2020 Democratic presidential primary

A sad day for the Democrats, Kirsten Gillibrand has dropped out of the Presidential Primary. I’m glad they never found out that she was the one I was really afraid of!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2019

ok I loled

he clearly lurks here because he calls "the primaries" a primary

Has this not come up before?

Redoing this: SO today I learned that Warren’s daughter is the founder of a group called HealthAllies, which is now part of the for-profit health insurer UnitedHealth Group

In unrelated news Warren still hasn’t released a healthcare plan or *added Medicare4All to her platform*

— Esor (@esorfasal) August 28, 2019

I guess having Medicare for all as her position on her campaign website doesn’t count?

She did raise her hand when candidates were asked if they would abolish private insurance in the first debate and co-sponsored Sanders's M4A bill, I believe? xp

So did Harris, until she didn't. I'll believe it when she releases a plan

I don't see much about it on her website, though, aside from a passing reference as something that could be funded with an ultra-millionaire tax. Is there more? xp

and I'll say "when" not "if" because it would be lunacy not to

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/cosponsors

Again, Harris already proved co-sponsoring doesn't mean anything.

Cosponsors (14)

No cosponsors.

What does the "14" mean?

She co-sponsored Sanders' plan, she has said she'd abolish private insurance, but you're still attacking her because her daughter did something? Yeah, thaaaat's you being shitty, that's not her problem.

Though, tbf, she's definitely not going to abolish private insurance. But then again, neither is Sanders.

this is so stupid. so warren's daughter co-counded a healthcare startup 20 years ago? amazing.

^^^

20 years ago wasn't that long, we still had steve jobs johnny cash etc

yeah honestly I am a berner but that's reaching hard.

no, it's completely stupid. take that thoughtless shit back to twitter.

I do kind of like the "in unrelated news" pissy trolling set up though.

the idea that private healthcare will be explicitly legislated out of existence is ridiculous, no bill containing such a provision would ever pass, and even if it ever did it would be struck down as unconstitutional. Now, you could write legislation that would *effectively* kill private insurance by making it non-competitive, and change the rules of the market and then let those do their work - and I think eventually that is what will happen - but acting like staking out a "WE MUST OUTLAW PRIVATE INSURANCE NOW" position should be used as a litmus test for candidates or their plans is remarkably stupid.

What would be the constitutional principle protecting private insurance?

the commerce clause is tricky

I am not a lawyer but my guess is that a bill that contained a blanket "it is illegal for anyone except the government to provide health insurance" statement would be construed as exceeding the interstate commerce regulation powers granted to Congress by the commerce clause, and that the current configuration of the Supreme Court is likely to side with the narrow view in such a case.

wouldn't be too fair to judge bernie by the actions of his kids either

yeah honestly I am a berner but that's reaching hard.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:41 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

no, it's completely stupid. take that thoughtless shit back to twitter.

― Yerac, Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:43 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you

tbf the current supreme court is likely to strike down most federal statutes they don't care for as unconstitutional on the basis that the federal government isn't allowed to enact statutes

that the federal government can establish a healthcare system is settled law. that the federal government can explicitly outlaw entire private industries, not so much.

(I don't disagree w you btw, just sayin some things are likelier to make it past the court than others)

I kind of feel like the whole "would you abolish private insurance" question was a setup, but they did raise their hands so IDK. As has been pointed out, there is really no need to do so. To paraphrase Grover Norquist, you don't need to destroy it, you just shrink it to the size that you can drown it in a bathtub.

The constitutional question is an interesting one to ponder and I'd have to give it some thought. It's especially weird since insurance is one of the few national businesses that's still done and regulated on a state-by-state business, so that makes the whole "interstate commerce" question more difficult. Obviously it is possible for government to outlaw an entire line of business, for example the sale and trafficking of cocaine.

But it's pretty academic since I can't see any reason why a law banning private health insurance would be necessary.

xpost, oh my thing was in response to j listing dead people, which I may have totally misread.

exactly! It isn't necessary at all.

xp

It's just weird to me that it became an issue, because I don't remember bernie or anyone else saying "abolish private health insurance" until it was raised at the debate. Maybe I'm wrong.

Don't they mean that they'd establish an all-encompassing public insurance system that would make private companies redundant?

that nuance is often lost on the general public. The GOP will just say "they are going to take away your health insurance"

also the debate question was literally phrased to accentuate the abolition of private insurance

Yeah, it was definitely a setup. But doesn't the Bernie plan call for banning health care plans that 'duplicate' what is being offered by the M4A plan?

yes, which is a sort of stupid provision imo

overemphasis on the wonky specifics of "plans" during a presidential campaign is irritating anyway. No president EVER has the ability to enact a "plan" exactly the way it was laid out in a campaign platform.

yeah I brought that up earlier

it's just a tactic for ginning up conflict/trying to get the candidates to draw blood

I was happy that during the last debate Booker? kept bringing up that the questions and conversations were all circling GOP talking points instead of asking real questions.

It is fair enough to be suspicious of the specifically announced promises made by a candidate during a campaign, because the US legislative system prevents most of them from being delivered. Mostly it prevents anything from being done at all by anyone.

But the tweet Simon H. posted displays more of a conspiracy theorist mindset, taking an isolated fact that is, at best merely suggestive, and presents it as a dark secret that demonstrates what Warren REALLY thinks is actually the opposite of what she says. That's just hugely stupid. If passing M4A were easy, it would have happened under Truman. Or LBJ. Or Bill Clinton. Or Obama.

Yeah while I won't support Booker or Buttigieg, for example, I'm glad that it's become a more general tack among the democratic field to emphasize opposition to the republican party in general and to try to avoid getting caught in their traps.

If passing M4A were easy, it would have happened under Truman. Or LBJ. Or Bill Clinton. Or Obama.

Not so sure about this though. I mean, what are we actually talking about here, what politicians believe in their heart of hearts? That only has so much relevance -- who they take money from, who they kowtow to to get elected, what their track record is, what they've consistently publicly said over time, these are much important factors imo in discerning what you can consider to be the "true" goals of a politician.

I have no idea if deep down in their souls Obama or Clinton believed in something like M4A. It's irrelevant.

The main difference between Bernie and Warren for me is more in approach. Bernie is the one building the movement, pushing the discourse, moving the overton window. I've always liked Warren and would vote for her in a heartbeat, but she hasn't shown the same kind of leadership on these issues. The difference between Bernie and Warren is that M4A wouldn't BE a key 2020 issue if not for him.

I don't think you need leadership. To be a good politician is a product of timing as much as talent. Sanders has proven by far the most influential pol of the last decade, for which he has my gratitude; Warren, though, has the right age and mien.

let's *effectively* kill private insurance