Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[bad_teammate 13125]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

So did you think Bernie had a good night last night?

I think he had a "meh" night, because it was a circus and he's terrible in these kinds of venues because he's not a dynamic personality. These types of venues favor people acting out and Bernie doesn't act out.

He's a comfortable 2nd, so sitting back while 1st place gets his ass kicked is fine. If I'm 2nd place in a race and the 4th place runner wants to throw shit at 1st place, I'm not about to get involved for no reason.

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

but i think now that others have adopted [versions of] his plans, i think people are preferring other messengers carrying his same message.

Based on what? Polls? This forum?

Quote

claiming ageism after last night is not a great look.

To whom is it not a great look?

Bernie's old as shit, but "I'm young" isn't an argument. You can be young and a useless moron with terrible ideas. If Bernie's too old, that's fine, but there should be some reason that can be articulated outside of some dipshit catchphrase like "pass the torch!" or "in 2054, when I will be the same age as the current president".

How is Bernie's age manifesting in a problematic way?

Don't concern troll this "well others might think" bullshit. Make an argument.

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 minute ago, Dropout said:

I wouldn’t characterize you as an average voter so I’ll ask directly. Why would you trust other messengers henry? I know you don’t dislike Bernie but have gathered he’s not your first choice.

you're correct that i don't dislike bernie and that he's not my first choice.

i can't speak for others (i was just using a handy churchill quote), but obviously it depends on the messenger.  clearly bernie has rubbed off on warren, and i think her personality may better suit her for the job.  i've been advocating for a warren-pete ticket for a couple months now for a variety of reasons.

i also do worry about bernie and his absolutes.  i know he wants a revolution, but those are messy and rarely successful.  in the current political landscape, i worry that by avoiding compromise, it's more likely that nothing would get done - instead of incremental changes, which might be more realistic.  i think bernie's brand is the "stubborn old man who sticks to his guns" and i think others (like warren) may seem like more flexible options that have a real chance of changing things if elected.

keep in mind, that your question is presuming that i (or other voters) are completely on board with bernie's message.  i agree with a lot of what he stands for, but i don't support every measure he's proposing.  if warren passes bernie, there will be a ton of folks who go bernie -> warren.  those are the people better suited to answer your question.

[Fozzz 152]

21 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the characterization that "bernie should get the credit for progressive ideas and pulling the party where it needed to go" is fair and accurate.  but i think now that others have adopted [versions of] his plans, i think people are preferring other messengers carrying his same message.

claiming ageism after last night is not a great look.  unfortunately, and for obvious reasons, he's being lumped in with biden, who couldn't even finish off his heated grandstanding without saying he ran out of time and apologizing.  (may have been joe's only apology ever).

It's not about Bernie deserving credit.  It's a recognition that almost all pols are liars who will say anything to get elected and that they are under immense, withering pressure once elected to not follow through on fighting for the types of policies Bernie supports.  That's why consistency and credibility are so important.  

[bad_teammate 13125]

pAsS tHe ToRcH tO tHe FrEsH yOuNg MeSsEnGeRs

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Based on what? Polls? This forum?

if your contention is correct (and i think it is) that many in the party are gravitating towards bernie's way of thinking, then it would stand to reason that his numbers would be blowing up.  they're not.  this makes me think that people are more comfortable with the message than the messenger.

(forgive me for the trump analogy) but right now a large majority of americans are happy with the economy, but only about half of those people are happy with trump.  this means there's other factors at play, and with trump, those factors are obvious.  if a large majority of people are buying what bernie is selling, but aren't buying bernie as a candidate, that tells me they're sold on one, but not the other.  i'm not looking into it any more than that, which is why i started my sentence with "i think".  i sell my opinions here as opinions.

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

To whom is it not a great look?

Bernie's old as shit, but "I'm young" isn't an argument. You can be young and a useless moron with terrible ideas. If Bernie's too old, that's fine, but there should be some reason that can be articulated outside of some dipshit catchphrase like "pass the torch!" or "in 2054, when I will be the same age as the current president".

How is Bernie's age manifesting in a problematic way?

Don't concern troll this "well others might think" bullshit. Make an argument.

in general it's not a great look to make excuses after the debate, and to claim things like "ageism" because people went after him and biden.  they're both running top 3, they've got targets on their backs, they're going to take shots.  claiming ageism just doesn't seem like a very bernie thing to do.  i'm not saying he should've come out agreeing that attacks on biden are warranted because he's a doofus, but this didn't seem to me to be a well-thought-out characterization that has any upside.

i'm not sure what the rest of your blathering was about.  i don't have an issue with bernie's age, and he's 10x sharper than biden.

[Incredulity 11532]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

pAsS tHe ToRcH tO tHe FrEsH yOuNg MeSsEnGeRs

 

I SAID JOE MANTEGNA!!!

[henrygandorf 29174]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

pAsS tHe ToRcH tO tHe FrEsH yOuNg MeSsEnGeRs

 

yeah, for someone who's all about preparation, this was an odd moment for kamala, and is getting totally lost in the story of her "kicking ass".

[Ghost of LL 15348]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

pAsS tHe ToRcH tO tHe FrEsH yOuNg MeSsEnGeRs

 

I really don't understand this "abolish private insurance" drive.  If you're pushing for Medicare for all, doesn't that necessarily imply extending the current Medicare structure?  Medicare doesn't ban private insurance.  It expressly allows for supplemental insurance and Part B plans.

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

if your contention is correct (and i think it is) that many in the party are gravitating towards bernie's way of thinking, then it would stand to reason that his numbers would be blowing up.  they're not.

They aren't?

Quote

in general it's not a great look to make excuses after the debate, and to claim things like "ageism" because people went after him and biden.

Bernie isn't claiming ageism because people attacked his ideas, he's claiming ageism because Swalwell was literally just attacking his age. Which is ageist.

[bad_teammate 13125]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I really don't understand this "abolish private insurance" drive.  If you're pushing for Medicare for all, doesn't that necessarily imply extending the current Medicare structure?  Medicare doesn't ban private insurance.  It expressly allows for supplemental insurance and Part B plans.

It was shorthand for "private insurance as the basis for runaday health insurance". MSNBC and the corporate whores who wrote the questions are very stupid and make things worse and less clear with their ineptitude.

Sanders's M4A bill, which is a fully written and filed piece of legislation, allows private supplemental insurance.

[henrygandorf 29174]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

They aren't?

Bernie isn't claiming ageism because people attacked his ideas, he's claiming ageism because Swalwell was literally just attacking his age. Which is ageist.

swalwell attacked biden (for being old) because he felt like it would be a good moment for him.  i did not think it was a smart move for bernie to group himself in with biden and play the "ageism" card.  again, my opinion.  it's not like it was some devastating development in the campaign.  just typical morning-after reaction crap.

as for the blowing up/donor stuff, you're right, i'm wrong.  bernie is running away with this bish.

[bad_teammate 13125]

I was curious about this, because I didn't see it, so I decided to look it up.

My expectation was that Bernie walked into some room and started whining about ageism.

Turns out... no... he was asked directly about it, he answered briefly and went on to important issues.

 

[Fozzz 152]

yeah Bernie is notorious for his underhanded use of idpol lol

[Hank Scorpio 17712]

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

I always figured Bernie for an ass man

[bad_teammate 13125]

5 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

 

All the bros gettin' FAT FUCKIN' DOINKS boys!

goin' out to canvas for Bernie 2024 re-election DUMMY thicc

gonna know we're comin' with our ass cheeks clappin' in unison from blocks away

[henrygandorf 29174]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I was curious about this, because I didn't see it, so I decided to look it up.

My expectation was that Bernie walked into some room and started whining about ageism.

Turns out... no... he was asked directly about it, he answered briefly and went on to important issues.

so do you agree that ageism is right up there with discrimination against women, minorities, and the lgbtq?

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

so do you agree that ageism is right up there with discrimination against women, minorities, and the lgbtq?

Depends on what you mean by "right up there".

"Right up there" as in "a vital issue that has haunted our nation for centuries"? Nope.

"Right up there" as in "an issue that exists with them because they're discrimination, but not necessarily as serious"? Sure.

[Dropout 355]

59 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

keep in mind, that your question is presuming that i (or other voters) are completely on board with bernie's message.  i agree with a lot of what he stands for, but i don't support every measure he's proposing.  if warren passes bernie, there will be a ton of folks who go bernie -> warren.  those are the people better suited to answer your question.

Just for a better understanding... what policies of Bernie do you not support?

[henrygandorf 29174]

17 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Just for a better understanding... what policies of Bernie do you not support?

oh god, here we go.  i'll try to give you soft bullet points, but i will not be back here a bunch of times to go around in circles with people about it.

i think college should be cheaper, and i think states need to get more involved with public school cost.  i do not believe that free college for all + cancelling all student debt is completely realistic, but both need to be reworked, and i could get behind some solutions if i studied the tax impact a little more.  i would like to see how the "wall street" tax really works, how it affects people's 401k's and smaller investments.  i know it's kinda being sold as the tax on the rich wall street types, but i haven't done research on it.  to me, cancelling student debt is preferable, because i think that's money that can be used to stimulate the economy (rather than paying down loan debt, especially loan debt that cannot effectively be refi'd).  i would like to see either student debt interest or college tuition have some sort of positive tax-deductible solution.  and i don't think it should be universal, it should be based on income.  

i know bernie has been a proponent of revolutionizing our public school (pre-college) system, investing in teachers, etc - and this is something i've very much into.

i don't believe in completely phasing out private insurance.  i think incremental moves like pete's "medicare for all who want it" is a good start.  i know there's the back and forth of what the competition between govt operated/private insurance/current employer-offered insurance looks like, and i would need to be convinced that it doesn't work and costs regular people too much.  everyone needs access to healthcare, but we should be able to do that without forcing everyone to the same plan.  if govt insurance eventually eliminates private insurance organically through competition, then so be it.  first class arrives the same time as coach, so we'll see.

i've already gone 12 rounds with b_t over inmates voting.  i don't believe voting is a "basic human right" on the same level as access to healthcare.  i don't believe people in prison should be allowed to vote.  i do think once released there should be a fairly straightforward (and totally free) process that allows them to re-enter the voting world, if they should so choose.  i do understand that bullshit historical racist statutes in place have affected the demographics of the prison population, so it could be argued that not letting prisoners vote is some sort of racist voter suppression.  i'm not even gonna get into that conversation.

as far as i know, i'm pretty well aligned with bernie on immigration, gun control (although i have my own radical approach to that, so maybe not), discrimination law/equality, and climate change (although i don't really know his specifics on it - i think i agree with most on the left though, it's an urgent crisis).

i'm sure there's more, i'm just trying to think of the big ones and i'm not willing to put time in (right this second) to go through his policy pages.  just killing time before my noon conf call.  i know he initially avoided the "will middle class pay more tax" question last night, for obvious reasons.  i would like to see how everything shakes out with a case-study on lower middle-class/upper middle-class as it relates to current expenses for things like healthcare/college in the current system and tax plan, and what it would look like in a bernie plan.  it's really difficult in 60 seconds on a debate stage to convey that, but i'm curious enough to look at some charts and graphs.

like i said, i like the way bernie has pulled the party.  it's opened my eyes (and others) to a lot of things that weren't even issues 10 years ago.  i think the realistic compromise is somewhere in the middle, so we'll see.  and when i say compromise, i don't mean "work with republicans".  i mean, you want to sell it for $20, i want to pay $10, so let's call it $15 and go about our business.

and it's noon.  perfect timing.

[bad_teammate 13125]

Marianne has known for years

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

On brand.

[Dropout 355]

28 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i've already gone 12 rounds with b_t over inmates voting.  i don't believe voting is a "basic human right" on the same level as access to healthcare.  i don't believe people in prison should be allowed to vote.  i do think once released there should be a fairly straightforward (and totally free) process that allows them to re-enter the voting world, if they should so choose.  i do understand that bullshit historical racist statutes in place have affected the demographics of the prison population, so it could be argued that not letting prisoners vote is some sort of racist voter suppression.  i'm not even gonna get into that conversation.

 

I never expressed what a mistake it was for Bernie to keep saying over and over the Boston bomber should vote. I understand his viewpoint but may not agree. Perhaps a stipulation of if you take a life you lose your right to anything as you’ve permanently and purposely done that to another being. It’s to your point of him being too hardcore for some. Definitely felt like he lost some momentum with this. 

Bernie is trying to immediately compensate groups that have been marginalized for hundreds of years with many of his ideas. Not an easy task. That’s why it feels like too far too fast to some. In reality it’s only the way it should have been from the start if those with all the money and power didn’t dictate what is law in America.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It was shorthand for "private insurance as the basis for runaday health insurance". MSNBC and the corporate whores who wrote the questions are very stupid and make things worse and less clear with their ineptitude.

Sanders's M4A bill, which is a fully written and filed piece of legislation, allows private supplemental insurance.

Ok.  So this is common in the UK.  There's the NHS.  But plenty of people have supplemental insurance that allows them to go to doctors who are outside the NHS.  They can still go to the NHS, of course.  But they can also go to a doctor that doesn't participate in NHS.

Under Sanders' bill, that's not allowed?

How about if we factor out insurance altogether.  Can I fund separate medical care out of my own pocket?  For example, there are plenty of concierge doctors now who charge $X/month and you go to them as your primary-care doctor (or, more precisely, they come to you).  Is that going to be illegal?

[bad_teammate 13125]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Ok.  So this is common in the UK.  There's the NHS.  But plenty of people have supplemental insurance that allows them to go to doctors who are outside the NHS.  They can still go to the NHS, of course.  But they can also go to a doctor that doesn't participate in NHS.Under Sanders' bill, that's not allowed?

You are allowed to buy private coverage for additional services not covered by M4A.

Quote

How about if we factor out insurance altogether.  Can I fund separate medical care out of my own pocket?  For example, there are plenty of concierge doctors now who charge $X/month and you go to them as your primary-care doctor (or, more precisely, they come to you).  Is that going to be illegal?

The 100% cash concierge doctors that the rich enjoy today will still be available in Sanders's Communist Helltopia, as long as they do not ever take Medicare money. In or out.

Until, of course, we kill and eat the rich, at which point their special doctors will be re-educated and strapped to the front of UNIMOGs and taken on an apology tour.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Anyone conflating concerns over voting for a septuagenarian to people who won’t vote for a woman or a black person or a LGBTQ person can fuck off.

There’s nothing inherent about being gay or female or black that would make someone unfit for office.

However there are legitimate concerns about the health, stamina, and mental acuity of someone in their 70s or 80s.

To try and accuse people that are worried about a candidate not being physically or mentally up for being president because of advanced age as being the same as people who claim women aren’t up for the job because they’re women is insulting and disingenuous. Fuck off with that.

The ages of Biden and Bernie and Warren, to some extent, concern me.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

7 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Anyone conflating concerns over voting for a septuagenarian to people who won’t vote for a woman or a black person or a LGBTQ person can fuck off.

There’s nothing inherent about being gay or female or black that would make someone unfit for office.

However there are legitimate concerns about the health, stamina, and mental acuity of someone in their 70s or 80s.

To try and accuse people that are worried about a candidate not being physically or mentally up for being president because of advanced age as being the same as people who claim women aren’t up for the job because they’re women is insulting and disingenuous. Fuck off with that.

The ages of Biden and Bernie and Warren, to some extent, concern me.

If Bernie gets the nod, one would hope he is going to pick a younger running mate. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Anyone conflating concerns over voting for a septuagenarian to people who won’t vote for a woman or a black person or a LGBTQ person can fuck off.

Agreed, let me know when someone does that and we can yell at them together.

Quote

However there are legitimate concerns about the health, stamina, and mental acuity of someone in their 70s or 80s.

Sure. We should consider a lot of things when evaluating candidates.

When someone is old as hell they clearly need to be watched for signs of diminished capacity and every presidential candidate should undergo physicals and mental acuity evaluations to check for disorders.

[henrygandorf 29174]

pelosi falls under that umbrella too.  a 79 year old and a 73 year old shouldn't be exchanging barbs on twitter because they can't fucking get shit done.

as far as bernie goes, the only thing that would worry me about his particular age is that his ideas are big, and won't happen overnight.  so if you're a big supporter (or better still, a staffer/adviser) of bernie's it would worry me that a potential second term would take him into his mid/late 80's, and we all know how the office ages you.  i would make the argument that certain things could be unrealistic, that wouldn't be that way if he was say, 65 right now.

as far as current mental acuity, he seems plenty sharp, especially standing next to biden.

[bad_teammate 13125]

It's interesting to me how young voters don't seem to have the same concern about Bernie's age as middle-age voters and older voters do. Is it something inside the middle-aged and older voters coming to grips with their own mortality that makes them feel more negatively about seeing an older person? Are the young people just naive about it?

 

[Ghost of LL 15348]

38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You are allowed to buy private coverage for additional services not covered by M4A.

The 100% cash concierge doctors that the rich enjoy today will still be available in Sanders's Communist Helltopia, as long as they do not ever take Medicare money. In or out.

Ok--I'm good with that.

Except I do wonder why they shouldn't be allowed to take Medicare money out.  It's a minor quibble, but that restriction doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If they pay in (and presumably at their income level, they should be paying a lot in), shouldn't they be able to take out irrespective of however else they spend their money?

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Except I do wonder why they shouldn't be allowed to take Medicare money out.  It's a minor quibble, but that restriction doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If they pay in (and presumably at their income level, they should be paying a lot in), shouldn't they be able to take out irrespective of however else they spend their money?

I'm not sure what you mean.

When I say "in or out" I mean the provider being either in or out of the system as a provider. If I'm Doctor to the Oligarchs and I treat all their congenital defects from centuries of inbreeding, I'm free to keep taking that sweet sweet DuPont lucre, but I can't be a normal doctor who takes Medicare patients during the day and moonlights with the inbreds for cash. I have to choose.

At least, this is my understanding according to my (lay) reading of this section.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

When I say "in or out" I mean the provider being either in or out of the system as a provider. If I'm Doctor to the Oligarchs and I treat all their congenital defects from centuries of inbreeding, I'm free to keep taking that sweet sweet DuPont lucre, but I can't be a normal doctor who takes Medicare patients during the day and moonlights with the inbreds for cash. I have to choose.

At least, this is my understanding according to my (lay) reading of this section.

Oh, ok--I misunderstood.  That makes a lot more sense.  I thought you were talking about the patient.

[Bama Chick 28596]

It's interesting to me how young voters don't seem to have the same concern about Bernie's age as middle-age voters and older voters do. Is it something inside the middle-aged and older voters coming to grips with their own mortality that makes them feel more negatively about seeing an older person? Are the young people just naive about it?
 

Both.

Young people still have a sense of immortality and probably haven’t had to deal with the realities of aging.

Middle aged and old folks not only know how it feels personally to face the reality of your body and mind not being as sharp but lots have watched and cared for friends and family fall to the inevitability of aging.

And while it may not be happening on this board, I’ve definitely seen people on Twitter equate this issue with sexism and racism.

Ageism is tricky because while there is real discrimination based on age, it’s not discrimination to acknowledge that an 80 year old may not have what it takes to be president due to the reality of what being 80 years old does to the mind and body.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

Just gave Bernie a yuppie food stamp. That was a carryover donation from the last election. He needs to keep impressing me to get more

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

All the bros gettin' FAT FUCKIN' DOINKS boys!

goin' out to canvas for Bernie 2024 re-election DUMMY thicc

gonna know we're comin' with our ass cheeks clappin' in unison from blocks away

Holy shit, we know who's getting Mayor Pete's vote. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

21 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Ageism is tricky because while there is real discrimination based on age, it’s not discrimination to acknowledge that an 80 year old may not have what it takes to be president due to the reality of what being 80 years old does to the mind and body.

 

interesting point.  at which point is it "ageism" vs "actual concern"?  and there's no specific answer, because it's gotta be a case-by-case basis.

and for that matter, is it ageism to treat the "under 40" crowd like they're not ready or qualified?

fucking competitive victimhood and shit.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Sort of, but inexperienced is a changeable state and can be a matter of opinion.

If you can hide your own Easter eggs, fall out of the shower on the reg, and can’t wipe your own ass.....well, no coming back from that really.

[bad_teammate 13125]

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Hickenlooper was the only candidate to not interrupt Bernie at some point. LOL what??

Literally the opposite of my expectation. 

(OH, Joe didn't, either, I can't fuckin' read)

Edited June 29, 2019 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13125]

The grassroots know.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

19 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You are allowed to buy private coverage for additional services not covered by M4A.

The 100% cash concierge doctors that the rich enjoy today will still be available in Sanders's Communist Helltopia, as long as they do not ever take Medicare money. In or out.

Until, of course, we kill and eat the rich, at which point their special doctors will be re-educated and strapped to the front of UNIMOGs and taken on an apology tour.

What is the rationale for abolishing private insurance that competes with MFA coverage?  Like, why not just implement MFA without such a provision and let competitors die on the vine rather than expressly banning them? 

[Ghost of LL 15348]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What is the rationale for abolishing private insurance that competes with MFA coverage?  Like, why not just implement MFA without such a provision and let competitors die on the vine rather than expressly banning them? 

Yeah--I just don't get that.  B-t's explanation makes sense.  But that is at variance with Bernie's tweet above.

[Anastasis 23375]

LOL

[bad_teammate 13125]

38 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What is the rationale for abolishing private insurance that competes with MFA coverage?  Like, why not just implement MFA without such a provision and let competitors die on the vine rather than expressly banning them? 

A few reasons...

- To eliminate confusion.

One thing most Democratic and all Republican representatives rely on when talking about healthcare is obscuring the negatives (cost, death panels, etc...) behind obscurantism. Take the sales job for the ACA. To hide the reality of how people would lose their existing coverage and have to pay more due to the new ACA regulations, Obama and the Democrats just straight-up lied. They said, "if you like your plan, you can keep it!", knowing that millions would lose their coverage specifically because of the ACA's regulations.

Introducing a public option would have the same effect. The plan to introduce a public option to let private insurance "die on the vine" is a plan to take away people's private insurance that they supposedly like. It does the exact same thing, just dishonestly. And many politicians like the dishonesty route because they are cowards and they are not leaders. They are paternalistic, as well, and think the people need to be lied to for their own good.

So Bernie says, "You are going to get an expanded version of Medicare that covers everything you need, including dental and vision. You will have no premiums or copays. You will never pay more than $200/year out of pocket for drugs. Your private insurance will go away and your taxes will go up, but that tax rise will be much lower than the premiums and copays and deductibles you are responsible for now."

It's the truth, warts and all.

The voters will know going in exactly what to expect and there will be no backlash as voters are surprised (as they were when they realized Obama lied to them for their own good).

- To ensure victory versus Trump.

The American people remember "if you like your plan, you can keep it". If some centrist goes up there against Donald and says, "If you like your private health insurance, you can keep it", the Republicans are going to eat that person alive for being a liar, and the Republicans will be right. The Republicans are bullies, and bullies are most effective against people who play scared (i.e., the centrist Democrat's defining feature).

"They're lying, folks, they just want to take away your private health insurance and put you on a government plan."

And the limpdick moron Democrats will be freaking out, "NO NO! WE LOVE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE IT'S GREAT!" because they negotiated against themselves before the fight started.

Also, Medicare for All is an easy to understand benefit that you can sell to an audience. Right now the Democrats and the professional media class are full knives out against Bernie (only Liz is standing with him, and not super forcefully) on this issue, but if/when Bernie wins and these cowards fall in line, it's an easy product to sell. It's easy to understand, it addresses deep and powerful needs, and it will motivate MILLIONS of working class and poverty class voters.

Some egghead coming on stage to talk about tiered marketplace tranches of tax-advantaged health savings accounts on a website might get affluent dorks excited, but the working class knows what that shit really means, which is profit for the rich on the backs of the workers. And we'll fucking lose again.

- To avoid wasting people's money.

The private plans will cost Americans more overall, and keeping them alive just to die later only serves to ensure that the healthcare executives get a few billion more of our dollars on their way out the door.

There is more than this, but this is enough to be getting on with.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A few reasons...

- To eliminate confusion.

One thing most Democratic and all Republican representatives rely on when talking about healthcare is obscuring the negatives (cost, death panels, etc...) behind obscurantism. Take the sales job for the ACA. To hide the reality of how people would lose their existing coverage and have to pay more due to the new ACA regulations, Obama and the Democrats just straight-up lied. They said, "if you like your plan, you can keep it!", knowing that millions would lose their coverage specifically because of the ACA's regulations.

Introducing a public option would have the same effect. The plan to introduce a public option to let private insurance "die on the vine" is a plan to take away people's private insurance that they supposedly like. It does the exact same thing, just dishonestly. And many politicians like the dishonesty route because they are cowards and they are not leaders. They are paternalistic, as well, and think the people need to be lied to for their own good.

So Bernie says, "You are going to get an expanded version of Medicare that covers everything you need, including dental and vision. You will have no premiums or copays. You will never pay more than $200/year out of pocket for drugs. Your private insurance will go away and your taxes will go up, but that tax rise will be much lower than the premiums and copays and deductibles you are responsible for now."

It's the truth, warts and all.

The voters will know going in exactly what to expect and there will be no backlash as voters are surprised (as they were when they realized Obama lied to them for their own good).

- To ensure victory versus Trump.

The American people remember "if you like your plan, you can keep it". If some centrist goes up there against Donald and says, "If you like your private health insurance, you can keep it", the Republicans are going to eat that person alive for being a liar, and the Republicans will be right. The Republicans are bullies, and bullies are most effective against people who play scared (i.e., the centrist Democrat's defining feature).

"They're lying, folks, they just want to take away your private health insurance and put you on a government plan."

And the limpdick moron Democrats will be freaking out, "NO NO! WE LOVE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE IT'S GREAT!" because they negotiated against themselves before the fight started.

Also, Medicare for All is an easy to understand benefit that you can sell to an audience. Right now the Democrats and the professional media class are full knives out against Bernie (only Liz is standing with him, and not super forcefully) on this issue, but if/when Bernie wins and these cowards fall in line, it's an easy product to sell. It's easy to understand, it addresses deep and powerful needs, and it will motivate MILLIONS of working class and poverty class voters.

Some egghead coming on stage to talk about tiered marketplace tranches of tax-advantaged health savings accounts on a website might get affluent dorks excited, but the working class knows what that shit really means, which is profit for the rich on the backs of the workers. And we'll fucking lose again.

- To avoid wasting people's money.

The private plans will cost Americans more overall, and keeping them alive just to die later only serves to ensure that the healthcare executives get a few billion more of our dollars on their way out the door.

There is more than this, but this is enough to be getting on with.

That all makes sense.  But many voters are scared about jumping in all the way.   Why not say, "Hey, I won't abolish competing private plans, but MFA is gonna be so good that they're going to go away as people switch to MFA."  That way you're being honest that private plans won't be able to last while still giving people the comfort that it won't be so sudden. 

On another note, do you happen to know what happens to paychecks under MFA?   Do the employer and employee contributions just get sent to the government, or do the pay period contributions just go away, and paychecks will go up to compensate? 

[F250 28659]

20 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's interesting to me how young voters don't seem to have the same concern about Bernie's age as middle-age voters and older voters do. Is it something inside the middle-aged and older voters coming to grips with their own mortality that makes them feel more negatively about seeing an older person? Are the young people just naive about it?

The 40th birthday seems to be the sign on the highway that says "Biological Changes Ahead." I suspect that most people in their 50's are very aware of their biological decay as the process begins to speed up and they zoom towards the elderly phase. If those people feel old, I imagine they are projecting crypt keeper qualities on someone Bernie's age.

Young people have no concept of the aging process other than you get stronger and faster. The middle age experience is the opposite. So yeah, a lot of people are thinking they will likely be dead or senile by Bernie's age and can't imagine someone that old being functional.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

37 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That all makes sense.  But many voters are scared about jumping in all the way.   Why not say, "Hey, I won't abolish competing private plans, but MFA is gonna be so good that they're going to go away as people switch to MFA."  That way you're being honest that private plans won't be able to last while still giving people the comfort that it won't be so sudden. 

So? I don't mean that flippantly, but this kind of thing is offered as if avoiding it is a given.

Here are two questions to evaluate when thinking about voter fear:
1) Is it a significant enough amount of voters to derail the initiative?
2) If yes, can the initiative be sold in a way that will allay those fears?

If the answer to 1 is "no" then it doesn't matter at all. You just fucking do it because you don't need 90%, you need 51%.

Lead with the right answer. Don't defeat yourself before the battle begins.

Quote

On another note, do you happen to know what happens to paychecks under MFA?   Do the employer and employee contributions just get sent to the government, or do the pay period contributions just go away, and paychecks will go up to compensate? 

Bernie is offering different options for funding that would approach it different ways.

What the Democrats should be doing right now is saying "Yes" to M4A and getting into the nitty gritty on funding. This dithering about keeping the bloated corpse of private insurance alive is a waste of time and people's actual lives.

24 minutes ago, F250 said:

Young people have no concept of the aging process other than you get stronger and faster. The middle age experience is the opposite.

Makes sense.

My son, who I talked to about this recently, says he thinks a lot of it also has to do with generational resentments. Young people dismiss their ineffectual parents and like the idea of their grandparents (Bernie) yelling at the bad guys and giving them free college and the middle-age people hate the idea of their parents in charge. And the grandparents think their grandkids (Pete) are adorable and just so smart.

And the middle-aged women just want to fuck Beto, which makes sense to me because, well... I'm not gay, but...

[bad_teammate 13125]

hahahaha YESSSS

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

haha even this is old!