This is the sad reality here unfortunately - even the Democrats don't want everyone to have access to healthcare, when healthcare shouldn't even be a question of "access" or not.
-
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
This is the sad reality here unfortunately - even the Democrats don't want everyone to have access to healthcare, when healthcare shouldn't even be a question of "access" or not.
Tomorrow is going to be a bloodbath. Bernie's only chance is older voters being spooked by Coronavirus
Are you arguing that Bernie will somehow defeat Trump or are you just pulling this outta the sky.
If we actually wanted to solve climate change permanently, yeah
But for some reason anti-nuclear regulations are more important so it ain't gonna happen
Well, we have a long Congressional history to look back to though.
I don't think advertising bringing back the mandate is in his best interest though. That was wildly the least popular part of the ACA and how Republicans were able to gut it. Bringing back the mandate is something you mention in small print after you get elected.
Also if we're being realistic, even if Bernie was elected president and got a Dem Senate, the likeliest healthcare bill to come out of Congress would be public option+cost control+Medicare for 50/55 and up. There just isn't much appetite in Congress for a Medicare-for-All proposal and you'd sooner see a half-step between the ACA and M4A in the form of the public option.
Not saying it's like, meaningless that that's what Bernie is running on, but at the end of the day a healthcare bill signed by either Bernie or Biden is going to look very similar. There's also a very good chance Bernie is helping write whatever healthcare bill Biden would end up signing, so I guess I don't really see the point in painting every "public option before M4A" liberal as actively rooting for people to die.
Not saying it's like, meaningless that that's what Bernie is running on, but at the end of the day a healthcare bill signed by either Bernie or Biden is going to look very similar. There's also a very good chance Bernie is helping write whatever healthcare bill Biden would end up signing, so I guess I don't really see the point in painting every "public option before M4A" liberal as actively rooting for people to die.
Again, a public option without specifics on what it will cost and how it will achieve those costs is worthless.
There are states where it simply wouldn't be popular.
Manchin would need convincing. As would Tester. Sinema may as well.
But to be fair, under Biden's proposal, every American would have the option to buy into a Medicare community plan. That's a great step forward. Certainly better than what we have now.
didn't Biden sort of notion he was only seeking 1 term?
The thing is that there's no reason to assume the starting point matters. Congress isn't obligated to move five steps to the left for every five steps the president moves to the right. M4A vs just assigning everyone their own personal medical team at birth vs Biden's plan all end up hitting the same limit to how far left they can go: Whatever Congress is willing to pass. This specific way of framing it -- that you need to start with a more extreme position to pass an acceptable end result after making X concessions--is one of the things about Bernie that is worrying, not encouraging--if he makes five concessions and then says 'that's it, no more, any more would compromise my original plan too much!' and Congress doesn't agree, nothing happens. If Biden starts to his right and makes 4 concessions en route to passage that compromise some of what he wanted, but we get a public option in the end, it beats out starting from a more extreme place, putting your foot down, and getting nothing.
I feel like part of the issue is just people who see this fight as a negotiation where both sides will trade taking steps in to meet in the middle--where starting point absolutely would matter--and people who view it more as getting whatever the leftmost thing you can pull off past Congress. And, in that latter situation, Biden and Bernie are both already left of whatever the leftmost passage is.
Like, the argument around this always baffles me. It's not that moderates don't want to see health insurance fixed, it's that they don't want to see it stall out again because the guy in charge is hardlining for hopes and dreams he can't get past congress.
But they just won't vote for it. I understand you want it a lot but there's nothing he can do to make it happen. The votes aren't there. How does he change that? You can't just say "fight." That's not an answer.
What? That's 100% nonsense.
And how does the guy who performs worse in Michigan the better candidate?
Well obviously in the GE the youth would actually show up to vote.... This time they'll do it for sure.
Sure because Trump is more important than the planet. I mean you could have the point of no return in 2030 with Biden and 2032 with Trump, but at least you beated him!
(what I'm saying is that the voters should have sided with the more needed and long term goal and not the most "realistic and less radical change, because we need to not piss so much the rich" for a short term victory. And yeah, Sanders should have had a better campaign too)
Why would older voters go for Bernie because of Coronavirus?
Plan to Protect and Build on Obamacare | Joe Biden
Joe Biden will protect and build on Obamacare by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making the system less complex to navigate.joebiden.com
Is this not a workable plan or am I missing something?
It's not ideal but isn't it better than what we have?
Nah, shit like this scares the fuck out of me:
"The Biden Plan will help middle class families by eliminating the 400% income cap on tax credit eligibility and lowering the limit on the cost of coverage from 9.86% of income to 8.5%. This means that no family buying insurance on the individual marketplace, regardless of income, will have to spend more than 8.5% of their income on health insurance. "
It's still keeping it firmly in control of insurance companies to adjust deductibles and co-pays to offset any losses in premiums. It's a way of shifting it around to sound like you're doing something, while not.
lol, what is this? every non-moderate news source? Fox News, Washington Times and S4P or something?
He told them he has the vaccine and won't give it out unless he wins
Think they mean they might be too scared of corona to go out and vote.
I think it's more that they won't go out in public to vote and young voters will be more represented.
Haven't he voted with the DNC when the party needed despite for incremental progress despite not aligning 100% with what he believes in?
The Implication is that older people would stay home and not vote, leaving only the younger generation to vote.
But one thing I know more than anything, is that many elderly feel it is their civic duty to vote. So I don't see an issue.
Because of course, those people are the only ones affected and no one who opposes their candidate could possibly have similar concerns and personal stakes and disagree about the best path to move forward without being a heartless inhuman monster.
I think the better question is what is a "non-moderate news source"
I think we call that... a bubble.
I think we call that... a bubble.
Yeah I misunderstood. Don't think people are panicked that much yet but I'm not sure.
That's how negotiations work when two sides both want something. That's not how negotiation often works in Congress.
In Congress, negotiation is generally between the person with the bill they want passed and the person/persons/people whose vote they need and don't have to get it through. The people who want what you want will generally back your bill, even if it's not exactly what they want. The remaining person or persons you have to convince. I say person or persons because when I say people I'm generally talking about parties or voting blocs and I'm taking Republicans out of the equation entirely here. This is purely if we have a 51+ person majority and kill the filibuster.
So the person or persons whose vote(s) you need are saying no because the bill you want to pass isn't something they or their constituency want. It may, in fact, harm their constituency in some way. They have no reason to want to meet you in the middle on this. So you're going to have to either offer them something that makes it worthwhile, or you're going to have to compromise down to something they are willing to pass. It doesn't matter where you're starting from if you have to do the second, the end point's the same.
Now we used to be able to grease the wheels here with pork. It was a corrupt practice, but one that actually made things work in Washington. Instead of having to compromise your bill all the way down, you could add a win for their constituency onto the bill and shave off just a bit of what you want to do to get it through. But Congress isn't allowed to do that anymore, for better or for worse. So now there's a limited number of things you can offer a Congress critter and their constituency to win them over to voting for your bill outside of making it a bill they're willing to vote for.
nope I'm not affected by any of this at all despite making under national median income, having impending kidney failure in the next two years, and having 6 figures of student debt
Seriously.
If anything, younger voters will refuse to come out. They may get sick! Not worth voting when they may get sick.
Apparently, it's just not worth voting at all.
The DNC has zero Senate or House votes.
Sanders is rarely the one ever working on the bill during negotiations.
This is true of large scale reactors, but the big revolution this decade when it comes to energy will be modular nuclear reactors:
When It Comes to Nuclear Power, Could Smaller Be Better?
A handful of companies and governments are working to develop small-scale nuclear reactors that proponents say are safer, cheaper, and more compatible with renewables than traditional nuclear power. But critics contend the new technology doesn’t address concerns about safety and radioactive waste.
e360.yale.edu
The smartest thing for Sanders to do right now would be to take on Warren as his running mate. It would never, ever happen, but it would get him a lot of good will.
My advice would be to make your peace with bullshit half-measures like this, which won't create any natural constituency among voters, and prepare for a competent fascist in 2024 or 2028.
They wouldn't. It's that older people will just stay home and not vote assuming they hadn't already through early voting or mail in ballots.
Ever consider that young people are in school/work while old people are retired and literally have their entire day to do as they please? If voter suppression didn't exist and elections like these were actual holidays/allowed for paid time off, then you might see a difference in numbers. Of course, younger voters are dismissed on a constant basis so they more than likely feel left out of the process entirely, especially when candidates rarely ever listen to their concerns about the future, ie climate change.
Then where are they in the primary when they can choose the candidate who relies on them?
Did... you not read my post? There are plenty of reasons why young people don't have the numbers older voters do.
Ever consider that people in their 30s-50s who are also working also vote far more than young people?
Let's say there's a bunch of people on a sinking ship and they disagree about what the best way is to save as many people as possible. is there a way to come up with which group has the best solution? Is it important to find which group has the best solution at all? Is it realistic to say that one of the groups clearly has a solution that is better in just about all ways than the other? How much effort should be given to prove such solutions are superior?
Wisconsin went for Bernie last primary as well, I'm 100% certain Trump will take the state in the general over Biden.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary (mostly out of fear of Trump), but given a choice between two inevitably senile candidates I'm not feeling motivated. Joe's the one candidate at the start of the race I did not want to win, and every state prior to NC was just extra consolation/relief to see him as irrelevant. That first debate hug between Bernie and Warren was so immensely hopeful.
And Hillary's managed to make me strongly wish I could undo the vote I gave her. I'd like to think I'm one small example of Bernie's 'revolution' (I was completely apolitical until hearing of him) but man do I feel like the people who only decide who to vote for in the last few days have the right idea. Probably going to zone back out and just vote downballot Democrat in the hopes that Bernie's message will come a little later.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary (mostly out of fear of Trump), but given a choice between two inevitably senile candidates I'm not feeling motivated. Joe's the one candidate at the start of the race I did not want to win, and every state prior to NC was just extra consolation/relief to see him as irrelevant. That first debate hug between Bernie and Warren was so immensely hopeful.
And Hillary's managed to make me strongly wish I could undo the vote I gave her. I'd like to think I'm one small example of Bernie's 'revolution' (I was completely apolitical until hearing of him) but man do I feel like the people who only decide who to vote for in the last few days have the right idea. Probably going to zone back out and just vote downballot Democrat in the hopes that Bernie's message will come a little later.
People between 30-50 probably have a lot less financial burden than those below 30, especially with looming student loans, so taking off of work to go vote, especially when rarely given the option to be paid for doing so, is seen as a much bigger risk. Of course I want everyone who is capable of voting to do so, but doing so is much easier if you're older, have more money, and are white.
Even in places with mail in and extended voting periods. That excuse is popular, and certainly represents an area we should try to improve, but it's not a convincing argument for explaining the discrepancy.
Biden says he will meet with a cancer patient evicted from her home at his rally to discuss one of his plans, then lies and leaves immediately after rally
As a 31 year, so someone having just crossed this barrier, hell no.
I don't think any of that is actually to accurate, if they wanted the change and wanted bernie to have the nomination than they would have voted more but when they stay home and don't vote than that's why it's not a given that younger votes will vote.
The problem people who expect high youth voter turnout find, is they can't separate themselves from the average young person. Those people get older, follow threads like this and think about themselves being young, active voters and wonder why current youths aren't voting just like them.
Young people who actively vote and follow politics, tend to REALLY be into politics, surround themselves with others who are into politics, etc. The average 18-29 year old doesn't give a SHIT about politics and can't be bothered to vote. They are not a reliable voting block and outside of some surprises (2008 with Obama) they will always let you down if you're relying on them to be a big chunk of your coalition.
Does not have a lot to do with school/work. The average 40 year old with kids is way more busy than a 20 year old who's working/going to school.
- Status