Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

The immediate issues/concerns people had with the pandemic weren’t like “I can’t afford to see a doctor”

wouldn't that...make them more amenable to overhaul the system?

not that people being contradictory is a shock - when I was in the call center wing of my business, I'd hear people describe their horrifying medical ordeals and how it left them with a mountain of debt and they'd still bitch about socialism and the nanny state out of the other side of their mouths.

ACA didn't win a lot of people over because it was imperfect and wound up being massively expensive for a large proportion of people, including my own mother, for mediocre plans. but an actual M4A system might change their minds after the first few claims kicked in.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/biden-linked-firm-tests-messages-to-undercut-medicare-for-all
https://citizentruth.org/top-democratic-consultants-have-worked-for-anti-medicare-for-all-campaign/

The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future (PAHCF), a nonprofit created last year to oppose plans to create a comprehensive, universal health care system, paid almost $760,000 to Bully Pulpit Interactive, a communications and digital marketing firm that has worked with the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

The dark money organization paid almost $185,000 to Anzalone Liszt Grove Research, a polling firm that has been working with former Vice President Biden’s Democratic presidential campaign, the DSCC, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The firm recently tested attack lines on Medicare for All for Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank. PAHCF also paid $140,000 to Blue Engine Message & Media, a firm that was founded by former campaign staffers for President Barack Obama. (Blue Engine is now known as Seven Letter.)

(As I said, this didn't work, as the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future then turned on Biden once Medicare For All was a dead issue.)

Biden's (few) progressive moves over the most recent cycle have all been calculated to claw back at strides made by the 'progressive wing.' No wealth tax or concrete plans to deal with inequality but we'll agree to a minimum wage increase 11 years after Democrats could have passed one when Obama had 57 Senators. No single-payer healthcare, but we'll float a public option our Senators wouldn't pass last time and spent months telling you how evil single-payer healthcare is.

the public supports it, and I support it, but much like the ACA, you have to fight tooth and nail to keep the White House for like, 3 or more terms after passing it to avoid the inevitable "lol let's undo everything the Dems just did" campaigns that will intentionally weaken the program.

This is the fundamental argument for M4A rather than "incremental expansion" (which, again, are no more likely to pass than M4A) - universal programs are harder to kill.

Bush didn't crater after Iraq or Katrina - he fucked up by talking about privatizing Social Security.

“ "incremental expansion" (which, again, are no more likely to pass than M4A)”

Ehhh idk about that.

i'm against incremental expansion of the ACA as it's basically been crippled to the point where at best, you'll get it back to what it was in 2014.

the drawback = the ACA was the springboard that Republicans/Tea Party campaigned on which resulted in the ridiculous Red Wave of 2010. But...I don't think you can let things like that factor into your decision. At some point, you gotta just swing for the fences.

Is Big Don actually Joe Biden

― healthy cocaine off perfect butts (the table is the table), Wednesday, November 25, 2020 10:06 AM (one hour ago)

Is Big Don actually Anthem, Inc

wrinklepaws

It’s worth remembering that the GOP unable to get their ACA repeal through even with all three chambers in large part because of intense public outcry.

Ehhh idk about that.

Best case scenario that Joe Manchin is the swing vote, he's going to do either of those?

The better policy is just as difficult to achieve as the bad policy - but inspires activism and broad public support from your party's voters. No one's volunteering to phone bank for more subsidies for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

The immediate issues/concerns people had with the pandemic weren’t like “I can’t afford to see a doctor”

what kind of horseshit is this

No Milo I wasn’t thinking it would be something that happens with a GOP controlled senate

The Manchin scenario isn't a GOP controlled Senate

I wish there was a Manchin scenario, but we're not even going to get that

the very worst Robert Ludlum

did we defund his butt yet

I wonder if any of us are really ready for what a healthcare debate will look like in the age of Q. There will be insanity. They're going to act like this is the Final Solution, they're all being lined up for enslavement or extinction.

They are but not in the way they think

Biden is Q iirc.

Biden has work insurance, he skips the Q

I don’t know what the tell you man. The public option exists, has been a long term progressive goal, would help a lot of people out and he ran on it. I don’t that the difference between that and M4A is the best reason to go all blackpill but w\e you do you Jack.

― “Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, November 24, 2020 6:03 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

This is a funhouse mirror version of Rs treating Romneycare (aka the ACA) as some socialist plot instead of the product of conservative thinktanks.

No the public option passing would actually be major social legislation. Well yeah I know that the right wing think tank thing is something people say but not really true about the ACA. Right thing think tanks wouldn’t conceive of Medicaid expansion just for one thing and also Republicans desperation to repeal it is reason enough for us to know not to repeat that talking point.

There should be some questioning of “the public option is compromised corporatist shit (lol) but m4a is the ideal oh and both things are EQUALLY a non-starter in the senate”.

I use to believe in that theory that you go for the most ambitious legislation possible to get the best deal but idk that’s like out of some dumb book about how to win negotiations. Especially when you’re announcing that it’s a tactic at the outset.

But the public option is compromised corporatist shit, full stop.

Haha holy shit

No that’s...aggressively ignorant. Sorry.

I would say I missed gabbneb but I actually didn’t.

i do like* that ilx gets a wacky new centrist every few months

*not the right word

pub option was some wack olive branch 2008 shit that the Dems couldn’t even muster the sack to get behind. the kids are on some M4A now, old man.

*skateboards away*

here you go Big Don

You're aggressively ignorant, Big Don. Please leave.

If I thought everything outside of full m4a was garbage or a evil plot I would probably just kill myself. Because also maybe it would effectively demonstrate the severity of my feelings toward healthcare policy? I know I would be like “woah check out what this badass did. Maybe he has a point”

ok, implying people who have better ideas than you should kill themselves is EXTRA COOL, but you also spelled "whoa" like a dummy spells it. bye.

Wait Simon you find AOC to be an actually insightful intellectual wonk whom we have to gather around her learning tree and not just a charismatic politician who says some left things?

if you think healthcare is a right, and not a consumer product to be determined by markets, then the public option is indeed compromised corporatist shit. it's what corporate health care think tanks would (and did) cough up to steal the thunder from demands for true universal healthcare. many of us have supported it in the past, as with the ACA, because it would expand access to healthcare, somewhat, in the nearer term. IMHO it's possibly acceptable, incrementally, as something the process lands on while we're fighting to get something better. if we'd gotten the public option under Obama we'd be seeking to lock in that gain, and continue expanding from there. but if we actually want to solve the healthcare problem in this country in a serious and comprehensive way that doesn't leave huge populations still scrambling, still precarious, still undercovered or still un-covered, then the fight is for single-payer, and the public option is compromised corporatist shit.

No that’s the better way to spell woah.

"Big" Don do you have a counterargument to AOC's actual argument, or just implications that she is somehow not intellectually serious enough for her argument to be worth discussing?

I’m gonna watch it later. Relax.

f you think healthcare is a right, and not a consumer product to be determined by markets, then the public option is indeed compromised corporatist shit. it's what corporate health care think tanks would (and did) cough up to steal the thunder from demands for true universal healthcare. many of us have supported it in the past, as with the ACA, because it would expand access to healthcare, somewhat, in the nearer term. IMHO it's possibly acceptable, incrementally, as something the process lands on while we're fighting to get something better. if we'd gotten the public option under Obama we'd be seeking to lock in that gain, and continue expanding from there.

otm

I’m gonna watch it later.

lol

Random new centrist d-bag user shows up and mocks the intellect and policy positions of a brown woman, got it.

Get bent, Big Don

did nerdstrom get a new IP

"Big" Don, you do appear to be new around here, so lemme just say this forum is, over the long haul, shifting away from a kinda snarky, "bring it, debate me, I'm here to drop hard zings" vibe, to something more collegial and encouraging of conversation. Telling people their positions are "aggressively ignorant," or finishing posts with "Relax" or "Sorry" with periods after them, comes off as condescending and smug. people will shoot back with their own counter-insults, but that's about all you're going to get out of it. If you want other posters to engage with you long term, and see you as a valuable interlocutor bringing your own point of view, I'd reconsider that posting style. We often say that it'd be interesting to have more centrist voices in the politics threads, but the ones that have become pillars of the community tend to post in a much more conversational and respectful manner.

"The public option is smarter wonk-approved policy" bit would work better if it had any chance of passing.

We often say that it'd be interesting to have more centrist voices in the politics threads, but the ones that have become pillars of the community tend to post in a much more conversational and respectful manner.

― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:06 AM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Who is this "we"? The politics threads quite literally belittle and badger leftists all the time. Also, on a more personal note, I have never said to myself, "what this politics thread needs is more centrism." I get enough of that manufactured consent crap already, thanks.

That said, agreed with your post in general—

okay, the "we" is some leftists including me and some other people, but not all of the leftists

"Big" Don, you do appear to be new around here, so lemme just say this forum is, over the long haul, shifting away from a kinda snarky, "bring it, debate me, I'm here to drop hard zings" vibe, to something more collegial and encouraging of conversation.

― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 25 November 2020 17:06 (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Notwithstanding interjections since, doc, this is at best a mixed truth

You would know.