Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

33 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

are you practicing whataboutism?  Nice.  

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“Mexico will pay for the wall” was probably the most egregiously magical thinking campaign promise and I still have yet to see any consequences.

Well, I consider naivete and idealism to underlie magical thinking.  That's an example of dishonesty and bullshit.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

New Plan: MY PLAN TO FIGHT GLOBAL FINANCIAL CORRUPTION

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/international-corruption?source=SMS

 

 

Noble, but probably her most naive plan to date.  

Frankly, I think she avoided medicare because its a fucking clusterfuck and since she addressed it, she's kind of lost her tether.

Edited December 17, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

probably her most naive plan to date.  

What’s naive about it?  Just making it a campaign issue and increasing awareness is huge plus in my book.  That’s what the dark money fears, someone shining a light on it. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Plus if you’re really going to fight global corruption, it’s probably wise not to tell the bad guys exactly what you’re going to do in advance. 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What’s naive about it?  Just making it a campaign issue and increasing awareness is huge plus in my book.  That’s what the dark money fears, someone shining a light on it. 

The latter is true, but when vast swathes of money laundering occurs at the governmental level/by governmental officials, your'e not going to get a ton of global cooperation.

[washparkhorn 9973]

Progressives fighting Progressives is not helpful at this point. I like Liz - always have. Don't like what Obama and Dodd-Frank did to her with CFPB.

The Neoliberals are going after the Progressives. I hope they stand tall together.

A repeat of 2016 would be catastrophic to the Democratic Party. Establishment Democrats cannot beat Trump. And frankly, I think most Democrats prefer progress rather than a re-entrenchment of the Republican-lite policies of the past. It is time to move forward. 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Progressives fighting Progressives is not helpful at this point. I like Liz - always have. Don't like what Obama and Dodd-Frank did to her with CFPB.

The Neoliberals are going after the Progressives. I hope they stand tall together.

A repeat of 2016 would be catastrophic to the Democratic Party. Establishment Democrats cannot beat Trump. And frankly, I think most Democrats prefer progress rather than a re-entrenchment of the Republican-lite policies of the past. It is time to move forward. 

I agree with this take.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Is that a lot?  Seems like a lot. 

 

"We are a group that really uniquely knows that electability is self-determining and that oftentimes it's the people with the boldest vision and the most unlikely candidacies early on who can really shift the field," El-Amine said. "Sen. Warren really has the zest and the grit and the gumption and the audacity that we loved that President Obama really embodied."

Asked about the decision to support Warren over Obama's vice president, Joe Biden, Carson declined to comment on any of the other candidates. He pointed out that Warren herself is an Obama alum, having spearheaded the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis -- something Warren frequently reminds voters of on the campaign trail.

"We all got to know each other working on a campaign, but we're doing different things now and I think we all really believe in the need for big structural change that she is promising," Carson said of the Obama alums backing Warren. "I think that's why we're with Sen. Warren."

The news comes as Warren's rivals are also touting support from the Obama network.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Interview in link:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/elizabeth-warren-interview-cover-927716/

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Interview in link:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/elizabeth-warren-interview-cover-927716/

From interview:

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[henrygandorf 29225]

On 12/17/2019 at 9:55 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She hasn’t backed off MFA, she’s still publicly advocating for it. She outlined a not magical thinking way to get there in her first term and the pundits have been spinning that as some kind of retreat. 

is she though?  i've heard a lot more lately about giving people a choice.

maybe that's just pundit spin.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

She’s talking about choice in the transition period to MFA because she’s been getting a lot of questions about it at town halls.  Yeah, the language is moderated but she’s still all in on MFA.  There’s also no reason to believe she wouldn’t sign Bernie’s bill into law if given the opportunity.

No one has a plan that instantly puts everyone on single payer which is why this story isn’t much of a story.   

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[henrygandorf 29225]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She’s talking about choice in the transition period to MFA because she’s been getting a lot of questions about it at town halls.  Yeah, the language is moderated but she’s still all in on MFA.  There’s also no reason to believe she wouldn’t sign Bernie’s bill into law if given the opportunity.

No one has a plan that instantly puts everyone on single payer which is why this story isn’t much of a story.   

more than a few people already think it’s a “story”. if she goes on stage tonight and says she wants to give people a choice, and they can choose which option they want, it sounds like it’ll be a bigger story.

[henrygandorf 29225]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There’s also no reason to believe she wouldn’t sign Bernie’s bill into law if given the opportunity.

oh. here i thought she was running for president. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s the same concern trolling she’s been getting the entire time that other candidates don’t get because she’s a serious candidate. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s the same concern trolling she’s been getting the entire time that other candidates don’t get because she’s a serious candidate. 

yeah, warren definitely gets picked on the most. 

theres a difference between concern trolling and actual concern. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

When it comes to healthcare and presidential candidates, the only thing you really need to know is if they advocate for single payer or against it because no one is getting anything of substance passed on healthcare until some rules are changed.

Changing the rules to re-democratize political power is Warren’s first priority which is what separates her from the other candidates. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

When it comes to healthcare and presidential candidates, the only thing you really need to know is if they advocate for single payer or against it because no one is getting anything of substance passed on healthcare until some rules are changed.
Changing the rules to re-democratize political power is Warren’s first priority which is what separates her from the other candidates. 

Well those are certainly all words

[bad_teammate 13511]

Ady's endorsement keeps pressure on Liz to not cave to the bastards. Which is good and cool.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well those are certainly all words

I could go line by line of her anti-corruption legislation, how she wants to abolish the filibuster, and the consequences of how all those rule changes would alter the dynamics of political power in America... but it would just be more words.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

I could go line by line of her anti-corruption legislation, how she wants to abolish the filibuster, and the consequences of how all those rule changes would alter the dynamics of political power in America... but it would just be more words.

Yeah, she’s out saying words that give progbois the feels. That doesn’t mean they mean things.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dynamite analysis. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

why are the words she’s said this week different than the words she said a month ago?  or two or three months ago?

if her stance didn’t change, why did her words?

i don’t recall her using words like “option” or “choice” in the past. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just asking questions!  

[henrygandorf 29225]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just asking questions!  

yeah, i am.  you're the warren expert here, or at least way more well-versed than i am.

for months she was "with bernie" on m4a.  then she came out with a slightly different version after deflecting funding questions for months, and now she seems to be backing away from her stance by talking about giving people a choice, and providing an option. (btw, i don't give a shit personally about her funding plan, but it did bother me that she wouldn't answer the question)

everyone knows that no president is going to thanos-snap a single-payer system into existence on january 21st, so i'm wondering if her policy has changed, or if just her messaging has changed.  bernie supporters like that he goes all the way with his policies/messaging, even as they admit it'll require compromise once the bill is passed.  is she just being more transparent/realistic about what the early stages of her plan will look like?

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

Just asking questions!  

You literally said that the only think you need to know is whether or not somebody supports single payer. That’s ludicrous.

[henrygandorf 29225]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You literally said that the only think you need to know is whether or not somebody supports single payer. That’s ludicrous.

especially since most support single-payer as the eventual solution.

i can only assume she saw polls - either her own, or m4a numbers - and decided to switch up her messaging on it.

[BradInATX 9208]

It’s the same concern trolling she’s been getting the entire time that other candidates don’t get

[Anastasis 23717]

She’s gonna walk away from M4A in the general. Writing is on the wall. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

She’s gonna walk away from M4A in the general. Writing is on the wall. 

That's part of why I'm still very open to supporting her in the primary. She should keep the words. She should change the meaning. 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

16 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

everyone knows that no president is going to thanos-snap a single-payer system into existence on january 21st

I don't think this is true.  People are not smart.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The thing I hate most about the healthcare debate is knowing if everyone of us was born into a single payer healthcare system in the U.S., no one would give a flying fuck about it. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[washparkhorn 9973]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The thing I hate most about the healthcare debate is knowing if everyone of us was born into a single payer healthcare system in the U.S., no one would give a flying fuck about it. 

Agree.

The entrenched interests - tied to for-profit healthcare model - have made a lot of money. They are not letting go of their golden teat without spending mounds of the money they siphoned from the healthcare system. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The thing I hate most about the healthcare debate is knowing if everyone of us was born into a single payer healthcare system in the U.S., no one would give a flying fuck about it. 

Meanwhile, literally every single "single payer" system in the western world has improved cost effectiveness and outcomes by hybridizing and movement towards universal multi-payer, while also giving many fucks about it. 

it turns out that just lighting incense sticks and chanting "single payer" while centering your intention on a presidential election isn't a real healthcare strategy. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[henrygandorf 29225]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The thing I hate most about the healthcare debate is knowing if everyone of us was born into a single payer healthcare system in the U.S., no one would give a flying fuck about it. 

so you're mad that we have a broken system in this country, and that the front-runners for president are being tasked with fixing it?  am i getting this straight?

man i wish this country was fucking perfect so the debates could just be a round table conversation about ww2, movies, and baseball.

[henrygandorf 29225]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

it turns out that just lighting incense sticks and chanting "single payer" while centering your intention on a presidential election isn't a real healthcare strategy. 

it depends on how smug and superior you're acting while chanting.

[Henry Hill 3156]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Meanwhile, literally every single "single payer" system in the western world has improved cost effectiveness and outcomes by hybridizing and movement towards universal multi-payer, while also giving many fucks about it. 

it turns out that just lighting incense sticks and chanting "single payer" while centering your intention on a presidential election isn't a real healthcare strategy. 

holy shit. there actually is a rational voice in the cloak room. mind is bottled.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

Single-payer is an obvious and simplistic way to equalize bargaining power between the health-care consumer and health-care provider.

But it also imposes massive administrative and logistical burdens in a country as large (geographically and population-wise) as the US and is nearly guaranteed to cause some acute  supply problems.

Long story short, most of the proposed healthcare plans are simplistic to the point of pandering.

For the most part, Liz avoids pandering.  She understands the complexity of healthcare and that the simple shit proposed by Sanders and others is not only legislatively improbable but likely undeliverable in the form described even with a complicit legislature.

On the other hand, going to single-payer may be the way to destroy the status quo and create something so disastrous that we move rapidly to bozo's more feasible alternatives. Kind of like Obamacare sowed the seeds of destruction of the current system without really fixing anything.

Edited December 20, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Meanwhile, literally every single "single payer" system in the western world has improved cost effectiveness and outcomes by hybridizing and movement towards universal multi-payer, while also giving many fucks about it. 

it turns out that just lighting incense sticks and chanting "single payer" while centering your intention on a presidential election isn't a real healthcare strategy. 

We have an outright broken healthcare system and the forces to keep it broken are much more powerful than those that actually want to fix it.

But go ahead and mock those that want to fight for something better because they lack the specifics you require.  

I’m self aware enough to know single payer isn’t going to magically fix everything but I’d rather start there and work backwards to lower costs than keep the predatory bullshit we have now. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We have an outright broken healthcare system and the forces to keep it broken are much more powerful than those that actually want to fix it.

But go ahead and .  

I’m self aware enough to know single payer isn’t going to magically fix everything but I’d rather start there and work backwards to lower costs than keep the predatory bullshit we have now. 

I'm not mocking "those that want to fight for something better because they lack the specifics you require". I'm mocking those who don't have specifics because  they aren't actually fighting for anything. Im actually fighting for something better by doing my homework and working my reps.
Y'all are  "fighting for something better" the exact same way that Gretchen was fighting to make "fetch" happen.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[bad_teammate 13511]

52 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm mocking those who don't have specifics because  they aren't actually fighting for anything.

Medicare for All Act of 2019
100 pages

Quote

Im actually fighting for something better by doing my homework and working my reps.

Oh hell yeah love these specifics mmm baby

Quote

Y'all are  "fighting for something better" the exact same way that Gretchen was fighting to make "fetch" happen.

Says the Wyden-Bennett guy lol

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

Look, I'm open to single payer. But it's the hardest thing to get done, it's the least likely to survive the politics of implementation, and it's not the best solution in terms of coverage, cost or outcomes. But by all means, keep acting like Republican true believers. 

[tantric superman 4668]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Single-payer is an obvious and simplistic way to equalize bargaining power between the health-care consumer and health-care provider.

But it also imposes massive administrative and logistical burdens in a country as large (geographically and population-wise) as the US and is nearly guaranteed to cause some acute  supply problems.

Was listening to a podcast where the primary point was that most of those single payer places are not where cutting edge medical advances are occurring.  The US, despite -- or maybe because -- of its broken system is way ahead of other developing nations in terms of medical research and technology. 

You come here is you want the best care.

I haven't done the research, but it wouldn't shouldn't surprise if there are big trade offs. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

22 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

You come here is you want the best care.

I haven't done the research, but it wouldn't shouldn't surprise if there are big trade offs. 

Eh, kinda. You don't come here if you want the best care. That's a myth. We don't have the best care in the grand scheme of things. It's actually measurably worse than most western countries. You come here to buy the most expensive drugs and get the most expensive diagnostic and surgical care, because our system is optimized around delivering payable events. So neurosurgeons and orthopedists, for example, are extremely well paid in our system because they are like jet salesmen. 
Pediatricians,  and pediatric specialties on the other hand, don't make much and there isn't much research because kids are pretty healthy an d are financially dependent on their parents ability to pay. So we don't have the best pediatric specialty care or nearly enough of it. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

38 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Look, I'm open to single payer. But it's the hardest thing to get done, it's the least likely to survive the politics of implementation, and it's not the best solution in terms of coverage, cost or outcomes. But by all means, keep acting like Republican true believers. 

I’ve noted this before but we have different worldviews on how best to approach the healthcare problem. However, I do believe most citizens of good will want the best healthcare system at the lowest cost, including yourself.

You view the path to a solution as a specific  proposal which may have the better outcome but just lacks the political will or consensus to implement. 

I view the path to a solution as building a democratized political movement via election campaigns behind a big idea like MFA to get closer to a real solution.  Single payer is the most logical idea to push because it has the strongest advocates in positions to get something of substance done that can improve the quality of life and save the most lives the quickest.  

Half measures like the ACA are more likely to get sabotaged because they are written by forces antithetical to the public good in the name of shareholder expectations and political expediency. 

The goal here is to lower the cost and improve the quality of healthcare to the point that it’s not even a top political issue among voters anymore.  It doesn’t matter if it’s MFA, a hybrid system, or even nationalized medicine.  The point is we need to build the grassroots will to actually tackle the issue first and MFA is the most accessible vehicle to accomplish that right now IMO.

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26847]

I agree with you on most counts except the logic of single payer. And for the record I think whatever we do should be called Medicare for All, because I believe in branding. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Anastasis 23717]

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And for the record I think whatever we do should be called Medicare for All, because I believe in branding. 

Political realities are political reality.