• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Biden Mulls Abrams as Running Mate

Oct 25, 2017
5,108
If Beto's donation numbers are anything remarkable, we will absolutely hear about it.

Not doing it right after a shooting makes perfect sense, but he won't hold back impressive numbers just because he's modest.
He might do 48 or 72 hr numbers instead. I will say he has sent 0 emails today to fundraise. So I expect it's more the NZ attack stopping him from giving 24 hr numbers
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,645
Denver

He has pretty concrete proposals for ideas based on his Senate run.
Baby bonds is the most unrealistic and unworkable policy proposal of this primary. There is basically no chance for it to survive the US government spending money on it for a full 18 years before anyone sees a dime of tangible benefit from it.

At least candidates pushing for single payer can turn around and do the next best thing when the senate says no. Such as when Bernie called for a public option to be passed through budget reconciliation in 2009, and it's very likely that's going to be exactly what happens once democrats get a trifecta.

Baby bonds might get passed exactly as they're proposed, but then gets killed 5, 10, or 15 years from now, which would only then be apparent to be an absolute waste of time and political capital.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
Baby bonds is the most unrealistic and unworkable policy proposal of this primary. There is basically no chance for it to survive the US government spending money on it for a full 18 years before anyone sees a dime of tangible benefit from it.

At least candidates pushing for single payer can turn around and do the next best thing when the senate says no. Such as when Bernie called for a public option to be passed through budget reconciliation in 2009, and it's very likely that's going to be exactly what happens once democrats get a trifecta.

Baby bonds might get passed, but then gets killed 5, 10, or 15 years from now, which would only then be apparent to be an absolute waste of time and political capital.
Hahaha, Bernie fans of all people calling a policy unworkable/unrealistic because their candidate doesn't support it. That's hilarious.

So, there are a few layers to this. First, I agree that baby bonds aren't really the highest priority for spending political capital on. But if your goal is reparations, they're the most realistic option, bringing single payer into this is a full-on non-sequitur and your blinding hatred of a candidate making you throw out decent policy ideas doesn't help.

Putting that aside, let's look at your hypothetical and say that the bond idea gets canceled in 5 years time (And, let's be honest, any given healthcare plan will probably be getting dismantled piece by piece at the same time), if the legislation is written properly the bonds already issued should not then become worthless. So, at least you'd have 5 -15 years of wealth-starved babies with a head start on wealth when they reach the age of 18. And there is no way in hell even the current supreme court would allow benefits already given out to be taken away.

I'm gonna laugh when this policy gets brought up in a debate, Bernie jumps on board with it and you're gonna 180 on it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,645
Denver
Hahaha, Bernie fans of all people calling a policy unworkable/unrealistic because their candidate doesn't support it. That's hilarious.

So, there are a few layers to this. First, I agree that baby bonds aren't really the highest priority for spending political capital on. But if your goal is reparations, they're the most realistic option, bringing single payer into this is a full-on non-sequitur and your blinding hatred of a candidate making you throw out decent policy ideas doesn't help.

Putting that aside, let's look at your hypothetical and say that the bond idea gets canceled in 5 years time (And, let's be honest, any given healthcare plan will probably be getting dismantled piece by piece at the same time), if the legislation is written properly the bonds already issued should not then become worthless. So, at least you'd have 5 -15 years of wealth-starved babies with a head start on wealth when they reach the age of 18.
Have you paid attention to the Obamacare reception from its inception, or really the politics behind any government program at all? They become much, much harder to repeal once people see benefits. If obama didn't win 2012, the marketplace and subsidies would have been easily completely killed because they didn't start until 2014. Obamacare was saved by republicans having to wait until 2017 to try to repeal it.

A public option after it's put in place would obviously be much, much stronger to attempts to dismantle it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
Have you paid attention to the Obamacare reception from its inception, or really the politics behind any government program at all? They become much, much harder to repeal once people see benefits. If obama didn't win 2012, the marketplace and subsidies would have been easily completely killed because they didn't start until 2014. Obamacare was saved by republicans having to wait until 2017 to try to repeal it.
Obamacare was saved by a single vote. And even then it's been dismantled piece by piece. You just have to look at other countries dismantling their own much better healthcare systems to see that these policies aren't immune to backslide.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
Only minor parts of it have been dismantled by the legislature and executive. The major parts have been kept intact outside of the supreme court blocking medicaid expansion.
The removal of the tax for being uninsured, and tightening of sign-up deadlines have definitely damaged the legislation, which is the piece by piece thing I'm talking about. And, again, it only stayed intact at all because of 1 vote in the Senate.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,520
Really thinking he should have listened to Chuck and run for senate again. He’d be rolling in cash again

There’s clearly a problem with money. Cant go to big donors because it makes you look terrible and poor people can only give so much.

If Stacey runs I’m gonna fucking scream
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
The Sanders Foundation shit is shady as fuck tbh. Jane should just...not.
Somehow I think his eternal "soons" on releasing his tax returns might have a relation.

Really thinking he should have listened to Chuck and run for senate again. He’d be rolling in cash again

There’s clearly a problem with money. Can go to big donors and poor people can only give so much.

If Stacey runs I’m gonna fucking scream
Seriously.
 
Oct 27, 2017
492
Brooklyn, NY
Beto continues to straddle the line between the Biden/Harris/Klobuchar "I'll support them over Trump but I'd rather not" tier and Booker/Gillibrand/most other non-Bernie/Warren candidate "meh, fine" tier for me.

Really thinking he should have listened to Chuck and run for senate again. He’d be rolling in cash again

There’s clearly a problem with money. Cant go to big donors because it makes you look terrible and poor people can only give so much.

If Stacey runs I’m gonna fucking scream
Yeah, looks like he (and a lot of pundits) drastically underestimated how much of his popularity/fundraising came from being a Democratic candidate with an actual chance to win in a red state against Democrats' second-most hated senator. Hopefully he gets knocked out fast enough to pivot back to a Senate race and the presidential bid doesn't damage him too much.

 
Oct 25, 2017
3,645
Denver
The removal of the tax for being uninsured, and tightening of sign-up deadlines have definitely damaged the legislation, which is the piece by piece thing I'm talking about. And, again, it only stayed intact at all because of 1 vote in the Senate.
Those things are important, but not the core of the act in any way. Especially since the individual mandate has turned out to be less important than previously thought.

And you think GOP would be as strong against it in 2027, 13 years after it fully went into effect and 17 years after it was passed? Do you see any possibility from here on out of the GOP trying to repeal it again? It was in effect but still pretty young in 2017. I think there's a decent chance baby bonds could still be killed in the first few years after people start getting benefits too.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
Those things are important, but not the core of the act in any way. Especially since the individual mandate has turned out to be less important than previously thought.

And you think GOP would be as strong against it in 2027, 13 years after it fully went into effect and 17 years after it was passed? Do you see any possibility from here on out of the GOP trying to repeal it again? It was in effect but still pretty young in 2017. I think there's a decent chance baby bonds could still be killed in the first few years after people start getting benefits too.
I mean, my point was that even if baby bonds were killed in the first few years those benefits don't evaporate. And, again, comparing this to universal healthcare is an apple to oranges situations. They're bills to solve two different problems.

That aside, yeah, I believe that the GOP in 2027 will be collacesing around privatizing whatever healthcare system gets passed in the meantime. And they'll do it if they get enough of a majority.

I'll go further, actually. I'm going to guess that whatever healthcare plan the dems are able to squeeze out will be so rushed in-between dealing with a recession that it will be an absolute clusterfuck that the GOP can easily attack.

Is there any greater context to that line about single payer healthcare? Can't imagine how he thought that would go over well.
Yeah, being in favor of getting full context rather than relying on tweets is for the best.

That being said him being for multi-payer over single would actually win him some points with me (And this is one of those rare cases where my preferred option is also the preferred option of voters). Shame he's so far negative for other reasons that it doesn't matter much.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,190
Sounds like Beto prematurely jumped into the race hoping he could gauge policy off of popular opinion, I mean how could he not foresee being asked these questions given having such a vague background? Can’t blame the right and the far left for trying to strangle him in the cradle when he came in so unprepared.
 

Neon Noir

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,260
What the fuck is multi-payer? Feels like you need an encyclopedia on this one. Is it just a fully privatized healthcare industry or is it subsidized in some way?
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
What the fuck is multi-payer? Feels like you need an encyclopedia on this one. Is it just a fully privatized healthcare industry or is it subsidized in some way?
Public option with privatized healthcare as an option. It exists in other countries. Technically speaking it exists to an extent here now with medicaid and medicare.
 
Oct 25, 2017
31,607
Is there any greater context to that line about single payer healthcare? Can't imagine how he thought that would go over well.

O’Rourke told Radio Iowa he’s pleased “Medicare for All” has become a “dominant” discussion within the Democratic Party, but he didn’t embrace the label and suggested a single-payer system isn’t politically possible in the near term.

“I’m convinced that we will have to work from as much common ground as possible,” O’Rourke said. “No one person and perhaps no one party can force the decision on this. This has to be something that America comes together on.”
https://www.radioiowa.com/2019/03/14/orourke-kicks-off-2020-presidential-race-in-keokuk

brainchild it's literally my parody come to life
 

Neon Noir

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,260
Public option with privatized healthcare as an option. It exists in other countries.
That's incredibly misleading when it comes from a place that is already very much dominated by the private sector. I know private health clinics exist in most countries that offer public, the question is entirely about where the majority of spending by the public goes. That's not what Beto O'Rourke is talking about and you know it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
That's actually worse in context. Like, dude, you don't need to shy away from the Medicare for All label to support multi-payer. Use the popular label.

That's incredibly misleading when it comes from a place that is already very much dominated by the private sector. I know private health clinics exist in most countries that offer public, the question is entirely about where the majority of spending by the public goes. That's not what Beto O'Rourke is talking about and you know it.
You seem to have misinterpreted what I'm talking about. Like, in Germany you can buy private non-profit insurance instead of receiving government healthcare. I'm not talking about clinics. Hell, if we're just talking private vs public, Canada's single payer system is mostly privatized.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,509
lmao
Straight up says he doesn’t want to release the numbers AND he no longer supports single payer
He also backed away from his earlier position that some fences that have already been built on the border should be taken down. this should be the end of any talk of him running "left" of Bernie on any issue.

meanwhile:
 

Neon Noir

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,260
You seem to have misinterpreted what I'm talking about. Like, in Germany you can buy private non-profit insurance instead of receiving government healthcare. I'm not talking about clinic. Hell, if we're just talking private vs public, Canada's single payer system is mostly privatized.
That's nice. Both of those countries provide healthcare as a human right to all of their citizens and they spend public funds to achieve that. Both have public healthcare systems that are mostly well regarded on the world stage. Once that happens you can offer private luxury options all you want in my view.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,493
That's nice. Both of those countries provide healthcare as a human right to all of their citizens and they spend public funds to achieve that. Both have public healthcare systems that are mostly well regarded on the world stage. Once that happens you can offer private luxury options all you want in my view.
Right. So, what's the problem with multi-payer then?