Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 231: The Sleepy One

(+) Yeah! (+)

And I disagree with that horribly. Primaries are meant to be for the voters to become informed. Hillary Clinton deserved to be attacked for what she did. He didn't name call, he wasn't out of line, he wants money out of politics and Hillary was for sure a big money taker.
---

What did she "do?" Give a couple speeches about empowering women to Goldman Sachs while receiving a typical amount of money for a speech given by someone that famous?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of quid pro quo between Clinton and GS or any other company. She didn't do anything wrong, but he implied that she was bought and paid for. That's not "informing the voters"; it's baseless innuendo.

---

And maybe, some people are sick of the typical. Maybe future Presidential candidates shouldn't be going around taking the money from Banks which has the blood of Americans on it because they helped rob this country blind with their scheming and hurt a lot of people.

That's the difference between you and me. You are OK with the typical. I find it disgusting.

I hate fear based decisions, and that's what so many Americans are thinking about this election cycle. "Just have to beat Trump, got to be safe" but no you have to inspire. God damnit John Delaney ain't inspiring crap. Biden isn't inspiring anyone. I want to be proven wrong, I want to make the right show their work on Bernie Sanders being not good enough to beat Donald Trump. I don't believe them.
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Delaney should run as a Republican.....

He SHOULD. Centrist Dems SHOULD be the Republican Party. Instead of a having an opposition party of identity politics and racism.

That explains why Delaney was as high as Trump for me on isidewith
---

Where are these supposed Republican politicians supporting a public option, anyway?

---

These are the people who like John Delaney who you are sharing company with:


Some info about his past:
He has current investments in the health care industry as well.

He is a multimillionaire partially self funding, polling at 0-1% on a platform of "no we can't, and actually we shouldn't", and not even the only one of those in a presidential run as a Democrat, who is only being given a ton of talking time because he is attacking the progressive agenda on corporate news media sponsored by the health insurance industry. If he counts as a Democrat in any sense, it's a damn good thing Bernie isn't one.

Oh come the fuck on. If you honestly think that Laura fucking Ingraham actually likes John Delaney and wouldn't be calling him a socialist if he was the frontrunner rather than polling at no-chance-in-hell and attacking a candidate she hates more I have a bridge to sell you.

It's fucking wild that people are calling candidates that support a public option "basically Republicans"

---

The public option was the political compromise, not the proposal Democrats ever wanted. It was what people thought feasible to get, not the goal. Anyone running on it is either a heavy recipient of corporate cash from the industry who has obvious financial incentives to not actually address healthcare in office, or someone who is a okay with millions dying without health insurance or underinsured to protect the healthcare industry profits. Because even someone who legitimately wants everyone to have health insurance but thinks m4a isn't politically feasible would be running on it and willing to compromise down to the public option if it's all they could get. If you are running on it you are absolutely useless.

No, a lot of people did want it, and it wasn't even the compromise. It couldn't get 60 votes and was removed from the ACA.

As I mentioned earlier, plenty of other countries insure everyone without a single payer system. It's not the only possible solution to the problem.

---

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1156366251746299906

Good to see Bernie responding to this outright lie from Delaney.

And my god dude the public option does not get everyone insured, and it didn't back then either. You are okay with people dying because they don't have healthcare. You want Americans to pay more so corporations can squeeze out more profit. You support industry sponsored politicians who sling lies and falsehoods to the public about medicare for all, like telling them their hospital will close or they will "lose their healthcare" or pay more in taxes using weasel lawyer language. The difference between you and republicans is like drawing a line at using the hard R. Who cares, you all suck almost exactly as much.

lmfao youre beyond parody

Covering everyone who is currently uninsured in no way requires forcing people currently happy with their insurance to give it up and switch to your preferred plan, and pretending that people who dont want to force that change are fine with people dying is astoundingly dishonest and insulting.

---

What are people giving up? They aren't giving up fucking anything except paying corporations more than they will be paying under m4a to live. They can keep their doctor. Virtually everything is covered. You are the one being dishonest because you KNOW not everyone is covered your way and you don't care. Your disdain for the poor and marginalized is evident every time you post here.

People who are happy with their current insurance are giving up something that they know works in order to gamble on something that may be better if the implementation isnt fucked up. Youre telling those people to take an unnecessary risk because you promise that M4A will be much better. Whats the downside to making your definitely better plan opt-in instead of forced? If youre right, everyone can take it and its the exact same thing. If youre wrong, then people arent fucked over.

Nrrr posted...

What are people giving up? They aren't giving up fucking anything except paying corporations more than they will be paying under m4a to live. They can keep their doctor. Virtually everything is covered. You are the one being dishonest because you KNOW not everyone is covered your way and you don't care. Your disdain for the poor and marginalized is evident every time you post here.

I dont have disdain for anyone besides self righteous assholes who think that everyone who disagrees with them hates everybody

---

My god you dumbass the better thing about the m4a is it covers everyone and lowers costs and increases leverage. You are taking away literally almost all the advantage of it. If it's opt in then you don't get the full effect of the reasons it is better. And I don't think you hate everyone. You just hate the disadvantaged instead of the powerful, and that's useless to enacting change and exactly how republicans feel.

Literally the only people who like their insurance are the ones who never have to use it in any meaningful way. At least I've never met someone who has had a major medical problem that after it was all done said "my health insurance provider was helpful." In every single case it was months of fighting for payments for care they were covered under but was denied for because of X reason, sometimes getting bills years later because of denied claims that took that long. And if you don't save every piece of paperwork related to whatever happened, you are just boned. Health insurance shouldn't be one of the most stressful parts of recovery but it really is.
---

tl;dr private health insurance in its current form is a fucking scam that the government has made necessary.

Far better than it was ten years ago, but the issue is not anything that attempts to preserve private health insurance in its current form. At most it should be supplmental and not profit-driven

Attaching a profit motive to people's lives is the worst thing you can possibly fucking do, and there's literally no defending it.

One of the primary benefits to true socialized healthcare is that paying into it will truly be based on income/wealth. That is, the top 1% will pay for about 50% of the total national healthcare costs, the next 20% will pay for about 40%, the next 30% will pay about 10%, and the bottom 50% pays nothing. Numbers are rough and off the top of my head for what percentage of income taxes are paid by different income groups.

If it's opt-in, obviously you don't get this structure. There is no way the public option is going to be attractive for a top 1%er if it's going to cost them 50x private insurance. So the only way the public option would be viable at all would be to make it similar in structure to private insurance - which means it won't be socialized healthcare where people pay in according to their ability to pay.

And you lose a lot of the benefits of change. Not all, because the US healthcare system is extraordinarily inefficient, where we have a loss of maybe 6% of GDP, or 60% of the prevailing cost of healthcare in first world countries, in transaction costs involved in dealing with middlemen. But you won't get close to the full benefit of socialized medicine either.
---

Also, let's be really clear - one of the best advantages to socialized healthcare is that real socialized healthcare is no longer health insurance. There is no longer any risk premium. That's a big deal! Risk premiums are pure profit to insurers and pure loss to consumers. And with something as important as healthcare, people are willing to pay a huge amount in risk premiums because the risk of going without insurance is so high.
---

Not to mention - employers lose the leverage of providing good insurance to recruit employees. They gotta find other ways to appeal to workers.

You mean like increasing pay without them being burdened by health care insurance?
---

I'll ask again:

If private companies are still in the mix, what reason would the government ever have to make sure that those NOT on private plans get the best available care? They'd have EVERY reason to sabotage the system so that their buddies in the private industry have the best chance to profit?
---

And for all the people who keep talking about how Republicans won't go for socialized healthcare, why are you so afraid of trying it? Make a pitch to Republican voters. Let us decide.
---

Ashethan posted...

I'll ask again:

If private companies are still in the mix, what reason would the government ever have to make sure that those NOT on private plans get the best available care? They'd have EVERY reason to sabotage the system so that their buddies in the private industry have the best chance to profit?

Solving this problem is the primary reason I think going further than just a public option would be good.

(I do think a public option would be an improvement, the same way the ACA was an improvement over the 2000s status quo. But for the love of god somebody please remove the profit motive from healthcare and insurance)

Hypothetical scenario for single-payer supporters: Let's say the Democrats win big in 2020. They pass a single-payer healthcare system and abolish private health insurance. This is even more hated by the public than Obamacare was and leads to the GOP controlling Congress and the presidency by 2024. Are you not at all worried they would abolish the system and take away everyone's healthcare with no replacement plan? If they couldn't manage that, would having them in charge of the entire US medical system not worry you at all?
---

red sox 777 posted...

The other candidates' proposals are either vapid pandering or tend to shut down debate (like Hillary's repeatedly directing people to her website to read hundreds of pages of white papers).

agree with this one. telling your opponent (or people listening) to read hundreds of pages to defend your argument in the middle of a debate is asinine.

reminds me of whenever i asked why objectivism is so great in the freedom topic, people would always go "READ ATLAS SHRUGGED LOL." if i need to read a 10,000 page book to understand why your argument is good, you probably need to rethink your argument.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Hypothetical scenario for single-payer supporters: Let's say the Democrats win big in 2020. They pass a single-payer healthcare system and abolish private health insurance. This is even more hated by the public than Obamacare was and leads to the GOP controlling Congress and the presidency by 2024. Are you not at all worried they would abolish the system and take away everyone's healthcare with no replacement plan? If they couldn't manage that, would having them in charge of the entire US medical system not worry you at all?

Why are you asking people to respond to a nonsense scenario?

One, the fact a good thing might get potentially undone is no reason not to fight for it. Two, if reactionaries want to undo a popular social program....not a good track record of that happening. Universal social programs are loved.

Reminder that polling indicates a healthy majority of the nation is not in favor of being forced off of private health insurance https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/medicare-for-all-isnt-that-popular-even-among-democrats/

Personally I suspect I'm in favor of a Medicare for All plan despite this (though it's not an issue I'm especially knowledgeable about.). But let's not pretend like people in favor of respecting those wishes are somehow evil exploitative demons.

Will also point out that we are at a point where strategically running on platforms that are popular rather than on one's ideal platform is more important than ever because the alternative is Donald Trump.
---

They literally already tried to repeal Obamacare and despite their failure are actively trying to sabotage it right now. I don't see that as a nonsense scenario at all.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

People who are happy with their current insurance are giving up something that they know works in order to gamble on something that may be better if the implementation isnt f***ed up. Youre telling those people to take an unnecessary risk because you promise that M4A will be much better. Whats the downside to making your definitely better plan opt-in instead of forced? If youre right, everyone can take it and its the exact same thing. If youre wrong, then people arent f***ed over.

If YOURE wrong, and we go with your way, everyone is fucked over except this very specific group of people. See the difference?
---

Really though if Dems win big and Bernie or Warren get the presidency for even 2 terms, I don't think single payer has any chance to be a reality in the US. At best we get a public option that republican will try to gut and hamper at every step and will do once they get any power in congress.
---

What do you think happens when the Dems inevitably split and the tickets are

Dem: Biden/Buttigieg
Soc: Bernie/Warren
Rep: Trump/Pence

Does California go red? Do the socialists win anywhere outside of DC, Vermont, and Massachusetts?
---

pyresword posted...

Reminder that polling indicates a healthy majority of the nation is not in favor of being forced off of private health insurance https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/medicare-for-all-isnt-that-popular-even-among-democrats/

Personally I suspect I'm in favor of a Medicare for All plan despite this (though it's not an issue I'm especially knowledgeable about.). But let's not pretend like people in favor of respecting those wishes are somehow evil exploitative demons.

your argument is "people in favor of private health insurance aren't evil and exploitative because most people are in favor of it"? i don't find this particularly convincing as most people are assholes.
---

pyresword posted...

They literally already tried to repeal Obamacare and despite their failure are actively trying to sabotage it right now. I don't see that as a nonsense scenario at all.

That's because there is very little consequence to sabotaging the ACA now.

I mean there's nothing stopping them from sabotaging the public OPTION either. In fact, they'll have every reason to: Corporate Money.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Really though if Dems win big and Bernie or Warren get the presidency for even 2 terms, I don't think single payer has any chance to be a reality in the US. At best we get a public option that republican will try to gut and hamper at every step and will do once they get any power in congress.

Even if single payer isn't actually in the cards, politically speaking, why not fight for it and at least get something better than if public option is your starting point?

(Hint: Public Option as the starting point is how we got the ACA)

https://twitter.com/ashlaystarstar/status/1156375084241522688

The Sanders/Warren tag team really was enjoyable
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

pyresword posted...

Reminder that polling indicates a healthy majority of the nation is not in favor of being forced off of private health insurance https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/medicare-for-all-isnt-that-popular-even-among-democrats/

Personally I suspect I'm in favor of a Medicare for All plan despite this (though it's not an issue I'm especially knowledgeable about.). But let's not pretend like people in favor of respecting those wishes are somehow evil exploitative demons.

your argument is "people in favor of private health insurance aren't evil and exploitative because most people are in favor of it"? i don't find this particularly convincing as most people are assholes.

I don't exactly mean that "a majority of the public supports this therefore it must be good".

Our government was designed to respond to the wishes of the people. My argument is that: According to the poll in the 538 article, 60% of the nation does not want to be forced off private health insurance. As such not forcing people off of private health insurance is a good thing specifically and solely for the reason that it's a change with direct consequences that 60% of the people affected do not want.

Now, my response to that would be that we have a representative democracy for a reason and that things like this* are things the government should be pushing towards anyways when the public doesn't know enough to make informed decisions. However I think both positions are more or less reasonable.

*My understanding is that a successfully implemented Medicare for All plan would be better and less expensive for most people, which is why I take this stance. However as I've said, I am not an expert by any stretch on this.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

What do you think happens when the Dems inevitably split and the tickets are

Dem: Biden/Buttigieg
Soc: Bernie/Warren
Rep: Trump/Pence

Does California go red? Do the socialists win anywhere outside of DC, Vermont, and Massachusetts?

Hopefully, the Democratic Party will get shut out and we will get a new 2-party system with the Republican and Socialist parties.
---

And uh, of course people are against being "forced off" their health insurance plan. If the replacement was better, I wouldn't need to be forced off. Terrible poll question.
---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there systems in other countries similar to public option? Private insurance still exists but is incredibly niche. And these systems are still MILES better than what we have. I don't see why it's automatically a non-starter. The only issue is that I don't really trust most of the candidates to deliver a good one.
---

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/31/politics/ronald-reagan-richard-nixon-monkeys-african-countries/index.html

Reagan continued, "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries -- damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!"

Not racist
---

But personally, I'm not that picky. I'll support single payer, public option, complete deregulation, whatever, as long as we can move away from our current horrible worst of all worlds system. Repeal and replace!
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there systems in other countries similar to public option? Private insurance still exists but is incredibly niche. And these systems are still MILES better than what we have. I don't see why it's automatically a non-starter. The only issue is that I don't really trust most of the candidates to deliver a good one.

As long as people can't opt out of their taxes going to pay for the public option, there's no problem. If people want to pay extra for gold plated private insurance they can. No one is suggesting that shouldn't be allowed.
---

That was my phrasing. The poll question as written is:

Do you think the following is a good idea or bad idea?

--Medicare for All, that is a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/politics/moscow-mitch-mcconnell.html

Even President Trump felt compelled to come to his defense as only he could.

Mitch McConnell is a man that knows less about Russia and Russian influence than even Donald Trump, the president told reporters Tuesday as he was leaving for a speech in Jamestown, Va. And I know nothing.

this is the dumbest defense lmao, literally moronic

I had to double-check this wasn't the onion
---

pyresword posted...

That was my phrasing. The poll question as written is:

Do you think the following is a good idea or bad idea?

--Medicare for All, that is a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance

I bet among Republicans M4A is miles underwater right now. But that's because they haven't had the time to seriously consider it yet. Pitch it. Honestly pitch it. Trump pitched his policies to minorities and increased his vote share among black voters by 100% over Romney and among Hispanic voters by 20% or so. Ask and ye shall receive.
---

But don't try the usual tactics of shaming Republican members of Congress. They're not going to sell out their constituents. The constituents are the boss, the reps won't turn on them.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/politics/moscow-mitch-mcconnell.html

Even President Trump felt compelled to come to his defense as only he could.

Mitch McConnell is a man that knows less about Russia and Russian influence than even Donald Trump, the president told reporters Tuesday as he was leaving for a speech in Jamestown, Va. And I know nothing.

this is the dumbest defense lmao, literally moronic

I had to double-check this wasn't the onion

We really elected a simpleton
---

red sox 777 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Wasn't she a professor at Harvard Law School?

Yes because she lied about being a minority to get the job

Actually, she was already a professor before that incident.

Oh right she just lied to get tenure basically. Also lied on her bar entrance form. And who knows what else.

I thought the DNA test proved she didn't lie. She has 1/32 ancestry or something like that. Enough that not that long ago Virginia would have charged her with a crime for marrying a white man.

1/1028th I believe.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Literally the only people who like their insurance are the ones who never have to use it in any meaningful way. At least I've never met someone who has had a major medical problem that after it was all done said "my health insurance provider was helpful." In every single case it was months of fighting for payments for care they were covered under but was denied for because of X reason, sometimes getting bills years later because of denied claims that took that long. And if you don't save every piece of paperwork related to whatever happened, you are just boned. Health insurance shouldn't be one of the most stressful parts of recovery but it really is.

I have never had an issue with my insurance provider??? And, I use it normally I would assume...
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

What do you think happens when the Dems inevitably split and the tickets are

Dem: Biden/Buttigieg
Soc: Bernie/Warren
Rep: Trump/Pence

Does California go red? Do the socialists win anywhere outside of DC, Vermont, and Massachusetts?

It will never happen. Republicans can't split or they hand the election to the Democrats and vice versa. So, that is why you have two factions of Democrats that ideologically oppose one another under the same name.
---