No thanks. Based on what I heard at the primary debates, Hickenlooper sucks ass. Colorado can do better than that.
I hate to break it to everyone but Trump himself proved that a little bit of clown goes a long way in American politics in 2019. Is it dignified? No. Does that matter in what is essentially a popularity contest? Again no.
You think Hickenlooper is worse or as bad as Gardner?
Heâd be fine as a vote in the Senate that would almost always go party line (heâs not Manchin). The âdo betterâ than Hickenlooper might not win in Colorado. But thereâs still a primary for that seat, and Hickenlooper has to win it. If youâre right that thereâs a better candidate that can beat Gardner, theyâll win the primary and beat Gardner. Nothingâs anointed but the voters there sure seem to like Hickenlooper.
Absolutely not.
But he did seem extremely Manchin-ish during the debates. I donât have any confidence that he would vote for a Medicare for all bill.
1 Like
People like him are trying to make people feel safe about the status quo on certain things (heâs closer to Bennet than Delaney). Like I think he, Bullock, and others who are against it probably would come around for M4A if they were convinced that it would work. Essentially the issue with M4A for these guys seems to be that they think itâs impossible to happen going from what we have now to that in one step. What they fail to comprehend is that it would be incremental getting there, and wouldnât happen overnight.
One of the compromises (between Dems, eff the GOP on this) I wouldnât be surprised to see happen is that M4A becomes one of the health plans youâre allowed to choose from at work (among, PPO, HMO, etc.). When you see the costs for you out of pocket and what you get from M4A, many people will probably choose M4A over the others. That little compromise to keep with the status quo temporarily would probably keep a lot of the fear mongers happy. Then it could go to something like if you stay with M4A for a period of time, youâre taken out of the employee health plan pool and into the government one (2 years, 3 years?). That way if youâre unhappy with M4A you can go back to other employer based health plans. I find it hard to believe this sort of thinking isnât already going on in relation to a transition.
M4A is essentially code for âThe New Dealâ. Itâs a big thing that will happen over time, and if itâs rolled out even remotely correctly when that happens many people will want it. What employer wouldnât want to have their health care pool costs way lower by being part of a 340 million person single payer plan? One of the hardest things about retaining employees is that health insurance costs go up, and the quality of plans go down. Sometimes that happens drastically, and leads to a lot of turnover. Not having that to worry about is something I think employers would be pretty happy about.
Even if an M4A plan could get passed under a Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem pres I think it would still take a minimum of 4 years to implement in any major way (meaning it could be unraveled in a 2024 referendum on it before itâs even gotten started). In other words, I wouldnât trust Delaney to be okay on this, but Iâm less concerned about centrists in the Senate (most Dems in the Senate are centrists as you know) because of how long it will take to implement any real change.
This cannot be our criteria. How many times are we going to elect people who are essentially republicans and pat ourselves on the back about it because theyâre better than the person on the GOP ticket?
-
If one insurance company wants to increase your rates / cut benefits today, you, as an employer can shop around to other insurance companies. If prices truly go crazy, you can probably stop offering insurance and maybe give your employees a raise to help them buy a private plan? In a world of single payer, when the government decides to raise payroll taxes in order to pay for M4A, whatâs your out?
-
In a world where insurance isnât tied to employment, youâll get higher turnover because employees arenât afraid of losing their health insurance if they change jobs, take early retirement, or want to start their own business. Now, from the perspective of the employee and probably the overall economy, Iâd argue that this is a + for M4A, but if I were an employer, I think I might like the power the current system gives me (especially for big companies where the administrative burden of overseeing the benefits package is small relative to the size of the company).
In certain states it has to be our criteria (we have to get out BAD Dems like McCaskill and Donnelly, and these guys like Hickenlooper and Bullock are just vanilla moderate Dems not GOP lite like Manchin). Iâm all for finding great candidates for Senate, but they have to be able to win. The Senate is not fundamentally to the left inside the Democratic Party no matter how much you hope it is.
We know Gardner will vote against the party nearly 100 percent of the time. Hickenlooper will probably vote with the party close to 100 percent of the time. His ideology is less important than how he will vote. If youâre having Hickenlooper in with 50 or 51 Senate seats, Iâd vastly prefer that to Gardner in with 49 Senate seats.
These guys arenât blue dogs, theyâre just moderates. The only thing theyâre seriously fighting on is M4A, and the reason theyâre doing that is because they donât think it will pass. Thatâs it, in my opinion. If you give them compelling reasons for it to go through, I think theyâll get on board.
All of the ones big enough to have to pay for it. Medicare for All, if implemented properly, is very good for small businesses, and very bad for big corporations.
From a policy perspective, the first half of your sentence is unacceptable because the second half is accurate and is what would happen.
My guess is that President Warren or President Sanders would make a quite, ahem, compelling case. President Booker or President Harris, probably not so much.
Compelling as in, âSo help me God, I donât care if we lose the Senate⌠If you donât vote for this I will do everything in my power to make sure you are a one-term Senators.â
- Iâm a self-employed business owner on my wifeâs insurance, so Iâm a bit out of the game on how things work. However, previous to my business, I worked at a company for a little over 8 years. In that time, we probably had 5 different insurance plans, as they were constantly shopping to get it cheaper (meaning that costs would only double about every year prior to ACA).
About 2 years before I was gone from there, they quintupled the cost of HMO plans for families, which a lot of non-talent positions were using (this would be a sizable chunk of mostâs paychecks). Practically half the company threatened to quit, though maybe only a dozen of the 200 or so people there actually did. So, the shopping didnât do the company any good, and Iâm sure theyâd like to stop shopping. As an additional aside, when I started there my insurance was free, and my wife was on mine for a small amount. By the end I was paying about 5.2k per year out of my paycheck.
- This piggybacks on the end of 1. Iâm not going to cry any tears for companies not being able to retain employees due to M4A (in my profession at a company if I billed 3 days per week, I could work forever, but if I dropped to 2 for even 2 months I was on the block after billing several years straight way more than 40 hours per week). I work in a business that treats employees like chattle, so it would be about time that we get to treat employers like chattle. If they want to be competitive and retain people, they need to pay people. EZ PZ.
I still think these are the sorts of things people have been thinking about, and would be surprised if any of the ideas I had are even remotely original.
The paragraph break in 1 wasnât supposed to be outside of that. No idea why it formatted it this way or how to fix it.
For real fuck the big companies who are using health insurance to retain employees. Thereâs a revolution brewing down in the bowels of capitalism⌠and that revolution is about size. Small firms vs big firms is going to be a big story line in business over the next 50 years.
I am a tiny one man freight brokerage office⌠and there is no one in the entire full truckload world who has a better cost basis than me without cutting really ugly corners (which I could also cut if that became the meta) or owning a truck in the right place at the right time (which is the whole problem my business exists to solve).
There is nothing that big firms can do that small firms canât do better in cooperation with a network of other small firms. The great unwinding is coming sooner or later. M4A is going to be a big step in that direction, and I honestly cannot wait.
Just to clarify, Iâm not shedding any tears for employers either. Nunnehi originally asked why employers wouldnât want M4A. I was trying to explain why. It also doesnât mean that we need to listen to them if they oppose M4A, but shouldnât be surprised if they do.
Absolutely. But I donât think those are the only two options.
All of the ones big enough to have to pay for it. Medicare for All, if implemented properly, is very good for small businesses, and very bad for big corporations.
Iâm not sure I agree about the small business thing (at least from a self-employed perspective), but that doesnât change the fact Iâm for it. As I said above, Iâm on my wifeâs insurance, but if M4A goes through, I will very likely not be able to be on my wifeâs plan anymore (I have to pay 100 percent of my S.S. and Medicare as SE with some amount of SE tax deduction). That would likely be a massive increase in my personal overhead.
How would M4A deal with spouses who donât work and children? Will the employer be responsible for half on those, or will the cost totally be on the worker and the family? Either way, M4A all the way for me.
[quote]From a policy perspective, the first half of your sentence is unacceptable because the second half is accurate and is what would happen.
[/quote]
There are things from the ACA that still havenât been implemented. Maybe theyâll be able to get beta plans in within 2 years so people can see how itâs working, but no matter what itâs going to be a referendum on tearing down whatever it is in 2024. But like the ACA, that referendum should fail unless quality of life diminishes for a lot of people (meaning the costs of the plan individually are extreme in comparison to previous paycheck deductions).
Iâm not in disagreement here, I just think there are more compelling reasons than threatening ones. If they can show these people how it would work and not be damaging, I think theyâll get on board. Itâs probably optimistic, but I donât think weâre going to see a Lieberman wing this time around.
Some weird post formatting stuff going on today. Sorry. I have quote around your quote, but itâs not clear.
Obama was initially skeptical of Biden running for president, report says
Barack Obama reportedly expressed concerns to Joe Biden earlier this year about the former vice presidentâs plans to launch a White House bid.
The New York Times reports:
The two men spoke at least a half dozen times before Mr. Biden decided to run, and Mr. Obama took pains to cast his doubts about the campaign in personal terms.
âYou donât have to do this, Joe, you really donât,â Mr. Obama told Mr. Biden earlier this year, according to a person familiar with the exchange.
Mr. Biden â who thinks he could have defeated Donald Trump four years ago â responded by telling Mr. Obama he could never forgive himself if he turned down a second shot at Mr. Trump.
But Obama has since warmed up to Bidenâs presidential campaignâ â even going so far as to request a briefing from the candidateâs team before he officially launched his bid.
Thatâs good news.
Old man needs a nap.
More like Sleepy Joe needs a nap.