• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

US PoliEra 2019 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references

Status
Not open for further replies.

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,194
Do you really think there’s enough support in the senate for a public option?
If we have 50 Dems? Absolutely. If Mitch is still in control, nothing is happening on anything. But, yes, I do think we have the votes for a public option. it's really popular. It makes good political sense. It's actually something that can be implemented without destroying a third of the economy. There's no downside for any Democrat to vote for it.
Don't forget the perennial "We have to start as far left as possible so that we can negotiate our way down. Don't start with a compromise!!!!!" that ignores the way politics actually works. If the votes aren't there, they aren't there. If Kyrsten Sinema won't vote for single-payer, that's it. You can't bully her because you have no leverage over her; she's only accountable to the people in her state, many of whom would actually like her being the ~~~responsible~~~ Democrat and telling the big bad socialists no.

It's ironic that people so opposed to capitalism seem to think that a capitalistic negotiating tactic is the way to go for getting policy passed, though.

If I could be queen for a day and remake the country in my own image - first, it would look a lot better, but second, I'd institute single-payer. However, I acknowledge the votes aren't there, the concept is not popular, and that we'll have to "settle" with a robust public option, lowering the Medicare buy-in age, cost controls, etc. I put the word settle in quotation marks because such a system would be massively to the left of what we have, would achieve universal coverage, and would help hundreds of millions.
Ya, but it's not single payer so it's basically Republican.

I agree. If I could waive a magic wand? Sure, we can do single payer. Because while I'm waiving my wand (Phrasing) I would be making it so we have the infrastructure in place to actually make this shit work. The far left position is not always the best one to take. I just wish I knew where this magic electorate that is so liberal actually is. (Outside Twitter.)
 

Zoator

Member
Oct 27, 2017
85
Bernie is AWARE MFA is a non starter and will fail, he's just an ideologue that does not care.
Warren will absolutely, positively walk that back as soon as she's out of the primary.
Warren will definitely not back off of M4A after the primary, nor should she. It would be a disastrous look for her among both people who do and don’t support the policy because she would be reneging on a commitment that she doubled and tripled down on in very public, detailed ways.

That being said, Warren has and will continue to position M4A as a long term goal that we need to work towards over time, rather than a short term political bloodbath. In her most recent policy page on paying for M4A, she talks about an upcoming plan for the transition to M4A. Reading it gives you a pretty good idea of how she’ll appeal to pragmatism without compromising her ideals, although we’ll know more once said plan is actually released:

Of course, moving to this kind of system will not be easy and will not happen overnight. This is why every serious proposal for Medicare for All contemplates a significant transition period.

In the weeks ahead, I will propose a transition plan that will specifically address how I would use this time to begin providing immediate financial relief to struggling families, rein in out-of-control health care costs, increase coverage, and save lives. My transition plan will take seriously and address substantively the concerns of unions, individuals with private insurance, hospitals, people who work for private health insurers, and medical professionals who worry about what a new system will mean for them. It will also grapple directly with the entrenched political and economic interests that would spend freely, as they have throughout modern American history, to influence politicians and try to frighten the American people into rejecting a plan that would save them thousands of dollars a year on premiums and deductibles while making sure they can always see the health care providers they need with false claims and scare tactics.

But there’s a reason former President Barack Obama has called Medicare for All a good idea. There’s a reason the American people support it. It’s because when it comes to the cost of health care, we are in the middle of a full-blown crisis.

We are paying twice as much as any other major nation for care – even as tens of millions lack coverage, and even as family after family sees its finances destroyed by a health issue. And the American people know that in the long-term, a simple system that covers everybody, provides the care they need when they need it, puts $11 trillion back in their pockets and uses all of the public’s leverage to keep costs as low as possible is the best option for their family budgets and for the health of their loved ones.

As President, I’ll fight to get it done.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,683
Well ideally we should be nuking the Electoral College but that requires an amendment. Let's get the other stuff in first.

To be honest, Wyoming having 3 Electoral college votes is less troublesome than Wyoming having 2 Senators. And Washington DC has about as much of a population as Wyoming too so it would be hypocritical to have DC as a state but not Wyoming.
We also need a well-advertised, well-funded, definitive referendum in Puerto Rico. Basically, "Okay, here's your last chance to tell us what the hell you actually want, and we'll abide by it. This is IT, so don't bitch if you don't vote" and then hope they vote for statehood again.

DC already wants it and has wanted it for years.
 

lmcfigs

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,613
If we have 50 Dems? Absolutely. If Mitch is still in control, nothing is happening on anything. But, yes, I do think we have the votes for a public option. it's really popular. It makes good political sense. It's actually something that can be implemented without destroying a third of the economy. There's no downside for any Democrat to vote for it.

Ya, but it's not single payer so it's basically Republican.

I agree. If I could waive a magic wand? Sure, we can do single payer. Because while I'm waiving my wand (Phrasing) I would be making it so we have the infrastructure in place to actually make this shit work. The far left position is not always the best one to take. I just wish I knew where this magic electorate that is so liberal actually is. (Outside Twitter.)
Yeah I think you are right.

Although the people who push for single payer would probably also support the public option if it failed to pass. For example, it’s not like Bernie has not supported compromises on single payer before. So the hostility to it from the more conservative side seems odd.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
Warren will definitely not back off of M4A after the primary, nor should she. It would be a disastrous look for her among both people who do and don’t support the policy because she would be reneging on a commitment that she doubled and tripled down on in very public, detailed ways.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. Warren isn't an ideologue as Sanders is, but is well aware that an elimination of private insurance would never, ever, EVER in a million years pass the senate. Hell, it would never make it out of committee to a vote.

Not only do you not have 50 votes for that, you couldn't get 25. It's a phenomenally unpopular proposal.

You can live with the reality that Warren will absolutely be walking this back, or be disappointed when she's forced to by attack ads. Hillarycare (remember this?) failed explicitly because private insurance pooled their money and buried any support for it under a flood of lobbying dollars and attack ads. It's the reason why said companies were brought to the table during ACA negotiations.

There is absolutely no way that MFA passes in anything that resembles the form it's in, and warren knows this.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,194
I also think it's important to note that resistance to M4A is not only going to come from private insurance lobbying. it's going to be insanely unpopular with your average voter (including the Dem party.) Unions aren't going to be a huge fan of it. You have medical associations who definitely support more access to healthcare, but absolutely cannot survive on Medicare reimbursement rates. It's just an insanely bad policy.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
I also think it's important to note that resistance to M4A is not only going to come from private insurance lobbying. it's going to be insanely unpopular with your average voter (including the Dem party.) Unions aren't going to be a huge fan of it. You have medical associations who definitely support more access to healthcare, but absolutely cannot survive on Medicare reimbursement rates. It's just an insanely bad policy.
I did mention that it would be (and currently is) insanely unpopular among the public. that can't be overlooked and only makes the reality of the lobbying and advertising efforts more of a concern.

Unions actually would be a fan of it. Unions absolutely loathe having to negotiate for medical coverage every time a contract comes up and would LOVE to be able to concentrate on more tangible things like pay raises, time off, and due process issues.

other interest groups like medical associations? Agree completely.
 

lmcfigs

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,613
I also think it's important to note that resistance to M4A is not only going to come from private insurance lobbying. it's going to be insanely unpopular with your average voter (including the Dem party.) Unions aren't going to be a huge fan of it. You have medical associations who definitely support more access to healthcare, but absolutely cannot survive on Medicare reimbursement rates. It's just an insanely bad policy.
I don’t know what the actual polling for unions show. But I can’t imagine that single wouldn’t be popular with them, considering how weak union power is in this country. Was it the GM workers who went on strike recently, who had their healthcare suspended while they were bargaining? Why would they want their healthcare tied to their employers?
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,399
We also need a well-advertised, well-funded, definitive referendum in Puerto Rico. Basically, "Okay, here's your last chance to tell us what the hell you actually want, and we'll abide by it. This is IT, so don't bitch if you don't vote" and then hope they vote for statehood again.

DC already wants it and has wanted it for years.
Absolutely.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
The democratic base that votes in the primaries is absolutely different from the "everyone" base that votes in the general.

Bernie and Warren are still both below Biden, despite Biden fucking up this campaign in every way one COULD fuck it up. A competent Biden would be steamrolling both by double digits. The "not warren, not biden" vote is greater than both combined by a significant margin.

Many voters vote on identity, not policy. Warren is likeable and enthusiastic, Bernie is...bernie.

This is a bad argument.
 

Zoator

Member
Oct 27, 2017
85
We'll have to agree to disagree here. Warren isn't an ideologue as Sanders is, but is well aware that an elimination of private insurance would never, ever, EVER in a million years pass the senate.

Not only do you not have 50 votes for that, you couldn't get 25. It's a phenomenally unpopular proposal.

You can live with the reality that Warren will absolutely be walking this back, or be disappointed when she's forced to by attack ads. Hillarycare (remember this?) failed explicitly because private insurance pooled their money and buried any support for it under a flood of lobbying dollars and attack ads. It's the reason why said companies were brought to the table during ACA negotiations.

There is absolutely no way that MFA passes in anything that resembles the form it's in, and warren knows this.
I mean, that’s the point of coming up with a transition plan. This is likely not going to be a single massive piece of legislation that gets passed (or not) all at once, but rather incremental steps that move us towards the long term goal of single payer over time.

In any case, the chances of it getting passed into law are irrelevant to my point, which was about what Warren’s position will be in the general (should she be the nominee). I can guarantee you that she won’t back off of M4A, as it would be worse for her politically than sticking with it. She has committed to it repeatedly at this point, she didn’t mince words in the debates, and there’s video of her raising her hand without hesitation when asked “would you eliminate private insurance.” Also her entire brand is about fighting back against corruption and money in politics, and she rails against health insurance profits in every stump speech. Do you remember how George W. Bush labeled John Kerry as a flip flopper and pushed that narrative relentlessly? Imagine that x1000 if Warren suddenly backs off of this in the general. Politically, it would be much easier for her to defend her plans and frame the opposition as trying to protect the profits and political power of the insurance industry than it would be for her to reverse course and open herself up to attacks about her integrity from all sides of the political spectrum.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,018
The democratic base that votes in the primaries is absolutely different from the "everyone" base that votes in the general.

Bernie and Warren are still both below Biden, despite Biden fucking up this campaign in every way one COULD fuck it up. A competent Biden would be steamrolling both by double digits. The "not warren, not biden" vote is greater than both combined by a significant margin.

Many voters vote on identity, not policy. Warren is likeable and enthusiastic, Bernie is...bernie.

This is a bad argument.
It takes personalities to lead and shepherd good ideas through to the finish line.

It's how shifts happen in this country and how change occurs. Like-able figures people believe in say "this complicated policy is a net benefit to you and society."

The other side fights to demonize and criticize the ideological plan and opinions shift off this information.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,194
I did mention that it would be (and currently is) insanely unpopular among the public. that can't be overlooked and only makes the reality of the lobbying and advertising efforts more of a concern.

Unions actually would be a fan of it. Unions absolutely loathe having to negotiate for medical coverage every time a contract comes up and would LOVE to be able to concentrate on more tangible things like pay raises, time off, and due process issues.

other interest groups like medical associations? Agree completely.
I don’t know what the actual polling for unions show. But I can’t imagine that single wouldn’t be popular with them, considering how weak union power is in this country. Was it the GM workers who went on strike recently, who had their healthcare suspended while they were bargaining? Why would they want their healthcare tied to their employers?
I can only speak to the union at my husband's company. They are not a fan, mainly because they negotiated a really sweet deal where 100% of all insurance premiums are going to be covered by the company. I'm sure there are definitely some unions who would be happy to not have to negotiate on that, but there are others who have a really good deal with their employers who would feel like they're getting screwed out of something they bargained for...especially if it comes with a tax hike. (And Warren's plan not withstanding, any M4A plan is going to have a middle class tax hike. We all know it. She's able to wrap it better and pretend it works without raising taxes, but it would require more revenue.)
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,683
Bernie Sanders has 10 million followers on Twitter and Elizabeth Warren is popular, while Michael Bennett's centrist, do-nothing approach isn't putting asses in seats.
And Bernie's approach in the primary last time didn't put enough votes in ballot boxes and probably won't this time. So... what?
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
I mean, that’s the point of coming up with a transition plan. This is likely not going to be a single massive piece of legislation that gets passed (or not) all at once, but rather incremental steps that move us towards the long term goal of single payer over time.

In any case, the chances of it getting passed into law are irrelevant to my point, which was about what Warren’s position will be in the general (should she be the nominee). I can guarantee you that she won’t back off of M4A, as it would be worse for her politically than sticking with it. She has committed to it repeatedly at this point, she didn’t mince words in the debates, and there’s video of her raising her hand without hesitation when asked “would you eliminate private insurance.” Also her entire brand is about fighting back against corruption and money in politics, and she rails against health insurance profits in every stump speech. Do you remember how George W. Bush labeled John Kerry as a flip flopper and pushed that narrative relentlessly? Imagine that x1000 if Warren suddenly backs off of this in the general. Politically, it would be much easier for her to defend her plans and frame the opposition as trying to protect the profits and political power of the insurance industry than it would be for her to reverse course and open herself up to attacks about her integrity from all sides of the political spectrum.
As I said- we'll agree to disagree. Any position that contains "we're getting rid of private insurance" in any form is a complete non starter in the general. You couldn't pass it in the senate, couldn't pass it in the house.

I'm not sure you realize just how terrible support for that proposal is.

In a Hill-HarrisX survey released Thursday, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."
A July poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist asked respondents if “Medicare for all, that is a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance,” was a “good idea” or a “bad idea.” 41% said it was a “good idea,” while 54% said it was a “bad idea.”
An August survey by Monmouth University asked: “Which of the following comes closest to how you would like to see health care handled: A) Get rid of all private insurance coverage in favor of having everyone on a single public plan like Medicare for All, B) Allow people to either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage … or D) Keep the health insurance system basically as it is?”

Only 22% selected A, while 53% selected B, and 11% selected D.
In September, NBC News/Wall Street Journal released a survey in which respondents were asked if they supported a Medicare for All-style system in which “private health insurance would be eliminated.” 22% said they “strongly support” such a system, 19% said they “somewhat support,” while 44% said they “strongly oppose,” and 12% said they “somewhat oppose.” That’s a combined 41% supporting such a system, and 56% opposing it.
In October, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) asked respondents: “Would you favor or oppose a national Medicare-for-all plan if you heard that it would … eliminate private health insurance companies?” While 37% said they would favor such a plan, 58% said they would oppose it.
Anyone running on a plan that even gives the perception of eliminating private insurance is getting obliterated in the general and in the unlikely scenario they did not, senate and house politicians who backed such a plan wouldn't survive 2022. It's a non starter. You walk it back, or you lose.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,478
So now Warren is an angry shrill neoliberal corporatist anti-business elite socialist okie celebrity who makes billionaires cry.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,018
And Bernie's approach in the primary last time didn't put enough votes in ballot boxes and probably won't this time. So... what?
Except he started out as essentially unknown, running against the shoe-in candidate every other democratic candidate was afraid to run against.

He did relatively well. And the direction of the party from a policy perspective continues to shift towards Sanders. This is the new reality.

Sanders has a huge network, he has 100% name recognition, he has the biggest social media presence over people his competitors, he has more money raised from way more people in more places than any candidate he is contending against.

You are probably going to say that he should be well ahead in the polls then, but I think we will see the progressive wing win on M4A as single-payer. People will understand it.

Private insurance tied to employers is way more unreliable than a potential single-payer plan. The opposition is directly tied to false narratives propagated by people who want segregated health coverage which answers to their material advantages and those who are profiting directly from the current system.

Warren joining Sanders on taking a stand for Single-Payer is a huge shift from 2016. It also coincides with some candidates refusing to take corporate PAC money and relying on small donors. It's an interesting phenomenon.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
I can only speak to the union at my husband's company. They are not a fan, mainly because they negotiated a really sweet deal where 100% of all insurance premiums are going to be covered by the company. I'm sure there are definitely some unions who would be happy to not have to negotiate on that, but there are others who have a really good deal with their employers who would feel like they're getting screwed out of something they bargained for...especially if it comes with a tax hike. (And Warren's plan not withstanding, any M4A plan is going to have a middle class tax hike. We all know it. She's able to wrap it better and pretend it works without raising taxes, but it would require more revenue.)
Having been in the room for some pretty heated negotiations on the union side (AFSCME, PSCOA, SEIU, a few others) healthcare is the least popular thing unions want to negotiate on because the benefits are more difficult to explain to their membership. Things like salaries are more tangible and it's not always clear how "no increase in premiums" is a win to the rank and file.

Second, your husband's union may have negotiated a "sweet deal" where 100% of premiums are covered by the company, but the kicker is *health care costs rise every year.* That union is going to have to come back to the table in 2-4 years (whatever their contract period is) and try to maintain it. They might do that once, but twice? three times? inevitably that negotiation will fail, and the rank and file will be forced to make contributions. Taking that messaging back to the membership is not fun.

Experienced union negotiators know this, and would be thrilled to have healthcare taken out of the equation entirely. We're talking a process that can take months of back and forth for an imperceptible rise or decrease in contributions from the rank and file.
 

Zoator

Member
Oct 27, 2017
85
As I said- we'll agree to disagree. Any position that contains "we're getting rid of private insurance" in any form is a complete non starter in the general. You couldn't pass it in the senate, couldn't pass it in the house.

I'm not sure you realize just how terrible support for that proposal is.











Anyone running on a plan that even gives the perception of eliminating private insurance is getting obliterated in the general and in the unlikely scenario they did not, senate and house politicians who backed such a plan wouldn't survive 2022. It's a non starter. You walk it back, or you lose.
I’m aware of the polling on the issue, but for better or worse, polling on specific policies is actually not very predictive of which candidates people vote for (which tends to be more character driven and emotional). My point is simply that Warren’s character will be assassinated if she does a 180 on this. Moving the needle on the policy polling over time should also be doable, especially if she is proposing things like long, soft transition periods that scare people less than sudden change. But yes, we can agree to disagree, and I hope we’re lucky enough to find out in the general.
 

Retro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,832
Well ideally we should be nuking the Electoral College but that requires an amendment. Let's get the other stuff in first.
That's why I'm in favor of the Wyoming rule, it doesn't require the "weight" of adding an amendment. And it's not so much about the EC as the House. Being capped at 435 seats is garbage, places like California would gain like 13 new seats, Texas would get a bunch too but the seats are being added to places where more people live (since the new district size is ~500,000 people) so it'd work toward ensuring the people are more equally represented (and, you know, make sure the House stays blue). Time to stop living in the 20s when this shit was passed just so nobody lost their districts.

Any time voting is made easier and people more fairly represented, Dems win. I wonder why that is... 🤔
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,478
It’s a word designed to communicate that the person has no merit. Has no achievements.
Which is why it’s used against women and poc who become well liked.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,683
You are probably going to say that he should be well ahead in the polls then, but I think we will see the progressive wing win on M4A as single-payer. People will understand it.

Private insurance tied to employers is way more unreliable than a potential single-payer plan. The opposition is directly tied to false narratives propagated by people who want segregated health coverage which answers to their material advantages and those who are profiting directly from the current system.

Warren joining Sanders on taking a stand for Single-Payer is a huge shift from 2016. It also coincides with some candidates refusing to take corporate PAC money and relying on small donors. It's an interesting phenomenon.
It sounds as though you're tacitly conceding he himself won't win but that he's managed to introduce certain ideas. A sensible position!
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,018
You have to take a stand to change the hearts and minds of people who aren't tuned into politics.

That's the power of these public offices and leadership positions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.