***Official Political Discussion Thread***

I can’t believe that after the disaster of 2016, and having three years to get their **** together, that the best candidates that the democrats can do are Biden and Bernie. :sick: it’s like a terrible sports franchise that keeps hiring has beens and rejects to coach a team that has such an easy path to victory.
 
That can’t be right, I’m sure Trump would never lie about this.
Trump was obviously lying and this stooge doesn’t even have the gut push back. Instead, he chooses to go along with Trump’s fabrication, knowing full well there is no intelligence to support it.
 
My take on the Warren–M4A issue.

Warren supported M4A for two reasons. One is that she’s a progressive and basically wants everyone to have healthcare coverage and believes to some extent that the health insurance industry is exploitive and problematic. The second is that she’s wonkish and can clearly see that M4A makes the most sense by far as the way forward for healthcare—everyone gets covered, it’s free at the point of service, it’s paid for progressively, it’s cheaper than what we have and any of the other alternatives, restrictive “networks” are eliminated and people can access care wherever, billions are saved via streamlining redundant and unnecessary administrative costs, executive salaries, and shareholder dividends, and people’s experience of healthcare is improved dramatically because of all of this.

So if you’re progressive and wonkish M4A actually makes more sense than any alternative being discussed, and it’s not even close. Warren recognized this and so she supports(ed?) M4A.

The issue that she ran into was a political one—trying to maintain her commitment to what she knows is clearly the best option, and maintaining the support of a substantial portion of her base that is also dedicated to that position, while also trying to attract other Democratic primary voters who may support a more moderate policy. So then we get her attempts to appeal to this second group with the problematic funding proposal that accepts the right-wing premise that raising taxes is inherently bad (no matter if those increases are offset by savings in other areas, like premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.). And the proposal is problematic on a number of other fronts and folks point those things out. Then she equivocates about compromising and transitional periods and such, and it comes across to (some) folks who are committed to M4A that’s she’s not willing to fight for it.

And in both of those areas her actions contrast poorly for many folks on the left with Bernie’s clear consistency on M4A. I think Warren thought she could run a little bit more moderately, maintain her base of support with those on the left, and siphon off voters from the more centrist candidates by more clearly splitting the political difference between a Bernie and a Buttigieg. It looks like she calculated wrongly, but we will see.
 
Belgium said:
I think Warren’s flexibility on M4A is a good move. It shows she’s more grounded in reality.
Click to expand...
I really think she should have never signed into pushing it in the first place.

Her thing is clearly illustrating how America can transition and pull off a progressive program. M4A is so pie in the sky right now that whenever she advocates for it goes against the imagine she has built up.
 
red mpls said:
My take on the Warren–M4A issue.

Warren supported M4A for two reasons. One is that she’s a progressive and basically wants everyone to have healthcare coverage and believes to some extent that the health insurance industry is exploitive and problematic. The second is that she’s wonkish and can clearly see that M4A makes the most sense by far as the way forward for healthcare—everyone gets covered, it’s free at the point of service, it’s paid for progressively, it’s cheaper than what we have and any of the other alternatives, restrictive “networks” are eliminated and people can access care wherever, billions are saved via streamlining redundant and unnecessary administrative costs, executive salaries, and shareholder dividends, and people’s experience of healthcare is improved dramatically because of all of this.

So if you’re progressive and wonkish M4A actually makes more sense than any alternative being discussed, and it’s not even close. Warren recognized this and so she supports(ed?) M4A.

The issue that she ran into was a political one—trying to maintain her commitment to what she knows is clearly the best option, and maintaining the support of a substantial portion of her base that is also dedicated to that position, while also trying to attract other Democratic primary voters who may support a more moderate policy. So then we get her attempts to appeal to this second group with the problematic funding proposal that accepts the right-wing premise that raising taxes is inherently bad (no matter if those increases are offset by savings in other areas, like premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.). And the proposal is problematic on a number of other fronts and folks point those things out. Then she equivocates about compromising and transitional periods and such, and it comes across to (some) folks who are committed to M4A that’s she’s not willing to fight for it.

And in both of those areas her actions contrast poorly for many folks on the left with Bernie’s clear consistency on M4A. I think Warren thought she could run a little bit more moderately, maintain her base of support with those on the left, and siphon off voters from the more centrist candidates by more clearly splitting the political difference between a Bernie and a Buttigieg. It looks like she calculated wrongly, but we will see.
Click to expand...

This. And what appears as simple questions—how much is it going to cost and how are you going to pay for it—is, in fact, a clever political trap. My sense of that trap is this:
  • I have had the most productive conversations around economic inequality by emphasizing the immorality and waste of the existing system. The tactic, in other words, is not to go line-by-line of a budget to explain how this subtraction will be added to this expenditure, how this existing liability will become an asset if only invested in such and such outlet, how this percentage of a percentage will ultimately free up such and such for so and so. You lose people that way.

  • Second, to do so is to march onto the terrain of wonks and technocratic policy experts who will quibble with you over some calculation. Suddenly, you’re discussing the numbers instead of the moral outrage of people having to go without treatment because insurance companies are gorging themselves on premiums.

  • I’m drawing from former GOP strategist Rick Wilson for the third point: Warren dropped “a 600-page healthcare plan and my research geeks can’t find, I don’t know, 30 things in there that I can’t demagogue the hell out of? Because I can. Or the guys that are me now can" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-wilson-running-against-the-devil#maincontent). Right-wings who only believe in the welfare of elites, corporations, their executives and stockholders pull a bait and switch. Armed with their shiny excel charts, they say we can’t raise taxes because it’ll increase the deficit. They make it appear as if the issue is one of costs. But really, as Wilson notes, the trick is to get you on their quantitative turf and then “demagogue the hell out of” it. That is, to misrepresent, to distort, to lie.

In short, the costs outweigh the benefits of even engaging on that terrain. American politics isn’t about ‘having a plan.’ It’s about underscoring the moral outrage of the existing system. That, in my opinion, was the biggest mistake Warren made.
 
red mpls said:
“Good move” in terms of what, exactly? What reality is she “more grounded” to, exactly?
Click to expand...
In terms of realism. The reality, in my view, is that eliminating private healthcare in the US at this point in time is simply not realistic by any stretch of the imagination.
While Bernie's M4A is probably the ideal system to strive towards, he seems to act like it's the only option to provide good universal healthcare. It's not, and in fact very few countries have a true single-payer system. Of the countries with renowned healthcare systems, the overwhelming majority use a multi-payer system. In those systems, the key point is that private healthcare should be supplementary, not a necessity.
Obviously this does require a fine balancing act to make sure the public system sufficiently covers the needs of as many people as possible.

I think Warren's stance probably hurts her politically amongst progressive voters but it shows she's already working out different options to deal with the reality that the ideal M4A has virtually zero chance of getting anywhere near passing.
I haven't seen Bernie deal with that likelihood at all.

RustyShackleford said:
I really think she should have never signed into pushing it in the first place.

Her thing is clearly illustrating how America can transition and pull off a progressive program. M4A is so pie in the sky right now that whenever she advocates for it goes against the imagine she has built up.
Click to expand...
Isn't M4A quite popular amongst Democratic voters though? I don't think it's a mistake to push it but she should've kept her options open from the beginning. Strive for an ideal and show you're willing to fight for it but prepare to be forced to take a more realistic option.
 
Last edited:
obeahmyal7 said:
This. And what appears as simple questions—how much is it going to cost and how are you going to pay for it—is, in fact, a clever political trap. My sense of that trap is this:
  • I have had the most productive conversations around economic inequality by emphasizing the immorality and waste of the existing system. The tactic, in other words, is not to go line-by-line of a budget to explain how this subtraction will be added to this expenditure, how this existing liability will become an asset if only invested in such and such outlet, how this percentage of a percentage will ultimately free up such and such for so and so. You lose people that way.

  • Second, to do so is to march onto the terrain of wonks and technocratic policy experts who will quibble with you over some calculation. Suddenly, you’re discussing the numbers instead of the moral outrage of people having to go without treatment because insurance companies are gorging themselves on premiums.

  • I’m drawing from former GOP strategist Rick Wilson for the third point: Warren dropped “a 600-page healthcare plan and my research geeks can’t find, I don’t know, 30 things in there that I can’t demagogue the hell out of? Because I can. Or the guys that are me now can" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-wilson-running-against-the-devil#maincontent). Right-wings who only believe in the welfare of elites, corporations, their executives and stockholders pull a bait and switch. Armed with their shiny excel charts, they say we can’t raise taxes because it’ll increase the deficit. They make it appear as if the issue is one of costs. But really, as Wilson notes, the trick is to get you on their quantitative turf and then “demagogue the hell out of” it. That is, to misrepresent, to distort, to lie.

In short, the costs outweigh the benefits of even engaging on that terrain. American politics isn’t about ‘having a plan.’ It’s about underscoring the moral outrage of the existing system. That, in my opinion, was the biggest mistake Warren made.
Click to expand...
In other words, Warren misreads the issue at hand—she believes it to be a matter of technocratic wonkishness and not an issue of mass politics. But it is the latter, not the former.

This is one thing that many Bernie supporters point to as being problematic in their view with Warren as a candidate in comparison to Bernie. I would count myself among those ranks.
 
Belgium said:
In terms of realism. The reality, in my view, is that eliminating private healthcare in the US at this point in time is simply not realistic by any stretch of the imagination.
While Bernie's M4A is probably the ideal system to strive towards, he seems to act like it's the only option to provide good universal healthcare. It's not, and in fact very few countries have a true single-payer system. Of the countries with renowned healthcare systems, the overwhelming majority use a multi-payer system. In those systems, the key point is that private healthcare should be supplementary, not a necessity.
Obviously this does require a fine balancing act to make sure the public system sufficiently covers the needs of as many people as possible.

I think Warren's stance probably hurts her politically amongst progressive voters but it shows she's already working out different options to deal with the reality that the ideal M4A has virtually zero chance of getting anywhere near passing.
I haven't seen Bernie deal with that likelihood at all.


Isn't M4A quite popular amongst Democratic voters though? I don't think it's a mistake to push it but she should've kept her options open from the beginning. Strive for an ideal and show you're willing to fight for it but prepare to be forced to take a more realistic option.
Click to expand...
But here's the thing: What's realistic today does not determine what is or is not realistic six months from now, or a year from now, or two years from now. If we only take what's realistic today at this moment as the barometer for whether we should be advocating for it, we might as well not advocate for anything at all. We are simply acquiescing to the injustice of the status quo. If this were the case, the world would literally never get better.

So if someone feels like M4A is morally necessary, they need to be advocating for it—that's the only way to move the conversation. Bernie is doing the exact right thing. He shouldn't be dealing with the possibility that M4A doesn't happen—he should be articulating why it is necessary and building public support toward that end. There may come a time for compromises—perhaps—but that time is nowhere near the horizon.

As a related aside because you brought it up, why should we even need supplementary private coverage? Why shouldn't every single person simply have access to the coverage that they need via the public system as a matter of course? What is the argument here in support of a private role?
 
I imagine this is not going to help the perception of her amongst some Bernie supporters.


Below is the report she's responding to. Bernie's campaign declined to comment but didn't challenge the authenticity of the talking points.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594
Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate of the elite
Sanders volunteers are being told to zero in on the perceived weaknesses of Warren, but also Biden and Buttigieg.
 
M4A, as it is currently proposed is not happening anytime in the near future.

There is zero chance. People need to stop acting like there is.
 
Screenshot_20200112-152459_Chrome.jpg

is this even real?
 
"The abolition of slavery is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Women's suffrage is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"The forty-hour work week is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Child labor protections are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Government protection of collective bargaining rights is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Social Security is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"The destruction of the Jim Crow regime is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Medicare and Medicaid are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"It always seems impossible until it's done."
—Nelson Mandela
 
red mpls said:
But here's the thing: What's realistic today does not determine what is or is not realistic six months from now, or a year from now, or two years from now. If we only take what's realistic today at this moment as the barometer for whether we should be advocating for it, we might as well not advocate for anything at all. We are simply acquiescing to the injustice of the status quo. If this were the case, the world would literally never get better.

So if someone feels like M4A is morally necessary, they need to be advocating for it—that's the only way to move the conversation. Bernie is doing the exact right thing. He shouldn't be dealing with the possibility that M4A doesn't happen—he should be articulating why it is necessary and building public support toward that end. There may come a time for compromises—perhaps—but that time is nowhere near the horizon.

As a related aside because you brought it up, why should we even need supplementary private coverage? Why shouldn't every single person simply have access to the coverage that they need via the public system as a matter of course? What is the argument here in support of a private role?
Click to expand...
I'll respond to your last question first. The argument is luxury. Think of it like a hotel. A regular hotel will do just fine but some people want a 5 star hotel. The public coverage shouldn't cover an optional 1-person room stay in a hospital for example but that's something where private insurance steps in. You mentioned "why should we even need supplementary private insurance" but the point is that you shouldn't need it.


As for your other points, I don't think we really disagree all that much here. Keeping your options open, preparing contingency plans and fighting for the ideal solution are not mutually exclusive.
 
Belgium said:
In terms of realism. The reality, in my view, is that eliminating private healthcare in the US at this point in time is simply not realistic by any stretch of the imagination.
While Bernie's M4A is probably the ideal system to strive towards, he seems to act like it's the only option to provide good universal healthcare. It's not, and in fact very few countries have a true single-payer system. Of the countries with renowned healthcare systems, the overwhelming majority use a multi-payer system. In those systems, the key point is that private healthcare should be supplementary, not a necessity.
Obviously this does require a fine balancing act to make sure the public system sufficiently covers the needs of as many people as possible.

I think Warren's stance probably hurts her politically amongst progressive voters but it shows she's already working out different options to deal with the reality that the ideal M4A has virtually zero chance of getting anywhere near passing.
I haven't seen Bernie deal with that likelihood at all.


Isn't M4A quite popular amongst Democratic voters though? I don't think it's a mistake to push it but she should've kept her options open from the beginning. Strive for an ideal and show you're willing to fight for it but prepare to be forced to take a more realistic option.
Click to expand...

A lot of people confuse what M4A actually entails.any think it will function as a public option. So the public option, which keeps private insurance, is the most popular plan pushed by the Dems.

But to be honest I don't recall seeing, or don't remember, a reputable poll that explores that questions specifically with Dem voters.
 
red mpls said:
"The abolition of slavery is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Women's suffrage is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"The forty-hour work week is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Child labor protections are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Government protection of collective bargaining rights is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Social Security is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"The destruction of the Jim Crow regime is not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"Medicare and Medicaid are not happening anytime soon. There's zero chance. We need to accept and deal with this reality."

"It always seems impossible until it's done."
—Nelson Mandela
Click to expand...
Oh please miss me with this :lol:

We have had many discussions about healthcare, you know I don't support the status quo like the people you listed in these examples.

So this is just some disingenuous **** and a hand wave regarding the road blocks facing M4A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom