@gjohnsit Voted for Stein last time.

#1 richsplaining

Democratic Party activist and MSNBC guest claimed Friday that voters in support of Senator Bernie Sanders instead of Elizabeth Warren are revealing their "sexism."

Democratic strategist and former vice president of campaigns for the Center for American Progress, Emily Tisch Sussman, responded to several recent polls showing Warren surging ahead and placing herself next to former Vice President Joe Biden atop the 2020 candidates. Speaking with MSNBC's Craig Melvin Friday, Tisch Sussman relayed a comment about how Warren is so clearly a better candidate than Sanders that a vote for him indicates one is simply sexist against a female candidate for president.

Other critics noted Tisch Sussman is the daughter of billionaires and personally attacked her wealthy, New York establishment background.

"There is a ceiling, there is nowhere to go, there is no 'up' to go," she told the MSNBC panel Friday morning. "I actually heard someone saying something that I thought was an interesting point. But basically, if you are still supporting Sanders as opposed to Warren, it's kind of showing your sexism."
...
A male guest on MSNBC's The Contenders segment Friday agreed with Tisch Sussman's suggestion that supporting Sanders over Warren is a "sexist" move.

However, social media responses blasted Tisch Sussman's "sexism" claim and flipped the identity politics argument on its head in several comments. "If supporting Sanders over Warren means you're a sexist, then supporting Warren over Sanders means you're an anti-semite. It's only fair," replied one Twitter user. Many replies rebuked the comment as "divisive" and "unhelpful" to the Democratic presidential race as a whole.

Not here to be vote shamed by the 1%. I am supporting the only candidate who will always put the needs of people first.#MedicareForAll #GreenNewDeal #CancelStudentDebt #HousingForAll The list goes on & he literally writes the damn bills!#Bernie2020 https://t.co/XZLWUyVpuf

— Amy Vilela (@amy4thepeople) September 28, 2019

@gjohnsit is today's civil unions. Several election cycles back it was considered progressive and substantial reform.

#2
but not enough.
A public option would have been enough 10 years ago.

@Unabashed Liberal @Unabashed Liberal
I can't comment without knowing what you are saying.
EDIT: Typos

#2 #2

the Sanders and Jayapal proposals convert OM/TM to 'managed care,' several (that I've read) of the Public Option proposals basically convert OM/TM to the equivalent of a Medicare Advantage program.

Just speaking for me and Mr M--"no thanks!" We already receive 100% of all medical services covered by OM/TM. And, our private Medigap insurer "has no power to deny medical coverage." (obviously, unlike almost every other type of medical insurance product) Bottom line--our level of medical care/coverage should be extended to Everyone. And could be.

To clarify, all services that our public insurance program--Original/Traditional Medicare authorize--the insurer must pick up. No questions asked. Also, there are no provider networks in OM/TM. Nor, any need for referrals to see specialists, or, to obtain permission to get second, or even third/fourth medical opinions.

Which is to say--we are totally unrestricted in seeking additional medical consultations and/or care. (obviously, this is within reason; so, one can't insist on an appendectomy, if the appendix is normal )

This is exactly what we need to 'expand.' Not a managed care system with a RX formulary of almost all generics, riddled with so-called "Utilization Management" tools--which is simply an euphemism for 'managed care.'

BTW, I might note, that although both Sanders' and Jayapal's proposals touched on virtually ALL of our public/state health care systems/programs, yet, they were very careful NOT to take away their excellent care through the OFA. For that matter, there was nary even a mention of this excellent medical 'perk' (in their UMFA proposals). A perk, BTW, which is reserved only for a handful of elites.

Routine care

OAP provides members of Congress with physicals and routine examinations, on-site X-rays and lab work, physical therapy and referrals to medical specialists from military hospitals and private medical practices. When specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.[4]

Members of Congress do not pay for the individual services they receive at the OAP, nor do they submit claims through their federal employee health insurance policies. Instead, as of 2009, members pay a flat, annual fee of $503 for all the care they receive. The rest of the cost of their care is paid for by federal funding, from the U.S. Navy budget. The annual fee has not changed significantly since 1992.[4]

Actually, as someone who has received absolutely excellent treatment (at active duty military facilities, including a major medical center in the Lower 48), I wouldn't object to just opening up their cushy system to Everyone. Could use some of the hundreds, if not thousands, of unoccupied federal buildings that are sitting empty, and rotting, by converting them to medical facilities (since, obviously, what's available would not be sufficient).

Remember, the OAP provides medical care for the President, Vice-President, POTUS, and all 535 members of Congress. (Also, in emergencies, the OAP treats/stabilizes the condition of folks who fall ill while visiting some federal buildings/facilities.)

IMO, we should argue that we are entitled to medical care equal to theirs.

Have a nice weekend.

[Edited: Deleted 'receive.' 'to' replaced 'for.']

Mollie

“Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust. They serve us in return for scraps. It is without a doubt the best deal man has ever made.” ~~Roger Caras

@Unabashed Liberal
I don't favor the English model. I favor the German model. You choose your own doctor who is a private practitioner not a government employee. Insurance pays 100% of the fee. Insurance is paid for by payroll deduction. Fees and medicine prices are regulated by the government because the free market breaks down when you are talking about the price to stay alive and whole.

#2 #2

the Sanders and Jayapal proposals convert OM/TM to 'managed care,' several (that I've read) of the Public Option proposals basically convert OM/TM to the equivalent of a Medicare Advantage program.

Just speaking for me and Mr M--"no thanks!" We already receive 100% of all medical services covered by OM/TM. And, our private Medigap insurer "has no power to deny medical coverage." (obviously, unlike almost every other type of medical insurance product) Bottom line--our level of medical care/coverage should be extended to Everyone. And could be.

To clarify, all services that our public insurance program--Original/Traditional Medicare authorize--the insurer must pick up. No questions asked. Also, there are no provider networks in OM/TM. Nor, any need for referrals to see specialists, or, to obtain permission to get second, or even third/fourth medical opinions.

Which is to say--we are totally unrestricted in seeking additional medical consultations and/or care. (obviously, this is within reason; so, one can't insist on an appendectomy, if the appendix is normal )

This is exactly what we need to 'expand.' Not a managed care system with a RX formulary of almost all generics, riddled with so-called "Utilization Management" tools--which is simply an euphemism for 'managed care.'

BTW, I might note, that although both Sanders' and Jayapal's proposals touched on virtually ALL of our public/state health care systems/programs, yet, they were very careful NOT to take away their excellent care through the OFA. For that matter, there was nary even a mention of this excellent medical 'perk' (in their UMFA proposals). A perk, BTW, which is reserved only for a handful of elites.

Routine care

OAP provides members of Congress with physicals and routine examinations, on-site X-rays and lab work, physical therapy and referrals to medical specialists from military hospitals and private medical practices. When specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.[4]

Members of Congress do not pay for the individual services they receive at the OAP, nor do they submit claims through their federal employee health insurance policies. Instead, as of 2009, members pay a flat, annual fee of $503 for all the care they receive. The rest of the cost of their care is paid for by federal funding, from the U.S. Navy budget. The annual fee has not changed significantly since 1992.[4]

Actually, as someone who has received absolutely excellent treatment (at active duty military facilities, including a major medical center in the Lower 48), I wouldn't object to just opening up their cushy system to Everyone. Could use some of the hundreds, if not thousands, of unoccupied federal buildings that are sitting empty, and rotting, by converting them to medical facilities (since, obviously, what's available would not be sufficient).

Remember, the OAP provides medical care for the President, Vice-President, POTUS, and all 535 members of Congress. (Also, in emergencies, the OAP treats/stabilizes the condition of folks who fall ill while visiting some federal buildings/facilities.)

IMO, we should argue that we are entitled to medical care equal to theirs.

Have a nice weekend.

[Edited: Deleted 'receive.' 'to' replaced 'for.']

Mollie

“Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust. They serve us in return for scraps. It is without a doubt the best deal man has ever made.” ~~Roger Caras