Liz and Pete on ''access" to MFA
Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 11/17/2019 - 4:29pm
This video is so damning. pic.twitter.com/hg19tSzMf8
— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) November 17, 2019
Wait..did Warren say that the hideously flawed ACA is a corrupt and wasteful system? Why yes she did. This is why millions of us want to get rid of it, Liz and put something better in its place. People say that we should get to choose if we want MFA or stay with our insurance that makes thousands file for bankruptcy and millions who still can't afford to use their insurance because of the high deductibles. Don't most people have to go into the Medicare system when they turn 65? BTW if if people like Obama, Warren and Pete think that it's not feasible to do MFA then how did it happen after FDR implemented Medicare?
Comments
Great point
But here's Obama trying to sow discord in the primary. Careful, Barry. Vlad might get upset that others are doing what he is accused of doing.
The message echoes from Gaza back to the US. “Starving people is fine.”
Didn't Rahm Emanuel
refer to we lefties as fucktards? I do not recall Obama firing him for that.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Some of Clark's tweet echoes Obama, not just Trump
Take Drumpf's name out of the tweet and we have a description of BHO. Barry's TPP pimping would have raised the wealth of the elites at the expense of those who have less. Jobs gone, economy bottoming. But, on the brighter side, influx of immigrants would be reduced by our Dem inspired failing economy.
Exactly
The names are easily exchanged for who is doing or who did what. But it's a great point that Obama's criticism doesn't apply to the things Trump is doing just like people who become his fans when he furthers the global hegemony agendas.
I posted some of Obama's comments after DK members went after the democrats that voted for Roberts where he was giving cover for not only their votes on Roberts, but for when democrats don't stand up to the GOP. The people who disagreed with Obama talked a lot about democrats growing a spine and other sayings we had during Bush's tenure when democrats just let him walk all over them. It's amazing that people are still telling democrats to grow a spine today, but what's even more amazing is the number of people who are telling those folks to sit down and shut up because we have to get Trump out of office.
The message echoes from Gaza back to the US. “Starving people is fine.”
Systemic incrementalism for the win!
Is this an attempt to peel off Buttigieg supporters due to his recent surge in the polls? I think I need an eclair, followed by another eclair, to make this imbecile-level thinking easier to cope with. In any case, the backlash can't be pretty. I wonder what the next Warren campaign's move is.
Your guess is as good as mine for what Warren is doing
From being all in on MFA to back tracking every week or so to this. But since she says that she wants all the things Bernie's offering then she should drop out and support him. But I'm not happy seeing pete rising in the polls. Seriously what do people see in him?
The message echoes from Gaza back to the US. “Starving people is fine.”
I never believed she was supporting Bernie's positions
I would not be surprised if health insurance stocks went up after her change of heart and mind. I also wonder and would not be surprised if instead of garnering a boost of Buttigieg supporters, Sanders gains her former supporters who were behind her because of M4A.
Personally, I do not believe she will ever endorse Bernie Sanders. She has shown herself to be nicely embedded in the Establishment and she would be excommunicado in an instant.
Yeah that was snark
I think she is only running to take votes away from Bernie and I'm not alone. Her campaign motto should be "Steal the Bern" because that is what she is doing and the media is playing right along with her.
The message echoes from Gaza back to the US. “Starving people is fine.”
LOL I missed the snark, sorry!
based on what I've seen on social media, a lot of people really bought Elizabeth Warren as a progressive who was largely on the same side of the issues as Bernie Sanders. (I am not sure how people could think that after she endorsed Omnishambles Clinton in 2015/6, but stranger things have happened.)
It's pretty clear to me that "progressive" has been co-opted by centrists, and they have been very successful in doing si. In another diary, there is a discussion about being "woke" and "wokeness," and I think the same has happened. Used to mean an understanding and awareness of racial and justice issues, now it's associated with meme fodder and fake allyship.
Progressive has definitely been co-opted by centrists
I remember during the Bush years people were against war and wanted single payer, but once Obama became president they changed their minds. I didn't see much pushback on the Libya and Syria wars. Nor for regime change in Honduras, .... and Ukraine and putting sanctions on Venezuela to force it. (sorry I've forgotten the other country)
People actually cheered when Hillary said that single payer would never ever happen here. Just wow. And those same people think Nancy is doing a heck of a job even though she is giving Trump everything he wants including more $$$$$$$ for the military. So I guess it's whatever Obama says is good is now good. SMDH!
The message echoes from Gaza back to the US. “Starving people is fine.”
Not just social
media commenters -- several well-known progressive podcasters acknowledge that Liz can generally be considered progressive and they would vote for her if she is the nominee. One maybe two of these p-casters have her as their first choice. Even passionate Bernie p-casters and show hosts, who dominate in that media group, don't dispute she is largely in the prog camp.
Without doubt most here put her not even in the BernieLite category -- and more often she's denigrated as a cheap, insincere Bernie Rip Off candidate. She's not my first or even second pick, but I do agree with most of the prog p-casters that overall she's at least progressive enough on enough issues.
Flawed though, as they all are. Maybe a few more flaws showing recently. Especially her lack of political experience. A gaffe recently in choosing to answer a question about what black people she would put in her cabinet -- a stupid IdPol question best not answered. Instead she pulled out the name of corporatist Deval Patrick, just before he got in the race. Unforced error.
As for her detailed M4A proposal, which lately seems more of a flexible, end-goal oriented idea, it's been endorsed by Wendell Potter, who has good credibility in most prog circles.
My view is that realistically any bold program is going to be watered down somewhat, even in the most ideal congressional circumstances, which Liz or Bernie wouldn't have anyway. The problem is that in trying to sound pragmatic and honest, she risks the perception that she is not fully committed to major reform. Another unforced error. Just state your proposal, be clear and consistent about it, and pledge to pull out all the stops to get it done. Both Liz and Pete have made missteps on M4A in being inconsistent.
Bernie is now tied for fourth in Iowa
Pete has rocketed ahead of the other three. See my post below.
Look at the most recent CBS Iowa poll
Bernie's tied for first with Biden, ahead of Buttigieg by one, and ahead of Warren by 4. Buttigieg is spending pretty much all his money there.
Let's face it. It's a horserace. The caucuses are February 2nd.
One explanation for the difference might be
Is that the Iowa poll was of committed or likely caucus goers.
Millennials are not going to show up or have much influence in caucus states, just like last time and that is Sanders strongest support group. They also support impeachment of Trump much more than older demographics.
Low age voters hurt Sanders last time in the delegate count by not having any influence at caucuses or not showing up to vote in primary elections.
And this time he has to contend with Warren who is perceived to be much more liberal than Clinton and will likely steal some of the votes he got last time.
I think Sanders is going to have a hard time getting delegates necessary to win. But they all look like they might.
Buttigieg is also doing well in NH. And that came out of nowhere as well. Go figure.
How is it even pronounced?
A last name that no one can pronounce? I still have no idea how it's pronounced. I rarely have a reason to say it out loud - but if I do I call him Bootyjig, although Buttyjig might be closer? I really don't know since I've never heard it spoken.
It's definitely not
"booty". "Boot-uh" might be more accurate.
I heard him recently pronounce his name as "Boot-uh-jidge".
Thank you
But, where's the d come from? Is it like the opposite of a silent letter? Instead of ignoring a letter in the spelling, a letter is added in the pronunciation. Weird.
It's Maltese
Pete's dad, recently deceased, immigrated from Malta in the 1970s. He was a professor at (the University of) Notre Dame in South Bend.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Prominent enough scholar to be in Wikipedia
It is strange to see a Maltese name look like it might be German.
Pete was raised Catholic but after spending time in England (at Oxford -- where else) and liking the Anglican church better, he converted to Episcopalian. Harvard bachelor's.
Something I knew nothing of, (who is this guy?) by the way, until he skyrocketed in the polls.
I don't think people understand what Medicare is
And since they don't, they don't understand the nuance of a discussion about it. They don't understand there is a lot that medicare does not cover and that you have to pay premiums for Part B and D and then get a private insurance supplement on top of that. Total cost can easily be $500 a month or more, sometimes $700 or 800.
Not only that, if you choose Medicare Advantage, Part C, that it just private insurance. It would not surprise me to find out that in some states Medicare Advantage could be fairly good and other places downright awful. If you can choose public or private insurance it is essentially a public option.
And so much of what Warren and Buttigieg say about M4A sounds like backtracking anytime there is a suggestion that it will not cost a dime or that private insurance might be part of the equation. But in reality, it is really people not understanding what Medicare is all about because an incompetent media, or a bought and paid for media, and deceptive partisan politicians don't want them to know.
They've made it
(Medicare) deliberately convoluted and confusing. That makes it easier to funnel the people where Big Insurance and Big Pharma want us, I guess.
The main reason why someone on original Medicare buys a private Medicare Supplement ("MediGap") policy is because original Medicare only pays 80% of your medical expenses. MediGap was created to make up the difference.
MedAdvantage came along later. The insurance industry loves MedAdvantage better than MediGap. That's because MedAdvantage is managed care, HMO/PPO, networks, pre-approval requirements, etc.
Original Medicare and MediGap are not managed care.
However, health care providers, except for hospitals, can choose not to accept original Medicare & mediGap. They can choose to accept only MedAdvantage, and the insurance companies are pressuring them to do just that.
I think people have gotten so used to the managed care system (the younger generations were born into it) that they can't conceive of anything else. The other day, in a discussion about M4A, I heard a young man say, "We need to have networks that cover the entire US, so you can get care from any provider you want."
He was reaching for something different from managed care - no networks at all - but he only has the managed care terminology and framework to describe it with.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Of course they have made it deliberatly confusing
But do you think that will stop with M4A? Confusion is likely to get worse. Confusion means big bucks to those who profit by it.
And if Obamacare is any indication of how Republicans will react to M4A, you can bet they will create every device and challenge possible to gut as much of it as they can. Obamacare kinda began as "affordable" for those who qualified for subsidies. It is not nearly as affordable today. My daughter's first Obamacare policy in 2014 with subsidies was $50 a month. Next year it will be $227. Her income has increased and she gets a smaller subsidy and she will be 7 years older both which increase premiums. Nevertheless, that is a huge increase brought on primarily by those indebted to the insurance lobby.
I don't see this kind of abuse stopping just because we flip to M4A. It might get worse when the insurance industry gets desperate. Eyes should be wide open about this.
Pete is up 9 in Iowa -- rocketed over second place Liz
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/11/...
Bernie and Joe are a point behind Liz.
This just boggles my mind
Who is voting for him and why? He isn't offering anything good.
The message echoes from Gaza back to the US. “Starving people is fine.”
He might be offering
a reassuring, less radical set of policies. Many folks outside this board are scared off by bold proposals -- "radical" or "extreme" ones as they put it.
Such is the case with my college-educated, former teacher current guest who has a decided preference for pragmatic centrists. Incremental change for her is ok, it's just the way things get done. Her choices, in order, are Pete, Amy and Joe. I doubt if she can be persuaded to go bolder. Even Liz for her is a bridge too far. I'm fairly sure she considers Bernie way off in the deep end.
She does agree that Obama was too moderate and naive in seeking to work with conservative forces for just a few crumbs of health care reform. On Russia I can't shake her from her severe Russophobia and Putin distrust. He invaded Crimea and is now in Ukraine and wants to take over the whole country, wants to reassemble the old Soviet Union. I suspect she has taken heavy doses of Rachel Maddow in recent years.