US PoliEra 2019 |OT6| Have You Hurd About These GOP Retirements?
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
She's 72 and been politically active since the 80s, made numerous political speeches and taken numerous political stances since, and was married to Tony goddamn Robbins.
She's aware of the goddamn everything and to suggest otherwise is akin to infantilizing her.
Centrists don't need to reproduce. The longer Bernie runs, the more people that magically are considered centrist!
Tim Robbins, not Tony Robbins!
Also, she did the shame shit in 2000 which resulted in Bush. She knows what she's doing, as do those that excuse her.
FBI putting real resources on the situation and not being shy about taking them down.
Must
Resist
Shading
You
This coming from the man who didn't know any MJ song/lyrics from Thriller.. damn it I tried..
No. No. No! You never let them see the clones. Never! This needs to get locked down, otherwise all our plans are for nothing.
Was kind of curious to see which centrists didn't vote for the crime bill.
Some recognisable names. In the Senate Russ Feingold.
And in the House John Conyers Jr, Maxine Waters, John Lewis, Jerry Nadler.
Some recognisable names. In the Senate Russ Feingold.
And in the House John Conyers Jr, Maxine Waters, John Lewis, Jerry Nadler.
I'll make a pointless prediction that we haven't heard the last trashing of Denmark yet. Trump thought he was floating an exciting, harmless hypothetical about buying Greenland and instead got pantsed by their female PM because his idea was unrealistic and offensive. He's not gonna let this backfire without taking more swings at them.
I thought Greenland was to make everyone forget that the economy isn't about to not collapse but if it wasn't, and they're not saying it might not, they wouldn't not be looking into a payroll tax cut, which they're totally not doing, maybe.
You used "shading" correctly! I'm so proud. : cries a gay tear :
Wait until he finds out the PM endorsed Hillary in 2016.
Trump will vow to never eat another Danish as long as Greenland is bereft a monument of his choosing.
She co-sponsored the bill, and outright originally said she wanted to do away with private insurance. Her campaign manager came out (Feb-April?) and said that she mistakenly said she wanted rid of it entirely. Then at the debates she says it again that she wants away from private insurance, and is once again walking it back.
The only thing poorly thought out is her stance which changes every 2 months. What does she stand for? If she doesn't like his plan, she just needs to come out and give reasons what's wrong with it and stop contradicting herself. Did she not read it back then? If not, why come out against private insurance like she did on national television? If she just didn't understand it, why go full on ban private insurance mode on national television? How can anyone have any trust in her when nobody knows what she's actually for or against? She's sounding like a typical politician who is just doing whatever she can to get elected. I mean that's not surprising because the whole point is to get elected, but when someone sounds so wishy washy, I don't know how you can inspire people when we don't know how passionate you are about a certain viewpoint on a topic.
And private insurance will always have a role because medicare for all isn't going to cover plastic surgery or some minor supplemental care like having extra room in a hospital. Now others on this forum have said it's essentially cutting off private insurance so it's just semantics at that point.
This takes me back to Kamala sending out the idea that she wasn't going to aipac conference at a time when everyone was protesting it (due to Ilhan controversy), then shortly after meets up with aipac representatives in California. So it's not even just a matter of health care.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...p-aipac-conference-after-call-boycott-n986006
It's the same with the campaign financing area where she gives out the idea that she's not going to take corporate pac money, but then she does these Hampton fundraisers. Of course they're not the same thing, but it's like she just does things to win points without really believing why money in politics is awful. And I know I will get pushback for this money bit as I know many on here don't see money as inherently bad in politics, but if you're courting money, you're going to feel you need to cater to these big donors in some form. This is why she made that whole point on capitalism at the Hampton's fundraiser. It's a way to say she won't truly fight tooth and nail for the working person and so these wealthy people don't have as much to fear.
Sorry for the long post, but I just think she doesn't inspire confidence without really showing us what she truly believes. Finally, it's not like Sanders won't compromise. Yes he believes in a single payer system and that's what he's campaigning on, and that's what he wanted when Obama was in office. He still voted for the ACA because the ACA was better than nothing. Still, you know what he believes in with that consistency that he expresses.
Actually, thinking on it, I think it was supposed to be a 'win'. A demonstrable thing he did for the US as his signature policy, as you point out, starts to flame out.
My post wasn't really about wishy washy flip flop cop mala.
It's not just her reversing course.
And when I say a role for private insurance I'm not just referring to botox and facelifts lol.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13753871/Private_sector_models.jpg)
Framing the healthcare debate on whether to eliminate private insurance as opposed to just focusing on ways to get universal coverage and lower prices ... is to me a baddd idea.
It's not just her reversing course.
And when I say a role for private insurance I'm not just referring to botox and facelifts lol.
Framing the healthcare debate on whether to eliminate private insurance as opposed to just focusing on ways to get universal coverage and lower prices ... is to me a baddd idea.
Yeah, that's fair. She knew what she was doing but thought Hillary would win so none of it would matter.
I don't think people get that the Swiss system, which has no public component, would still be insanely better than the American system, because the only systems they know about is Canada and the UK, because those are English speaking countries.
Like, if I said, "yes, it's private insurance, but all insurance companies have to be non-profit, pregnancies are automatically covered at no cost under insurance, and premiums average $250/month (with a max of 8% of income, with the gov't paying for the left over if 8% doesn't cover), with max deductibles of $1500", would that still be that terrible?
Like, if I said, "yes, it's private insurance, but all insurance companies have to be non-profit, pregnancies are automatically covered at no cost under insurance, and premiums average $250/month (with a max of 8% of income, with the gov't paying for the left over if 8% doesn't cover), with max deductibles of $1500", would that still be that terrible?
Lol. So I actually hadn't realised how ridic the Medicare for All bill actually is.
I simultaneously get why these presidential hopefuls signed onto this, and yet also have no idea why they signed onto this.
The "Medicare for All" as proposed goes significantly beyond Medicare, and beyond what pretty much any country in the world has in terms of coverage of services such as dental, vision, drugs and long term services, as well as in terms of point of care cost-sharing i.e. there is none, while maintaining rates that are currently subsidised by a private system the bill wants to eliminate, and being funded by revenue measures lower than peer nations which typically fund from general government revenue as well as dedicated levies.
While making the bold claim that people will be able to keep their current service and providers.
In four years.
Lolwtf.
I simultaneously get why these presidential hopefuls signed onto this, and yet also have no idea why they signed onto this.
The "Medicare for All" as proposed goes significantly beyond Medicare, and beyond what pretty much any country in the world has in terms of coverage of services such as dental, vision, drugs and long term services, as well as in terms of point of care cost-sharing i.e. there is none, while maintaining rates that are currently subsidised by a private system the bill wants to eliminate, and being funded by revenue measures lower than peer nations which typically fund from general government revenue as well as dedicated levies.
While making the bold claim that people will be able to keep their current service and providers.
In four years.
Lolwtf.
Strongest greatest economy ever, also needs a huge rate to cut to emergency levels, and a payroll tax cut to add to the deficit, and a capital gains tax cut (indexing cost basis with inflation), and more QE. But it's the best. If the market goes up tomorrow, thanks Mr. President, if it goes down blame the guy I nominated.
The entire thing is absolutely absurd. It would never, ever, ever work in a million years. It's totally outside the scope of what the US healthcare system's infrastructure could handle. And, no, this isn't "don't hope for things." There is absolutely a way to get to universal coverage, lower costs, remove barriers to medicine, etc. This plan is not it. At all.
He's better known as "John 'NO TPP!' Lewis" to us true progressives.
I know I was the one joking about it, but this shit makes me so goddamn angry. I must now force myself to go to bed and rage-sleep.
Bringing back this old chestnut
Has one of the other candidates proposed an NHS-style system? Not really. So the criticism of M4A as "well I actually think there is some slightly, marginally, teensy-weensy better plan with private health insurance" is pretty void. The question is M4A or an incrementalised improvement on Obamacare. Its Warren/Sanders plan or Harris's (best case) or Biden's (worst case). In that dichotomy, the former is so obviously superior.
Eliminating private stake in a public good is an important end in and of itself, if undermining and ending capitalism is important to you (which it should be).
Also, this is pure supposition that assumes A) a stagnation of the healthcare system in the event something like this passes, and B) that there is no intrinsic value in fighting for an extremely strong version of what you want, knowing that you might have to compromise a bit, rather than running on an even more gimped compromise, as Dems tend to do.
Man. It's almost comical how poor Pete's PoC support is. Whew.
He's my congressman and I'm still livid about this. How fucking dare they.
So, like, no, I do not want to end capitalism lol. I'm not a socialist. I have no desire to be a socialist. Less than zero interest, tbh.
Having said that, the M4A plan Bernie put forward is simply unworkable. Like, it's physically impossible to do the things he is claiming to want to do in the bill. There is just no way the math works. There is no way the infrastructure is in place to make this workable. Unless math has become a centrist plot, it just won't work. We do not have a system of public hospitals. Hospitals, as it stands now, are heavily reliant upon private insurance to make Medicare and Medicaid work. The funding mechanism in place for Bernie's M4A is ridiculous.
It is also not pure supposition to say that services would absolutely have to be cut under the M4A bill. They absolutely would. There is no way some hospitals could survive on medicare/medicaid's reimbursement rates. They'd either have to close, cut services, or cut staff. There have been studies on this. That's also ignoring the number of folks who would lose their jobs should we just abolish private health care in 4 years.
And, I'm sorry, but I do not see intrinsic value in fighting for a healthcare bill that cannot actually work, would never get 50 votes in the Senate, would lower quality of care (out of necessity),would be political suicide, would destroy a third of the economy, and is simply not the smart way to go about getting to universal coverage. There are many, many different ways to get to universal coverage. This one specific model is just not a good fit for what we have in the US. It's just not.
There's also been zero evidence ever that Bernie would be willing to compromise on his plan, and I highly doubt most of his supporters think the M4A is just an aspirational goal, and they would be satisfied with a public option or whatever.
There is no way you could nationalize the American healthcare system a la the NHS. That's even more impossible than the current M4A bill. Hospitals are almost all exclusively private organizations in the US. Doctors are not government workers. If you think there was pushback from the ACA, I can't imagine the level of pushback from every place for attempting to create an NHS type system.
Harris' plan isn't brilliant, but it's at least sorta feasible if you squint, wiggle your nose and don't pay too close attention. Honestly, Biden's plan is the most workable on a plethora of levels.
It works if you use Christian math.
The criticism of M4A that I now take is that it's a nonsense fanfiction bill lol.
Last edited:
Yup. To be fair, the US has offered to buy Greenland twice before that we know of. It seems to be something that comes up periodically like every 50-60 years.
If the muppets had Denmark valued at 200 billion in 87, Greenland must be worth at least 1.5 trillion now in 2019 Sesame Street value
- Status