2020 Presidential Election 2: The Primaries are upon us

[Irishy]

I understand your concerns re inept government. But a state must be responsible for its citizens. Who else can be? Privatisation is a disaster. Look at the health care industry. Reform must start somewhere, even with one person and a change in the conversation. 
 

Clarity is needed on the proposed wealth tax so as not to alienate this demographic. 

[GreyhoundFan]

5 minutes ago, Irishy said:

But a state must be responsible for its citizens.

That's a nice idea. Unfortunately, increasingly, our government is only responsible to the corporate and/or billionaire donors who give an obscene amount of money to elected officials. It will continue to get worse as long as the Citizens United ruling stands.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, Irishy said:

I understand your concerns re inept government. But a state must be responsible for its citizens. Who else can be? Privatisation is a disaster. Look at the health care industry. Reform must start somewhere, even with one person and a change in the conversation. 
 

Clarity is needed on the proposed wealth tax so as not to alienate this demographic. 

I absolutely agree health care is a disaster and we desperately need reform.  I currently have health insurance through my employer, but the deducible is so high it may as well be catastrophic only since I can't afford to go out of pocket the thousands required before it kicks in.  Our terrible private insurance is why I need to see a doctor and haven't gone in almost 2 years and won't go for the foreseeable future.

Otoh I have in the past had excellent insurance from employers for very low deductibles so the conversation needs to take into account the voters that have that and are afraid of losing it.  

And yes, clarity is desperately needed because that's the demographic that votes in high numbers.  And they are the people who will keep Trump in out of fear.  Explaining how this will work and not financially cripple people coming up on retirement will go a long way.  

[BernRul]

2 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Okay, so this is something that really bugs me as a gay person myself. People act like Bernie is the ultimate LGBT rights hero and I should be grateful to him. I really do like that he expressed support for LGBT rights early, but he hasn't actually been in favor of gay marriage the entire time and was even behind other Vermont politicians in expressing support for it. (https://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/)

Honestly, I'm really not bothered by that. Even just 10 years ago it was a different time and I'm not offended that a lot of politicans were slow to publicly support gay marriage. What does irritate me is that people say that Bernie has always been consistent on the issue when that's not entirely the case.

(I actually think consistency is overrated anyway -- I want someone who is able to change their mind rather than stubbornly stick to the same positions -- but that's a different matter.)

And I think it's great that Bernie went to a civil rights march in the 60s, but that alone doesn't make him a civil rights hero. Mitch McConnell was at the same march, after all! And then Bernie moved to a super white state and didn't do much for racial justice since then. I think he's done a better job at reaching out to minority communities this time around, but in 2016 it really bothered me the way a lot of white supporters acted like black people were obligated to support Bernie because of that one event 50 years ago. I also strongly disagree with Bernie's philosophy that class inequality is the most important issue and other things, like racism and sexism, are secondary. I don't like how when asked about those issues he always pivots to his speech on class. I really dislike how he has claimed that racism is largely a product of economic insecurity. He is very wrong about that.

Really, I would have a lot less of an issue with this stuff if so many of the arguments for him didn't rely on him being "consistent" and essentially infallible on these issues.

(Oh, and I find it very funny how much Bernie has flip flopped on whether someone with a plurality of delegates should definitely be the nominee. He espoused the exact opposite opinion in 2016 from what he is saying now. Again, it's kind of just typical politician opportunism, but it's the contrast with the claims of his consistency that makes it stand out.)

I'm not saying you should be grateful, just that this is one piece of an overall picture that shows Bernie being on the right side of history. I personally expect politicians to be a little fake, but you were talking about his electability. His ability to appear genuine is why so many people are voting for him, and why he's the front runner. 

You are being disingenuous when you say he just went to a march like Mitch Mcconnell. Sanders was involved in both SNCC and CORE during his time in Chicago. He helped lead a CORE protest against housing discrimination. It's not the same at all.

You might disagree about class inequality, but statistics show it's a growing problem. I'm on mobile, but if you want I can post links about generational poverty, the rising income gap between the wealthy and everyone else, the increase in housing and tuition versus the stagnant minimum wage, Right to Work laws, the demonization of unions, monopolies like Disney, and Supreme Court decisions that side with cooperations over workers,  that show things are dire. 

Racism is related to class issues. According to Stamped from the Beginning (a book about the history of racist thoughts) Unjust Systems come first, which leads to Racist Thoughts as an explanation for those systems, which leads to Racist People. This can be seen in US history, from the privelages of white indentured servants vs black slaves to the urban Irish immigrants being pitted against Northern freedman. Racial tensions cause poor whites to vote against their interests and support the system that gives them some benefits. 

You mention "stubbornly sticking to positions." I don't know about ideology, but the Sanders campaign has changed from 2016. In 2016, he lost the Hispanic vote, so his campaign has been making a  a grassroots outreach to get Latinos involved, and it's paying off. It sounds like Sanders is capable of changing to get a bigger coalition. 

 

[SassyPants]

23 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

That's a nice idea. Unfortunately, increasingly, our government is only responsible to the corporate and/or billionaire donors who give an obscene amount of money to elected officials. It will continue to get worse as long as the Citizens United ruling stands.

EXACTLY! People want to talk about fiscal conservatism, but how does that fit with giving corporations and a few multi-billionaires a major tax cut in the face of rising national debt? How is that the least bit fiscally conservative? How is corporate or billionaire welfare economically smart in a consumer based economy?  Simply put, allowing a 100 middle wage earners  to keep $1000 Of their earnings vs 1 billionaire retaining $100,000 has the potential to more readily stimulate a consumer based economy. Let’s treat wealth the same as earnings; stop the blatant classism control.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

11 minutes ago, BernRul said:

the demonization of unions

They shouldn't be demonized, but by no means are they good across the board.

I work in manufacturing and I was married to someone in a union which was just as ass backwards and corrupt as any mismanaged corporation.  

[SassyPants]

36 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I absolutely agree health care is a disaster and we desperately need reform.  I currently have health insurance through my employer, but the deducible is so high it may as well be catastrophic only since I can't afford to go out of pocket the thousands required before it kicks in.  Our terrible private insurance is why I need to see a doctor and haven't gone in almost 2 years and won't go for the foreseeable future.

Otoh I have in the past had excellent insurance from employers for very low deductibles so the conversation needs to take into account the voters that have that and are afraid of losing it.  

And yes, clarity is desperately needed because that's the demographic that votes in high numbers.  And they are the people who will keep Trump in out of fear.  Explaining how this will work and not financially cripple people coming up on retirement will go a long way.  

How many people actually still have really good care at an affordable price? Anyone? 
Back in the day (90s), we had duel coverage and never paid a cent for any care, and that went away. Then we had single coverage, as not to be penalized, but still with low premiums and a great deal of choice. Now we pay through the nose, have a high deductible and have to travel about 25 miles, to the next county, to see an albeit, great doctor. Yes, in 2018 there was no MD in our county willing to take our insurance, United Health Care. The reason? High COLA and few new physicians who can afford to live here. Our current HC system is unsustainable. There is a reason why NO other industrialized nation has this system in place...and they do it for fewer health care dollars. The very definition of insanity is doing the same exact things and expecting different results. Get the for profit insurance companies out of basic health care!

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

How many people actually still have really good care at an affordable price? Anyone?

I did up until last year.  At my last two companies.  Had surgery with 4 days in the hospital and paid $100 out of pocket.

4 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

The very definition of insanity is doing the same exact things and expecting different results.

Who is saying we should do the same thing.  Everyone here seems to be saying we desperately need reform.  

But the people who are comfortable now with their insurance also vote, and to ignore their concerns and expect them to go for Bernie without addressing what they are going to lose is to hand the election to Trump.

I haven't seen anyone here advocating for the status quo, I'm certainly not.  But change needs to be carefully constructed and clearly communicated.  And to dismiss people's fear of the government fucking up yet again is really short sighted.  

[SassyPants]

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I did up until last year.  At my last two companies.  Had surgery with 4 days in the hospital and paid $100 out of pocket.

Who is saying we should do the same thing.  Everyone here seems to be saying we desperately need reform.  

But the people who are comfortable now with their insurance also vote, and to ignore their concerns and expect them to go for Bernie without addressing what they are going to lose is to hand the election to Trump.

I haven't seen anyone here advocating for the status quo, I'm certainly not.  But change needs to be carefully constructed and clearly communicated.  And to dismiss people's fear of the government fucking up yet again is really short sighted.  

I have a question, and obviously you do not have to answer, but in the past, I’ve known a few people who stayed in jobs precisely for the good health care benefits, as HC can take such a bite out of a family’s budget. Did you change jobs or did your company change their benefits package?  Also, I think non-represented workers need to realize that those Cadillac plans are targets for elimination as they are very costly for companies.

Antidotally, I‘ve yet to meet anyone who has refused Medicare because it’s subpar, government provided insurance. Yes, most older people have supplemental insurance to MC, but still...

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, SassyPants said:

I have a question, and obviously you do not have to answer, but in the past, I’ve known a few people who stayed in jobs precisely for the good health care benefits, as HC can take such a bite out of a family’s budget. Did you change jobs or did your company change their benefits package?  Also, I think non-represented workers need to realize that those Cadillac plans are targets for elimination as they are very costly for companies.

Antidotally, I‘ve yet to meet anyone who has refused Medicare because it’s subpar, government provided insurance. Yes, most older people have supplemental insurance to MC, but still...

I changed jobs and I stupidly didn't compare plans, that's on me.  My last company had amazing benefits including vision, dental for...I kid you not...$12.65 a month.  

People who HATED their jobs stayed there for the benefits.  I should have stayed.  

And when you talk about non-represented workers I assume you mean unions?  I am not anti-union as I think there is a place for them if they are run properly.  But my ex husband's union would negotiate a certain percentage for pay raises...his employer would drag it out for years (usually about 3) in "re-negotiations" and the union would end up agreeing to far lower raises as well as waiving all back pay from initial contract.  Big employers with big unions are often in bed together and the people who they are supposed to represent get screwed while union bosses and companies line their pockets.

If I trusted the government to carry it out properly I'd be all in for Medicare for all.  I'll definitely vote for someone proposing that and hope for the best, over the status quo.  Hell, at this point I'd just like to be able to see a doctor and get back on my prescriptions that I've been off the last 2 years due to coverage.  Mine is a minor issue compared to some, but my quality of life is definitely declined since I can no longer access affordable medical care.

I am just a few years younger than my mom was when she was diagnosed with cancer.  Lack of medical care scares the shit out of me and I'm better off than a lot of people as at least I have coverage if something catastrophic were to happen.  I want everyone in this country to have access to excellent medical care, regardless of income.  

[Mama Mia]

19 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I did up until last year.  At my last two companies.  Had surgery with 4 days in the hospital and paid $100 out of pocket.

Who is saying we should do the same thing.  Everyone here seems to be saying we desperately need reform.  

But the people who are comfortable now with their insurance also vote, and to ignore their concerns and expect them to go for Bernie without addressing what they are going to lose is to hand the election to Trump.

I haven't seen anyone here advocating for the status quo, I'm certainly not.  But change needs to be carefully constructed and clearly communicated.  And to dismiss people's fear of the government fucking up yet again is really short sighted.  

I used to be an employer in a non-profit. The cost for any small business is insanely high. Often prohibitively high. It impacts wages and hiring.  We provided really, really good insurance and the sheer weight of it kept us from hiring more staff, or increasing hours. And it still wasn’t as good as what is proposed under Medicare 4 All +. Employees still had co-pays - - small, but still a dent in their budget if they had health problems. We couldn’t afford to pay for dependent coverage - so that’s additional thousands a month per family- or going without, or cutting hours or declining raises so their kids qualify for Medicaid. Dental with a cap of $1,000 a year.

Currently Medicare is accepted by over 90% of health care providers. It is easy to use. It is already used by a large percentage of the population. The portion that is, by definition, the most likely to need lots of care.
It is not a new system. Expanding it to everyone and improving the coverage will make it even easier. For providers as well as for patients. 

[Maggie Mae]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Our government sucks.  The parties work for themselves, not the country.  Our elected officials work for themselves, not their constituents.  There are endless examples of the government being completely incompetent and wasteful with tax dollars.  

Oh, I know all of these things. One of the reasons I prefer Bernie over Warren is that he's not taking money from corporations. 

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Big government only works (in theory, imo) if there are people of integrity running it.  One person isn't enough.  Even if Bernie were all the wonderful things his supporters claim, one person cannot override a corrupt system overnight.

I agree, and that's why I support Sanders. AOC (one of his more vocal endorsers) started a PAC to boost progressive candidates for House and Senate seats. The system right now is rigged in favor of corporations. 

 

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

And there are also people who are near the end of their working lives who have played by the rules under our economic system and prepared themselves financially for retirement terrified of losing everything in ill defined wealth taxes.  I'm not talking about the 1%, I'm talking about regular upper middle class to middle class people who are old enough they won't be able to recover from a loss if the tax scheme hurts them enough.

We really need to explain taxes to people better. In general. I understand these fears, but I also think that outcome would be positive for everyone. 

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The government coming for the factors of production is scary af and people get nervous of what could be coming down the road.  They do that there will be a revolt and I'll be on board with it.  If he's not in favor of the gov taking factors of production than why is he using that term to describe himself?

He has two proposals to grant workers more control and ownership over the economy and/or individual corporations. Corporations would move 2% of corporate stock into a "worker wealth fund" each year for a decade.  Funds would be distributed to the workers through shares, and shares come with voting rights for who sits on the board. 2% is less than the returns on stock overall, so the wealthy people who own the vast majority of mutual funds and stock shares would still increase their wealth. Just not at the same rate. The other proposal is the same as Warren's, where it would be mandated that workers sit on corporate boards.  There would be no violent grab of the means of production, nor would it be government run. 

I feel like it's worth noting that this time, Sanders is working much closer with union leaders and has more support from unions this time around. 

 

33 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

And when you talk about non-represented workers I assume you mean unions?  I am not anti-union as I think there is a place for them if they are run properly.  But my ex husband's union would negotiate a certain percentage for pay raises...his employer would drag it out for years (usually about 3) in "re-negotiations" and the union would end up agreeing to far lower raises as well as waiving all back pay from initial contract. 

The unions themselves say that they spent most of their time negotiating health care. If we take that off the table because every American has Medicare, they will be able to spend more time negotiating pay, leave, safety standards. 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Currently Medicare is accepted by over 90% of health care providers. It is easy to use. It is already used by a large percentage of the population. The portion that is, by definition, the most likely to need lots of care.
It is not a new system. Expanding it to everyone and improving the coverage will make it even easier. For providers as well as for patients. 

Per the census bureau 16% of the population is 65+.  Expanding it means adding the other 84% and, in Bernie's plan, adding more coverage (vision, dental, among other upgrades) which is a huge undertaking.  

Perhaps it's the answer, but the scope of that expansion will make for a complicated transition.

[Maggie Mae]

The other part of medicare-for-all would be other insurance costs. Currently, if someone comes on to my property and hurts themselves on my hypothetical trampoline/pool, my homeowners insurance covers me while they sue me, because that's the world we live in. They basically have to sue to cover their medical costs, or their insurance sues my insurance. Either way, I end up paying more because of the cost of medicine. 

With Medicare-for-all, they don't have to sue the homeowner for medical costs. If I get hit by a car crossing a street, I have to sue that person to recover medical costs, and fight with their car insurance. In the mean time, I am bankrupted, likely lose my job to recover, and possibly become homeless. Being able to go to a hospital when injured would be life changing for so many people. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Maggie Mae

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

He has two proposals to grant workers more control and ownership over the economy and/or individual corporations. Corporations would move 2% of corporate stock into a "worker wealth fund" each year for a decade.  Funds would be distributed to the workers through shares, and shares come with voting rights for who sits on the board. 2% is less than the returns on stock overall, so the wealthy people who own the vast majority of mutual funds and stock shares would still increase their wealth. Just not at the same rate. The other proposal is the same as Warren's, where it would be mandated that workers sit on corporate boards.  There would be no violent grab of the means of production, nor would it be government run. 

Thanks for explaining.  How does this work on a practical level?  I assume one would need to work there for a certain amount of time to be vested?  When one leaves for another job, or retire, do they cash out their shares?  

I've sat in board meetings where people have talked for hours about the best way to amortize the cost of machinery, not to mention the pros and cons of acquisitions which are purchased with the owner's money.  Boards for SMB (20-100 million range) can be quite small.  How does his plan address giving people the baseline knowledge to vote on things which may be well outside their skillset?

Or are you talking strictly about publicly traded corporations?

Genuine questions as I see some merit in this, I'm just curious as to how that would work?  

[nausicaa]

15 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

So weird how a very few short years ago people were excited and hopeful about normalizing relations with Cuba when Obama did it. And appalled when Trump shut it down. Yet somehow Bernie is a horrible commie authoritarian because he praises their literacy program. Extremely disingenuous. 

It doesn't matter if it's disingenuous. 

It doesn't matter if it's unfair. 

All that matters is how it affects getting to 270.

I genuinely don't know how to say this so that people will understand. I worry by October I'm going to turn into a crazy woman roaming the streets of the DC area grabbing random progressive-looking people by the shoulders and just screaming "270!!!!" at them.

This is the biggest blind spot in Sanders supporters, the lack of understanding of strategy. And the continued ear in the fingers refusal to listen to anyone who tries to explain it. 

And Obama's Cuba visit was highly controversial. I don't know where you were getting your news from, but both Republicans and Blue Dog Dems criticized the visit. It would have hurt him tremendously in an election year (and is why he saved it for his second term).

But regardless, we're not talking about the virtues of normalizing relations with Cuba or China. We're talking about how it plays to voters, particularly in swing states. However much we might wish things were a certain way, we have to acknowledge the reality of how things are. And to win an election, you have to focus on strategy more than on policy. I don't know why Republicans somehow intuit this so much better than Dems do. Maybe because Dems are often more idealistic?

Sanders's rape fantasy ditty and his out of wedlock son are going to be used against him. Is that unfair and disingenuous considering Trump's history? It sure as hell is. But we can bitch all day about the unfairness, it doesn't innoculate Dems against the effects of the attack.

7 hours ago, BernRul said:

Some one beat me to it, but Cubans are not all of the Latino vote in Florida. Bernie has a significant lead with Latinos, so that could possibly make up for Cubans, depending on turnout.

Trump has praised several dictators. So it seems like praising a dictator does not disqualify any one in this day and age. The people who care probably weren't going to vote Dem anyway. 

Pissing off Cuban-Floridians certainly hurts the down ballot in a lot of counties. I wish we could acknowledge how bad Bernie is going to be for the down ballot. 

Trump has praised several dictators. See my "life is unfair" bitching above. Trump has some magical "Teflon Don" fairy dust that allows him to say some of the dumbest shit known to mankind that would be political suicide for anyone else and it doesn't affect him. 

It's not fair. But it is what it is. So just because it's not disqualifying for him, doesn't mean it's not disqualifying for someone else.

All politicians come with certain negative stereotypes they have to work against. HRC had to work at seeming warm and not shrill and condescending. Obama had to focus on coming off as non-threatening and non-radical to mossback white Dems. Bernie needs to fight his perceived radicalism and disloyalty and play down his association with authoritarian regimes. And he really seems to not get this. 

That doesn't make these stereotypes fair or accurate. And many are still rooted in unfair bigotry. But we have to deal with their effects regardless. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by nausicaa

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, nausicaa said:

However much we might wish things were a certain way, we have to acknowledge the reality of how things are. And to win an election, you have to focus on strategy more than on policy. I don't know why Republicans somehow intuit this so much better than Dems do. Maybe because Dems are often more idealistic?

Just ftr this is what I was trying to say, as well.  I'm not pooping on needed change...I'm saying that strategically if we ignore that people don't always vote for the greater good and will vote for the superficial or even reasonable concerns it will be at our own peril.  

And by our own I mean as a country.

We can't count on idealism or even logic...we need someone who will, strategically, counter Trump to get the win.

[nausicaa]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

It's not a done deal, but he has major momentum, which is a factor in any election. Also, as @BernRul indicated, he's likely to win California, which has a huge number of delegates. Finally, you posted the piece about NV Rs switching parties same day and voting for Sanders, then switching back to R. Here in VA, we don't register by party and have open primaries. 

He has momentum, but my understanding is one of the most important benefits of momentum is funding. Which Bloomberg can still wipe the floor with him over. I am curious to see what happens next Tuesday. We still haven't seen the full effects of Bloomberg's unprecedented ad spree. 

Voting in the other party's primary has been going on for ages. Some people permanently remain registered for the other party so they can do it. And plenty of Democrats do this too. Some even voted for Trump in the 2016 Republican primary since it was assumed he was the weakest candidate and HRC would wipe the floor with him. I imagine they keep that vote REAL quiet.

I'm also in Virginia and have voted multiple times in Republican primaries (though as I've said I lean libertarian and I'm not a registered Democrat so it doesn't really count as sabotage I suppose), including in 2016 to vote for Kasich over Trump.  

[SassyPants]

41 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Per the census bureau 16% of the population is 65+.  Expanding it means adding the other 84% and, in Bernie's plan, adding more coverage (vision, dental, among other upgrades) which is a huge undertaking.  

Perhaps it's the answer, but the scope of that expansion will make for a complicated transition.

Think of all the other people beyond those over 65 already covered by government controlled insurance plans, farrrrrrr more than 16 %- Federal Government  workers, the disabled, the military, the disadvantaged. Those numbers quickly add up.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Think of all the other people beyond those over 65 already covered by government controlled insurance plans, farrrrrrr more than 16 %- Federal Government  workers, the disabled, the military, the disadvantaged. Those numbers quickly add up.

Yes, but those aren't Medicare and are run differently (particularly the military) so there will still be a major transition.

As a former military wife I know plenty of people who are afraid of Medicare for all because they are familiar with the VA, and not happy about how the government has handled that.

[SassyPants]

I think what is so frustrating about this election cycle, even more so than 2016, is that the only person who might beat Trump is Biden, and most Dems do not want Biden. He is part of the old school establishment, and him being the candidate will most likely be a turn off to those folks who see him as no better for our country than Trump. It’s really bad when you think that the best thing that could happen to this country is a crisis that Trump and his 2 minions would be unable to handle, and as long as the SM continues to soar (minus the last 2 days), Trump has it in the bag. It’s depressing for those of us who want real change, because change scares so many people.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m old and rare. We worked hard all our lives, my husband still does. We planned and invested well. We are secure and comfortable beyond the unknowns of HC. My whole thinking is that we all do better when everyone is doing better. We are healthier when everyone has access to basic, affordable health care ( not dropping in to an ER, which increases the prices for all). An educated populous is in the best interest of everyone, same for clean air and water; safe roads and bridges. Giving a few people the  vast majority of money and control ( reality, they are linked) by skewing the tax laws in their favor, while leaving the rest of us to pay the bills is neither fiscally responsible nor economically sustainable in a consumer based economy. And this is without talking about morals or ethics.

10 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Yes, but those aren't Medicare and are run differently (particularly the military) so there will still be a major transition.

As a former military wife I know plenty of people who are afraid of Medicare for all because they are familiar with the VA, and not happy about how the government has handled that.

So how do we know that Medicare 4 All wouldn’t be run similar to our current system MC, as opposed to the say, the VA? 

I am so frustrated right now. You can’t fix a broken system without making some changes. The reality is, you never are handed 100% of the information or are 100% guaranteed of an outcome before you have to make a decision. Sometimes you have to jump in and move your arms; start swimming. There’s always a million reasons not to do something, and that’s a choice/decision too. But if that’s the case, than just accept that the current situation/status quo is OK. You can’t want change, yet be unwilling to accept what that change requires.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

So how do we know that Medicare 4 All wouldn’t be run similar to our current system MC, as opposed to the say, the VA? 

We don't.  But don't forget those who can afford private supplements to Medicare get them because it doesn't cover their needs.  The Medicare Bernie is promising is far broader in scope than what people have now.  

I was responding to your point that lots of people are already on government run health care.  Which is true, but some of the users of those programs are against M4A due to massive problems with the current program.

We don't know how anything will be run, but I certainly think it's reasonable to be skeptical given our government's track record.

 

[SassyPants]

57 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

It doesn't matter if it's disingenuous. 

It doesn't matter if it's unfair. 

All that matters is how it affects getting to 270.

I genuinely don't know how to say this so that people will understand. I worry by October I'm going to turn into a crazy woman roaming the streets of the DC area grabbing random progressive-looking people by the shoulders and just screaming "270!!!!" at them.

This is the biggest blind spot in Sanders supporters, the lack of understanding of strategy. And the continued ear in the fingers refusal to listen to anyone who tries to explain it. 

And Obama's Cuba visit was highly controversial. I don't know where you were getting your news from, but both Republicans and Blue Dog Dems criticized the visit. It would have hurt him tremendously in an election year (and is why he saved it for his second term).

But regardless, we're not talking about the virtues of normalizing relations with Cuba or China. We're talking about how it plays to voters, particularly in swing states. However much we might wish things were a certain way, we have to acknowledge the reality of how things are. And to win an election, you have to focus on strategy more than on policy. I don't know why Republicans somehow intuit this so much better than Dems do. Maybe because Dems are often more idealistic?

Sanders's rape fantasy ditty and his out of wedlock son are going to be used against him. Is that unfair and disingenuous considering Trump's history? It sure as hell is. But we can bitch all day about the unfairness, it doesn't innoculate Dems against the effects of the attack.

Pissing off Cuban-Floridians certainly hurts the down ballot in a lot of counties. I wish we could acknowledge how bad Bernie is going to be for the down ballot. 

Trump has praised several dictators. See my "life is unfair" bitching above. Trump has some magical "Teflon Don" fairy dust that allows him to say some of the dumbest shit known to mankind that would be political suicide for anyone else and it doesn't affect him. 

It's not fair. But it is what it is. So just because it's not disqualifying for him, doesn't mean it's not disqualifying for someone else.

All politicians come with certain negative stereotypes they have to work against. HRC had to work at seeming warm and not shrill and condescending. Obama had to focus on coming off as non-threatening and non-radical to mossback white Dems. Bernie needs to fight his perceived radicalism and disloyalty and play down his association with authoritarian regimes. And he really seems to not get this. 

That doesn't make these stereotypes fair or accurate. And many are still rooted in unfair bigotry. But we have to deal with their effects regardless. 

So who is? In the eyes of many,  Biden and Bloomberg are no different than Trump.

[nausicaa]

4 hours ago, SassyPants said:

See, lots of Americans view their own safety nets as earned, while others’ are some form of aid. In truth, much of America has some socialist programs: schools, roads, healthcare for many, many, many citizens (Medicare, government workers, the military, the disabled, the disadvantaged). 

Not to get too in the weeds here, and I'm probably going to regret posting this, but those aren't socialist programs. Those are government-funded programs and an expanded safety net. 

It actually bewilders me how both parties use this term incorrectly. You don't want socialism, you want an expanded safety net. Socialism would be the government owning the means of production. So no, most European countries aren't actually socialist. (Even the oft-mentioned Denmark describes itself as having a free market economy.) Building highways isn't socialist. The government exclusively owning all of the means to actually build a highway is socialism (but still wouldn't be communism). Free college isn't socialism. Single payer isn't socialism. 

I don't know why Bernie doesn't correct this misuse of the term because it would actually make his ideas more palatable.

Another negative effect of the misuse of the word is that white progressives are a bit dismissive of immigrants (often POC) who come from actual socialist countries and warn of the dangers they lived through (because when you say "socialism" they think you mean real socialism, with gulags and bread lines.) 

In short, it's a bunch of people talking past each other and I think it's adding to the cluster fuck. 

56 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

So who is? In the eyes of many,  Biden and Bloomberg are no different than Trump.

So who is what?

I don't understand where your question relates to what I posted? 

Edited February 25, 2020 by nausicaa

[HerNameIsBuffy]

11 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

I am so frustrated right now. You can’t fix a broken system without making some changes. The reality is, you never are handed 100% of the information or are 100% guaranteed of an outcome before you have to make a decision. Sometimes you have to jump in and move your arms; start swimming. There’s always a million reasons not to do something, and that’s a choice/decision too. But if that’s the case, than just accept that the current situation/status quo is OK. You can’t want change, yet be unwilling to accept what that change requires.

Honestly, I'm going to bow out of this conversation since you seem intent on misinterpreting me.  I've said repeatedly I would vote for someone proposing Medicare for all. 

Pointing out that there are real reasons that would scare others into not voting Dem does not mean I am unwilling to risk change.  It means I am concerned that people are being idealistic and sacrificing strategy to do so which will mean another 4 years of Trump.

I would prefer to move in a positive direction than not move at all...and if the progressives running don't acknowledge and address the changes that will make many stay home then they're ensuring us another 4 years of the status quo.

1 minute ago, nausicaa said:

Socialism would be the government owning the means of production

THANK YOU!  So please someone explain to me why Bernie calls himself a socialist if he's not in favor of one of it's main tenants?