Funny thing is, had he posted his numbers I can imagine the same people being pissed at him for not being sensitive. No pleasing.
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
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.
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.
If this were Hillary, the media would be asking of she was sick
"49 people were just massacred in New Zealand, but hey check out my fundraising numbers!"?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, being in favor of getting full context rather than relying on tweets is for the best.
Undoubtedly. He was just saying he supports a public Medicare option recently.
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.
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.
Yeah, I completely misread the intent there.
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.
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.
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.
