US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1332

On April 17 2019 00:03 Sermokala wrote:
Sanders campaign negotiated for this you have to remember. For FOX and CNN its content which gives sanders some leverage to only agree to what he wants to do.

On April 17 2019 00:34 farvacola wrote:
Reading a prohibition against provision of duplicative private health insurance as a prohibition against all private health insurance is not sound, particularly without a granular understanding of what will be publicly provided (“the proposal is broad, therefore private insurance will be broadly prohibited” reads “duplicative” too narrowly too early). Germany and other countries with public option/private insurance schemes have similar rules in effect.

On April 17 2019 00:43 farvacola wrote:
Again though, “cover services” implicates a host of specific details that can/could operate as a means of distinguishing duplicative insurance service provisions from distinct service provisions, which is precisely what a pre-reg, pre-statute policy (and accompanying discussions) should allow for. There is plenty of room for a hybrid regime based on the little that has been released so far.

The timing of care provision/approval is itself a basis for distinguishing private insurance from the public option.

On April 17 2019 01:10 xDaunt wrote:


What's your authority for this proposition? I guarantee you that it is false. For one, that kind of loophole would completely undermine Bernie's bill. The purpose of the noncompetition clause is to function as a cost control. Allowing market competition for any given service would undermine that purpose. What doc is going to sign up for Bernie's Medicare for none service when they can get paid more by private insurance? More to the point, however, the plain text of the bill suggests that this proposition is false. I guarantee you that "service" will be defined specifically within the bill, and it's meaning will likely be discrete, identifiable types of medical care without regard to the timing of that service. So a covered service might be something like a "knee replacement surgery." It won't be a "knee replacement surgery that I can get after waiting 6 months" or whatever the delay is from the rationing of care. No court will read a timing provision into the statute that isn't explicitly put in there. And there is simply no way that Bernie is going to put one in there.

On April 17 2019 01:35 Plansix wrote:
The argument does seem to hinge on no one ever amending or updating the legislation for "medicare for all" when complications arise.

On April 17 2019 01:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


Why fix Obamacare when you can run on repealing it for 8 years? No reason to suspect this will be any different.

On April 17 2019 01:05 JimmiC wrote:
If the US decided to go actual universal health care, or end the insane practice of having for profit jails. How would they go about doing that? Would they have to buyout all the companies that are running them currently? Could they just take them over? I'm guess the courts wouldn't allow that.

Like is there really any legal way to do it? Or is regulation on insurance and government funding that insurance the only way?

On April 17 2019 01:55 Garbels wrote:
100 new posts and half of them arguing if Trump ran on taxcuts.
Because aparently saying "I'm gona lower your taxes (wait for applause)" at the end of every(hyperbole) rally is somehow not campaigning to everybody.

On April 17 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote:
I have to give it to Fox news, they have turned AOC, Pelosi and Ilhan Omar into a full blown liberal/left lady pro-wrestling. There isn't a single day they don't run a story like the one below, trying to throw more read meat into the ring. This article has had three headlines as far as I can tell, so they really want ti to get that traction. This recent headline is real smart if the people reading it don't understand how congress works or how voting in the House functions(there are a lot of votes that just work on party lines)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-vote-ocasio-cortez-pelosi

I've been happy to see how AOC has navigated this and managed to not feed into the narrative that she can't handle the Speaker of the House, or that there is even a feud. Pelosi gave some choice quotes during a few interviews, but AOC is smart enough not to feed into the division machine by jumping on that fight. At least in public. Of course centrist democrats in the house will bitch and moan, but that is sort of what they do all the time anyways.

The disturbing part is how quickly Fox New and the social media grifters latched onto these women in congress and how obsessed they seem with them. Just yesterday there were the typical characters on twitter talking about Ilhan Omar and Notre-Dame like the two are somehow connected.

On April 17 2019 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't doubt that this will be effective messaging for many on the right to dismiss Bernie's proposal (along with a host of other more simple dismissals) what I question is whether it's effective at people Bernie is actually targeting.

This is going to be one of those things where people look around the world and presume we'll figure it out imo. Independent of the validity of that assumption. There are also a lot of people in the center/right area that will just look at their current situation and decide "f it" and give Sanders a roll like many did Trump.

On April 17 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote:


My critiques aren't "messaging" or "marketing." They are substantive policy criticisms. Bernie's referral to his plan as "Medicare for all" is marketing (and, frankly, it is quite effective marketing given how popular Medicare is), and it is fraudulent marketing at that.

On April 17 2019 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


AOC, Omar, Katie Porter, and handful of others are exposing both parties for the shells they are imo.

Observing their environment and very rudimentary questions are being hailed as visionary and unprecedented because both parties have just been pretending for so long that someone actually doing their job looks out of place.

As to the conflict it's real between Omar and Pelosi but because of their rush to condemn her and silence to stand up for her when her life was threatened. AOC is already showing signs of being groomed imo, just hoping she doesn't get too coopted.

On April 17 2019 02:40 Plansix wrote:

Pelosi has never been the left’s problem, IMO. She is the leader of a group of centrist, but no one that wouldn’t push the party left if she thought it would stand a chance of being law. Without her, I don’t believe the ACA or any healthcare law would have passed back in 2008 because of assholes like Joe Liberman and others trying to kill it. Of course, she is in a position of power and that makes her part of the problem as well, even if she is the most malleable part of the problem. The bitching about her has always come from the centrists, moderate democrats as long as I have been alive. If AOC learns one thing from her, it should be how to slap around shitty centrist democrats.