Doesn’t sound the same to me:
“No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this Medicare-for-all plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in.”
Any plan that requires you to opt in/buy is a bad plan. If Pete’s plan was truly Bernie or Warren’s plan with the option to keep private insurance then everyone in the country would get free healthcare with zero premiums, co-pays, deductibles or any cost out of pocket, but if you want to opt out of that and pay for private insurance that provides shitty coverage you can.
That is not the plan that Pete is selling, so what happens with his plan is that the people who are uninsured today are still uninsured the day after his plan gets passed. The for profit healthcare industry that currently causes us to spend trillions more on healthcare than we should is still alive and can just refuse to accept the public option and do everything in their power to tear it down with the help of the Republican Party. And the failure of this is used as propaganda to kill single payer healthcare in this country for generations. Great plan…
6 Likes
This, plus an even bigger problem that very few talk about:
Any Democratic plan is going to be compromised to the right.
2 Likes
I like that fast turn from this morning. Why do you say that about Yang?
A lot of that Yang like is because he didn’t run away from white supremacists and used some language on some things they like. That hasn’t picked up much traction lately.
I don’t think most people think like I do. That’s the point. We need leaders who lead, not leaders who stick their fingers in the wind and only do what is popular. M4A isn’t happening unless you force it on some people.
2 Likes
Alex Jones said he likes Yang?
A co worker sent me a clip of one of his “employees” ambushing Yang and asking him why he doesn’t believe in free speech.
Edit: here is the clip, maybe not an ambush.
Cite where Alex Jones says he likes Yang and I will believe you.
They’re competing for the same audience, so of course they’re beefing.
1 Like
I know nothing about Alex Jones.
I sincerely believe Alex Jones likes him.
Well Played!
Thanks for letting me know it’s not worth my time engaging with you.
For starters, they didn’t nuke the filibuster. Then they didn’t rush it through before the special election in Massachusetts. Third, Obama got every Democratic vote on his bill and would have gotten every Democratic vote for the public option - it was removed for Joe Lieberman, an independent.
Also your example is of a more moderate Congress pulling Obama’s bill to the right. There is no world in which Joe Biden is the nominee and Congress is more liberal than it is right now.
Congressional Dems did not tell Obama to fuck off.
I’m saying that if Biden wins, Biden’s healthcare plan will get voted on. Further, I’m saying that if Biden wins the nomination, you won’t see many people going on the record for M4A anytime soon, so it will continue to be stuck at the 120-130 supporters it currently has. Why? Well, the party voters in the primary will have told the party that they want a moderate candidate and a centrist party. Then that’s what the country will have voted on.
It won’t, but let’s say it does… If Schumer doesn’t have the votes for it, he won’t bring it for a vote unless the POTUS wants him to. POTUS won’t want him to in this scenario.
Do you understand that there is a correlation between the appetite for Medicare for All in the House and the outcome of the primary result??? If Biden wins the primary, there will not be an appetite for Medicare for All in the House.
You can play your little “You can’t prove me wrong, na na na na na,” game all you want, you’re still being ridiculous. Anyone who has followed politics for like, a minute, knows you’re wrong on this.
I’m saying if Sanders/Warren win, they’ll pressure the eDems and take advantage of their spinelessness.
It. Doesn’t. Matter.
The narrative will be that their stances on healthcare were a critical part of why they won, ESPECIALLY if it’s Pete. It’s been the major point of contention in every debate so far. It’ll be a major part of the general election campaign.
Whoever wins will get ~their plan~ voted on in the House if the Dems control the House.
You are so tone deaf on narrative/messaging and its importance in politics. That’s why you have this ridiculous take, and it’s why you were so convinced that the eDems were going to impeach Trump over the Mueller report.
You are sometimes a very good poster, and sometimes delusional. I like you a lot.
I mean, to me it’s a pretty big deal whether or not Pete is making a disingenuous attack or not. Like, the bottom line is that we all know that the Warren/Sanders plan will, on average, save the middle class money. It will be redirected from premiums/co pays/etc to taxes, but the total cost will go down. So if we all know this, do you really think Pete doesn’t?
So when you say you don’t know, I think maybe you would rather not know because it’s easier to say, “Well, she’s going to face that attack in the general anyway, so she better get used to it and learn to handle it now.”
Problem is, the GOP gets to cut up these attacks and say, “SEE??? EVEN THE OTHER LIBERAL DEMOCRATS KNOW THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE SOCIALIST TAKEOVER THAT WILL DRIVE YOUR TAXES UP!!!”
That’s damaging, and it’s why I’m mad at him. The choice attack could be damaging too, but at least it’s not disingenuous, thus I have no issue with it. Play hardball, but play within the boundaries of intellectual honesty that we should respect in this party primary.
I don’t know what her issue is - maybe they aren’t testing well and they’re still trying to workshop the best way around the issue? Maybe they aren’t spending that much time on debate prep yet? Maybe she’s waiting until there are fewer people on the stage and longer responses so that she can explain it without being cut off or rushed?
This we agree on. I’d much rather see debates with a real debate format that would let them get into stuff more rather than trying to shout out their pre canned 10 second barbs.
1 Like
They should focus group this one.
She should try…
Moderator: Under your healthcare plan, will taxes go up for middle-class Americans?
Liz:
Under my plan total costs will go down for the middle class.
Moderator: Senator, the question was about taxes, will their taxes go up or down?
Liz: Thanks for the follow up. I’m saying total costs will go down for middle-class Americans
Moderator: No, taaaaaxes
Liz: Your premise is bullshit, and you know it. Let me ask you something, Chuck/Anderson/whoever, do you think the average middle-class American cares more about whether their total costs go up or down, or their taxes? Do you think there are seriously people out there who do NOT care about the total cost and INSTEAD care about their taxes only?
Moderator: Well, I’m not running for president, so…
Liz: Well, I am. And I talk to regular Americans every day, and I know that they care about having good, quality healthcare, and as much money as possible left over at the end of the month. That’s why my plan makes sure that COSTS go down and EVERYONE gets covered.
Another option would be to end with… “Well I am, and let me frame it like this for you, Chuck, what if I offered you a gift card to the grocery store for $1,000, but you’d have to pay an extra $200 in taxes. Would you take it? Yes? Then I guess you care more about total costs than taxes.”
Chuck: A ha! So you’re saying taxes WILL GO UP?
Liz: Were you even listening? I’m saying total costs will go down.
Yeah, that’s fine, and if the political reality is that single payer can’t pass, I know that with Warren, we’ll have a POTUS who will make sure we gain the most ground possible on the issue. I’ll know that we started from single payer and worked backwards, rather than starting with the compromise position and getting forced even farther back to the center.
2 Likes
That’s an interesting chart for a lot of reasons. I thought the last debate was Warren’s weakest, mainly due to the health care segment where she was caught obviously and awkwardly dodging the issue that by any reasonable measure the “costs” that middle class people would be paying for M4A are a tax (and indeed it should be considered a tax so that Roberts will sign off on its constitutionality). Now, that’s not to say it was strictly bad strategy on her part. One could easily see this as losing one battle while still planning to win the war. The average person shouldn’t really care if the costs of getting health care are labeled a “premium” which lines the pockets of rich insurance executives or whether they are labeled a “tax” that goes to the government, but they apparently do for some reason, and insisting on labeling the costs as “costs” isn’t deceptive per se, it’s choosing one’s messaging. She wants to message to voters about costs, and to Roberts (and pretty much only Roberts) about taxes, because attack ads about taxes are obvious and powerful.
I do think it was poor form for esp. Pete to be insistent that it was a tax. As much as he’s itching for some wins so that he can try to win the nomination, he doesn’t want to do so while hurting his own chances at the presidency, or Warren’s chances at the presidency should she win the nom. He’s not wrong, but he should be smart enough to see that sticking to the “cost” messaging is better for both of them for being president.
Also, getting ganged up on and struggling through it isn’t strictly bad optics. Yeah, you’d rather be A+ all night, but one doesn’t get ganged up on without being perceived as the leader, and being perceived as the leader is a big deal. Even if you’re not soaring above it all with winning lines all night, people do still pick up on the cues that the candidates on stage see she’s the leader, and it’s human nature to buy into that assessment.
That all said, I do agree that people root for their horse, so I guess it’s not surprising to see the most favorable candidate pre-debate also be perceived to have had the best debate, I’m surprised both that Warren has the highest favorability rating and that she won on a night in the eyes of these people.
2 Likes
Also, more candidates should be talking about this:
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1184672922742460416
3 Likes
Now that’s a winner.
Liz: Joe talks about $30 trillion. Health costs in that time are projected to be $40 trillion. Joe, is $30 trillion higher or lower than $40 trillion. Which is better?
Joe: Huh? We’re not currently spending $40 trillion, we’re not spending anything.
Liz: Chooses from one of the dozen or so available dunks at this point, which confuses Joe even more.
Joe: The fact is that the fact is this, if we were spending $40 trillion on healthcare, let me tell you, Corn Pop would be kicking all of your asses. We need to get the parents playing the records for their kids, so they can hear the words. That’ll save us $40 trillion, and then we can use that for, oh I’m out of time.
2 Likes