my opinion would be very different. But we really should be focusing on purple states with senate contests.
The spending per electoral vote should be very low for Florida.
And everything I said is an order of magnitude more true for Ohio.
This is a good point, although the candidate (s) will be attacked as gun grabbers regardless. I was more looking at it as youth+male+maybe texas tbh
I agree with this statement, but I think one of the ways we should be putting crosshairs on Biden or Trump is by pointing out where their policy positions fail (i.e., doing more than just saying "look at these senile old white guys). In Pete’s case, his healthcare policy position undercuts the proposals being put forward by the better candidates (Bernie, Liz) and re-enforces the notion that Biden’s position is tenable (namely, another bandaid rather than a full, permanent solution).
Also, there are no Biden or Trump defenders in this thread, so there’s no back-and-forth to be had, giving the impression that we’re too harsh on Pete.
FWIW I have Pete somewhere around #3, though after quite a large drop-off.
2 Likes
Pete wrote an Op-ed today in the WaPo regarding his healthcare plan:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/19/pete-buttigieg-heres-better-way-do-medicare-for-all/
The WaPo daily healthcare newsletter (Health 2020) pointed out that regardless of branding, Pete’s plan is closer to Biden’s than to M4A:
Yet while Buttigieg said he favored Medicare-for-all early in his campaign, a set of proposals his campaign released this morning looks more like a public option approach than anything else.
In fact, when it comes to expanding coverage to the uninsured and making it more affordable for people, the Buttigieg “plan” is comparable to the public option plan from the race’s top moderate, former vice president Joe Biden.
2 Likes