Well, that's better. I'd prefer he just right out say "Fuck the fillibuster" and be done with it. Nothing will get passed regardless of what it is with that thing in place.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Well, that's better. I'd prefer he just right out say "Fuck the fillibuster" and be done with it. Nothing will get passed regardless of what it is with that thing in place.
"He wants to democratize the workplace" "Yes? That sounds awesome." "Well shit."
I'm all for it!
But good luck selling that to the electorate in 2020.
Selling it as American freedom could go a long way. We have democracy for a lot of things but not at the places where we spend a substantial chunk of our time: our jobs.
I talk about workplace democracy with coworkers without ever bringing up socialism and they love the idea.
I don't think this is anywhere near as close to being true as the opposite take.
Most of your reasons for him being disliked is his history as a "career politician" and "grifter."
I feel like most people who don't like Bernie see him as a crazy person whose ideas are unachievable and not as a crooked person.
I almost feel like Bernie's image is the exact opposite of what your perception of him is, but I don't have the polling in front of me.
Good. Candidates should own that shit. Make it known that you will get results and people will be more trusting to give you their votes.
If you can't sell it now you might be able to sell it later but people are not going to change their minds on it of their own accord. You need to keep hammering a thing until it gets through their heads, this can take many years, which means we should start now.
Ideas spread through society when they're talked about openly, not when they're stuffed in the closet until one day it becomes acceptable.
Mm hmm. Remember when Hillary Clinton tried pushing Universal Healthcare in the early 90s?
So it failed then, does that mean it's going to fail forever? My point is the successes of today is built on the failures of yesterday, even if Bernie cannot sell "socialism" to the electorate of 2020, it doesn't mean it won't contribute to being able to selling socialism to the electorate of 2040.
No, it means miscalculating messaging can be fatal. That's what it means.
Also, are you arguing for incrementalism here?
Because the clintons didn't run on things like that during the election and had no mandate to do it. Bill was distinctly communicating being a "pro business tough on crime" southern democrat. So turning around and raising taxes and pushing for healthcare blew up in their face.
We need to be honest about what we plan to do
It's not better by any stretch of the imagination, unless by "better" you mean "has a better chance of passing"
I don't get what this has to do with my point. Are you saying that, because Hillary miscalculated in the 90s, we're have a harder time with M4A now. And that if Hillary had delayed her messaging, Universal Healthcare would've been easier to pass in the 00s or 10s? You're talking about mistiming and the penalties of mistiming, that's the only way it makes sense to me.
I've said before, as long as I'm in this thread, I'm going to pretend to go along with the illusion of electoralism, which necessarily means incrementalism.
Even outside of it, from a vanguardist standpoint, a president who says "socialism" openly does more for "the cause" than arguing about theory in insular M-L circles, instead of putting theory to practice. It's a win either way, whether you're a revolutionary or an incrementalist. You're either indoctrinating new potential revolutionaries with "socialism" or migrating to a demsoc system from democratic capitalism. There is literally no reason it can be bad EXCEPT in the case of the "mistiming penalty" argument I posited above but I cannot tell if this is actually your stance.
This isn't true as Doctors would still need to accept Medicare reimbursement rates. All Payer rate setting is a far, far better way of addressing availability concerns by forcing a group negotiation with all insurers, making it much less likely for offices to reject any particular insurer on the market.
The fundamental problem with the open market isn't the coverage offered or the need to swap plans, it's the sticker shock at the price as employer-based health insurance has massively expensive employer-side premiums that are hidden from view. I have a $120-ish premium each month, my employer's paying in the 5-600 range per month. For one person. And when you're unsubsidized on the exchanges, suddenly you're hit with that entire bill- especially if you're in a state that didn't pass the Medicare Expansion and are using a buggy unpatched version of the ACA and people way lower on the income ladder than intended aren't receiving the appropriate subsidies.
The easiest way to get to universal coverage is "Medicare 4 Kidz" + ACA expansion/revision/regulation. M4K fulfills the same role as Medicare- covering those who can't work (and therefore can't participate in the employer-based setup), while being relatively cheap as kids are generally pretty inexpensive - to borrow a phrase from my health econ course- you don't give kids "more medicine" to make them "more healthier". It's later in life that maintenance gets expensive as everyone's engines start breaking down.
The primary means of production in a service based economy is people. This is why the returns to education are so high, why unionization is now primarily being pushed by educated people with white collar industries, and why Carl Sagan's fears about what happens when the people who can't really get through school but could get themselves to the middle class by just selling physical labor suddenly can't do so anymore have been proving completely prescient.
Obama was honest, and it didn't matter because people are stupid and think a President is a king and stop caring once they get control of the White House. Negative Enthusiasm unfortunately rules all and you are going to need to jam your agenda down the Senate's throat in a year's time because you're almost certainly gonna lose seats in the next election no matter if you do everything or nothing.
You can keep your current company or go to the government option. It will encourage competition between the insurance companies and will cost taxpayers less. It also enjoys a higher approval rating than Medicare for all and will of course pass easier.
I really don't care how we get to UHC, but I agree with Beto & Pete in that M4America is probably the fastest and is unequivocally the least contentious route. I do have a question: how would we safeguard M4All from a Republican or Blue Dog sabotage later on? That's a lot of eggs into one basket. It's obviously got to be malleable to the extent that we can bolster its perks as we go forward.
I'm saying she and the Clinton administration miscalculated how severe the opposition would be, misunderstood the climate, misunderstood how to sell to the electorate and failed to see how pushing for something that would help the American people would become a key attack point. And it's delayed the ability for UHC to happen here imo. It was a good impulse poorly thought through.
I'm saying that if you come out of the gate with workers ownership, don't be surprised to be shellacked from many sides in an election.
It doesn't seem like he said he would use the nuclear option. Isn't he just saying he would keep the filibuster, but require it be a talking filibuster? He talks about passing Medicare for all using budget reconciliation.
Here's a clarification:
______________________________
Nice and simple pitch. I can see it playing very well during the debates.
I mean I get it and I imagine most Bernie supporters here get it. We just also think the benefits outweighs the risk.
No one except the most deranged Bernie fan believes it's going to be an instant, painless task to sell socialism to the electorate. Changing minds takes time but the work needs to start at some point.
"Senator Sanders is OK with the choice of killing babies, but not OK with forcing hard working Americans to not have a choice to have to pay taxes for a government health care plan. If Senator Sanders thinks his plan is so great and offers freedom to people, why doesn't he want it to compete on the marketplace with all those supposedly terrible private health insurance plans? Because Senator Sanders know the truth - that 75% of American's are happy with their private insurance and they don't want to be forced into a government plan." - My pitch if I was a Republican in purple states against Medicare for All, and didn't want to make the obvious "you're paying for thugs and illegal immigrant" arguments.
"You don't have an insurance plan, your employer does, so the notion that you are choosing and keeping your insurance plans is a myth. With Medicare For All, as a patient, you can go wherever you want and be covered, with no out of pocket expenses, which is not guaranteed under your employer's insurance."
I could do this all day, but I wont, because I'm not on the debate stage and I have no interest in doing a mock debate.
And then he will explain how he will pay for it.
Yeah and the 2020 election is probably the worst possible time. But hey, let's make sure it's Trumpism for life.
Beto's trending comfortably better than Bernie in Iowa. It's early, so it doesn't mean a whole lot, but it does mean his trip made a noticeable splash. The only reason why trends matter is because Cruz was trending better than Beto in Texas close to voting day despite Beto trending far more around the 50 states than Beyonce and Bitcoin, much less Cruz.
There is never a "good time". There's always something that's more immediately pressing than what's going to happen in 20 years. This is just kicking the can down the road, and I know this because we're a generation who inherited the can our parents kicked down to us.
And "Trumpism" is here to stay. Trump might disappear in 4-8 years, but his voters will not, the mentality driving those votes will not, the structures that enable Trumps to rise to office will not, the Pandora's box he unleashed in American/global politics will not. You will likely not escape Trumpism within your life time.
You didn't answer the main point of the argument, which is, if you Medicare for All is so great, and obviously better for basically everyone, and it's obviously a better plan (which I agree with), why not simply allow people to buy into Bernie's version of Medicare for All as it competes against insurers? Even write as part of the law the employers have to give Medicare as a choice to their employees.
I think the actual issue is deep down, you know if given a choice, people will still stay with their private insurance, rather than paying into Medicare for All, so you'd rather just force people into M4A instead of competing on a market, with a supposedly superior product.
Socialists should be happy to have Medicare for All as an option against private insurance, since if it's so fantastic, the masses will happily move over to it, right?
Because free market competition is a myth due to corporate lobbying and anti-competitive practices?
https://www.resetera.com/threads/congress-about-to-ban-irs-from-offering-free-tax-filing.110474/
Companies lobby the government against the government and succeed at it. Regularly. The purpose of single payer goes beyond just providing healthcare. It seeks to break the healthcare industry's stranglehold on healthcare in the US.
Some times are worse than others, this is literally the worst time. Of course a lot of folks thought that "voting their conscience" in the general in '16 was more important than preventing lifetime appointments of radical fascist SC judges, but here we are.
its cheaper than what y"all already have. By trillions of dolars.
Libertarian lasses faire competition is a myth, yes, because it ignores Adam Smith's central point regarding cartel behavior working against the public interest and that an appropriately regulated market is how you get a free market, not the inverse.
That does not mean that working towards that ideal is a bad thing. (Though the health care market is not like other markets and doesn't work in the same way as normal markets w/ supply/demand curves and such- it's effectively a gigantic insurance market.)
She had a tough interview today and it's got her focusing on that Town Hall. That's really good as I was hoping she would get an indication that she needs to prepare and steel herself physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. The impression CNN has given of their attitude toward Williamson indicates that it may be hostile and that could be a fantastic opportunity for her. If it's friendly that would be easy to glaze over, ignore and dismiss. If it's rocking that will draw eyes and ears, make great soundbites and clips, and would give her a massive boost and propel her into and prepare her for the debates.
I'm sending her more than just good vibes. 🧞♀️
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in 't!
Tis new to thee, Scheherazade.
You don't engage bad faith arguments with good ones. This is why 'intellectuals' fail debates all the time. Gotta play the game to win.
Trumpism is secretly Foxism is secretly GOPism. This shit has always been here but now they have a champion.
The only thing that matters in 2020 is making sure that he loses.
It's not the only thing that matters. It's mighty important, however there are still some things that need to be fixed and we need to help people. After all, Trump is a symptom, not the disease.
Maybe engage in good faith when I'm having a meaningful discussion, otherwise it looks like your just making pointless hot takes on centrists - when you're going to do that do it based on real flaws. Charismatic candidates are difficult to find and we do a better job than Leftists in this area, our candidates usually win primaries and have a better track record in elections (like the '18 mid-terms). Bernie is charismatic but his track record is exclusively in Vermont where he has no decent competition. Those MTV programs have a good track record and do a valuable job with engaging young voters in politics. Hillary came close to winning the presidency, as well, which is more than I can say for Bernie - who bet on young voters for his base and they failed him when it counted. Your telling me with a straight face that you think policies are going to the silver bullet? That doesn't work on average voters, you're overestimating how engaged people are with politics. It is difficult to balance younger voters priorities with other demographics, but yeah completely ignore the rest of the voting blocs like women, African Americans, Hispanics - it's not like they're important for candidates running for president.
Your cynicism is astounding. You fail to grasp that centrists and liberals can have similar goals with leftists, but disagree on how to get there. There is no obligation necessary.
Which I will agree with, but this wasn't Ewiak's point, whether serious or in jest. Ewiak basically said "if you think your public health insurance is so geat why not put it in the market and let the market decide?", when transitioning healthcare, and in a broader philosophical sense, human lives, away from commoditization is the whole point.
The "market" should not determine whether you live or die.
Maybe it shouldn't be a market?
It's the only thing that matters. We can't fix anything with him in office.
You could argue that taking the Senate may be as important.
- Status