2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hank Kingsley 21040]

LOL!

 

[6th Street 6493]

It's a smart move by Pete as he is trying to differentiate himself and win support from moderates. The only others being Biden and Klobuchar. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

And Pete will have to live with the consequences of making his “legit criticism” on Elizabeth Warren.   

I agree it’s healthy to challenge the other candidates to make them stronger.  I’m just disappointed Pete chose this line of attack because Warren is literally advocating to save people’s lives from the exploitative health insurance industry.  Pete doesn’t even mention that though, it’s all about the tax question.  

Good job Pete and go fuck yourself. 

it really isn't though.

it's about her constantly avoiding answering the tax question.  bold ideas are not new in politics, but they're always followed up with "how are we going to pay for it".  someone as prepared as her knew this question was coming, and she's choosing not to answer it.  anyone questioning it, isn't a "mercenary" or a "republican".

my concern is this - if liz is "with bernie" on m4a.  and bernie has already answered all the questions, and for obvious reasons, is far more battle-tested on it, then why hasn't liz just come out and answered it in similar fashion, with a similar answer?  the longer she goes without answering - even if she literally parrots bernie's answer - the longer people are going to think there's a reason behind it, and that she might pivot away from her "with bernie" positioning on it.

i like liz a lot, but it's something i've thought about.  it won't make me like her less, but it's interesting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The concern is overwhelming.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Todd Gack 432]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

it really isn't though.

it's about her constantly avoiding answering the tax question.  bold ideas are not new in politics, but they're always followed up with "how are we going to pay for it".  someone as prepared as her knew this question was coming, and she's choosing not to answer it.  anyone questioning it, isn't a "mercenary" or a "republican".

my concern is this - if liz is "with bernie" on m4a.  and bernie has already answered all the questions, and for obvious reasons, is far more battle-tested on it, then why hasn't liz just come out and answered it in similar fashion, with a similar answer?  the longer she goes without answering - even if she literally parrots bernie's answer - the longer people are going to think there's a reason behind it, and that she might pivot away from her "with bernie" positioning on it.

i like liz a lot, but it's something i've thought about.  it won't make me like her less, but it's interesting.

Couple things...

I don't think she answers primarily to avoid giving right-wing ad companies the 0.5-sec clipped video of her saying "yes..." while cutting out the rest of the answer: "...damn near everyone's taxes will increase, BUT, you'll no longer pay for insurance through your employer and 90+% of all Americans will actually save money annually on health care."

Secondly, I think she knows that all mainstream media outlets know exactly this, but they're being directed by the healthcare executives (via advertising dollars) to ask these questions framed in a certain way. That being, to make her simply say the word "yes" on video.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The replies are pretty awesome 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Very rich of Buttigieg to say Warren is being evasive on the details of his plan when his own plan has almost zero details at all. (Which is how Pete operates, almost completely free of content but offering a rhetorical strategy that massages the brains of NPR listeners.)

- No estimates of cost.
- No proposals to pay for the costs.

Not only that, but he actively wants to kill private insurers via the "glide path to Medicare for All".

Meanwhile, in his system, people can still lose their doctors and still lose plans they like.

It's complete bullshit.

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

my concern is this - if liz is "with bernie" on m4a.  and bernie has already answered all the questions, and for obvious reasons, is far more battle-tested on it, then why hasn't liz just come out and answered it in similar fashion, with a similar answer?  the longer she goes without answering - even if she literally parrots bernie's answer - the longer people are going to think there's a reason behind it, and that she might pivot away from her "with bernie" positioning on it.

Are you at all concerned about how Pete is actively lying about trusting Americans to make the best choices when his plan dramatically restricts choices by imposing even MORE government regulations on what plans can be offered? Did you not see how the moderate Democrats' "if you like your doctor, you can keep it!" lie was used to destroy Democrats in races nationwide and statewide?

Perhaps this is more suitable for the Pete thread, but both he AND Warren are being evasive, but at least Warren's plan is good.

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

Couple things...

I don't think she answers primarily to avoid giving right-wing ad companies the 0.5-sec clipped video of her saying "yes..." while cutting out the rest of the answer: "...damn near everyone's taxes will increase, BUT, you'll no longer pay for insurance through your employer and 90+% of all Americans will actually save money annually on health care."

Secondly, I think she knows that all mainstream media outlets know exactly this, but they're being directed by the healthcare executives (via advertising dollars) to ask these questions framed in a certain way. That being, to make her simply say the word "yes" on video.

i don't think the msm outlets are that calculated and organized/strategized.  i think they're all trying to get a good soundbyte that'll be replayed on twitter.

to be clear, i hope what you're saying is the reason she's answering the way she is.  i hope that it's not about her avoiding commitment.  either way, she's gonna continue to get asked that question, and i'd like to see her find a better way to answer it.

there's a difference between concern trolling, and actual concern.

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are you at all concerned about how Pete is actively lying about trusting Americans to make the best choices when his plan dramatically restricts choices by imposing even MORE government regulations on what plans can be offered? Did you not see how the moderate Democrats' "if you like your doctor, you can keep it!" lie was used to destroy Democrats in races nationwide and statewide?

Perhaps this is more suitable for the Pete thread, but both he AND Warren are being evasive, but at least Warren's plan is good. has a chance to be the next president.

i'm not concerned at all with what pete is saying about his plan or anyone else's.  forget pete said it, and just roll back to 48 hours ago when colbert said it.  does that make any difference?  don't make it about pete, and reevaluate your response.

i bolded the only part that should concern anyone.

[bad_teammate 13224]

I think Warren being cowardly about paying for M4A is a huge mistake and I think the fact that she couldn't even deal with Colbert asking, who was honestly a friendly audience and even tried to coach her through the answer, is a huge red flag about her ability to actually sell these things to a wider audience. I want to see her improve. I want her to speak boldly and confidently on it.

Regarding Pete's plan having a chance, that is based on nothing. You are basing that on fucking zero. Pete's only victory has been to become mayor in a city that hasn't had a Republican mayor in 40+ years. He hasn't accomplished shit. He was fucking wrecked in his one shot at statewide office. He has no connections. He has no grassroots movement. He has no relationships. He has no history. He's a media product for professional class whites.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

One of my favorite betting lines:

[Hank Kingsley 21040]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He was fucking wrecked in his one shot at statewide office. He has no connections. He has no grassroots movement. He has no relationships. He has no history. He's a media product for professional class whites.

- Pete ran for State Treasurer in Indiana when Ds got murdered in 2010. And he was *checks notes*...27 years old at the time. What a loser!

- He outraised every candidate in Q2. No PACs, no lobbyists, no fossil fuel executives. A mayor from South Bend that had a donor list of 20k people when he formed his exploratory committee. 

- 400k donors through Q2 for a mayor of a city around 100k.

- Consistently top 4-5 in polls over the last 4-5 months over Senators, Governors, Congresspeople. 

 

Dude has NO clue what he's doing. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

More to support the completely-obvious conclusion that the WFP leadership vote overruled the rank-and-file vote.

Bernie team responds to allegations of harassment:

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

- Pete ran for State Treasurer in Indiana when Ds got murdered in 2010. And he was *checks notes*...27 years old at the time. What a loser!

- He outraised every candidate in Q2. No PACs, no lobbyists, no fossil fuel executives. A mayor from South Bend that had a donor list of 20k people when he formed his exploratory committee. 

- 400k donors through Q2 for a mayor of a city around 100k.

- Consistently top 4-5 in polls over the last 4-5 months over Senators, Governors, Congresspeople. 

Dude has NO clue what he's doing. 

Which part of that indicates anything about an ability to get legislation passed against the pressure of the entire healthcare industry?

I didn't say he was a loser for losing that race, but this bullshit about "Oh he's got a realistic and pragmatic view of how to actually get things done" is horseshit. He hasn't accomplished anything and has no credibility to make that kind of claim. He is a master at talking a game that shitlibs love to listen to, and that's the beginning and end of him.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The real issue is that many Americans do not trust the government to keep its promises.   If people truly believe that the total costs under M4A will be less than they are now, they'd go for it, even with a tax increase.   But the concern that many people have is that if we go all in on M4A, what if they get some huge tax increase and their overall costs actually go up, and there are no private insurer competitors to switch to, and all they get from the government is "sorry, we didn't think it would cost this much, but this is how things are now."  You can explain the data and numbers all you want, but unless they trust you, it won't sell. 

There are two ways to deal with this.   The first is convincing people to just trust you.  This is what Bernie and Warren are attempting to do.   The second is to push a plan that the data says is shittier and more expensive, but which leaves outs to make people comfortable that they won't be stuck in a situation they hate.   This is what Pete and a few others are doing. 

I honestly don't know the best option.  But since this isn't a health care referendum, I don't think it matters all that much right now, for reasons I've explained before.   Plenty of people who are scared of M4A will vote for Warren because they know that there will be a lot of negotiation ahead. 

[AngryDragon 270]

22 hours ago, Pancho said:

The only people “seriously considering” Andrew Yang are...

 

(checks notes)

 

Andrew Yang. 

 

 

I'm voting Yang until he's off the ballot. Then its Warren. Everyone else is just a vote against Trump.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

More to support the completely-obvious conclusion that the WFP leadership vote overruled the rank-and-file vote.

It’s a conspiracy!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie team responds to allegations of harassment:

Well that’s a first and a positive development.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

More to support the completely-obvious conclusion that the WFP leadership vote overruled the rank-and-file vote.

Bernie team responds to allegations of harassment:

 

This is just Bernie’s code for “keep up the harassment my bros, we’ll shut these bitches up.” I hear you loud and clear boss. I’m headed go down to planned parenthood to yell whore at every woman I see.. 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

 

🤔🤔🤔

[henrygandorf 29194]

50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I think Warren being cowardly about paying for M4A is a huge mistake and I think the fact that she couldn't even deal with Colbert asking, who was honestly a friendly audience and even tried to coach her through the answer, is a huge red flag about her ability to actually sell these things to a wider audience. I want to see her improve. I want her to speak boldly and confidently on it.

well said, and agreed.

i guess you have to be a pete supporter to have hugo actually respond.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Today we discovered Elizabeth Warren is not perfect and Pete Buttigieg would be an excellent replacement for Chuck Todd.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dbeasy 15085]

Pete has never had a shot at the White House but did have an outside shot at VP. He’s blown that with Warren.

[Hank Kingsley 21040]

So dramatic!

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Sherrod Brown would be a fantastic veep for Warren, if only we could afford to lose his seat. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Today we discovered Elizabeth Warren is not perfect and Pete Buttigieg would be an excellent replacement for Chuck Todd.

and the latest graduate from the elizabeth warren school of properly handling things and not avoiding them at all, it's hugo!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Pete flailing has been entertaining and also disappointing, going after Beto, now Warren.  Kamala took a dig at Warren today too.  It’s been fun. 

 

Meanwhile, at the Tulsi campaign:

Edited September 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

This is the primary process, Hugo.  The candidates have different beliefs and are trying to make their case.  Don't take it so personally.  I guarantee you Liz isn't. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I once really liked Pete though!  

[6th Street 6493]

24 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Sherrod Brown would be a fantastic veep for Warren, if only we could afford to lose his seat. 

He certainly did a fine job as backup QB at Texas.

[Bama Chick 28596]

This is the primary process, Hugo.  The candidates have different beliefs and are trying to make their case.  Don't take it so personally.  I guarantee you Liz isn't. 

Personally, I don’t mind the candidates making the case for their beliefs or pointing out differences but I don’t like it when they take personal jabs.

Pete insinuating Warren is being dishonest.

Castro telling Beto to “do your homework”.

Castro jabbing at Biden’s age.

Really, there hasn’t been much of that kind of stuff from most of the Democratic candidates, which is good. I’ve been pleasantly surprised.

But as some of them start feeling pressure to “have a moment” I fear that kind of stuff is going to ramp up.

And not for nothing, that pressure is all artificial and media and Twitter pundit driven.

It’s fucking September FFS.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

The real issue is that many Americans do not trust the government to keep its promises.   If people truly believe that the total costs under M4A will be less than they are now, they'd go for it, even with a tax increase.   But the concern that many people have is that if we go all in on M4A, what if they get some huge tax increase and their overall costs actually go up, and there are no private insurer competitors to switch to, and all they get from the government is "sorry, we didn't think it would cost this much, but this is how things are now."  You can explain the data and numbers all you want, but unless they trust you, it won't sell. 

There are two ways to deal with this.   The first is convincing people to just trust you.  This is what Bernie and Warren are attempting to do.   The second is to push a plan that the data says is shittier and more expensive, but which leaves outs to make people comfortable that they won't be stuck in a situation they hate.   This is what Pete and a few others are doing. 

I honestly don't know the best option.  But since this isn't a health care referendum, I don't think it matters all that much right now, for reasons I've explained before.   Plenty of people who are scared of M4A will vote for Warren because they know that there will be a lot of negotiation ahead. 

This exactly.

To this day I have never seen a valid explanation of why there's a problem with installing a public option and letting it compete. If it's better, it will push private options out. Why is that such a nefarious proposition to those who want full M4A? If you're so confident in your plan, then why not see what happens with it for a few years, and if it's that much better, you'll never have this argument again. You'll have won. The only response I've seen to this is calling people Republicans.

I'm a big fan of science. This is a very clear opportunity to use the scientific method. Define your hypothesis (government can run healthcare better than the market), test it (let it run in parallel to what we have now), and see what happens. If your hypothesis is correct, the results will show it.

The aversion to science and the scientific method by some "Democrats" is approaching Trump levels. It's really disheartening to see that the willful ignorance isn't limited to our opponents. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

To this day I have never seen a valid explanation of why there's a problem with installing a public option and letting it compete.

The insurance industry forces are almost as opposed to a public option as they are M4A. That’s why it’s never succeeded.  These people are not going to give up their profits they generate from denying people healthcare coverage.  Even with a public option, they’re not going to compete as much as they’re going to try to overprice and constrict the public option through regulations and “exchanges”.

[bad_teammate 13224]

14 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Why is that such a nefarious proposition to those who want full M4A?

It's not. If a 2020 Dem candidate wants to offer a worse plan and argue for it that's great!

The issue is Pete punching left and attacking the more progressive position using Republican talking points. The issue is Pete calling Warren/Sanders "divisive" and "polarizing" and saying completely and inanely stupid shit like, "Warren/Sanders don't trust the American people".

Is it "nefarious"? Don't know. I don't think Pete is dangerous or powerful enough to qualify for that word. "Pathetic toadying for the corporate elite by a pathetic little toad" is more accurate.

[BradInATX 9208]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not. If a 2020 Dem candidate wants to offer a worse plan and argue for it that's great!

The issue is Pete punching left and attacking the more progressive position using Republican talking points. The issue is Pete calling Warren/Sanders "divisive" and "polarizing" and saying completely and inanely stupid shit like, "Warren/Sanders don't trust the American people".

Is it "nefarious"? Don't know. I don't think Pete is dangerous or powerful enough to qualify for that word. "Pathetic toadying for the corporate elite by a pathetic little toad" is more accurate.

That's the problem with both you in general and something like M4A. Both things have decided for other people what's best for them, despite that not being the case all of the time. I laid out very clearly for you why my private healthcare plan is clearly better for my family than would be the M4A option. There are plenty of others out there like me. You're unwilling to even consider that your plan is not right for every single person. 

So you're both unwilling to consider other "inferior" viewpoints, but you're unwilling to prove out to anyone else that your viewpoint is superior. You're oh-so confident in your plan until you're asked to prove it out and let it compete.

 

It'd be like someone coming up to you while you're drinking a beer you like, and demanding that you trade your beer for their awesome Canadian beer, but refusing to let you try the Canadian beer before you trade. You just have to take their word for it that their beer is better. That guy would be an asshole.

Edited September 20, 2019 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The insurance industry forces are almost as opposed to a public option as they are M4A. That’s why it’s never succeeded.  These people are not going to give up their profits they generate from denying people healthcare coverage.  Even with a public option, they’re not going to compete as much as they’re going to try to overprice and constrict the public option through regulations and “exchanges”.

Hugo, you're just saying words. How would they constrict the public option? Why would an exchange hurt the public option? All an exchange is, is an area where a consumer can look at multiple plans and decide what's best for them. You're not in favor of that? That post reads like you cut and paste from 4 different articles but actually have no idea what we're talking about.  Do you even know what an Exchange is? The biggest one is run by the government. You're a mess.

Edited September 20, 2019 by BradInATX

[Patrick Bateman 3924]

Huh. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Hugo, you're just saying words. How would they constrict the public option? Why would an exchange hurt the public option? All an exchange is, is an area where a consumer can look at multiple plans and decide what's best for them. You're not in favor of that? That post reads like you cut and paste from 4 different articles but actually have no idea what we're talking about.  Do you even know what an Exchange is? The biggest one is run by the government. You're a mess.

I forgot not to engage with you. That’s on me.

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Both things have decided for other people what's best for them, despite that not being the case all of the time.

What healthcare proposals do not do this?

Pete's plan will create huge shockwaves in the industry that will disrupt everything and change the plans of millions and millions of people. People will lose their insurance plans that they currently have. People will lose access to their doctors as companies change and adjust.

Which plan guarantees 100% consistency and guarantees that everyone can keep their plans? I eagerly await your answer.

Quote

I laid out very clearly for you why my private healthcare plan is clearly better for my family than what would be the M4A option. There are plenty of others out there like me. You're unwilling to even consider that your plan is not right for every single person. 

You're going to have to offer some kind of specific issue with how M4A would impact you before I could even begin to address it. 

I am sure that Medicare under M4A will be "worse" than many Cadillac plans given to a tiny handful of workers in the professional classes. I'm sure that's true. As long as it's a better system for the vast majority of Americans, that's fine.

Quote

So you're both unwilling to consider other "inferior" viewpoints, but you're unwilling to prove out to anyone else that your viewpoint is superior. You're oh-so confident in your plan until you're asked to prove it out and let it compete.

A right-wing think tank said that M4A would be cheaper than our current system while covering 100% of Americans and capping their out-of-pocket expenses at $200/year/person.

That sounds really good to me.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I forgot not to engage with you. That’s on me.

You don't know what a healthcare exchange is, do you? LOL.

[bad_teammate 13224]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Hugo, you're just saying words. How would they constrict the public option? Why would an exchange hurt the public option? All an exchange is, is an area where a consumer can look at multiple plans and decide what's best for them. You're not in favor of that? That post reads like you cut and paste from 4 different articles but actually have no idea what we're talking about. 

The problem with starting at "public option" as your opening negotiation point is that... you'll fucking lose it. You don't go into a negotiation pre-compromised. That isn't just common sense from a negotiation standpoint, but it stakes out your future movement towards single-payer. You allow yourself to be negotiated down to a public option with the subtext of "I just compromised on this so don't fuck with me, because if you screw around I'm going to blow this up and push for the whole thing," which strengthens your positions against Future Fuckery in the legislative and regulatory process.

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am sure that Medicare under M4A will be "worse" than many Cadillac plans given to a tiny handful of workers in the professional classes. I'm sure that's true. As long as it's a better system for the vast majority of Americans, that's fine.

Then why not leave those people be? It's not a tiny amount of people. It's union workers, teachers, nurses (plus techs and millions of other healthcare staff), professionals, etc. That's millions and millions of people that you've decided should abandon their plan that they might like better than yours, and be forced onto yours.

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

The problem with starting at "public option" as your opening negotiation point is that... you'll fucking lose it. You don't go into a negotiation pre-compromised. That isn't just common sense from a negotiation standpoint, but it stakes out your future movement towards single-payer. You allow yourself to be negotiated down to a public option with the subtext of "I just compromised on this so don't fuck with me, because if you screw around I'm going to blow this up and push for the whole thing," which strengthens your positions against Future Fuckery in the legislative and regulatory process.

I actually agree somewhat with you here. I'd rather see Dems say what they mean and then just refuse to compromise (like the other side has). But that's neither here nor there really, because they won't.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Then why not leave those people be?

Is Bernie going to rape them or something?

The plan that you currently enjoy doesn't just sit by itself on an island. It is dependent on a massive web of interconnected wage issues, regulatory decisions, and myriad other things. ANY proposal that fucks around with the fundamentals of the industry is going to have a HUGE impact on what is offered in the market.

There is no way to do this cleanly. Again, please tell me which plan guarantees complete consistency over a period of years. Name it. Show it to me.

Quote

It's not a tiny amount of people. It's union workers, teachers, nurses (plus techs and millions of other healthcare staff), professionals, etc. That's millions and millions of people that you've decided should abandon their plan that they might like better than yours, and be forced onto yours.

Yes. Just like every other healthcare proposal that will absolutely cause alterations and changes in the plans of Americans across the country. That's how this work. There is literally no way to change the industry's cost or delivery structure without impacting existing plans.

Every single change you could ever propose fucks with peoples' plans.

I'm not dishonest about it. Are you?

Tell me what you think we should do to address health insurance costs that would leave every single current existing option completely untouched. I'm eager to hear it.

[BradInATX 9208]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is Bernie going to rape them or something?

The plan that you currently enjoy doesn't just sit by itself on an island. It is dependent on a massive web of interconnected wage issues, regulatory decisions, and myriad other things. ANY proposal that fucks around with the fundamentals of the industry is going to have a HUGE impact on what is offered in the market.

There is no way to do this cleanly. Again, please tell me which plan guarantees complete consistency over a period of years. Name it. Show it to me.

Yes. Just like every other healthcare proposal that will absolutely cause alterations and changes in the plans of Americans across the country. That's how this work. There is literally no way to change the industry's cost or delivery structure without impacting existing plans.

Every single change you could ever propose fucks with peoples' plans.

I'm not dishonest about it. Are you?

Tell me what you think we should do to address health insurance costs that would leave every single current existing option completely untouched. I'm eager to hear it.

Where did I say that a public option (or any other plan) wouldn't dramatically alter the landscape of healthcare? You're trying to have an argument that we aren't having.

I think the insurance that millions currently enjoy is more likely to survive under a public option than full M4A. Because any probability is greater than zero probability. 

I also know with no uncertainty that a public option will force companies (some, not all) to still compete in the labor market by offering better benefits than their competitors and the government. Whereas removing the employer from the equation fully removes all responsibility for healthcare from employers. I guess I just don't trust corporations to bump everyone's pay out of the kindness of their heart (once the taxpayers bear the burden of healthcare) as much as you do.

Edited September 20, 2019 by BradInATX

[bolverk 29717]

I know I'm a little late on Warren being evasive about the raising taxes question, but if I were her, this is how I'd answer it.

That's a great question, and I'm glad you asked it. Right now, the typical American worker is spending $400 a week on healthcare but from two different pockets.

Your left one is labeled "taxes" and your right one is "premiums." Right now, you're taking $50 from your left and $350 from your right. What we're proposing is to shift $150 from your right to your left for a total of $200 per week in healthcare expenses.

Now, you're left with $200 in your right pocket to spend -- or save -- however you see fit. It's your choice, but you should recognize that you're now spending *half* on healthcare than you used to, and the rest can go to your "beer money" fund.

(Disclaimer: I'm making up those figures for illustrative purposes to show how she can answer and not sound like she's giving up a soundbyte that could be abused in the media.)

Edited September 20, 2019 by bolverk
formatting

[bad_teammate 13224]

For months now, the narrative has been...

- Warren is surging
- Biden is collapsing
- Bernie is dead in the water

but...

lol ain't shit happenin'

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Where did I say that a public option (or any other plan) wouldn't dramatically alter the landscape of healthcare?

So you're as outraged against Pete's plan as Bernie's? Hmm, could've fooled me!

Quote

I think the insurance that millions currently enjoy is more likely to survive under a public option than full M4A. Because any probability is greater than zero probability. 

In what specific ways do you imagine the public plan would be worse than private plans?

You're extremely vague on this topic.

Quote

I also know with no uncertainty that a public option will force companies (some, not all) to still compete in the labor market by offering better benefits than their competitors and the government. Whereas removing the employer from the equation fully removes all responsibility for healthcare from employers.

So you don't advocate separating health insurance from employers? You think those two things should stay tied together?

Quote

I guess I just don't trust corporations to bump everyone's pay out of the kindness of their heart (once the taxpayers bear the burden of healthcare) as much as you do. 

What corporations do with the savings has zero bearing on the actual purpose of M4A, which is to cover 100% of people for a much lower cost than we currently pay overall.

If you want to talk about the corporate savings and where they go, that's fine, but it's not even in the Top 10 of most important points for healthcare reform. It's a bizarre thing to fixate on.

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

For months now, the narrative has been...

- Warren is surging
- Biden is collapsing
- Bernie is dead in the water

but...

lol ain't shit happenin'

So you're as outraged against Pete's plan as Bernie's? Hmm, could've fooled me!

In what specific ways do you imagine the public plan would be worse than private plans?

You're extremely vague on this topic.

So you don't advocate separating health insurance from employers? You think those two things should stay tied together?

What corporations do with the savings has zero bearing on the actual purpose of M4A, which is to cover 100% of people for a much lower cost than we currently pay overall.

If you want to talk about the corporate savings and where they go, that's fine, but it's not even in the Top 10 of most important points for healthcare reform. It's a bizarre thing to fixate on.

I'm not vague at all. It's purely about cost. And if you don't think cost is in the top 10 most important things for healthcare reform, well, yeah.

I already gave you my own situation as an example. Our out-of-pocket max plus our premiums are less than the $10k/year number Bernie gave as the taxes everyone would pay to support M4A. I can go to a huge network of great doctors, I have great dental and vision, my copays and deductibles are absurdly low, etc. There is nothing significant that the plan lacks or that we are unhappy with. And we know, straight from Bernie's mouth, that the government plan would cost more. So even if we just take your/his word for it that his plan will be awesome (despite being scared to prove it out), what I have is already awesome and it will cost me less than Bernie's plan would. There are millions just like us who would have less money to support their families with if forced off of their private plan onto M4A.

I don't know how I can be any more specific.

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by BradInATX