-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Disclaimer: this is just me talking, not as staff. I haven't been thrilled with how the community nor staff have treated this topic, and before we completely lose the ability to speak about anything at all (like that Biden "quote", I saw the interview and it's not what he said), I want to address a few posts made a short time ago regarding healthcare:
Under the ACA I have been made to change plans several times, including having to pay full price for coverage for one period of time, and losing my doctor to concierge service (meaning paying extra for more "private services" which I didn't want to do even if I could). I have a kid to look out for. You want to stick with the ACA or "go back" to it? Me neither.
I don't know if I'm ever sharing a doctor's office with a "poor person". My medical is with the city's health system, so I assume I am, and that my doctor is as well, she has many types of patients. As do Urgent Care centers open to the public, which we utilize since they are closer and more direct than emergency rooms for acute ailments when we can't see a doctor.
Some days, all I want to hear about getting a majority in the Senate. Why? Because that's how anything is going to get passed. That's how you will get your medical coverage, your insulin supply. How you and I will not have to worry about an out of pocket maximum, so it won't lord over us forever, or at all. And not because I think YOU don't know that the Senate is needed. But because the sooner this is done, the sooner more people get actual relief.
But yes, step 1 of this entire thing is really the most immediate, important thing - Trump has to go. The most "effective way" possible, which means the way that as many people as possible will either stay home to not vote for Trump, or to show up to vote for the Democrat on Election Day. I don't know for sure what that is yet, but it's possible it may be "elect Biden". There were a range of candidates and campaigns to choose from, and people polled and chose - but I have to move forward under these constraints now. So if there is more talk about Biden or Sanders rather than other candidates, well that's what people in the early polling and early states set us up for. Many of the campaigns the candidates ran, did not seek out enough people to reach, which was also a problem despite the strength of their political platforms. This includes the front-runners, progressive or not.
Step 2, which has to happen the same time as Step 1, is the Senate majority. Bullock was encouraged to run in Montana, another seat that was needed. A bit of a minor miracle, this about-face.
Step 3 is pressuring Congress post- election to follow through and get the bills to the president's desk. It doesn't stop on election day, it only begins. I have experience with Medicare, and the candidates have not done a good job explaining to the public what is missing from Medicare and what needs to be covered, so this will be a crucial time to make sure elected representatives are focused on helping people in the immediate term and getting things set up for progress. Since the company providing our healthcare coverage at the time ACA was passed, was prepared two years in advance for the ACA start deadline, I know firsthand that changes and adaptations can be made quickly.
Step 4, running parallel to everything else, is everything that can be done at your state level. I know people who had to move from Pennsylvania to New York for job relocation and lost - LOST - a great deal of special-needs medical services for their children. It's not a rosy situation in seemingly the most "blue" states, either. Pressure at the state level is a key part of getting more coverage.
There is nothing incremental for me to accept or settle for about this, the steps and actions to be taken by the people are all the same no matter which Democrat is the nominee. No elected official or candidate has "got this" or "can be trusted" to do the right thing IMO without the firm consistent pressure from their constituents. Pressure and activism worked in many cases and in many states in 2018, it can work again. People would have paid family leave for the coronavirus now, if the Senate and President had different party/majority.
Suggesting I'm speaking in bad faith or I'm a dick for supporting/not supporting a candidate or making up shit about me, I think it takes the focus off of just how much has to be done. All the above is much more important anyway if I want medical coverage to be there for everyone. And I do.
Under the ACA I have been made to change plans several times, including having to pay full price for coverage for one period of time, and losing my doctor to concierge service (meaning paying extra for more "private services" which I didn't want to do even if I could). I have a kid to look out for. You want to stick with the ACA or "go back" to it? Me neither.
I don't know if I'm ever sharing a doctor's office with a "poor person". My medical is with the city's health system, so I assume I am, and that my doctor is as well, she has many types of patients. As do Urgent Care centers open to the public, which we utilize since they are closer and more direct than emergency rooms for acute ailments when we can't see a doctor.
Some days, all I want to hear about getting a majority in the Senate. Why? Because that's how anything is going to get passed. That's how you will get your medical coverage, your insulin supply. How you and I will not have to worry about an out of pocket maximum, so it won't lord over us forever, or at all. And not because I think YOU don't know that the Senate is needed. But because the sooner this is done, the sooner more people get actual relief.
But yes, step 1 of this entire thing is really the most immediate, important thing - Trump has to go. The most "effective way" possible, which means the way that as many people as possible will either stay home to not vote for Trump, or to show up to vote for the Democrat on Election Day. I don't know for sure what that is yet, but it's possible it may be "elect Biden". There were a range of candidates and campaigns to choose from, and people polled and chose - but I have to move forward under these constraints now. So if there is more talk about Biden or Sanders rather than other candidates, well that's what people in the early polling and early states set us up for. Many of the campaigns the candidates ran, did not seek out enough people to reach, which was also a problem despite the strength of their political platforms. This includes the front-runners, progressive or not.
Step 2, which has to happen the same time as Step 1, is the Senate majority. Bullock was encouraged to run in Montana, another seat that was needed. A bit of a minor miracle, this about-face.
Step 3 is pressuring Congress post- election to follow through and get the bills to the president's desk. It doesn't stop on election day, it only begins. I have experience with Medicare, and the candidates have not done a good job explaining to the public what is missing from Medicare and what needs to be covered, so this will be a crucial time to make sure elected representatives are focused on helping people in the immediate term and getting things set up for progress. Since the company providing our healthcare coverage at the time ACA was passed, was prepared two years in advance for the ACA start deadline, I know firsthand that changes and adaptations can be made quickly.
Step 4, running parallel to everything else, is everything that can be done at your state level. I know people who had to move from Pennsylvania to New York for job relocation and lost - LOST - a great deal of special-needs medical services for their children. It's not a rosy situation in seemingly the most "blue" states, either. Pressure at the state level is a key part of getting more coverage.
There is nothing incremental for me to accept or settle for about this, the steps and actions to be taken by the people are all the same no matter which Democrat is the nominee. No elected official or candidate has "got this" or "can be trusted" to do the right thing IMO without the firm consistent pressure from their constituents. Pressure and activism worked in many cases and in many states in 2018, it can work again. People would have paid family leave for the coronavirus now, if the Senate and President had different party/majority.
Suggesting I'm speaking in bad faith or I'm a dick for supporting/not supporting a candidate or making up shit about me, I think it takes the focus off of just how much has to be done. All the above is much more important anyway if I want medical coverage to be there for everyone. And I do.
okay now having seen the clip it's exactly what i was expected and is most certainly weak shit
i do not stand corrected on this one
i do not stand corrected on this one
Setting aside that the F35 Program is crap from top to bottom, this is hardly a fair comparison. The $1.1 trillion figure for the F35 is over 60 years...
Biden's platform includes forcing drug prices down to what they cost overseas. Much more affordable.
This is even worse than the 36 second version somehow. His clarification was that it WILL be the things he's against and that there's no way to make it happen.
Also, one thing is providing life-saving healthcare to every person in this country while replacing private expenditures the citizens of this country pay which could be utilized to buy homes or consumer goods to grow the economy.
That Biden clip. Quick and dirty couple of sentences verbatim:
Yes, shocking that a 1:27 long clip gives more context than a 36 second clip.
Yes, shocking that a 1:27 long clip gives more context than a 36 second clip.
anyone throwing around figures like 35 trillion without context is either being disingenuous or is not serious about the subject
he makes it sound like is 35 trillion in additional spending
he makes it sound like is 35 trillion in additional spending
Even if Biden is using standard Republican talking points to say he would veto M4A rather than saying it outright... I don't think that's much better.
Exactly what I was writing. M4A is cheaper than our current system and if you throw out the total healthcare cost for M4A but don't talk about the cost for America if we don't implement it, then you're just trying to obfuscate facts so that it seems impossible to shut down discussion. He doesn't want it in any form, but is just pretending because he's another politician who doesn't give a fuck about you.
Like I said. Still giving the campaign answer. But it's a fantasy question and he airballed it.
Yeah, I think this is it. Nothing amazingly new in this, considering he's always been against the M4A that Sanders (and Warren) proposed.
More chance of Biden compromising with Warren on healthcare. The intermediary step is a nice political bridge that he can use for people afraid of losing what they've got.
Horrific that this is candidate from the left wing party talking. What a huge mess this turned into.
Except he says his goal is avoiding the middle class paying for it...?
Biden mentioned cost, yes, but he mentioned raising taxes on the middle class as the method of paying for it. He said he would veto THAT.
That would be an improvement over the ACA in terms of net costs, at a minimum. Under ACA I didn't mind paying more so that others could get healthcare coverage, but to pay more and for all of us to end up with less or none is where things ultimately landed. The ACA didn't even protect itself from that.
That would be an improvement over the ACA in terms of net costs, at a minimum. Under ACA I didn't mind paying more so that others could get healthcare coverage, but to pay more and for all of us to end up with less or none is where things ultimately landed. The ACA didn't even protect itself from that.
Biden would never veto M4A because whatever ends up on his desk would have his input from day one in the negotiation process be it expanded ACA or M4A. He's not going to fight his own party when he's the de facto head of it.
It's kind of a silly "what if" situation.
It's kind of a silly "what if" situation.
instead of saying "I'm not gonna sign it because it'll raise cost on the middle class" why wouldn't he say "I'll sign it only if it doesn't overly burden the middle class"
you're given what should be a hypothetical softball question about healthcare under the looming threat of a pandemic and you say "nope, never, not in a million years"
you're given what should be a hypothetical softball question about healthcare under the looming threat of a pandemic and you say "nope, never, not in a million years"
I mean, yes. But we're comparing a program that cost roughly $18.3 billion a year to a complete overhaul of the healthcare and insurance industries in the United States and would likely cost several trillion a year. It's no different than saying "why spend money on foreign aid when we can give people healthcare?" ignoring the fact that we could only give healthcare to like Brooklyn for what we spend on foreign aid.
That's basically what he said. Were people even listening?
medicare for all was great branding even though it's literally just what it is
politicians are so good at shaping and muddying but with medicare for all it's right there in the name. the more qualifiers you add the more you stray. even something that's only a few words longer in medicare for all who want it fails. here's a rule for politicians, if you can seinfeld the name out of contention maybe it's bad. what'dyou mean "for all who want it"? who doesn't want healthcare? better healthcare, ok alright, but healthcare care? it's care! who doesn't want it! the more you dance the more you are perceived as opposing, which is probably true anyway. it's one of the issues that spotlights how politicians use pure rhetoric and lawyer like language to say what you want to hear in a way that isn't actually binding to a specific thing they actually oppose. joe biden can't be seen opposing healthcare for all americans. that's why he has to build a rhetorical fort to explain his opposition to healthcare for all americans. affordable access security choice we've all heard the framing and it'd be demonstrably false without a carefully tossed together word salad to build that armor. meanwhile the shit's called medicare for all, 1, 2, 3 and you're reciting an essay dancing a fool.
though to biden's credit he did say if by some miracle it gets passed and funded in a way that lowers the burden on the middle class he'd support it which is what medicare for all is, but of course he's still framing that around a tax increase so he can oppose it on a technicality
politicians are so good at shaping and muddying but with medicare for all it's right there in the name. the more qualifiers you add the more you stray. even something that's only a few words longer in medicare for all who want it fails. here's a rule for politicians, if you can seinfeld the name out of contention maybe it's bad. what'dyou mean "for all who want it"? who doesn't want healthcare? better healthcare, ok alright, but healthcare care? it's care! who doesn't want it! the more you dance the more you are perceived as opposing, which is probably true anyway. it's one of the issues that spotlights how politicians use pure rhetoric and lawyer like language to say what you want to hear in a way that isn't actually binding to a specific thing they actually oppose. joe biden can't be seen opposing healthcare for all americans. that's why he has to build a rhetorical fort to explain his opposition to healthcare for all americans. affordable access security choice we've all heard the framing and it'd be demonstrably false without a carefully tossed together word salad to build that armor. meanwhile the shit's called medicare for all, 1, 2, 3 and you're reciting an essay dancing a fool.
though to biden's credit he did say if by some miracle it gets passed and funded in a way that lowers the burden on the middle class he'd support it which is what medicare for all is, but of course he's still framing that around a tax increase so he can oppose it on a technicality
I thought that was what Biden was getting at? He'll have to look at it where they find the money for it/the impact it has. He messes up a bit especially when he mentions that it will raise taxes on the middle class but essentially if something works he'll sign it.
Did we all miss the part where O'Donnell mentioned that the hypothetical M4A proposal that passed the Senate had Republican prints all over it? Any Republican-altered healthcare plan would fuck SOMEONE, and not the rich.
All of them are going to look terrible in the next few months as the cornovirus outbreaks gets larger and the public in general realizes how lowfully unequipped our current system is to handle it.
Hey, the Adder. Since the thread was locked I'll say this here. Glad this all just a fun little game to you while a disabled person like myself has to deal with the democratic front runner being someone who hasn't even tried to hide the fact that he is willing to cut disability and will actively work against making health insurance better, because apparently not even the democrats care about making things better. You gonna donate to my Gofundme when Biden cuts what few benefits I have left and leaves me homeless and unable to afford my medical bills? It must be nice to be so secure that this guy being our best hope against Trump doesn't worry you.
But it's a "what if" situation where he would have to fight his own party, and he's saying he would. It seems obvious, but it does shut down any hope that he can be moved to the left by a blue congress.
Hope you get actual socialists who get into office that help lower the prices.
One of the best insulin mandates came from Lee Carter. $50 a month, max. A healthcare cost cap in 2020. In America.
Very sad that such an approach is so piecemeal, depending on location and severity of need, but this is the best we can do until 2024.
yikes that extended answer
that's the guy you want as your candidate for president?
shameful response from biden
that's the guy you want as your candidate for president?
shameful response from biden
Maybe. But in that case, Biden is a great choice - if he sees which way the wind is blowing, he can change his stance, and use his change of stance to convince people like him that it's the way forward.
Right, the question of the theoretical bill should be is the middle class going to come out ahead.
Because if they do come out ahead (say their taxes go up but their net spending goes down) there's zero justification for him to not sign it.
His answer makes sense, he saw Obama first hand pass the ACA and get kneecapped as a result.
Anyone talking about qualifiers for where Biden says he'd sign it is missing the point. The thing that answer defuses is a thing that many people seem to think, the idea that Biden's for the same thing but is just "more realistic", that M4A is a good idea but it definitely just can't pass so here's my alternative.
If he was, the answer is an unqualified "yes". The House and Senate pull together and push through an M4A bill and all it needs is your signature, then your answer is hell yes and you sign. To these people, the idea of Biden setting his sights lower is because pushing for M4A is too much of a risk. But if that's the case, when that risk is over, the process has been completed, and the bill is there and waiting for your signature, and all that stands in the way of it is you saying "OK", you don't get to start making demands about the scope of the agreement. That only comes down if you actually oppose Medicare For All, not just think it's a good idea that's "unrealistic".
What he's just made abundantly clear is that if you like Medicare For All, Joe Biden's not your person. He's not only not going to advocate for it, he'd actively stand in the way of adopting it. That's not what a lot of people think Biden's position is.
(On a hilarious note, I honestly bet this isn't even true. Joe Biden has a long history of arguing against really good bills, pushing against them as much as he can, desperately trying to kill them, until he realizes he can't stop it and just votes in favor in the end and skips straight to taking credit for "helping to passing the bill". Biden's a politician, in the case where public support has mobilized to make the entire House and Senate crumble, he'd certainly fall in line. But that story isn't remotely something he can sell to the public, the entire thing's about how he's a craven political operative who ultimately abandons his principles if challenged hard enough. The real story of Biden is so bad he'd prefer to openly discuss standing in opposition to one of the most popular policy initiatives in the party.)
If he was, the answer is an unqualified "yes". The House and Senate pull together and push through an M4A bill and all it needs is your signature, then your answer is hell yes and you sign. To these people, the idea of Biden setting his sights lower is because pushing for M4A is too much of a risk. But if that's the case, when that risk is over, the process has been completed, and the bill is there and waiting for your signature, and all that stands in the way of it is you saying "OK", you don't get to start making demands about the scope of the agreement. That only comes down if you actually oppose Medicare For All, not just think it's a good idea that's "unrealistic".
What he's just made abundantly clear is that if you like Medicare For All, Joe Biden's not your person. He's not only not going to advocate for it, he'd actively stand in the way of adopting it. That's not what a lot of people think Biden's position is.
(On a hilarious note, I honestly bet this isn't even true. Joe Biden has a long history of arguing against really good bills, pushing against them as much as he can, desperately trying to kill them, until he realizes he can't stop it and just votes in favor in the end and skips straight to taking credit for "helping to passing the bill". Biden's a politician, in the case where public support has mobilized to make the entire House and Senate crumble, he'd certainly fall in line. But that story isn't remotely something he can sell to the public, the entire thing's about how he's a craven political operative who ultimately abandons his principles if challenged hard enough. The real story of Biden is so bad he'd prefer to openly discuss standing in opposition to one of the most popular policy initiatives in the party.)
Last edited:
I'm also disabled and while I'd obviously prefer m4a, Biden's platform isn't to cut entitlements.
- Status