Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1131416181940

Comments

  • “We need to run a centrist or Trump will win” is the logic that got us Trump in 2016. I am somewhat amazed that this Democratic cult of pre-emptive surrender continues to hold sway. The fact that this manifestly ridiculous horror cartoon of a man is in the White House should clue someone in that the received notions of “electability” are fairly bullshitty.

    Medicare for All polls well in PA. I don’t know about Wisconsin or Michigan but those are 2 states that Bernie won in the 2016 primaries.

    No matter who the Dems run the GOP will call them socialists, far left, blah blah. Warren and Sanders are really not very left at all, but they at least are fighting for something better. The alternative is Trump lite. I don’t know what y’all are thinking but this climate change stuff is no joke. Any candidate who’s going to poo-poo or dial down on the green new deal or any meaningful action on the campaign trail isn’t going to do shit in office. Incrementalism is simply not an option here. Ditto healthcare. Having healthcare for everyone is not a nice dream, it is an immediate necessity for people dying from treatable diseases or drowning in insane medical bills.
  • Medicare for All polls well in PA.
    According to what poll? A May 2019 Quinnipiac Poll found:
    Removing the current health care system in the U.S. and replacing it with a single payer system, in which the federal government expands Medicare to cover medical expenses of every citizen is a "good idea," 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters say, while 47 percent say it's a "bad idea."

    Democrats say 64 - 24 percent that so-called "Medicare for All" is a "good idea," with Republicans saying "bad idea" 76 - 17 percent. Independent voters are divided as 44 percent say it's a "good idea" and 47 percent say it's a "bad idea."

    But 58 percent of Pennsylvania voters say it's a "good idea" to keep the current health care system, while allowing all adults to buy into Medicare. Another 26 percent say this Medicare opt-in is a "bad idea."

    Saying that Medicare opt-in is a good idea are Republicans, 48 - 36 percent, Democrats, 67 - 18 percent, and independent voters, 60 - 26 percent. In fact, every listed party, gender, education, age and racial group says Medicare opt-in is a "good idea."

    "On the divisive issue of healthcare, voters across the board in Pennsylvania do agree on something. They would like the option of buying into Medicare," Snow said.
    Meanwhile, Nate Silver has this to say about the overall popularity of Medicare for All.
    I don’t know about Wisconsin or Michigan but those are 2 states that Bernie won in the 2016 primaries.
    And that Trump won in the general election.
    No matter who the Dems run the GOP will call them socialists, far left, blah blah. Warren and Sanders are really not very left at all, but they at least are fighting for something better. The alternative is Trump lite. I don’t know what y’all are thinking but this climate change stuff is no joke. Any candidate who’s going to poo-poo or dial down on the green new deal or any meaningful action on the campaign trail isn’t going to do shit in office. Incrementalism is simply not an option here. Ditto healthcare. Having healthcare for everyone is not a nice dream, it is an immediate necessity for people dying from treatable diseases or drowning in insane medical bills.
    So are you saying that 4 more years of Trump (and Trump appointments to the judiciary) are preferable to, say, a President Biden? Because as laudable as the ideas Warren and Sanders are selling may be, I really don’t see any reliable indication that a sufficient segment of the electorate is interested in buying them.
  • “We need to run a centrist or Trump will win” is the logic that got us Trump in 2016.
    No, it isn't. People didn't like Hillary Clinton. It is not because she is centrist, it is because she is Hillary Clinton.* The people who support more leftist leaders generally don't bloody vote, not in the numbers needed.
    I am somewhat amazed that this Democratic cult of pre-emptive surrender continues to hold sway.
    It is not pre-emptive surrender. Candidates must prove they can get votes, not simply have the policy you like. You are starting backwards. If you want the candidate with better policies to get elected, you fucking raise their profile well in advance of an election. Voting purely on principle is what helped sink Clinton's campaign, so you got Trump.

    *Pick your reasons why they did not like her.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, isn't anybody besides me semi-outraged that Marianne What's-Her-Face is on the friggin' debate stage at all? That anybody is actually taking this New Age Nazi seriously?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No, it isn't. People didn't like Hillary Clinton. It is not because she is centrist, it is because she is Hillary Clinton.* The people who support more leftist leaders generally don't bloody vote, not in the numbers needed.

    {snip}

    It is not pre-emptive surrender. Candidates must prove they can get votes, not simply have the policy you like. You are starting backwards. If you want the candidate with better policies to get elected, you fucking raise their profile well in advance of an election. Voting purely on principle is what helped sink Clinton's campaign, so you got Trump.

    *Pick your reasons why they did not like her.

    Not pointing specifically at you, lB, just your statements above that others previously opined, on this and other threads:

    .One. .more. .time.: Hillary won the 2016 general election by 2,864,974 votes. (Time magazine).

    The problem was that T won the Electoral College. That's where the presidency is ultimately decided--unless the electors exercise their ability to swing their votes to the other candidate, and they didn't, or not in a large enough block to make a difference.

    Plus Russia. And there's plenty of other blame to go around. Hillary's taken responsibility for some of it. IMHO, the news media was also responsible--they were so fascinated with The Donald (tm) running for office that they gave him far more attention than Hillary. Etc.

    Hillary's screen and speaker's-stage personality can be stiff, prickly, and angry. She comes by that honestly: her parents constantly fought verbally. It was so bad that she'd go straight to her room, and couldn't ever have anyone over. During her 2016 Dem. convention videos and speeches, she mentioned that her dad was a chief (?) petty officer at work...*and* at home.

    But she did display more emotional intelligence the first time she ran, when she was in New Hampshire in 2012. She'd been struggling among different versions of herself, and something finally clicked when she was speaking in NH. She said she'd finally found her voice, and IIRC she cried. IMHO, *that* Hillary was very electable.

    And at the 2016 convention, there were people talking about a softer, kinder side of her. Like the young woman who lost a leg on 9/11. Hillary visited her privately in the hospital--and, when they happened to run into each other years later, Hillary remembered her and they discussed the woman's new prosthetic.

    There are many people who hate Hillary, and more who hate both Clintons--some, for reasons of massive culture clash, AIUI. But they didn't vote for T in high enough numbers to give him the popular vote.

    Absent the electoral college, Hillary would now be president, based on the popular vote.
  • Ohher--
    Ohher wrote: »
    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, isn't anybody besides me semi-outraged that Marianne What's-Her-Face is on the friggin' debate stage at all? That anybody is actually taking this New Age Nazi seriously?

    I know she's running, but I haven't checked into it. I know she used to be really popular for her work. And I *think* she's the one Hillary turned to, when First Lady, to help her with visualizations to get her through rough times.

    I wouldn't think she'd be a good match for the presidency; but possibly a cabinet position where she could focus on helping people. Or a Congressional chaplain of some sort, though that would probably cause more of an uproar than presidency!

    Yes, she's into--and teaches, IIRC--New Age ideas. But where does the "Nazi" epithet come from???

    If I may ask, are you venting your fears about the election onto her?

    Thx.

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Pedantic point: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, not the general election. She did not win the general election because, as you note elsewhere in your post, the winner of the general election is determined by the electors elected in each state, not by the popular vote nationally.

    And like it or not, that is how the president will be elected in 2020. Trump won in 2016 by flipping six states (and one congressional district in Maine) that voted for Obama in 2012, giving him 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232. (When the Electoral College’s vote was taken, two faithless electors defected from Trump, while 5 defected from Clinton.) So unless the Democratic candidate in 2020 can appeal to enough voters to flip enough states that went for Trump to get to at least 270 electoral votes, that Democratic candidate won’t win.

  • Yes, re pedantics. :) But I was trying to distinguish between the primary and general elections.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Yes, re pedantics. :) But I was trying to distinguish between the primary and general elections.
    Got it. 😉

  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Removing the current health care system in the U.S. and replacing it with a single payer system, in which the federal government expands Medicare to cover medical expenses of every citizen is a "good idea," 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters say, while 47 percent say it's a "bad idea."

    So with the difference being 4% and considering the margin of error, that's pretty darn good. And when there is a candidate who can articulate the idea well and clear away misconceptions, and a DNC that would actually support him or her, I believe the numbers will improve. 58% supporting the public option gives a lot of space for taking the conversation further. Pre-emptively surrendering on the issue (as the centrists are doing) is the one guarantee it will never go anywhere.

    It would also be wrong to assume that everyone who disagrees with this proposal will vote against a candidate proposing it, or would prefer a centrist. It is generally understood that in politics candidates will over-promise. With the corollary that candidates who offer nothing off the bat will probably be pretty worthless in office. Some people voted for Trump actually thinking "he's not really serious about all that stuff." Of course once he showed that he wasn't quite joking, they did not distance themselves from him, but rather rallied. The same thing could happen for a president who isn't evil.

    Here's a Quinnipiac poll where Sanders beats Trump 51-42 in PA; Warren beats him 49-42.
    I don’t know about Wisconsin or Michigan but those are 2 states that Bernie won in the 2016 primaries.
    And that Trump won in the general election.

    With roughly the same numbers as Romney got in those states in 2012. People turned up for Obama then that didn't turn up for Clinton. Sanders would have won those states.
    So are you saying that 4 more years of Trump (and Trump appointments to the judiciary) are preferable to, say, a President Biden? Because as laudable as the ideas Warren and Sanders are selling may be, I really don’t see any reliable indication that a sufficient segment of the electorate is interested in buying them.

    No. I'm saying that the current crises are so pressing and dire that we have run out of time for cowardice and chasing polls. Studying the electorate is important but the ability to persuade and advocate for reforms- real reforms, not band-aids and platitudes- is the only way things will get better. If Biden is the best we can offer then we are really doomed. The incrementalism boat left the island ages ago. The only boat coming round now is the "get shit done now" boat. We can try and get on board or we can stay here and eat our own flesh.
  • *Oops I was looking at the wrong Quinnipiac poll, that was nationwide. Here's for Pennsylvania: https://poll.qu.edu/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=2620
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    So are you saying that 4 more years of Trump (and Trump appointments to the judiciary) are preferable to, say, a President Biden? Because as laudable as the ideas Warren and Sanders are selling may be, I really don’t see any reliable indication that a sufficient segment of the electorate is interested in buying them.
    No. I'm saying that the current crises are so pressing and dire that we have run out of time for cowardice and chasing polls. Studying the electorate is important but the ability to persuade and advocate for reforms- real reforms, not band-aids and platitudes- is the only way things will get better. If Biden is the best we can offer then we are really doomed. The incrementalism boat left the island ages ago. The only boat coming round now is the "get shit done now" boat. We can try and get on board or we can stay here and eat our own flesh.
    I'm sorry. I think that sounds noble, but I don't don't thinks it's cowardice to choose the candidate most likely to win the election when the goal is winning the election. I think it's a very realistic fear that if the candidate is Sanders or Warren (much as I like her—him, not so much), the only shit getting done will be more of Trump's shit.
  • It's not a very realistic fear, actually, if polls mean anything. Sanders does well against Trump nationwide and in PA and Michigan. He actually does much better than Biden in Michigan. It's not a realistic fear, just an ingrained assumption that centrist candidates are always safer.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    “We need to run a centrist or Trump will win” is the logic that got us Trump in 2016.
    No, it isn't. People didn't like Hillary Clinton. It is not because she is centrist, it is because she is Hillary Clinton.*

    Or maybe they had just had eight years of Obama centrism and were not enthused about four more years of even more watered down centrism.

    Having said that, Obama was not a leftist candidate, but he did a pretty good job of making people think he was one. The hope and change stuff was sincerely believed in 2008 and even a bit in 2012, even if he didn't come through with much. People were enthusiastic about him because they really expected him to make things better. Clinton's best pitch was "stay the course" and "I'm not Trump."

    But yes, it was widely known that Clinton was not very well-liked. This was not news. Way back in 2008 Obama noted she was "likeable enough." But all the experts predicted she was the safe candidate, a sure thing. Clinton had a legion of experts, think tanks, pollsters, wonks, donors, etc. backing her and explaining to everyone why she would be the one to beat Trump, all the way to election night.

    And no one should forget the Democrats' brilliant "Pied Piper" strategy.
    It is not pre-emptive surrender. Candidates must prove they can get votes, not simply have the policy you like. You are starting backwards. If you want the candidate with better policies to get elected, you fucking raise their profile well in advance of an election. Voting purely on principle is what helped sink Clinton's campaign, so you got Trump.

    *Pick your reasons why they did not like her.

    Sanders has a great profile. He is a household name, well-regarded nationwide, even by many who don't subscribe to all his policies.



  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    “We need to run a centrist or Trump will win” is the logic that got us Trump in 2016.
    No, it isn't. People didn't like Hillary Clinton. It is not because she is centrist, it is because she is Hillary Clinton.*

    Or maybe they had just had eight years of Obama centrism and were not enthused about four more years of even more watered down centrism.
    So...the response to centrism is...racism and xenophobia? wow
    But yes, it was widely known that Clinton was not very well-liked. This was not news. Way back in 2008 Obama noted she was "likeable enough." But all the experts predicted she was the safe candidate, a sure thing. Clinton had a legion of experts, think tanks, pollsters, wonks, donors, etc. backing her and explaining to everyone why she would be the one to beat Trump, all the way to election night.
    See, the thing is, people don't like to look bad. So they lie. Even if a poll is anonymous, people will often fill in based on what they think makes them look better.
    People who analyse things tend to think everyone does, and this is not true.
    No sane, rational person* would vote for Trump. And yet he was elected. You do the maths.

    *Outside of those thinking they would profit. And, of course, the aforementioned racists and xenophobes.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ohher--
    Ohher wrote: »
    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, isn't anybody besides me semi-outraged that Marianne What's-Her-Face is on the friggin' debate stage at all? That anybody is actually taking this New Age Nazi seriously?

    I know she's running, but I haven't checked into it. I know she used to be really popular for her work. And I *think* she's the one Hillary turned to, when First Lady, to help her with visualizations to get her through rough times.

    I wouldn't think she'd be a good match for the presidency; but possibly a cabinet position where she could focus on helping people. Or a Congressional chaplain of some sort, though that would probably cause more of an uproar than presidency!

    Yes, she's into--and teaches, IIRC--New Age ideas. But where does the "Nazi" epithet come from???

    If I may ask, are you venting your fears about the election onto her?

    Thx.

    "Nazi" probably isn't the best choice (aside from my inextinguishable penchant for alliteration). But she springs from a well (poisoned, AFAICS) of thought (if we use that term Very Loosely) which basically blames victims. This article does a better job of explaining what I mean than I can manage at the mo.

    And I AM fearful. I am fearful of 4 more years of Trump, fearful of yet another outsider tempted to disregard not only norms but also our founding documents, flawed as they may be. If and where there are obvious flaws, let's get cracking & fix them. But let's not opt for more free-wheeling, self-styling governance-by-whim as a replacement, even temporarily.

    Some bits-n-bobs from the article:

    Williamson quote: “Many people fail to manifest money because on some deep level they don’t think they should.”

    Quotes from article: "And she’s suggested that people who are overweight may suffer from a deficit of 'spiritual intelligence.'" Internment camps for the fat, anyone?

    "And the idea that people’s attitudes, rather than economic or social structures, are largely responsible for their material or medical circumstances is now taken by many conservatives as gospel." And is extremely dangerous, IMHO.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    “We need to run a centrist or Trump will win” is the logic that got us Trump in 2016.
    No, it isn't. People didn't like Hillary Clinton. It is not because she is centrist, it is because she is Hillary Clinton.*

    Or maybe they had just had eight years of Obama centrism and were not enthused about four more years of even more watered down centrism.
    So...the response to centrism is...racism and xenophobia? wow

    In Michigan and Wisconsin the response was staying home. No, it's not defensible but that's what happens. If you want people to turn out like they did for Obama you need to get them energized.
  • I want Warren or someone like her to be President. But my top priorities are:

    1. Defeat Trump (I'd vote for any of the Democratic candidates over him)

    2. Get the Democrats as many seats as possible in Congress - I'd love it if they could take the Senate, as hard as that might be given the seats that are up for reelection. Even if that doesn't happen, the Dems need to fight as hard as they can to hold their ground in the Senate or gain seats. The gains in seats the Dems made in the House in 2018 were largely due to "moderate" candidates in moderate-to-conservative districts.

    (Regarding Obama being a centrist, he would probably (?) be considered a "moderate" in the current Democratic party, but if the Dems had managed to hold onto their majorities in Congress despite the Tea Party (and racist) backlash of 2010 and 2014, he might have managed to get comprehensive immigration reform passed, and maybe an employment non-discrimination act for LGBT people (which still does not exist at the federal level, despite same sex marriage!). (I am less certain about the feasibility of his goal for carbon cap and trade even with a Democratic Congress given the types of Democrats in Congress at the time, but losing the House and then the Senate definitely closed the door on that.) We also would definitely now have a Supreme Court that is defending voting rights, women's rights, and campaign finance legislation, the separation of church and state, etc., and that would be much more skeptical of, if not hostile to, the death penalty.)

    3. Win as many governorships and seats in state houses as possible, in order to prevent Republican gerrymandering that would last for 10 years after the 2020 Census, as well as to defend voting rights in general and stop voter suppression.

    Would a candidate like Warren be the best to achieve these goals? I'm not sure. I'm equally worried about Biden, though.
  • edited August 2019
    One of my main desiderata is a President who projects an aura of being, well, presidential. Or, to use somewhat old-fashioned and unfortunately gendered phrase, statesmanlike. Someone who won't embarrass the US on the international stage. Obama was one of the best presidents in this regard in recent memory. Trump has been by far the worst in any time span.

    But I'm told that this a concern mostly for middle-class people with college degrees who follow the news and travel abroad (guilty on all counts) and doesn't rank highly on the list of many voters in the rustbelt swing states.

    But I think the ability to appear presidential explains a lot (although by no means all) of Buttigieg's success. On the one hand, the road from being mayor of a fairly small city directly to the presidency seems like a pretty long shot. On the other hand, Buttigieg does seem like he could almost have been created by Aaron Sorkin. And I say that as an unabashed Buttigieg fan.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    "And the idea that people’s attitudes, rather than economic or social structures, are largely responsible for their material or medical circumstances is now taken by many conservatives as gospel." And is extremely dangerous, IMHO.

    My mom is a New Age Trump supporter. She thinks people are born into poverty because, in the time between their past life and this one, they chose to be poor in order to learn a certain lesson. (Insert long string of expletives here.) At least this is what she used to think. I haven't spoken to her about politics in a bit.
  • It's nice to have a president who can form coherent sentences and exude basic humanness but, as Reagan showed, civility/ good manners can also serve as an effective cover for extreme evil.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Absent the electoral college, Hillary would now be president, based on the popular vote.

    Sure - but we have the electoral college - and even in the popular vote, against a candidate as ghastly as Trump, HRC only managed a 2% margin. That's not a success.
    Obama's margins were 7% and 4%. Even George W beat Kerry by more than 2%.

    Trump's approval rating is a pretty steady 42.5%. That's not too different from Obama, Clinton, and Reagan at this point in their presidencies. Obama, Clinton, and Reagan all won second terms.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Ohher wrote: »




    But she springs from a well (poisoned, AFAICS) of thought (if we use that term Very Loosely) which basically blames victims. This article does a better job of explaining what I mean than I can manage at the mo.



    Such a good article, thanks for bringing it here. I remember all the hoopla over "The Secret," and thinking, isn't that just positive thinking? My mother had a health and beauty course she had sent away for in 1940 that pushed a constant mantra of, "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." Even as a kid I thought it was an odd way to become beautiful, it certainly wasn't working for me, not like that 1940's red lipstick anyway. The worst part of Marianne Williamson's philosophy, and I used to watch her on Oprah sometimes, was an implication that if you had something like cancer it was because "the universe" was sending your own bad thoughts back to you.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I think I've told this story before on the Old Ship, but a dear friend married a New Age Nazi (she's the one I originally coined the term for) who told me, at our first meeting that my hearing impairment is due to my "needing to be deaf."

    I only just barely refrained from slapping her upside the head and then saying, "Oh dear! Well, you must have needed to be slapped."
  • Until Marianne Williamson takes some meteoric rise through the polls, I don't see any reason to worry about a President Williamson.
  • I would have replied along the lines of "Quite right - deaf to you. I think that I need a martini." And turned on my heal.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    People need to be deaf or poor or oppressed in any way? What kind of insane theory can justify that thinking?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    People need to be deaf or poor or oppressed in any way? What kind of insane theory can justify that thinking?

    The Marianne Williamson theory that we can control reality by altering our thinking.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Until Marianne Williamson takes some meteoric rise through the polls, I don't see any reason to worry about a President Williamson.

    Many of us saw no reason to worry about a President Trump, once upon a time. Seems like centuries ago. Three years. He was about to "shake up" his campaign in August 2016. On Oct. 7 that year, the Access Hollywood tape came out, and I figured his campaign was toast.

    Some toast.
  • CNN is saying Cory Booker won the debate last night because he kept his eye on the prize of beating Trump while Biden and Harris got bogged down in their health plans. I personally find Cory Booker so likable I can't trust myself to be unbiased about him.

    I did like Kamala Harris much more than in the first debate. No personal anecdotes this time, but lashing, fierce hatred for big pharmaceutical companies and private health insurance. Something I can share with her.

    Even as we speak, Trump is trying hard to allow insurance companies, once again, to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. This is a big deal for people dealing with schizophrenia. It typically shows up in the early twenties, when young people have just aged out of their parent's health plans and haven't got one organised for themselves yet. Insurance companies just hate covering the mental illnesses because, unlike many expensive diseases, people don't conveniently die of it after a few years. The medication costs thousands a month, visits to a psychiatrist cost much more than to a general practitioner and the whole thing can go on for 60 years. So I understand why they don't want to cover people with serious mental illness but it's absolutely unconscionable to think they should get to pick and choose and only cover cheap diseases.
  • Trump had huge name recognition and a quasi-message/ style that many, many white people were hungry for and which the other Republicans did not, erm, articulate so well. I don’t think there’s any major voting demographic that yearns for... whatever it is Williamson is doing.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    People need to be deaf or poor or oppressed in any way? What kind of insane theory can justify that thinking?

    The Marianne Williamson theory that we can control reality by altering our thinking.

    Oh, and just in the interests of accuracy, I am not deaf, merely hard-of-hearing (from birth). A lot of Americans in my part of the country seem to use these terms (deaf and hard-of-hearing) interchangeably, which annoys the hell out of me. Being deaf would place me in the Deaf community, in a different culture, and in a different linguistic and discourse group. I have no problem with being so placed, were it accurate and appropriate, but it isn't. I use American English, not American Sign; and I'm part of the Hearing world and operate in that culture.
  • I still think you should have asked her if she thought she needed to be punched.
  • RossweisseRossweisse 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    It's not a very realistic fear, actually, if polls mean anything. Sanders does well against Trump nationwide and in PA and Michigan. He actually does much better than Biden in Michigan. It's not a realistic fear, just an ingrained assumption that centrist candidates are always safer.
    The people we need to win over are more likely to go for a centrist than a superannuated cranky-uncle leftist like Sanders. An awful lot of people don't want to give up their private ( = subsidized by employer) health care; Obama's lying about that when pushing the ACA ("If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period") did serious damage to that entire cause and ended up helping the Republicans. What we need are more options, not fewer.

  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I want a public option. I don't want to have to depend upon my employer for health insurance.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Damn straight. First, there's the problem of employer values that don't align with employee values (Hobby Lobby, etc.). Second, for many people, there's a substantial swath of life during which one is too young to be employed, or past employment age, or without employment during recessions and downturns, etc. and without the means to support the COBRA stopgap (alleged) option.
  • I don't know if this makes sense in an American context, but it strikes me that the Dems spending time talking about slightly different health policies is pointless because whoever becomes President will have to negotiate the details with Congress.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    I want a public option. I don't want to have to depend upon my employer for health insurance.

    Me too. We're so used to the idea now that we forget there was a time not that long ago when our jobs had nothing to do with our health care and I think that's how it should be. We should know that if our boss is abusive or our working conditions are unbearable we have the freedom to walk out without losing health care for ourselves and our children. When we're applying for jobs we should be able to negotiate salary without that in the middle.

    Walmart (America's largest employer) currently has a fairly good plan for full-time employees although the first year of coverage it only pays a small percent of costs. However the plan is limited in some ways and explains this as "we have to keep the cost of the plan low so our employees can afford it." In other words, because we underpay our people so badly they can only afford a second rate plan. Worst part? Employees are required to use only Walmart's pharmacy so their co-workers all know what embarrassing meds they're taking.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't know if this makes sense in an American context, but it strikes me that the Dems spending time talking about slightly different health policies is pointless because whoever becomes President will have to negotiate the details with Congress.

    I always think this too. It’s just what we do. As the executive branch has gained more and more power and prominence over the last century or so, we’ve grown accustomed to listening to presidential hopefuls as if they can unilaterally act. We also used to have presidents who knew how congress worked and could get things done. Currently, these kinds of minutiae policy fights just lets everybody know where each candidate stands.

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    It's not a very realistic fear, actually, if polls mean anything. Sanders does well against Trump nationwide and in PA and Michigan. He actually does much better than Biden in Michigan. It's not a realistic fear, just an ingrained assumption that centrist candidates are always safer.
    The people we need to win over are more likely to go for a centrist than a superannuated cranky-uncle leftist like Sanders.

    Any evidence for that? Who are "the people we need to win over"? In polls on the 2020 general election, Sanders currently outperforms Biden in Michigan. He does about as well as Biden in Wisconsin and PA.

    Also, Biden and Sanders are 1 year apart.
    An awful lot of people don't want to give up their private ( = subsidized by employer) health care

    An awful lot of people would rather not depend on their employers for healthcare. An awful lot more people have no such subsidized healthcare and are either paying absurd amounts of money for inadequate plans or simply going without.
    Obama's lying about that when pushing the ACA ("If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period") did serious damage to that entire cause and ended up helping the Republicans.

    ACA is not single payer, so this is pretty irrelevant. The ACA was a half-measure that created problems as it solved others. It helped a lot of people and made things harder for others. It was, overall, a modest improvement over the horrendous system we have, which means the system remained horrendous.
    What we need are more options, not fewer.

    Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.



  • Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right.
    Well said! I have never heard anyone say they loved their doctor so much they would be heartbroken to have to change or that their insurance plan was everything they ever dreamed of. Maybe some very wealthy people have devoted doctors who will come to their home in the middle of the night and talk to them for hours, but most of us have doctors, however nice, with barracuda receptionists between us and them. During my 22 years as a military spouse, I used their free "socialist"-style medical service. I usually had a different doctor every time and I did. not. care. Free is my favorite price.

  • Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.
    Americans hate that idea. Because they will be paying for someone who doesn't deserve it.
    goddamn freeloading bastards!

  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Americans also detest seeming European. We must be different, to the death of ourselves!
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Americans also detest seeming European. We must be different, to the death of ourselves!

    I don't think that's the case with younger Americans or those with more education. These are folks more likely to have traveled and/or lived abroad and seen for themselves how "backward" and "failed" France, Germany, the UK, etc. actually are. Whether this segment of voters is large enough or energized enough to swing elections away from the Kool-Aided remains to be seen.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.
    Americans hate that idea. Because they will be paying for someone who doesn't deserve it.
    goddamn freeloading bastards!

    "I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare," say Americans who don't understand how insurance works.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.
    Americans hate that idea. Because they will be paying for someone who doesn't deserve it.
    goddamn freeloading bastards!
    While I agree with the sentiment, I’d say that’s close but misses the mark a bit. Americans don’t mind, up to a point, helping the less fortunate as long as it’s charity, something done voluntarily, because that’s A Good Thing. It’s the government using tax dollars that raises hackles.

    I miss the eye roll emoji.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Americans also detest seeming European. We must be different, to the death of ourselves!
    Yep, though as Rossweise says, that is changing, as is the point above.

    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.
    Americans hate that idea. Because they will be paying for someone who doesn't deserve it.
    goddamn freeloading bastards!

    "I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare," say Americans who don't understand how insurance works.
    Much less, Medicare.

    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't know if this makes sense in an American context, but it strikes me that the Dems spending time talking about slightly different health policies is pointless because whoever becomes President will have to negotiate the details with Congress.
    I think it makes sense. It seems to be anathema to talk about working with “the other side,” and I understand why in the current political climate. But it’s really not enough to tell me your plan for health care. That’s great and all, but tell me your plan for getting a Republican Senate to enact what you propose.

  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Americans also detest seeming European. We must be different, to the death of ourselves!

    I don't think that's the case with younger Americans or those with more education. These are folks more likely to have traveled and/or lived abroad and seen for themselves how "backward" and "failed" France, Germany, the UK, etc. actually are. Whether this segment of voters is large enough or energized enough to swing elections away from the Kool-Aided remains to be seen.

    Yes, I’m in that demographic, but I don’t know if the numbers are there.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Yep, though as Rossweise says, that is changing, as is the point above.
    Oops, my bad. It was Ohher, not Rossweise. Sorry!
  • Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.

    Germany has a universal healthcare system that is hybrid public-private with multiple payers and with contributions by employers to their employees' health insurance premiums, although the health insurance plans for everyone earning less than about 60,000 Euro a year must be non-profit even if private and there is a lot of government intervention and regulation overall.

    In Switzerland, the universal healthcare system is generally entirely private, but it is government subsidized and regulated. Basic healthcare coverage, which everyone must purchase, is required to be nonprofit, but supplemental insurance can be for-profit. Switzerland's overall healthcare costs are more expensive than other developed countries, but still well behind the US.

    Maybe single payer is the best kind of healthcare system. But it isn't the only system in non-US rich countries, and many people in non-single-payer system countries are very happy with their coverage. The US system, though, is cruel and perverse and Obamacare doesn't come close to fixing it.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.
    Americans hate that idea. Because they will be paying for someone who doesn't deserve it.
    goddamn freeloading bastards!

    Seriously? I don't think we're that bad.

    I've heard Americans gripe about people getting something free that they themselves have had to work for, like food stamps or subsidized housing, but if everyone gets free medical care, I just can't imagine anyone but the most die-hard libertarian complaining.

    Besides, who would they think doesn't deserve healthcare? Even the ones who begrudge food stamps are usually cart snoopers who saw someone pay for a steak with food stamps. They don't seem to resent the hamburger.
Sign In or Register to comment.