I think TX more likely to flip than FL. I think a map like that really does look like 55-45 at the very worst. I want to believe it’s possible. I do, but I think the winner will barely be above 51 or 52 percent (and again it’s not like there won’t be a 3rd party candidate), which is nowhere near a mandate and it means the Senate might not flip.
was talking about senate seats sorry for not stating that
Let’s take the politicians’s names and the shadiness of the bait and switch out for a second; if you could get Medicare starting at 50 passed, how would that not be a great leap forward towards single payer?
I can’t read the article, because it’s behind a paywall. I would like to read it to judge it.
How WOULD it be a leap forward towards single payer? Do we only need 45 senators to vote for the single payer bill if we do this halfway thing first? No? We still need to pass the same bill in the end either way? What am I missing here
Yeah, I’m all for Medicare at 50 (I turn 50 in two years)!
2 Likes
IDK why I get to read it, I’m not a subscriber.
1 Like
The unreasonable ambition is less unreasonable than what was presumed before, single payer in the first 100 days. It makes sense to put a bunch of people on good free insurance and get everybody not eligible butthurt that they’re still paying for shit. I still don’t think it’s remotely likely for single payer to pass during the next 5 years, but her plan does not make it less likely than trying to pass it in the first 100 days.
Btw a quote from her neoliberal shill plan
Coverage under the new Medicare for All option will be immediately free for children under the age of 18 and for families making at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (about $51,000 for a family of four). For all others, the cost will be modest, and eventually, coverage under this plan will be free for everyone.
Warren was already drawing a substantial salary at the time as a tenured professor at Harvard Law. If Warren was who she claims to be, she would advanced the interests of the victimized women by representing them directly pro bono instead of the massive corporation they were up against. Period.
Since clearly the person representing Dow Chemical is not the person she claims to be today, she could have explained how and why she changed. Instead she lied and spun about what she did, because that is what someone of her character does.
Classic example of the DVaut1 Tommy Tubberville theorem.
1 Like
I’m not saying it’s a neoliberal shill plan. I’m saying there is no good reason for it. The only possible reasons for her to change her stance, especially after correctly pointing out the a buy-in public option sucks in the last debate, are not good ones.
A straight Medicare expansion is passable via budget reconciliation (50 votes). The full Bernie M4A bill almost certainly isn’t, so you either have to find 60 votes, kill the filibuster or do some parliamentary shenanigans wrt the Byrd bath (which is functionally equivalent to killing the filibuster, but which Bernie seems to prefer for… reasons)
ah, ok, that makes sense.
Flipping 4 states in 2020 is a tall order. Which ones? ME, CO, NC, AZ, 2xGA, IA?
If it is a landslide then because it’s a referendum on Trump. This does not mean all the Sanders votes will translate to votes for Democratic Senators.
She did not “represent” Dow in any sense. She provided them advice on bankruptcy. This is her take:
In the Dow case, Warren’s role was limited to a period of time in which the interests of the plaintiffs and the companies were aligned because they faced a common goal of presenting an agreement to the bankruptcy court, Orthman said.
…
“Chapter 11 offered the possibility of sharply reducing the number of lawsuits — and the number of lawyers — needed to determine if Dow Corning was responsible for any injuries,” Warren wrote. “If Dow Corning were liable, the money saved on attorneys’ fees would fund significant repayments.”
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it seems plausible. The idea that she should “represent the women pro bono” is frankly idiotic. She was an expert on bankruptcy law, not a trial lawyer. You could argue that she should not have provided assistance to Dow, but it’s not at all clear to me that that’s true (or, even if it is true, that she should have known it was true at the time).
1 Like
How does any of what you just said mean that passing the halfway bill makes it easier to pass single payer? You’re just explaining why this bill might be easier to pass than single payer would be which I’m not sure I agree with, but is at least plausible.
This is what I mean about weird politics, I can’t even tell if you legitimately don’t grasp her plan or are being obtuse. Seems like she picked a good way to confuse the issue.
If it’s a legitimate question, she’s proposing a public option as an intermediary to true M4A and calling this the “M4A option”. This being a public option, it requires paying for it unless you meet the criteria described. Her intent, if you believe her, is to transition to true M4A in year 3.
1 Like
The GOPete Douglas Plan thing is unreal racist and bad.
1 Like