Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 22:46:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 8:46:30 GMT
link
Third Way..
”The ferocity of this debate [on M4A] is at odds with the legislative reality. Even if a Democrat wins, Medicare-for-all will not pass the House & it will not pass the Senate...Democrats are setting themselves up for disillusionment, & possibly disaster."
Debbie Downer here.This reality from Vox. 12/4/2019 “The Democrats’ Medicare mess”From the article.. ”The Medicare-for-all debate has become a minefield for Democrats — and it’s not clear that any candidate has a safe path through it. One lesson of the past few weeks is that the Medicare-for-all debate has become a minefield for Democrats — and it’s not clear that any candidate has a safe path through it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dropped 14 points since October 8, when she briefly led the Democratic field in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Most attribute her decline to her handling of Medicare-for-all — the financing plan she released made her the target of attacks from the moderates, and then the transition plan she released, which envisions a robust public option in the first year of her presidency and only moving to Medicare-for-all in year three, left single-payer advocates unnerved about her commitment to the cause. Then, on Tuesday, Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out of the race. Medicare-for-all had bedeviled Harris’s campaign from the start. She was a co-sponsor of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s bill and entered the race in January with a surprisingly full-throated endorsement of abolishing private insurance. Under criticism, Harris walked that back, eventually releasing a Medicare expansion plan with a long transition, dodgy financing, and a reimagined role for private insurers. The combination of policy reversals and botched rollout left Harris pinched between the moderates and the leftists, and undermined faith in her ability to govern on the issue Democrats rate as most important. I’d argue that Warren and Harris made the same mistake: they treated a question of symbolic politics like a problem of policy design. In Democratic Party politics, Medicare has become a which-side-are-you-on test. Are you with Sanders and the left, and against insurance companies, squishy moderates, commodified health care, and a politics of preemptive compromise? Or are you afraid that Sanders and the left are going to scare the country into reelecting Donald Trump and set health care reform back for a generation? This is a fundamentally political question, and splitting the difference through complex acts of technocracy ends up alienating both sides. And I say that as a technocrat who thinks Warren’s transition plan makes sense on its own terms and thought Harris ended up with a more interesting plan than she got credit for — essentially inverting the debate by proposing a public health insurance system with a private option. But the reaction to both plans makes clear they missed the point. The ferocity of this debate is at odds with the legislative reality. Even if a Democrat wins, Medicare-for-all will not pass the House and it will not pass the Senate. “I’m not a big fan of Medicare for All,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. When I interviewed the key Senate Democrats who will write the next health reform bill, none of them supported Medicare-for-all or believed it could pass.
The primary itself has been evidence of Medicare-for-all’s long odds: A number of the co-sponsors on Sanders’s bill, like Harris and Sen. Cory Booker, have made clear they don’t actually support it as written. And a number of other senators the bill would need, like Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet, have come out in direct opposition to the legislation. Medicare-for-all would be a difficult lift even if the Democratic Party was united; it’s not going to pass with the party divided. Democrats are setting themselves up for disillusionment, and possibly disaster. Either they will nominate a candidate who cannot deliver on their central policy promise or they will nominate a candidate whose victory will be a betrayal of liberal activists’ top policy priority. So what’s the way out? On one level, I think this positions Sanders as perhaps Democrats’ best hope as a unity candidate. He is more acceptable to more Democrats than the elite conversation admits — as political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck show, a plurality of Biden supporters list Sanders as their second choice. But Sanders also has a unique level of credibility with the party’s more ideological left wing. His commitment to Medicare-for-all is sufficiently steadfast that leftists will believe him if and when he has to convince them that the compromised bill Congress is prepared to pass is the best bill they’re going to get. He wrote the damn bill; he might be the only one who can cut the damn deal. And if Sanders was able to get an ambitious Medicare-for-more plan through Congress and make it look like a compromise, it’d be a tremendous legislative coup. I don’t buy this about Sanders one bit.On the other hand, Warren’s tumble will add to worries that Medicare-for-all makes Sanders an uncertain bet to win the presidency, and potentially boost former Vice President Joe Biden, who already leads among voters worried about electability. The attacks on Medicare-for-all in the primary are a shadow of what would come in a general election, when the entire Republican Party, the entire health industry, and much of corporate America will devote billions of dollars to a 24/7 campaign of fearmongering and disinformation that dwarfs the genteel debates among the Democrats. There’s a belief on the left that Medicare-for-all is extremely politically popular, and full-throated support for it is a political winner despite all the attacks that Republicans and industry will throw at it. The primary has been a soft test of that question. Warren and Sanders are the national advocates — complete with large bases of support and the ability to command media coverage — the policy never had in the past. The criticisms, meanwhile, are coming from other Democrats who at least claim to support Medicare-for-all as a goal, even if they favor a more incremental path on both substantive and political grounds. The result is that net approval of Medicare-for-all has fallen 24 points among Democrats, and is underwater with both independents and Republicans. Part of the reason, surely, is that the health industry is running ads against the idea in early primary states. But that just underscores the point: It’s hard to look at the polling of both Medicare-for-all and its advocates and be confident public support would hold under the kind of assault in the offing. Adding to the trouble, a recent analysis by political scientist Alan Abramowitz found that Medicare-for-all was a liability for House Democrats who supported it in 2018. Even controlling for factors like the partisan lean of the district, political spending, and incumbency, candidates that backed Medicare-for-all performed “significantly worse” than those that didn’t. It’s hard pinning down causality when you’re dealing with events as messy as House races, but Abramowitz’s work will worry vulnerable congressional Democrats even as a big portion of the liberal base is making Medicare-for-all into the key litmus test. Where does this leave Democrats? I’m not honestly sure. The primary is riven by a deep, substantive disagreement over both the politics and the policy of health care. And there’s good evidence that bitter primaries really do hurt parties in the general election. But the candidates who’ve tried to bridge the divide have suffered for their efforts. The party is likely to have to choose one path or the other, and the choice is going to hurt.But it’d be an awful legacy for the 2020 field if the fight between Medicare-for-all and Medicare-for-more ended up empowering the Republican agenda of Obamacare for none and Medicaid for fewer
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 22:46:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 9:05:05 GMT
linkPolitico... ” Medicare for All’s jobs problem”From the article ”Mazur’s job and those of millions of others have helped turn health care into the largest sector of the nation’s economy, a multitrillion-dollar industry consisting in part of a huge network of payers, processers, and specialists in the complex world of making sure everything in the system gets paid for. If the health care system were actually restructured to eliminate private insurance, the way Medicare for All’s advocates ultimately envision it, a lot of people with steady, good-paying jobs right now might find themselves out of work. “What if my job doesn’t exist anymore?” she asked in a recent interview.” This question has particular resonance in this part of Pennsylvania, a must-win swing state in the presidential race, which has already seen massive job dislocation from the decline of manufacturing. As Pittsburgh’s iconic steel industry has been gutted, the city’s economy has been hugely buoyed by health care, which has grown into the region’s largest industry — employing about 140,000 people, or 20 percent of the regional workforce. The city’s former U.S. Steel complex is now, appropriately enough, the headquarters of a mammoth hospital system, one of two health care companies deeply entrenched in the city’s economy. & ”Initial research from University of Massachusetts economists who have consulted with multiple 2020 campaigns has estimated that 1.8 million health care jobs nationwide would no longer be needed if Medicare for All became law, upending health insurance companies and thousands of middle class workers whose jobs largely deal with them, including insurance brokers, medical billing workers and other administrative employees. One widely cited study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administration accounted for nearly a third of the U.S.’ health care expenses. “When it comes to the costs of reform, taxes are the headline issue, and the movement’s advocates on the national stage ― Sanders and fellow Democratic presidential contender Elizabeth Warren, among others ― have largely had to defend Medicare for All against charges that middle-class taxes would have to go up to finance a new government-run system. But the question of what single-payer health care would do to jobs and the economy has largely been overlooked. In the past, Sanders has answered questions about the economic ramifications with vague claims about transitioning to other jobs in the health sector. ”When we provide insurance to 29 million people who today don't have it, when we deal with the problems of high deductibles and copayments and more people get the health care that they want and they need, weʼre going to have all kinds of jobs opened up in health care,” Sanders claimed during a 2016 CNN town hall when asked by a retired health insurance worker what would happen to jobs in the industry. “And the first people in line should be those people who are currently in the private health insurance industry.” Economists dispute the extent to which this would occur. Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst who has consulted with Sanders’ and Warren’s teams over Medicare for All, says that while people could be retrained for different jobs, there are no guarantees they’d work in the newly created government health care system, since one of the goals is to cut down on administrative overhead. “You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have savings through administrative simplicity and more jobs. The government won’t need these people,” Pollin said. “We vilify the health care industry, but it provides jobs to a lot of people, and not just jobs for wealthy people but jobs for everyday people,” said Janette Dill, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who has studied the rise of health care-related employment among the working class. “That’s one thing it’s really good at.” & ”University of Massachusetts researchers who analyzed the 2017 version of Sanders’ Medicare for All bill estimated that nationwide more than 800,000 people who work for private health insurance companies and a further 1 million who handle administrative work for health care providers would see their jobs evaporate. The workers generally earn middle-class wages, according to the November 2018 study forecasting the economic ramifications of Sanders’ plan. The median annual income of a worker employed in the health insurance industry is nearly $55,000; for office and administrative jobs at health care service sites, it’s about $35,000, researchers said. “The savings don’t come out of the sky,” said Pollin. “The main way we save money is through administrative simplicity. That means layoffs. There’s just no way around it.” This article talks about the hiring boom to healthcare providers because more people will have insurance. Problem with that, Warren has a plan to reduce the cost of what doctors and hospitals charge. Which often involves stagnant wages, or layoffs or not hiring enough people in the first place.
|
|
Kath
Full Member
Posts: 446
Jun 26, 2014 12:15:31 GMT
|
Post by Kath on Dec 13, 2019 13:32:26 GMT
The reason I believe Trump won in the first place is the overall deep-seeded anger in the bellies of conservatives and independents over what Obamacare cost them financially and personally for years and the pure gloating by the liberal side at their misery. They kept it quiet, they ignored polls and they waited, waited for their chance to vote, waited without a voice, until the day came for their retribution. No one saw it coming and no one noticed. They were all too busy watching the loudmouths on TV with their bogus polls.
I don’t follow politics much anymore and I’ve ceased much to care, following more of a mindfulness approach in my lifestyle, but when I saw on this thread Medicare For All, all I could do was shake my head. Not only is it a losing proposition, but it will invoke the Obamacare anger and outrage of 2016 all over again. The anger that has never really went away, even with Trump’s election. Because Trump as a candidate was never the reason people voted for him. They voted for him because they were angry. He just happened to be there as a vessel they could use.
And Sanders is like 100 years old, male and white. Does the Democrat party actually believe in what they say with equality and everyone gets a chance to run or are they really just going to put up another old white guy for Presidency, proving they never really mean anything they say? At what point are they going to step in and take an active role instead of allowing men, almost always white, to win every time?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Dec 13, 2019 14:09:52 GMT
The idea that we as a country must deny millions access to health care so we can continue to pour billions into a private industry, enriching its shareholders and keeping people employed, is morally repugnant to me. Some people have to get sick and die so others can keep their jobs. Yeah, that makes sense. Seems to me we that some number of current private insurance company workers could be employed by a single payer system, and others could be absorbed into other private industry. This could be done gradually and companies could be incentivized to hire and retrain displaced insurance workers. But let’s not fool ourselves that anyone in power is actually concerned about insurance workers who might lose their jobs. This is all a push from insurance company CEOs and shareholders, and their lobbyists, who don’t want to lose their billions. And it’s disgusting. Psst Medicare for all is not the only option to provide all Americans with quality healthcare at a reasonable cost. It’s the one you chose to support and that is your choice. But your comments of “denying millions access to healthcare etc” and “some people have to get sick and die so others keep their jobs” are more than a bit dramatic and fundamentally incorrect. Scare tactics I think it’s called. It’s interesting how cavalier you are about people losing their jobs. I wonder if you feel the same way if both you and your husband lost your jobs tomorrow. Somehow I don’t think so. Calling what is reality for millions of Americans "scare tactics" is some Republican-style gaslighting. Literally people in this country die for lack of appropriate health care, or go bankrupt trying to stay alive. Meanwhile, insurance company CEOs make millions. These facts are indisputable and are not scare tactics, and they are not fundamentally incorrect. I am not cavalier about people losing their jobs, and suggested ways that the job loss could be abated. Why are you cavalier about people dying? Why are you siding with the billionaire CEOs and big shareholders over working Americans? The reason Medicare for all is a necessity is because as long as there is profit built into the healthcare industry, things will cost much more than they need to. As long as increasing shareholder value, not providing healthcare, is the primary mandate of healthcare organizations, people will continue to die for lack of necessary care. As long as red states have the option to not participate in Medicaid expansion, a lot of the working poor will fall through the cracks. The reason Republicans and moderate Democrats are not in favor of M4A is because they take campaign money from healthcare lobbyists. Pure and simple. And morally, they're on the wrong side of history on this. It's beyond unfortunate to me that so many Americans are unable to see this. People are blinded by what they think they've "earned" or "deserve" and unable or unwilling to see that others who have also worked hard are suffering.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,979
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Dec 13, 2019 15:09:57 GMT
“Medicare for all who want it” is the plan that would work best IMHO.
Don’t like your plan at work? Buy into Medicare. Don’t have a plan at work? Buy into Medicare. Self-employed and can’t afford private insurance? Buy into Medicare. Like your current plan offered by your employer? Keep it.
If the premiums are tied to income so that those who really can’t afford healthcare get subsidies, I don’t see why this option is a problem for anyone.
Eventually, as more people choose Medicare, private plans will be less attractive for employers to offer as a benefit, and some will drop their plans altogether.
The end result may eventually be “Medicare for almost all” because the private plans will be few and far between. But the change doesn’t happen overnight, and the healthcare industry has time to absorb the changes without sudden, massive layoffs. They will have a chance to start providing other services and perhaps supplemental plans for those who want them. But the basic healthcare benefits will be available to anyone through Medicare.
|
|
|
Post by jubejubes on Dec 13, 2019 16:48:55 GMT
I am so sorry for my friends south of the border from Canada. I try to understand your system of health care and it leaves me dizzy with all of the many hoops that so many of you have to jump through and the horrific decisions that you must make. And having to make these choices at the end of the year, with the holidays putting more strain & stress on your finances. The health care system in Ontario, Canada is not perfect at all. However, Canada has a much smaller population that the US. When our national health care system was formed (1966-1968). OHIP doesn't cover drug costs (only when in hospital care & a few other circumstances), dental, physiotherapy, other therapy and other things. Doctors can charge for missed appointments, notes, and some medical procedures that OHIP doesn't cover - circumcision is one example. I am grateful for this system. EG: Yesterday I was cooking a tomato sauce. The sauce was starting to come to a near boil when all of a sudden there was a huge "spurt" and it hit my face, resulting in a small, painful, 2nd degree burn, about the size of a nickel. I immediately put on a very cold water compress to my face. About an hour later, I could see that a blister was forming. I went to a walk-in clinic and was able to see a doctor in about 10 minutes (lucky timing for me). My burn was irrigated and a burn salve script was issued. I went to the pharmacy and had this filled for $4.95 (I have private drug coverage, this was my 20% co-pay). This blister is starting to heal. Not fun having a blister on your face this time of year, as I have a party to go to tomorrow and not sure how my makeup will look, but I was able to get medical care and have this issue dealt with. Things to note: Canada has a higher average practical tax rate than the United States at 28%. Business Insider reports that after taxes Canadians bring home $35,299 annually on average. In the United States the practical tax rate is lower at 18%. ... The Numbeo Cost of Living Index for the U.S. is 69.91 compared to 65.01 for Canada.May 6, 2019 evidencenetwork.ca/five-things-most-people-get-wrong-about-canadas-healthcare-system/
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
Aug 16, 2014 17:52:53 GMT
|
Post by likescarrots on Dec 13, 2019 17:05:47 GMT
And because you're happy, it doesn't matter that others are going without necessary coverage? That's what I'm hearing. I don't mean to (and don't have time to) get in an argument with every retired liberal on the board about this topic again, but dang. It's all well and good for us to make sure you have health care, and for you to drain social security dry on my back, but making sure every single person has healthcare is just a bridge too far. I don’t have a problem with Medicare for all. I have a problem with insisting that Medicare for all and right.now.this.minute is the only acceptable solution, because I don’t think the majority of the country is quite there yet. So that attitude also puts off lots of people. Just different people. And it’s not just retired people who think that way. Plenty of working people with good insurance are afraid of the alternatives. So please don’t lay it all at door of old people. just to put this argument in perspective, I have been voting for 20 years. And 20 years ago I was asking Democrats why they didn't have a candidate for single payer/universal health Care. And for 20 years, I've been told 'the country is just not ready yet'. I have realized in this 20 years that Democrat politicians are just as beholden to corporations as Republicans, and Democratic voters are only marginally less selfish than Republican voters. And frankly all of you might as well be Republicans at this point if we can't figure out how to make sure everyone has the same access to healthcare, regardless of age, employment, gender, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 22:46:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 22:18:56 GMT
I’m curious @merge when did “Quality healthcare for all Americans at a reasonable cost” translate to this “Why are you cavalier about people dying?”
You really need to knock off the dramatics/scare tactics because you are doing exactly what you accuse the insurance CEOs of doing.
A couple of years ago California tried to find a way to extend Medicaid to all who live in the state. They finally tabled the idea because the best option would have doubled California’s budget. What they did do was find ways to make Cover California more affordable for Californians. One thing they did was increase the income level for subsidies which meant more folks could afford the insurance.
When you look at the ACA, it’s not bad. Actually it’s pretty good. But one would be naive to think you could roll something as big and complex as the ACA without running into glitches. And there were glitches, big glitches, especially in the individual market. By the time they figured out what the glitches were there was a hostile Congress who only wanted one thing and that was to completely repeal the ACA so there was no opportunity to fix the glitches.
The reason I bring this up is because one of the glitches found in the ACA individual markets could very well torpedo Medicare 4 All.
Insurance companies anticipate what they will pay out in claims and set the rates accordingly. For the ACA they underestimated the number of sick people and ended up paying more in claims then they anticipated which resulted in the majority of the problems in the individual market.
Why is this a problem for MFA? Both Warren and Sanders are making assumptions of the cost based on incomplete information. Information that is not known yet. At this point there are 14 states that did not expand Medicaid after the ACA was passed. Which means there 100s of thousands of ticking bombs out there that when they finally get access to healthcare the cost for their care could do the same thing to MFA as it did to the individual markets under the ACA.
Normally the government would adjust except....
If the Democrats don’t shoot themselves in the foot and do what they need to do and take back the White House, keep and expand the majority in the House and get a sizable majority in the Senate, then they have a sizable agenda that needs to be dealt with.
1. Healthcare 2. Infrastructure. Currently there are hundreds of bridges and dams that are close to being or are deemed unsafe, among other things. We can’t keep ignoring. 3. Climate change. We really can’t keep ignoring this. And honestly, I have no idea all of what needs to be done, but something needs to be done and it’s sure to not only cost a lot of money but will change how we live our lives. 4. Fix Social Security. It’s no secret this needs to be done and we can’t keep kicking the can down the street. 5. Dealing with the challenges facing the US workforce when it comes to technology, automation, & globalization. These are not “good stories “ as Elizabeth Warren says but real issues that will change the job market. A couple of years ago CBS Sunday Morning did a show on jobs. It’s estimated that 45% of the jobs that exist today will be gone in 20 years replaced by jobs that don’t exist today. 6. The debt trump is racking up with his tax cuts. It can’t be ignored. The Chairman of the Fed has already told Congress the debt has to be dealt with or it will interfere with how the government handles issues like the next recession among other things.
There are other things that the Democrats will need to deal with but to me these are the top 6 and they all cost money. A lot of money which means the government has to make smart decisions on how these issues are handled. You know get the most bang for your buck at the same time accompanying your goals.
Because I think the revenue stream that Warren claims will pay for MFA is unstable and because they really don’t know the cost of MFA, I think the ACA should be fixed. Even include a public option to compete in the individual markets. Maybe move the country toward a single payer plan down the road.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 13, 2019 23:01:04 GMT
I don’t have a problem with Medicare for all. I have a problem with insisting that Medicare for all and right.now.this.minute is the only acceptable solution, because I don’t think the majority of the country is quite there yet. So that attitude also puts off lots of people. Just different people. And it’s not just retired people who think that way. Plenty of working people with good insurance are afraid of the alternatives. So please don’t lay it all at door of old people. just to put this argument in perspective, I have been voting for 20 years. And 20 years ago I was asking Democrats why they didn't have a candidate for single payer/universal health Care. And for 20 years, I've been told 'the country is just not ready yet'. I have realized in this 20 years that Democrat politicians are just as beholden to corporations as Republicans, and Democratic voters are only marginally less selfish than Republican voters. And frankly all of you might as well be Republicans at this point if we can't figure out how to make sure everyone has the same access to healthcare, regardless of age, employment, gender, etc. All righty then. I keep forgetting that anyone who doesn’t fall into lockstep is to be shamed and banished.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Dec 13, 2019 23:09:27 GMT
just to put this argument in perspective, I have been voting for 20 years. And 20 years ago I was asking Democrats why they didn't have a candidate for single payer/universal health Care. And for 20 years, I've been told 'the country is just not ready yet'. I have realized in this 20 years that Democrat politicians are just as beholden to corporations as Republicans, and Democratic voters are only marginally less selfish than Republican voters. And frankly all of you might as well be Republicans at this point if we can't figure out how to make sure everyone has the same access to healthcare, regardless of age, employment, gender, etc. All righty then. I keep forgetting that anyone who doesn’t fall into lockstep is to be shamed and banished.Welcome to the club.
LOL
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 22:46:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 1:39:55 GMT
I don’t have a problem with Medicare for all. I have a problem with insisting that Medicare for all and right.now.this.minute is the only acceptable solution, because I don’t think the majority of the country is quite there yet. So that attitude also puts off lots of people. Just different people. And it’s not just retired people who think that way. Plenty of working people with good insurance are afraid of the alternatives. So please don’t lay it all at door of old people. just to put this argument in perspective, I have been voting for 20 years. And 20 years ago I was asking Democrats why they didn't have a candidate for single payer/universal health Care. And for 20 years, I've been told 'the country is just not ready yet'. I have realized in this 20 years that Democrat politicians are just as beholden to corporations as Republicans, and Democratic voters are only marginally less selfish than Republican voters. And frankly all of you might as well be Republicans at this point if we can't figure out how to make sure everyone has the same access to healthcare, regardless of age, employment, gender, etc. I have been very clear that I’m not a fan of Medicare for all for various reasons. I have been clear that I’m not a fan of a lot of what the progressives like Warren and Sanders are pushing. I think the Democrats have better choices. And while I don’t agree with how the progressives want to get things done, it has never entered my head to even suggest they aren’t real Democrats. And I have been very clear that if either Sanders or Warren become the Democratic Nominee, in spite of my misgivings, I will vote for them. But I swear to god if one more person on this board or out in the real world come even a little close to suggesting that if one doesn’t buy into to this progressive utopia that they are not a real Democrat all bets are off and if Warren or Sanders are the nominee I’m staying home. And if we end up with trump for another 4 years then maybe this country deserves it.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Dec 14, 2019 3:49:42 GMT
just to put this argument in perspective, I have been voting for 20 years. And 20 years ago I was asking Democrats why they didn't have a candidate for single payer/universal health Care. And for 20 years, I've been told 'the country is just not ready yet'. I have realized in this 20 years that Democrat politicians are just as beholden to corporations as Republicans, and Democratic voters are only marginally less selfish than Republican voters. And frankly all of you might as well be Republicans at this point if we can't figure out how to make sure everyone has the same access to healthcare, regardless of age, employment, gender, etc. I have been very clear that I’m not a fan of Medicare for all for various reasons. I have been clear that I’m not a fan of a lot of what the progressives like Warren and Sanders are pushing. I think the Democrats have better choices. And while I don’t agree with how the progressives want to get things done, it has never entered my head to even suggest they aren’t real Democrats. And I have been very clear that if either Sanders or Warren become the Democratic Nominee, in spite of my misgivings, I will vote for them. But I swear to god if one more person on this board or out in the real world come even a little close to suggesting that if one doesn’t buy into to this progressive utopia that they are not a real Democrat all bets are off and if Warren or Sanders are the nominee I’m staying home. And if we end up with trump for another 4 years then maybe this country deserves it. In other words, sit down and shut up, you disrespectful young whippersnappers. We expect your complicit silence as we take the country down with us. We got ours and fuck everyone else. Thanks, but no. Do what you’ve got to do, but I’m going to keep telling the truth.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Dec 14, 2019 6:28:14 GMT
Personally, I think the “too liberal” narrative is being pushed hard by the Biden camp. If Biden’s your guy, that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean that other candidates can’t win while promoting progressive views. I’ll just issue my weekly reminder here that we lost with a centrist in 2016. Lost with a centrist because of the Russians and Comey’s letter about nothing 11 days before the election. Even with that she managed to get 3 million more votes than trump. Which would mean the majority of people who voted, voted for a centrist. Not necessarily, I know plenty of people who voted for her as the lesser of two evils.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Dec 14, 2019 11:46:20 GMT
But I swear to god if one more person on this board or out in the real world come even a little close to suggesting that if one doesn’t buy into to this progressive utopia that they are not a real Democrat all bets are off and if Warren or Sanders are the nominee I’m staying home. And if we end up with trump for another 4 years then maybe this country deserves it. Whoa.
You have been one of the most critical of those that stayed home in 2016. I guess it's okay to skip voting if it's two candidates YOU don't like. And if Trump wins again, you get to point your finger at the progressives this time and blame them for the next 4 years.
I knew the left would start eating their own. This is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Dec 14, 2019 13:19:27 GMT
But I swear to god if one more person on this board or out in the real world come even a little close to suggesting that if one doesn’t buy into to this progressive utopia that they are not a real Democrat all bets are off and if Warren or Sanders are the nominee I’m staying home. And if we end up with trump for another 4 years then maybe this country deserves it. Whoa.
You have been one of the most critical of those that stayed home in 2016. I guess it's okay to skip voting if it's two candidates YOU don't like. And if Trump wins again, you get to point your finger at the progressives this time and blame them for the next 4 years.
I knew the left would start eating their own. This is interesting.
She's not representative. "The left" is doing just fine. We disagree all we want, but in the end, we're all going to the polls to vote for the same person.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Dec 14, 2019 13:43:41 GMT
Whoa.
You have been one of the most critical of those that stayed home in 2016. I guess it's okay to skip voting if it's two candidates YOU don't like. And if Trump wins again, you get to point your finger at the progressives this time and blame them for the next 4 years.
I knew the left would start eating their own. This is interesting.
She's not representative. "The left" is doing just fine. We disagree all we want, but in the end, we're all going to the polls to vote for the same person. You sound pretty confident. However, after 2016, and the left believing the Bernie supporters were going to just show up and vote for Hillary, I wouldn't be so certain.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Dec 14, 2019 13:51:12 GMT
She's not representative. "The left" is doing just fine. We disagree all we want, but in the end, we're all going to the polls to vote for the same person. You sound pretty confident. However, after 2016, and the left believing the Bernie supporters were going to just show up and vote for Hillary, I wouldn't be so certain.
I guess we'll see.
|
|