2020 Democratic presidential primary

nerdstrom, can u pls delete your account and stop constantly derailing this thread with childish insinuations

shakey, that first block quote is from CNN, and the second is from some guy on townhall.com -- where does fox enter into this again?

also could you explain your emphasis on the "fiscal reality" of medicare for all? because speaking of water carrying...

I hardly ever give a shit about TRUE FEEWINGS. Actions rule all in governance.

they don’t care whether they uncritically amplify a right wing media narrative or not

yeah, this is why I don't buy "Russian bots stole the election." People can believe or disbelieve what they want, on the merits.

Harris is a slick pig. Great smile, though.

where are those copies of the ILXor Leftist Vows, anyway?

nerdstrom, can u pls delete your account and stop constantly derailing this thread with childish insinuations

― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:01 AM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

shakey, that first block quote is from CNN, and the second is from some guy on townhall.com -- where does fox enter into this again?

just from search results. (I am not gonna quote Fox for obvious reasons)

Well I guess this settles it.

I just got off of a call with the individual, who wanted to stay anonymous.

In other words, this was not a fake account. pic.twitter.com/3dks0B0lh5

— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) January 31, 2019

Nerdstrom ffs go participate in some other forum where they give one solitary shit about this alternate universe drama that you're obsessed with

nerdstrom tell us what’s good about Harris’s views in those videos or stfu

actually feel free to just stfu

shakey, that first block quote is from CNN, and the second is from some guy on townhall.com -- where does fox enter into this again?

just from search results. (I am not gonna quote Fox for obvious reasons)

― Οὖτις, Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:19 PM (three minutes ago)

so you would agree that invoking fox news in this story in any capacity was a lame smear

frankly i'm getting tired of posters in here who don’t care whether they uncritically amplify a nerdstrom narrative or not and get mad if you don’t let them put blinders on to the agenda of a nerdstorm

now can tell me why "fiscal realities" of medicare for all are a helpful talking point in 2019?

xp

is this even true? I don't quite understand how Medicare-for-all requires the elimination of private insurance. Is there some sort of specific plan that mandates this as a way of funding M4A or something?

I would think that allowing private insurers to compete with a public system would undermine the egalitarian principle of the system. What would they offer to either patients or health care providers to attract business?

so you would agree that invoking fox news in this story in any capacity was a lame smear

just sayin when I searched for that quote I got one townhall hit and a bunch of foxnews ones, that's all

xp

just sayin! ok then

"fiscal realities" are imaginary, the USA has a sovereign currency and the cheapest debt in the universe and can do whatever it wants

What would they offer to either patients or health care providers to attract business?

I have on idea - more expensive, unnecessary services?

I haven’t seen the videos yet, they were on my queue though

lol stfu

I have on idea - more expensive, unnecessary services?

These things would presumably not be covered by the public system. I don't think anyone is advocating banning private insurance from covering things that a public system would not?

I do think private insurers should be prohibited from competing with a universal public payer when it comes to services it covers.

are they advocating banning private insurance from covering things that the public system would? I have no idea tbh I have not been following this debate closely (healthcare honestly not a huge issue for me personally)

xp

everything is so exhausting all the time

life in the fast lane

are they advocating banning private insurance from covering things that the public system would?

This is what "single payer" means aiui (and afaik is the case in Canada).

right, but Medicare-for-all is not really single-payer, since Medicare basically is a way of publicly financing the payment to private insurers afaict?

like, if you are on Medicare that can pay for services from Kaiser or Cigna or Blue Shield or whoever

so I assume cost controls would come through Medicare reimbursement rates being set by the gov't

idk this is all just guesses on my part, this stuff is so fucking convoluted and not my area of expertise

Ha, not mine either since I was assuming M4A meant single payer.

"Medicare for All" I believe to most people pushing it as a minimum price of entry for the D nomination means "the government provides everyone with quality healthcare"; it's a slogan that doesn't have one single policy proposal behind it.

Oh cool that seems like a valid metric lol

we've discussed elsewhere the power of sloganized policy proposals. Something that people can draw on their own experiences and hopes to get behind like "medicare for all" is more useful than the similarly concise but heavily wonkish "single-payer". Like credit to Black Lives Matter here imho for coining the most effective three-word sentence of my lifetime.

Ok I'm gonna ask the world's dumbest question, are old people who are on Medicare not allowed to pay for private health services? I assumed they were.

of course they do, that's how it works

Medicare is a financing mechanism, not a healthcare provider

we've discussed elsewhere the power of sloganized policy proposals. Something that people can draw on their own experiences and hopes to get behind like "medicare for all" is more useful than the similarly concise but heavily wonkish "single-payer".

right, I agree and this is all fine and good. At the same time, it makes ppl taking Harris to task for not explicitly backing some ill-defined and/or non-existent policy look like an argument being made in bad faith. She co-sponsored a single-payer bill with Bernie (https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/politics/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-single-payer-medicare/index.html), she says she's supportive of Medicare-for-all, she's open to other policy plans and proposals, etc. And yet ppl are still eager to paint her as not being sufficiently in support of massive healthcare reform. I mean wtf.

xp typically middle-class old people have Medicare as the primary payer and supplemental (private) insurance to cover gaps; both are used to pay for services from basically any healthcare provider

like, her past statements on incarceration are disqualifying, no matter what she says today! But her past statements and actions on healthcare are NOT relevant because she is currently saying the not-precisely-right things. yeah okay

xp

I'm already super stoked to read all the essays from left Twitter in November 2020 about how they're not voting for president because Kamala Harris is a disingenuous cop and anyway, it doesn't matter because they all live in NY and so she's gonna win their state anyway.

i can absolutely guarantee you now that i won’t be voting for kamala harris in 2020 or any other year

brooklynite leftist posters would die and go to heaven if they had even a modicum of the influence centrists seem to fear they do

you the real MVP

xpost

People listen to me jim

of course they do, that's how it works

Then.. why am I supposed to interpret "Medicare for All" as implying abolition of private insurance? I have not been reading it this way.

don't know that I'd vote for Harris in a primary, but against Trump in a general election i'd obv do so without hesitation. this shit is serious!

otm

Then.. why am I supposed to interpret "Medicare for All" as implying abolition of private insurance? I have not been reading it this way.

I don't know! it doesn't make sense to me either

don't know that I'd vote for Harris in a primary, but against Trump in a general election i'd obv do so without hesitation. this shit is serious!

a totally defensible position

I will vote for any democrat against donald trump

right, but Medicare-for-all is not really single-payer, since Medicare basically is a way of publicly financing the payment to private insurers afaict?

― Οὖτις, Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:41 PM (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

medicare does contract with private insurers to pay out some of its claims, something like one-third. this is a more recent trend with the advent of medicare advantage and part D...but it doesn’t have to be this way

https://www.kff.org/report-section/a-primer-on-medicare-how-does-medicare-pay-providers-in-traditional-medicare/

read up a few tweet to the top of this thread about the differences between the different m4a proposals tho, interesting topic

Right, a more accurate terminology would be something like "Enhanced Medicare for Everybody" and "Enhanced Medicare for Anybody." But now you've really got a mouthful.

— Jonathan Cohn (@CitizenCohn) January 30, 2019