The NYT is working on a story about the brave feminist oil pumps who are fighting for freedom and democracy as we speak.
The NYT is working on a story about the brave feminist oil pumps who are fighting for freedom and democracy as we speak.
And there are also people actively shitting on Single-Payer because they will have to share the same healthcare as poor people.
It's the same mentality that leads to people taking their kids out of public schools. It's why something like Medicare For All is attacked from both highly paid professional Democrats and Republicans.
The Public Option is popular because it will maintain second class healthcare for poor people. Healthcare must always be tied to the myth of meritocracy. Most of these people were born into their position in life and use it to justify why their parents should live into their 90s while everyone else who "didn't make the right choices" should suffer the consequences and not die on the public dime.
Because you literally posted that your quarrel with Warren's plan was that it includes comprehensive immigration reform? It's not a conflation to comment on the thing you said!
Yes.Would you extend this argument to nationalizing the entire healthcare system, not just the payment side of it?
Well, I'm completely opposed to nationalizing healthcare delivery. It sets up an abusive relationship between doctors and patients, which has disproportionate impacts on minorities and LGBTQ people.
Warren and her team know this plan doesn't work.I don't really care much about Warren having a debate soundbite. It's true that she needed a better answer to the taxes question...but I'm not sure this is that? "Will your plan raise taxes?" --> "Not one penny" --> "How?" and where does she go from there? This plan is weedsy, even for her. But that's neither here nor there.
(Lord help me, I'm reading policy papers on my day off)
The Immigration Reform bit makes sense as you put, and you're right: not the part to get tripped up over. Although, where are you getting 20.5 trillion from? Warren seems to be saying that her plan is going to cost around the 52 trillion we're currently spending?
And reading her plan, I'm still seeing a lot of fantasy on where she's going to nickel and dime to bring down spending, I'm not seeing much addressing people/businesses who actually like their private insurance, and I'm not seeing much addressing how she proposes people transition to her version of medicare for all. She's proposing passing immigration reform, reforming military spending, closing significant tax loopholes AND taking on private insurance all at once to make this plan happen. Don't get me wrong, that's all great shit that needs to happen anyway, but you have to start somewhere, and you have to WIN all these fights (simultaneously) for your plan to work. This is actually the thing I respected the most about Kamala's plan, even if the 10 year timeline opened her up to a lot of heat. Kamala's plan (and Biden's) seem to do the most work in laying out how they propose to get from A to B in a way that makes sense.
So far, Warren's plan is coming across as sensible, while still basically requiring the stars to align in much the same way Sanders' plan does.
Not to mention, if this is how she's working the math to get Medicare 4 All to work...where is she getting the money for everything else she's planning to do?
Why do you keep conflating these two things? Being skeptical of Warren's medicare for all plan says nothing about my opinion on passing immigration reform (which I'm for, but I shouldn't need to say that because that's not what I'm talking about). Because yeah, our government is keeping kids in cages, some of us haven't forgotten that.
The thing is, "ACA + public option" is already an easy sell to most of the incumbent Dem senators.Sure if that actually passes in its entirety would be a huge step up from what we currently have. But take a minute to consider:
The compromise candidate who helped put into place a compromised medicare system (ACA) and platforming on a compromise message.... y'all think he isn't going to compromise on his own plans and policies as well?
If not then you would have to be more naive than the Sander supporters.
(I say this about Buttiegeg as well and this guy is an even bigger flip flopper)
Yes, yes. We know.
Warren and her team know this plan doesn't work.
It's not some oopsy.
No one's plan is paid for. The goal is to shift the overton window. The right has been proposing batshit insane policies for decades and then "compromising" somewhere just south of "fuck the poors."
The end game here is for a public option. If we start at M4A then that leaves a lot of room to "compromise".
I also don't get the worry that moderators are going to get into taxation weeds on a debate stage. They'll ask dumbass questions like "will middle class people see a tax increase?" And "Do you hate Senator Sanders now that you've changed his plan?".
The really puzzling thing to me is that you already know all this.
Something to look forward to
Monday morning: Times/Siena results for Biden/Warren/Sanders v. Trump in the six closest states carried by the president in 2016: Mich., Penn., Wisc., Fla., Ariz. and N.C
And there are also people actively shitting on Single-Payer because they will have to share the same healthcare as poor people.
It's the same mentality that leads to people taking their kids out of public schools. It's why something like Medicare For All is attacked from both highly paid professional Democrats and Republicans.
The Public Option is popular because it will maintain second class healthcare for poor people. Healthcare must always be tied to the myth of meritocracy. Most of these people were born into their position in life and use it to justify why their parents should live into their 90s while everyone else who "didn't make the right choices" should suffer the consequences and not die on the public dime.
Something to look forward to
Monday morning: Times/Siena results for Biden/Warren/Sanders v. Trump in the six closest states carried by the president in 2016: Mich., Penn., Wisc., Fla., Ariz. and N.C
It's been a while since it's come up, so who knows what the whip count would be like today, but it does seem like the public option wouldn't face too much resistance within the party.So, for the record on the above hypothetical, Manchin was pro the public option when it first came up, so he wouldn't be a stop to that. He has talked against single payer.
It's literally impossible for it to be."No one's plan is paid for" is a really reductive way to look at this. I mean, yes I know this (we all know this), but clearly it's not that simple or she would have put out a plan months ago.
Some candidates have put more effort into making feasible plans than others. I get the politics of Warren's strategy here. But, not gonna lie, I was expecting her plan to be a little more approachable than this.
Yeah, problem with that and everything else about Trump's campaign was it was just another point where the media could go "hahahaha, that wacky Trump! anyway let's talk more about Clinton's emails"Let's also take a moment to appreciate the fact that Donald Trump ran on Mexico paying for a wall and got 1% of the pushback our various healthcare proposals get. The double standard is hilarious to me.
Something to look forward to
Monday morning: Times/Siena results for Biden/Warren/Sanders v. Trump in the six closest states carried by the president in 2016: Mich., Penn., Wisc., Fla., Ariz. and N.C
There is no Lieberman equivalent in the Senate atm so I think it's safe to say that the votes favor a public option.It's been a while since it's come up, so who knows what the whip count would be like today, but it does seem like the public option wouldn't face too much resistance within the party.
Yeah, problem with that and everything else about Trump's campaign was it was just another point where the media could go "hahahaha, that wacky Trump! anyway let's talk more about Clinton's emails"
Public option could probably pass reconciliation as-is, though. Same with lowering the age of Medicare, which I suspect would be another key component to the next big healthcare bill.There is no Lieberman equivalent in the Senate atm so I think it's safe to say that the votes favor a public option.
Now, here's the problem with Manchin being the last vote. He is very against nuking the filibuster and would probably be just as against overriding the parliamentarian, so....
So I was playing around with 270 to Win this morning and I was wondering what state would flip blue next should Texas, Arizona, NC, FL, and Georgia flip?
Alaska? Utah?
Utah would require the Democratic nominee not being super hated, Trump still being super hated, and a credible, conservative third party challenger to steal votes from him. Even then, I'm not sure it would be enough.So I was playing around with 270 to Win this morning and I was wondering what state would flip blue next should Texas, Arizona, NC, FL, and Georgia flip?
Alaska? Utah?
Let's also take a moment to appreciate the fact that Donald Trump ran on Mexico paying for a wall and got 1% of the pushback our various healthcare proposals get. The double standard is hilarious to me.
Well if you look at the reasons why those particular states have the potential for flipping, it comes down to all of them having major metropolitan areas. There was that one article in... the Atlantic(I think) a few months ago looking at state trends and how the rust belt/iowa are trending gop due to urban decline while AZ and Texas have these large growing metropolis' and the argument certainly has merit to it if you look at the trends. That being said, maybe Montana or Idaho? Boise is becoming quite the tech hub while Montana seems less partisan than most states up there.So I was playing around with 270 to Win this morning and I was wondering what state would flip blue next should Texas, Arizona, NC, FL, and Georgia flip?
Alaska? Utah?
You were just twisting in the air saying Warren's plan isn't feasible because we have to pass immigration reform. Why can't getting kids out of cages and making them citizens be connected for her overall message? Bakari-level talking points.That's not what I said at all.
Passing immigration reform should be its own fight. It should be the thing we do regardless of whether or not it's going to make your medicare 4 all numbers work. I don't care if immigration reform adds to medicare costs: get the kids out of fucking cages.
PA is not going for Trump again. I can tell you that much.I don't think a ton of states will flip. PA, WI, MI flipping back + one more (NC? AZ?) seems most likely to me.
Big old-school blowouts can never happen in the era of hyperpolarization.
As Aaron said, above water on the inquiry itself, below water on removal.
Hillary's map + MI is our bare minimum. PA also had a huge snapback at the state level last year, but people are a little hesitant about it because Hillary hit her marks in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas and still lost. I'd still say it's favored to return to us, though.PA and MI are flipping back, I don't really have any doubt there. WI is the wildcard.
You were just twisting in the air saying Warren's plan isn't feasible because we have to pass immigration reform. Why can't getting kids out of cages and making them citizens be connected for her overall message? Bakari-level talking points.
Well no, you're never going to see like, a Reagan-esque landslide anytime soon.I don't think a ton of states will flip. PA, WI, MI flipping back + one more (NC? AZ?) seems most likely to me.
Big old-school blowouts can never happen in the era of hyperpolarization.
I think people are focusing on that part of your post because it's odd that you act like Warren pointing out that if we pass immigration reform, that will expand the tax base and bring in more taxable revenue to fund M4A is somehow one of the most fantastical elements.I don't think Warren's plan is very feasible for a whole host of reasons.
This continued harping on what I must think about immigration reform is...weird. I'm not giving Warren a cookie here. Who is the damn Democrat on that stage who isn't for immigration reform? Immigration reform is a part of her overall message because it had better fucking be.
But this is her using stick house policy to pivot to brick house politics.I don't think Warren's plan is very feasible for a whole host of reasons.
This continued harping on what I must think about immigration reform is...weird. I'm not giving Warren a cookie here. Who is the damn Democrat on that stage who isn't for immigration reform? Immigration reform is a part of her overall message because it had better fucking be.
I don't really care much about Warren having a debate soundbite. It's true that she needed a better answer to the taxes question...but I'm not sure this is that? "Will your plan raise taxes?" --> "Not one penny" --> "How?" and where does she go from there? This plan is weedsy, even for her. But that's neither here nor there.
(Lord help me, I'm reading policy papers on my day off)
The Immigration Reform bit makes sense as you put, and you're right: not the part to get tripped up over. Although, where are you getting 20.5 trillion from? Warren seems to be saying that her plan is going to cost around the 52 trillion we're currently spending?
And reading her plan, I'm still seeing a lot of fantasy on where she's going to nickel and dime to bring down spending, I'm not seeing much addressing people/businesses who actually like their private insurance, and I'm not seeing much addressing how she proposes people transition to her version of medicare for all. She's proposing passing immigration reform, reforming military spending, closing significant tax loopholes AND taking on private insurance all at once to make this plan happen. Don't get me wrong, that's all great shit that needs to happen anyway, but you have to start somewhere, and you have to WIN all these fights (simultaneously) for your plan to work. This is actually the thing I respected the most about Kamala's plan, even if the 10 year timeline opened her up to a lot of heat. Kamala's plan (and Biden's) seem to do the most work in laying out how they propose to get from A to B in a way that makes sense.
So far, Warren's plan is coming across as sensible, while still basically requiring the stars to align in much the same way Sanders' plan does.
Not to mention, if this is how she's working the math to get Medicare 4 All to work...where is she getting the money for everything else she's planning to do?
Together, these policy choices represent significant reductions in health care spending over current levels. Compared to the estimate by the Urban Institute, they will save over $7 trillion over ten years, bringing the expected share of additional federal revenue to just over $26 trillion for that period. After incorporating the $6 trillion we will redirect from states to help fund Medicare, the experts conclude that total new federal spending required to enact Medicare for All will be $20.5 trillion.
Well no, you're never going to see like, a Reagan-esque landslide anytime soon.
On the flip side, the Democrats carrying all the Clinton states, WI, MI, PA, AZ, NC and FL? That's literally just a rerun of the Obama 2012 map, only trading IA and OH for NC and AZ. That's still in the upper range for how I might expect a Democrat to perform, but it's very plausible.
Add IA, TX, GA and OH to that and that's probably the max for any Dem nominee next year.
I mean, yeah. Hillary got 232. Just winning MI, which I think we're pretty much guaranteed to win, gets us to 248.My suspicion is that the Dem nominee will end up in the 240-300 EV range and won't get as high as Obama 2012 (332). But we'll see!
I don't think Warren's plan is very feasible for a whole host of reasons.
This continued harping on what I must think about immigration reform is...weird. I'm not giving Warren a cookie here. Who is the damn Democrat on that stage who isn't for immigration reform? Immigration reform is a part of her overall message because it had better fucking be.
I agree it's well worth a listen. Entertaining and horrifying.Did anyone listen to the two part Dollop episode on Ronald Reagan with Patton Oswalt? It was fucking phenomenal. I had some inkling of how bad his presidency was, but wasn't expecting the same kind of rampant criminality of the Trump administration, along with the incompetence and mental decline... and holy shit at Nancy Reagan running every decision past her astrologer. Shit was nuts!
This is why the Green New Deal resonates, I think.Aside, I like dragging the immigration debate into health care.
It makes clear that this country is not gonna get better without it being inclusionary.
The standards to which the Democrats are held to isn't even in the same stratosphere as Trump. Trump's standard is "please don't publicly humiliate the US today for once."Let's also take a moment to appreciate the fact that Donald Trump ran on Mexico paying for a wall and got 1% of the pushback our various healthcare proposals get. The double standard is hilarious to me.