|
Post by Merge on Nov 1, 2019 16:45:57 GMT
Can you point me to someone's plan to "fix the ACA" while providing coverage to ALL Americans, at a lower cost? Does this person also have a plan to pay down the national debt, fight climate change, and fix the infrastructure without raising taxes? Or is perfection only something you require of Elizabeth Warren? I raised some questions and concerns about her plans. I think they are legitimate concerns that all voters should raise their concerns about anyone’s plans running for the office of President. Well actually any office. And it’s not expecting “perfection” from candidates running for office to have them explain how they are going to accomplish all they are selling. As to the ACA, I just checked and find the moderate candidates have their own plans that build on ACA. Which I’m ok with that. Especially if they provide coverage quality health care for all Americans. And because the plans are more moderate the cost are as well which leaves room to pay for all the other important items like climate change and the infrastructure to name a couple items that need to be addressed as well. And no I don’t like Elizabeth Warren, but if I thought she could do the job I would support her regardless of how I felt about her personally. And I just don’t think she can do the job. I want what is best for this country and I don’t have to like the person who I think can do the job and will support. So if Warren is the nominee you will vote for someone else? Hand your vote to Trump? I do think you're holding her to a higher standard with regards to being able to explain every detail than most people do with candidates, and yes, I think it's because you don't like her. And that's fine. I think most people understand that campaign ideas are just that - ideas and goals. As was pointed out above, the president is not the only person gets to decide these things and figure them out. How do the more moderate candidates plan to pay for the things they want to do when they "leave room" by denying some people access to health care? If a long-standing senator with a history of bipartisan cooperation, a law degree and strong background in finance is not capable of doing the job, I really don't know who is. Personally, I think we have a strong field with many capable candidates who could do the job - I just don't think most of them have a clear vision of how we move away from Trumpism and join the rest of the developed world in providing healthcare and education. Most are too worried about being painted as "socialists" to actually fight for anything (spoiler alert: no matter who the nominee is, the Republicans will call him/her a socialist).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 0:20:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 18:48:28 GMT
I raised some questions and concerns about her plans. I think they are legitimate concerns that all voters should raise their concerns about anyone’s plans running for the office of President. Well actually any office. And it’s not expecting “perfection” from candidates running for office to have them explain how they are going to accomplish all they are selling. As to the ACA, I just checked and find the moderate candidates have their own plans that build on ACA. Which I’m ok with that. Especially if they provide coverage quality health care for all Americans. And because the plans are more moderate the cost are as well which leaves room to pay for all the other important items like climate change and the infrastructure to name a couple items that need to be addressed as well. And no I don’t like Elizabeth Warren, but if I thought she could do the job I would support her regardless of how I felt about her personally. And I just don’t think she can do the job. I want what is best for this country and I don’t have to like the person who I think can do the job and will support. So if Warren is the nominee you will vote for someone else? Hand your vote to Trump? I do think you're holding her to a higher standard with regards to being able to explain every detail than most people do with candidates, and yes, I think it's because you don't like her. And that's fine. I think most people understand that campaign ideas are just that - ideas and goals. As was pointed out above, the president is not the only person gets to decide these things and figure them out. How do the more moderate candidates plan to pay for the things they want to do when they "leave room" by denying some people access to health care? If a long-standing senator with a history of bipartisan cooperation, a law degree and strong background in finance is not capable of doing the job, I really don't know who is. Personally, I think we have a strong field with many capable candidates who could do the job - I just don't think most of them have a clear vision of how we move away from Trumpism and join the rest of the developed world in providing healthcare and education. Most are too worried about being painted as "socialists" to actually fight for anything (spoiler alert: no matter who the nominee is, the Republicans will call him/her a socialist). I have said this many times, whoever the Democrats nominee is I will vote for them. Warren will not get my vote in the California Primary. As far as I know none of the moderates have said anything about not providing coverage to all Americans. I don’t care how accomplished you say she is in the Senate, she has one flaw, that she shares with Sanders. A flaw that “colors” the decisions/policies that both make. Here is her answer about automation in the October debate about job loss and automation/technology “The reason is bad trade policy. The reason has been a bunch of giant multinational corporations who have been calling the shots on trade. Giant multinational corporations that have no loyalty to America. They have no loyalty to American workers. They have no loyalty to American consumers. They have no loyalty to American communities. They are loyal only to their own bottom line. I have a plan to fix that. It’s accountable capitalism. You want to have one of the giant corporations in America? Then 40 percent of your board of directors should be elected by your employees. That will make a difference when a corporation decides, “We could save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico.”Her saying job loss to automation/technology is a “good story” is equal to trump saying climate change is a hoax started by China. Yes jobs have been lost because US companies are building a presence outside the US. In some cases the companies did it because it was cheaper, in some cases it was because the businesses’s greatest potential for growth was outside the US so it made sense to have a presence outside the US. But by the same token , trade policies have provided small business the ability to grow by exporting their goods outside the US and doing so without a presence outside the US other than maybe a trade rep. So there are trade offs. But right now there are few trade offs to people losing their jobs to technology/automation. And people are losing their jobs to automation and will continue to do so and it has very little to do with “bad trade policy”. And that is her biggest flaw, IMO, is she letting her intense dislike of Wall Street color her positions. Yes Wall Street is a royal pain in the ass, and no questioned they should be regulated but they are not the enemy. Warren sees Wall Street and now it seems tech companies, as the enemy and to me that is too big of a flaw to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 1, 2019 18:59:35 GMT
Old Liz isn't stupid, she knows this plan, along with all her other freebies, won't work so she left herself an out; During that same interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, Warren vowed that she would “not sign any legislation into law for which costs for middle-class families do not go down.” Everything she's put forward is going to cost the middle class is some way. Where is she suggesting "freebies" or are you just projecting your vile hatred of the Democrats. ANYTHING is better than what trump administration is proposing. The republicans right now, are verbalizing that they will protect preexisting conditions, seniors, and others, but in REALITY, they are lying out their filthy mouths and actually voting against all that. They did so just this last week. It is funny how you conservative/republicans smack on liberal democrats for discussing the ideas of trying to get a better system, better for EVERYONE, not just a few, and cry over the democrat hatred for trump, yet here you are, doing exactly what you project. Hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 1, 2019 19:20:05 GMT
So if Warren is the nominee you will vote for someone else? Hand your vote to Trump? I do think you're holding her to a higher standard with regards to being able to explain every detail than most people do with candidates, and yes, I think it's because you don't like her. And that's fine. I think most people understand that campaign ideas are just that - ideas and goals. As was pointed out above, the president is not the only person gets to decide these things and figure them out. How do the more moderate candidates plan to pay for the things they want to do when they "leave room" by denying some people access to health care? If a long-standing senator with a history of bipartisan cooperation, a law degree and strong background in finance is not capable of doing the job, I really don't know who is. Personally, I think we have a strong field with many capable candidates who could do the job - I just don't think most of them have a clear vision of how we move away from Trumpism and join the rest of the developed world in providing healthcare and education. Most are too worried about being painted as "socialists" to actually fight for anything (spoiler alert: no matter who the nominee is, the Republicans will call him/her a socialist). I have said this many times, whoever the Democrats nominee is I will vote for them. Warren will not get my vote in the California Primary. As far as I know none of the moderates have said anything about not providing coverage to all Americans. I don’t care how accomplished you say she is in the Senate, she has one flaw, that she shares with Sanders. A flaw that “colors” the decisions/policies that both make. Here is her answer about automation in the October debate about job loss and automation/technology “The reason is bad trade policy. The reason has been a bunch of giant multinational corporations who have been calling the shots on trade. Giant multinational corporations that have no loyalty to America. They have no loyalty to American workers. They have no loyalty to American consumers. They have no loyalty to American communities. They are loyal only to their own bottom line. I have a plan to fix that. It’s accountable capitalism. You want to have one of the giant corporations in America? Then 40 percent of your board of directors should be elected by your employees. That will make a difference when a corporation decides, “We could save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico.”Her saying job loss to automation/technology is a “good story” is equal to trump saying climate change is a hoax started by China. Yes jobs have been lost because US companies are building a presence outside the US. In some cases the companies did it because it was cheaper, in some cases it was because the businesses’s greatest potential for growth was outside the US so it made sense to have a presence outside the US. But by the same token , trade policies have provided small business the ability to grow by exporting their goods outside the US and doing so without a presence outside the US other than maybe a trade rep. So there are trade offs. But right now there are few trade offs to people losing their jobs to technology/automation. And people are losing their jobs to automation and will continue to do so and it has very little to do with “bad trade policy”. And that is her biggest flaw, IMO, is she letting her intense dislike of Wall Street color her positions. Yes Wall Street is a royal pain in the ass, and no questioned they should be regulated but they are not the enemy. Warren sees Wall Street and now it seems tech companies, as the enemy and to me that is too big of a flaw to ignore. Forgive me, but I can't help but noticing how the goalposts keep moving here. I post that she's come out with a plan to pay for M4A, and you're upset that she doesn't yet have a plan for x, y and z. I reply that no candidate has yet come out with a plan to pay for everything they want to do, and you say that you just don't think she can do the job. I bring up her accomplishments and qualifications, and now her fatal flaw is that she doesn't like Wall Street. With all due respect, Fred, I get that you don't like her. But geez. Assume that I spend time here pointing out that her policy view of US capitalism and what is needed to level the playing field is a lot more nuanced than just hating Wall Street, and requires a lot more than one paragraph in a debate to assess. Assume that I bring up that her statements about corporations' primary duty being to their shareholders, not their employees, is based entirely in fact, and that the mandate to increase shareholder value is behind both automation and outsourcing, so it's silly to split hairs about which one is worse. Without appropriate regulation, if you put limits on one (automation or outsourcing), corporations will just look to increase the other - unless they are required by law to consider their employees in some way when making decisions that affect them. What's next then? Her taste in beer? Her hairstyle? Her sensible shoes?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 1, 2019 19:20:22 GMT
Funny how we hold Democratic candidates to a much higher, more critical standard that what we actually get from the current potus/administration.
It is disheartening, to say the least, tearing down the candidates that are actually sharing and generating plans for trying for a better system for the majority of the people. Their ideas are posted by demand and then they are torn apart by naysayers and used as negative (OH MY GOD SHE IS GOING TO END ALL BUSINESSES AND EVERYONE IS GOING TO BE OUT OF A JOB--'dear old liz' IS NOT FOR AMERICAN JOBS!)
trump promised a better the most perfect, amazing, be all end all healthcare plan. he(they) never ever had one. and he is running on it again with the caveat "IF you elect me again, I will show you the most perfect, bestest, HUGE most beautiful healthcare plan you have ever seen" and you know what---there will STILL be people who vote for him because he has once again promised that.
While there is not any one single issue that is going to sway the majority of the voters, we need to figure out how to get the eligible voters who do not vote, to the polls. It is shameful that less than 30% (generally speaking on a USA whole) are the ones who decide elections.
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,318
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Nov 1, 2019 19:29:20 GMT
My hope is something will be done to address self employed people. We don't have an employee to cost share our health insurance costs with and currently we aren't able to deduct our insurance premium costs on our taxes. It's really tough to afford our insurance which keeps going up yearly like everyone else's. My pipe dream is to one day also get a discount for actually being healthy. Wouldn't that be something?!?! Help the sick while also rewarding the healthy.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 1, 2019 19:48:21 GMT
My hope is something will be done to address self employed people. We don't have an employee to cost share our health insurance costs with and currently we aren't able to deduct our insurance premium costs on our taxes. It's really tough to afford our insurance which keeps going up yearly like everyone else's. My pipe dream is to one day also get a discount for actually being healthy. Wouldn't that be something?!?! Help the sick while also rewarding the healthy. One of the things I like about detaching healthcare from employment via a single payer plan is how it opens the way for lots of people to start or continue running their own businesses. Lots of would-be entrepreneurs are driven back to corporate employment by the need for less expensive group coverage. I'm not sure why you would be rewarded for your good luck in being healthy? I could imagine some kind of incentive for undertaking health-promoting activities, but I can't really see rewarding someone for being less genetically predisposed to disease.
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,318
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Nov 1, 2019 20:31:26 GMT
My hope is something will be done to address self employed people. We don't have an employee to cost share our health insurance costs with and currently we aren't able to deduct our insurance premium costs on our taxes. It's really tough to afford our insurance which keeps going up yearly like everyone else's. My pipe dream is to one day also get a discount for actually being healthy. Wouldn't that be something?!?! Help the sick while also rewarding the healthy. One of the things I like about detaching healthcare from employment via a single payer plan is how it opens the way for lots of people to start or continue running their own businesses. Lots of would-be entrepreneurs are driven back to corporate employment by the need for less expensive group coverage. I'm not sure why you would be rewarded for your good luck in being healthy? I could imagine some kind of incentive for undertaking health-promoting activities, but I can't really see rewarding someone for being less genetically predisposed to disease.
My point about receiving a discount for being healthy is because year after year our insurance goes up and we are told it's because as self employed Blue Cross puts us in a pool with other self employed individuals and the medical costs of the group go up each year. It is frustrating because our family has been fortunate with good health to the point that we often wonder if we'd be better off just paying out of pocket and dumping insurance altogether. Obviously good health can change on a dime and that's what keeps us paying the high costs to have insurance. I'd like to see some incentive to being healthy. There are things we can control like choosing to be a smoker. A lot of illness is derived from life style choices. Maybe someone out there would be enticed to make better choices if it helped with lowering insurance costs.
|
|
|
Post by shevy on Nov 1, 2019 20:46:48 GMT
It is frustrating because our family has been fortunate with good health I am one of the unfortunate ones. The person who has a genetic predisposition to cancer. The one who suffered a dog bite in my face that has afforded me 30+ years of chronic pain. The one who has a high deductible plan at work and meets the out of pocket max in Feb/March due to needed dr visits and medications. While my husband refuses to go in because he never meets the out of pocket and we have to pay for everything. Can you see how it may feel like I am being penalized for things out of my control? If only we could have single payer ever everyone, no matter what your employment status is and not be penalized for genetics and accidents that are out of our control.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 1, 2019 21:11:24 GMT
I don’t pretend to be an expert on health care, but I am more afraid of GOP plans than of Warren’s plan. Trump has said that he would protect pre-existing conditions. Maybe so, but there is at least some possibility that they would NOT be protected. khn.org/news/trumps-talk-on-preexisting-conditions-doesnt-match-his-administrations-actions/And those healthcare savings accounts? That’s a nice idea, but almost certainly would be a drop in the bucket for any serious illness. I dunno. It’s a mess.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 0:20:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 21:14:44 GMT
I have said this many times, whoever the Democrats nominee is I will vote for them. Warren will not get my vote in the California Primary. As far as I know none of the moderates have said anything about not providing coverage to all Americans. I don’t care how accomplished you say she is in the Senate, she has one flaw, that she shares with Sanders. A flaw that “colors” the decisions/policies that both make.
Here is her answer about automation in the October debate about job loss and automation/technology “The reason is bad trade policy. The reason has been a bunch of giant multinational corporations who have been calling the shots on trade. Giant multinational corporations that have no loyalty to America. They have no loyalty to American workers. They have no loyalty to American consumers. They have no loyalty to American communities. They are loyal only to their own bottom line. I have a plan to fix that. It’s accountable capitalism. You want to have one of the giant corporations in America? Then 40 percent of your board of directors should be elected by your employees. That will make a difference when a corporation decides, “We could save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico.”Her saying job loss to automation/technology is a “good story” is equal to trump saying climate change is a hoax started by China. Yes jobs have been lost because US companies are building a presence outside the US. In some cases the companies did it because it was cheaper, in some cases it was because the businesses’s greatest potential for growth was outside the US so it made sense to have a presence outside the US. But by the same token , trade policies have provided small business the ability to grow by exporting their goods outside the US and doing so without a presence outside the US other than maybe a trade rep. So there are trade offs. But right now there are few trade offs to people losing their jobs to technology/automation. And people are losing their jobs to automation and will continue to do so and it has very little to do with “bad trade policy”. And that is her biggest flaw, IMO, is she letting her intense dislike of Wall Street color her positions. Yes Wall Street is a royal pain in the ass, and no questioned they should be regulated but they are not the enemy. Warren sees Wall Street and now it seems tech companies, as the enemy and to me that is too big of a flaw to ignore. Forgive me, but I can't help but noticing how the goalposts keep moving here. I post that she's come out with a plan to pay for M4A, and you're upset that she doesn't yet have a plan for x, y and z. I reply that no candidate has yet come out with a plan to pay for everything they want to do, and you say that you just don't think she can do the job. I bring up her accomplishments and qualifications, and now her fatal flaw is that she doesn't like Wall Street. With all due respect, Fred, I get that you don't like her. But geez. Assume that I spend time here pointing out that her policy view of US capitalism and what is needed to level the playing field is a lot more nuanced than just hating Wall Street, and requires a lot more than one paragraph in a debate to assess. Assume that I bring up that her statements about corporations' primary duty being to their shareholders, not their employees, is based entirely in fact, and that the mandate to increase shareholder value is behind both automation and outsourcing, so it's silly to split hairs about which one is worse. Without appropriate regulation, if you put limits on one (automation or outsourcing), corporations will just look to increase the other - unless they are required by law to consider their employees in some way when making decisions that affect them. What's next then? Her taste in beer? Her hairstyle? Her sensible shoes? ”If a long-standing senator with a history of bipartisan cooperation, a law degree and strong background in finance is not capable of doing the job, I really don't know who is. Personally, I think we have a strong field with many capable candidates who could do the job - I just don't think most of them have a clear vision of how we move away from Trumpism and join the rest of the developed world in providing healthcare and education. Most are too worried about being painted as "socialists" to actually fight for anything (spoiler alert: no matter who the nominee is, the Republicans will call him/her a socialist).”I didn’t change the goal post I simply responded to the bolded comment above by pointing out regardless of she is doing in the Senate on what I see as a major flaw in her beliefs that dictate her positions. In other words she is not being objective. trump is making decisions every single day based on his personal belief and look at the mess we are in. IMO if a President Warren makes decisions based on her personal belief when it comes to Wall Street and her new target tech companies instead of looking at the situations objectively, it won’t end well for anyone. Especially if she thinks she can stop automation by putting on limits. Am I understanding that correctly, putting limits on a company’s use of automation? Yes I know you said without taking into consideration employees but the bottom line it’s limiting the use of automation. Talk about a way to put American Companies at a big disadvantage compared to companies in the rest of the world. Did you know the greatest potential growth for US companies is outside the United States? Right now the world is in the next industrial type revolution and this one involves technology and automation. And just like industrial revolutions of the past, you can’t stop it. Which means you either get with the program or you are left behind. And what this country needs to do is focus on what needs to be done to migrate the loss of jobs lost by automation and limiting a companies use of automation isn’t the way to do it. A couple of years ago CBS Sunday Morning did a show on automation and how it will affect the US workforce. The people on the show estimated that 45% of the jobs that exist now will be gone within the next 20 years. Jobs replaced by other types of jobs. If you think about it, it makes sense when you look back at jobs that were being done 100 years ago or even 75 years ago that don’t exist in today’s job market and the jobs being done today didn’t exist back then. Which means this country should accept the fact some folks are going to lose their jobs because of automation and that make sure they have access to whatever they need to obtain the skills for the newly created jobs. Anyway, she’s your gal, vote for her, donate to her campaign, make calls for her, go door to door for her and that is all great because it means you are engaged. I do think that is important, it’s just I don’t agree with your choice. I just don’t believe she is the best candidate. I know we can do better. But if she is the nominee, as much as it pains me, I will vote for her.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 0:20:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 22:03:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Nov 1, 2019 22:08:16 GMT
One of the things I like about detaching healthcare from employment via a single payer plan is how it opens the way for lots of people to start or continue running their own businesses. Lots of would-be entrepreneurs are driven back to corporate employment by the need for less expensive group coverage. I'm not sure why you would be rewarded for your good luck in being healthy? I could imagine some kind of incentive for undertaking health-promoting activities, but I can't really see rewarding someone for being less genetically predisposed to disease.
My point about receiving a discount for being healthy is because year after year our insurance goes up and we are told it's because as self employed Blue Cross puts us in a pool with other self employed individuals and the medical costs of the group go up each year. It is frustrating because our family has been fortunate with good health to the point that we often wonder if we'd be better off just paying out of pocket and dumping insurance altogether. Obviously good health can change on a dime and that's what keeps us paying the high costs to have insurance. I'd like to see some incentive to being healthy. There are things we can control like choosing to be a smoker. A lot of illness is derived from life style choices. Maybe someone out there would be enticed to make better choices if it helped with lowering insurance costs.
Health insurance goes up because Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a corporation and their goal is to make MONEY. Off of YOU. This is why I support single-payer/Medicare for all. Health is a human right.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Nov 1, 2019 22:09:11 GMT
Forgive me, but I can't help but noticing how the goalposts keep moving here. I post that she's come out with a plan to pay for M4A, and you're upset that she doesn't yet have a plan for x, y and z. I reply that no candidate has yet come out with a plan to pay for everything they want to do, and you say that you just don't think she can do the job. I bring up her accomplishments and qualifications, and now her fatal flaw is that she doesn't like Wall Street. With all due respect, Fred, I get that you don't like her. But geez. Assume that I spend time here pointing out that her policy view of US capitalism and what is needed to level the playing field is a lot more nuanced than just hating Wall Street, and requires a lot more than one paragraph in a debate to assess. Assume that I bring up that her statements about corporations' primary duty being to their shareholders, not their employees, is based entirely in fact, and that the mandate to increase shareholder value is behind both automation and outsourcing, so it's silly to split hairs about which one is worse. Without appropriate regulation, if you put limits on one (automation or outsourcing), corporations will just look to increase the other - unless they are required by law to consider their employees in some way when making decisions that affect them. What's next then? Her taste in beer? Her hairstyle? Her sensible shoes? ”If a long-standing senator with a history of bipartisan cooperation, a law degree and strong background in finance is not capable of doing the job, I really don't know who is. Personally, I think we have a strong field with many capable candidates who could do the job - I just don't think most of them have a clear vision of how we move away from Trumpism and join the rest of the developed world in providing healthcare and education. Most are too worried about being painted as "socialists" to actually fight for anything (spoiler alert: no matter who the nominee is, the Republicans will call him/her a socialist).”I didn’t change the goal post I simply responded to the bolded comment above by pointing out regardless of she is doing in the Senate on what I see as a major flaw in her beliefs that dictate her positions. In other words she is not being objective. trump is making decisions every single day based on his personal belief and look at the mess we are in. IMO if a President Warren makes decisions based on her personal belief when it comes to Wall Street and her new target tech companies instead of looking at the situations objectively, it won’t end well for anyone. Especially if she thinks she can stop automation by putting on limits. Am I understanding that correctly, putting limits on a company’s use of automation? Yes I know you said without taking into consideration employees but the bottom line it’s limiting the use of automation. Talk about a way to put American Companies at a big disadvantage compared to companies in the rest of the world. Did you know the greatest potential growth for US companies is outside the United States? Right now the world is in the next industrial type revolution and this one involves technology and automation. And just like industrial revolutions of the past, you can’t stop it. Which means you either get with the program or you are left behind. And what this country needs to do is focus on what needs to be done to migrate the loss of jobs lost by automation and limiting a companies use of automation isn’t the way to do it. A couple of years ago CBS Sunday Morning did a show on automation and how it will affect the US workforce. The people on the show estimated that 45% of the jobs that exist now will be gone within the next 20 years. Jobs replaced by other types of jobs. If you think about it, it makes sense when you look back at jobs that were being done 100 years ago or even 75 years ago that don’t exist in today’s job market and the jobs being done today didn’t exist back then. Which means this country should accept the fact some folks are going to lose their jobs because of automation and that make sure they have access to whatever they need to obtain the skills for the newly created jobs. Anyway, she’s your gal, vote for her, donate to her campaign, make calls for her, go door to door for her and that is all great because it means you are engaged. I do think that is important, it’s just I don’t agree with your choice. I just don’t believe she is the best candidate. I know we can do better. But if she is the nominee, as much as it pains me, I will vote for her. Can I ask who your frontrunner is right now? I'm just curious.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Nov 1, 2019 22:17:51 GMT
papercrafteradvocate said: It is disheartening, to say the least, tearing down the candidates that are actually sharing and generating plans for trying for a better system for the majority of the people. I think this is simply a case of Democrats actually have plans and we are all debating how best to do them. This isn't a case of tearing down but sharing ideas. Because let's face it, Republicans have no plans. Cut taxes, outlaw abortion. This is their platform. When there are actual ideas, people debate. 10 years ago you would never have gotten me on board with a universal healthcare plan. Now here I am, kicking it around. That's progress. At least on my end.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 0:20:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 22:20:42 GMT
Government can’t manage to accomplish proper healthcare for veterans but hey, let’s put them in charge of the entire nation’s healthcare. Someone always has to pay the bill.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 0:20:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 23:09:45 GMT
”If a long-standing senator with a history of bipartisan cooperation, a law degree and strong background in finance is not capable of doing the job, I really don't know who is. Personally, I think we have a strong field with many capable candidates who could do the job - I just don't think most of them have a clear vision of how we move away from Trumpism and join the rest of the developed world in providing healthcare and education. Most are too worried about being painted as "socialists" to actually fight for anything (spoiler alert: no matter who the nominee is, the Republicans will call him/her a socialist).”I didn’t change the goal post I simply responded to the bolded comment above by pointing out regardless of she is doing in the Senate on what I see as a major flaw in her beliefs that dictate her positions. In other words she is not being objective. trump is making decisions every single day based on his personal belief and look at the mess we are in. IMO if a President Warren makes decisions based on her personal belief when it comes to Wall Street and her new target tech companies instead of looking at the situations objectively, it won’t end well for anyone. Especially if she thinks she can stop automation by putting on limits. Am I understanding that correctly, putting limits on a company’s use of automation? Yes I know you said without taking into consideration employees but the bottom line it’s limiting the use of automation. Talk about a way to put American Companies at a big disadvantage compared to companies in the rest of the world. Did you know the greatest potential growth for US companies is outside the United States? Right now the world is in the next industrial type revolution and this one involves technology and automation. And just like industrial revolutions of the past, you can’t stop it. Which means you either get with the program or you are left behind. And what this country needs to do is focus on what needs to be done to migrate the loss of jobs lost by automation and limiting a companies use of automation isn’t the way to do it. A couple of years ago CBS Sunday Morning did a show on automation and how it will affect the US workforce. The people on the show estimated that 45% of the jobs that exist now will be gone within the next 20 years. Jobs replaced by other types of jobs. If you think about it, it makes sense when you look back at jobs that were being done 100 years ago or even 75 years ago that don’t exist in today’s job market and the jobs being done today didn’t exist back then. Which means this country should accept the fact some folks are going to lose their jobs because of automation and that make sure they have access to whatever they need to obtain the skills for the newly created jobs. Anyway, she’s your gal, vote for her, donate to her campaign, make calls for her, go door to door for her and that is all great because it means you are engaged. I do think that is important, it’s just I don’t agree with your choice. I just don’t believe she is the best candidate. I know we can do better. But if she is the nominee, as much as it pains me, I will vote for her. Can I ask who your frontrunner is right now? I'm just curious. My dream ticket was Harris/Kennedy. But Kennedy has decided to run for the Senate and a Harris keeps shooting herself in the foot. Her latest was not showing up in her home state of a California during these wildfires that are sweeping through the state. Instead she feels being in Iowa is more important. So, right now I want to hear more of what Amy and Mayor Pete have to say.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 1, 2019 23:13:08 GMT
I don’t pretend to be an expert on health care, but I am more afraid of GOP plans than of Warren’s plan. Trump has said that he would protect pre-existing conditions. Maybe so, but there is at least some possibility that they would NOT be protected. khn.org/news/trumps-talk-on-preexisting-conditions-doesnt-match-his-administrations-actions/And those healthcare savings accounts? That’s a nice idea, but almost certainly would be a drop in the bucket for any serious illness. I dunno. It’s a mess. They actually voted against it last week. So trump/gop is lying through their teeth.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 1, 2019 23:16:50 GMT
Government can’t manage to accomplish proper healthcare for veterans but hey, let’s put them in charge of the entire nation’s healthcare. Someone always has to pay the bill. If not government to help bring the outrageous costs down, then who? Insurance companies are not going to self police. They have a responsibility to their share holders and their executives and CEO’s need to have those million dollar yearly bonuses and 6 figure salaries. Thus, someone needs to help with regulations and affordable costs to us peons.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Nov 1, 2019 23:58:53 GMT
I haven't read the details on her plan but I would like to point out that taxes are going to have to increase to pay for the tax cut of 2017. The deficit is exploding already. So where will that additional money come from?
Insurance is my main issue but I don't think Medicare for All is the solution.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 0:20:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 0:08:35 GMT
papercrafteradvocate said: It is disheartening, to say the least, tearing down the candidates that are actually sharing and generating plans for trying for a better system for the majority of the people. I think this is simply a case of Democrats actually have plans and we are all debating how best to do them. This isn't a case of tearing down but sharing ideas. Because let's face it, Republicans have no plans. Cut taxes, outlaw abortion. This is their platform. When there are actual ideas, people debate. 10 years ago you would never have gotten me on board with a universal healthcare plan. Now here I am, kicking it around. That's progress. At least on my end. Asking questions or challenging a candidates positions is not tearing them down. There is one little nugget from the 2016 election we need to remember when we chose our nominee. Voters who voted for Obama in 2008 & 2012 voted for trump because they were disappointed that President Obama didn’t deliver on his promises of change he promised and felt voting for Hillary would be more of the same. We know why President Obama couldn’t deliver all he promised and it because of a hostile Republicans in the House and Senate. The Democrats have one goal. That is to win the White House, keep the majority in the a House and get the majority in the Senate. And not for just two years, not even for four years. It has to be for as long as it takes to fix the mess we are currently in. The reason we are in this mess is because we, as voters, created it by the folks we elected and now it’s up to us to fix the mess we created by making informed votes and electing folks who will get the changes that need to be done, done. The only way to do that is to ask a lot of questions of those running for office. In some respect, we have to do what California managed to do and that is to marginalize the Republicans. What has become clear the last three years is the Republicans in DC don’t deserve to have the privilege of working in the government on the people’s behalf. 240 bills have been passed by the Democrats in the House and they just sit on Moscow Mitch’s desk. That is inexcusable. And it needs to change. IMO the only way we even have chance to do any of this is if we chose a ”realistic of what can be done” type candidate to run for president along with Congressmen or women and Senators that are willing to get things done. And, again IMO, the only way we can do that is to question the hell out of their positions and proposed programs to determine the best candidates. And right now for President , IMO, Warren, & Sanders are sucking out all the oxygen with their “pie in the sky” positions to the point the other candidates are not being heard. I believe the reason Biden is as high in the polls as he is, is because a lot of moderate Democrats don’t want to go as far left as Sanders and Warren want to push the party so they are supporting him because of name recognition and that he is a moderate. My guess is if one of the other moderate candidates had more of a name recognition they would be at the top instead of Biden. In any case the stakes in this election are too high to mess it up. So the Democrats need to chose folks who can appeal to more than just the left side of the party. Doesn’t matter if it’s for President or Congress. IMO. This country can’t afford another 4 years of trump or Republican lawmakers who have their own agenda as opposed to doing what is best for the people in their district or their state or the country. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 2, 2019 1:55:41 GMT
Perusing Twitter tonight, I see I’m not alone in my thoughts...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 0:20:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 14:09:03 GMT
"“Every candidate who opposes my long-term goal of Medicare for All should put forward their own plan to cover everyone, without costing the country anything more in health care spending, and while putting $11 trillion back in the pockets of the American people,” she wrote. “If they are unwilling to do that, they should concede that they think it’s more important to protect the eye-popping profits of private insurers and drug companies and the immense fortunes of the top 1 percent and giant corporations.” The political establishment was aghast. The Washington Post unleashed a blizzard of articles decrying Warren’s audacity, picking apart her assumptions, her math, and her political judgement. Former Treasury secretary Larry Summers was trotted out to declare that he could “easily imagine supporting a well-designed Medicare-for-all plan” before detailing the horrors that would ensure from taxing wealth and disrupting the current system. Rahm Emanuel characteristically claimed a badge of courage for dismissing Medicare for All as a pipe dream. Buttigieg and Biden scorned Warren’s cost estimates, with Biden saying she was “just making it up. There is no way.” Some on the left chimed in, criticizing her choice of taxes and worrying whether her repeated use of the phrase “my long-term goal of Medicare for All” presaged a later retreat. Despite the carping, one thing is clear: Warren has joined Sanders in forceful support of Medicare for All. As with the Green New Deal, two of the three leading candidates in the Democratic presidential primaries will argue the case. The others will have to put up or shut up—Warren’s gauntlet will force discussion of the spiraling costs, and human toll of the current system. Buttigieg, who went after Warren for not detailing her plan, will now be pressed to come up with more than platitudes to describe how his plan can fulfill his promise to sustain private insurance companies, pay for a public option, provide everyone affordable care, and somehow cost dramatically less than Medicare for All. The debate over Medicare for All illustrates the fundamental choice that Democrats will make in the coming primaries. Are they satisfied with a candidate who promises restoration, or do they want a champion of fundamental change? For the Democratic establishment, beating Trump is enough. As Representative Tim Ryan, who recently dropped out of the race, put it, “We just want to beat Trump. That’s the revolution. Beating Trump.” Sanders and Warren insist Trump is the symptom, not the cause, of our discontent. The rules were rigged long before he came to office. Fundamental threats—from corrupting inequality to the climate emergency to a cruel and wasteful health care system—need to be addressed. They seek a mandate for real change, not simply a campaign to get rid of Trump... Among the Beltway set, the growing consensus is that Democrats should “seize the center,” and beware of moving too far left. This is in part grounded in the quaint belief that Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 because, as the normally thoughtful conservative columnist Ralph Douthat wrote in The New York Times, she “adjured her husband’s popular legacy of centrism,” making Trump the “moderate candidate in the race.” The growing progressive wing of the party, in contrast, attributes Clinton’s loss in large part to her being the personification of a compromised establishment that had failed working people. Trump won because the pussy-grabbing, duplicitous, shady businessman and reality-TV star made himself into the voice of populist change. In office, Trump has failed the very voters he conned in 2016. Democrats win by seizing what Martin Luther King called the “moral center,” championing bold reforms that address real challenges that the people and the country face. " www.thenation.com/article/warren-medicare-democrats/
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Nov 8, 2019 16:38:48 GMT
Personally, I'd much rather pay a bit more in taxes, if my health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles go away. As far as a government take over of healthcare, go ask someone you know that has Tricare or that is on Medicare and see if they are complaining about their coverage or their choice of doctors/hospitals.
|
|