2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

[oneniltothearsenal]

Bernie have said many times that the plan allows you to pick your own doctor and that is what he means by choosing your own health care provider that is the doctors.

Also be very wary when a politician use the word access as it used to fool people rhetorically just like Ted Cruz used it on a health care debate on CNN with Bernie Sanders in 2017 . Access is a very vague word and technically in USA everyone has access to health care providers under the same terms also known as cash. Beto have definitely been consulting with a spin doctor on this since he is framing it in this term that can fool people into believing something he really isn´t saying at all.

I don't trust any plan until I see the details. For Bernie, the main problem is the transition which I haven't seen him address in any detailed manner. That said I'll support any firm commitment.

 

[Raoul]

Safe to say, anyone who is underwater on their favorables/unfavorables going into next year isn't going to have much of a chance.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

That is doom for Bernie if another poll finds it; +2 instead of the usual +10/15. The change seems to be among Dem voters, with 21 unfavourable and only 60 positive.

They release polls too fast for my taste. I don't trust those are actually representative numbers rather than relative unknown trying too hard to make a name for themselves.

 

[berbatrick]

Editor-in-chief of the progressive standard-bearer Mother Jones.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Ubik]

They release polls too fast for my taste. I don't trust those are actually representative numbers rather than relative unknown trying too hard to make a name for themselves.

Are you talking about Quinnipiac here? They aren't unknown at all.

 

[Red Viking]

I don't trust any plan until I see the details. For Bernie, the main problem is the transition which I haven't seen him address in any detailed manner. That said I'll support any firm commitment.

Bernie have been trying to keep it somewhat simple to not confuse voters on this issue. But yeah i don´t blame you wanting more details regarding implementation of the new health care system. I do not think you can find anyone more committed to a Universal Health Care system in America than Bernie Sanders considering his long record of promoting it during his time as a politician.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Are you talking about Quinnipiac here? They aren't unknown at all.

Yes. Relative unknown for an academic institution.

I don't trust their polls at all. They are a tiny private university that lives off private donors and heavily investing their endowment in the stock market. They have a huge self-interest in promoting certain types of corporate candidates that advance their endowment's investment strategy. Its no surprise their polls reflect a suspicious result comparing Biden to Bernie.

The combination of their self-interest and the frequency of them publishing on twitter all time for publicity makes me disregard their polls as meaningless pr. These polls are intended to try to influence perception in the direction they want more than they are fair representations of the population.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Bernie have been trying to keep it somewhat simple to not confuse voters on this issue. But yeah i don´t blame you wanting more details regarding implementation of the new health care system. I do not think you can find anyone more committed to a Universal Health Care system in America than Bernie Sanders considering his long record of promoting it during his time as a politician.

For Bernie its not his commitment I question but ability to implement a plan effectively. Bernie is one I meant when I say I want to see a better team surrounding him. Get some health care economists who have spent years studying to come up with solid details and I'll have an easier sell to moderates and apathetic independents.

 

[Ubik]

Yes. Relative unknown for an academic institution.

I don't trust their polls at all. They are a tiny private university that lives off private donors and heavily investing their endowment in the stock market. They have a huge self-interest in promoting certain types of corporate candidates that advance their endowment's investment strategy. Its no surprise their polls reflect a suspicious result comparing Biden to Bernie.

The combination of their self-interest and the frequency of them publishing on twitter all time for publicity makes me disregard their polls as meaningless pr. These polls are intended to try to influence perception in the direction they want more than they are fair representations of the population.

From memory they actually had a bit of a Sanders lean during the primary, so I'm not sure that logic checks out. They've got an A- from 538 at any rate.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

From memory they actually had a bit of a Sanders lean during the primary, so I'm not sure that logic checks out. They've got an A- from 538 at any rate.

I'd have to see a link (see below). Plus they can be relatively accurate with the way Silver does his ratings and still be pushing an agenda. Especially if their agenda is to overwhelm perception early on with polls to reinforce certain views. People hear polls saying something is true every few days and the more they start to believe it subconsciously - that's just basic psychology.

---
This early poll doesn't lean Bernie at all for ex:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2221

 

[Eboue]

 

[Red Viking]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

This is a good article on Beto´s voting patterns in the past and it´s not looking good for him as it expose him for being a light Republican rather than a progressive.

"O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy."

This is just a taste of what can be found in this article. Beto O´Rourke is all pretty talk and more or less a Corporate Republican in all but name.

 

[Raoul]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

This is a good article on Beto´s voting patterns in the past and it´s not looking good for him as it expose him for being a light Republican rather than a progressive.

"O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy."

This is just a taste of what can be found in this article. Beto O´Rourke is all pretty talk and more or less a Corporate Republican in all but name.

I wouldn't put much stock in his older positions since he's clearly evolving as a politician and candidate over the past 6 months or so. It's the policy positions he has staked out during this last campaign that will likely inform the sorts of positions he takes going forward if he decides to run in 20.

 

[Red Viking]

I wouldn't put much stock in his older positions since he's clearly evolving as a politician and candidate over the past 6 months or so. It's the policy positions he has staked out during this last campaign that will likely inform the sorts of positions he takes going forward if he decides to run in 20.

Absolute nonsense with that newborn politician. You should trust a person´s record more than anything in politics. What he says now dosn´t match up with how he has been voting in the past and it is a radical change for all that to just happen all at once an opportunity to run for President arises, coincidence i think not. America need politicians that dosn´t change position whenever it is convenient to do so for personal gain because the political winds shifts in another direction than their core beliefs. But more politicians that you can trust to say what they mean and that actually fight for their beliefs in all times in convenient and inconvenient times.

 

[Raoul]

Absolute nonsense with that newborn politician. You should trust a person´s record more than anything in politics. What he says now dosn´t match up with how he has been voting in the past and it is a radical change for all that to just happen all at once an opportunity to run for President arises, coincidence i think not. America need politicians that dosn´t change position whenever it is convenient to do so for personal gain because the political winds shifts in another direction than their core beliefs. But more politicians that you can trust to say what they mean and that actually fight for their beliefs in all times in convenient and inconvenient times.

On the contrary, it's actually a good thing if politicians evolve their views over time if their original views of the past don't make much sense in the present. The fact that they are willing to change them is a good, not a bad thing. Other than Sanders, who has more or less been saying the same things for 40 years, there aren't many prominent politicians who don't at some point change their minds on one or two major policies.

 

[Red Viking]

On the contrary, it's actually a good thing if politicians evolve their views over time if their original views of the past don't make much sense in the present. The fact that they are willing to change them is a good, not a bad thing. Other than Sanders, who has more or less been saying the same things for 40 years, there aren't many prominent politicians who don't at some point change their minds on one or two major policies.

If you run for the office of president then there should be nothing left in doubt of what you believe in as it is extremely important position. While everyone do evolve as a person over time then Beto´s change is all too sudden for it to be credible. No one changes almost all their political beliefs so fast in a short amount of time like Beto supposedly has done. America needs a president that people can trust so people regain some faith in American democracy again.

 

[Raoul]

If you run for the office of president then there should be nothing left in doubt of what you believe in as it is extremely important position. While everyone do evolve as a person over time then Beto´s change is all too sudden for it to be credible. No one changes almost all their political beliefs so fast in a short amount of time like Beto supposedly has done. America needs a president that people can trust so people regain some faith in American democracy again.

I'm not particularly concerned whether his change is sudden or not. If anyone votes for him it will be based on the policies he is promoting in the present, not what he ran on six years ago. If you look at the recent Texas race vs Cruz, he certainly didn't run to the center or establishment.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/20/18102812/beto-orourke-2020-presidential-campaign

One big thing O’Rourke has going for him as a nominee is that he’s very ideologically generic. He didn’t tack to the center to try to win in Texas, and he has solid and normal Democrat position on basically every issue. At the same time, he’s not a self-identified “socialist” or anything too weird.

He’s a candidate that people who are proud to be Democrats — i.e., most Democratic Party primary voters — can be proud of. But he’s also not an “insider” or part of the “establishment.” He won his House seat thanks to a primary challenge to an entrenched incumbent, he was never in congressional leadership, his campaign eschewed corporate PAC money, and he has appealing normal-person interests like music and skateboarding.

 

[Red Viking]

The voting record shows what he has voted on over the years and not just 6 years ago. That vox report dosn´t match up with the examination of his voting patterns over 6 years as they are very far from progressive values as he voted with the Republican on many issues that conflict the idea that he is a normal democrat. Ideologically generic politicians are what is wrong with American politics as they are not willing to show what they believe in to the public. if you can call them ideologically generic then they are trying to win on Identity rather than their political beliefs. If he votes for deregulation of wall street and advances the interests of the fossil fuel industry while the same time helping the Republicans destroy the Affordable Care Act then you vote along the lines of the establishment politics, and that is what his voting record shows.

This guy ain´t an anti-establishment guy at all. That the Article mentions music and skateboarding is a Pr trick to make him look like the anti-establishment type and to sell him as a progressive type but he is far from that when you look over 6 years of voting.

 

[Raoul]

The voting record what was he has voted on over the years and not just 6 years ago. That vox report dosn´t match up with the examination of his voting patterns over 6 years as they are very far from progressive values as the voted with the Republican on many issues that conflict the idea that he is a normal democrat. Ideologically generic politicians are what is wrong with American politics as they are not willing to show what they believe in to the public. if you can call them ideologically generic then they are trying to win on Identity rather than their political beliefs. If he votes for deregulation of wall street and advances the interests of the fossil fuel industry while the same time helping the Republicans destroy the Affordable Care Act then you vote along the lines of the establishment politics, and that is what his voting record shows.

This guy ain´t an anti-establishment guy at all. That the Article mentions music and skateboarding is a Pr trick to make him look like the anti-establishment type and to sell him as a progressive type but he is far from that when you look over 6 years of voting.

That's the point of the blurb from the article. He's not anti-establishment at all, nor is he progressive - he's somewhere in the middle, which is why he is ideologically generic in a way where both factions can get behind him.

 

[Red Viking]

That's the point of the blurb from the article. He's not anti-establishment at all, nor is he progressive - he's somewhere in the middle, which is why he is ideologically generic in a way where both factions can get behind him.

You are not somewhere in the middle when you vote with the establishment on almost all mayor issue over 6 years. He is using the rhetoric like using the word Access to health care to imitate progressive values to fool people into voting for him but the way he votes is the opposite of that. The guy is a total hypocrite. He is an establishment politician that hopes to fool enough progressives in the democratic party to vote for him so the corporate democrats can ensure another period of pandering to corporations rather than the interests of the country as a whole. To portray him as someone in the middle is noway near the truth in political terms. He talks a good game but that is all and many Americans fall for nice rhetoric over political substances.

 

[Raoul]

You are not somewhere in the middle when you vote with the establishment on almost all mayor issue over 6 years. He is using the rhetoric like using the word Access to health care to imitate progressive values to fool people into voting for him but the way he votes is the opposite of that. The guy is a total hypocrite. He is an establishment politician that hopes to fool enough progressives in the democratic party to vote for him so the corporate democrats can ensure another period of pandering to corporations rather than the interests of the country as a whole. To portray him as someone in the middle is noway near the truth in politic terms. He talks a good game but that is all and many Americans fall for nice rhetoric over political substances.

Well he is somewhere in the middle when you consider he was people funded and amenable to universal healthcare, which are two central components of the progressive platform. So when you look at where he is in the present (not 3 or 6 years ago), he is in fact politically between both factions.

 

[Eboue]

RV doing the lords work

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

This is a good article on Beto´s voting patterns in the past and it´s not looking good for him as it expose him for being a light Republican rather than a progressive.

"O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy."

This is just a taste of what can be found in this article. Beto O´Rourke is all pretty talk and more or less a Corporate Republican in all but name.

You've raised a lot of good points that bear more critical look into where Beto is really coming from.

But the bold and comments like it always wobble my mind. A hyper-conservative Heritage foundation idea, written by the HMOs and pharmaceuticals that had only been implemented by Mitt Romney is somehow being held up as a standard for progressives? To be honest I don't believe anyone can support the ACA and call themselves a progressive. Anyone that voted for Obamacare in 2010 needs to prove their progressive credentials and explain why they voted for a conservative plan. With Obama co-opting such a corporate right-wing health care plan, that entire issue is just corrupted. A lot of progressives I know have always opposed Obamacare from the left. If Beto is in a district where the conservatives oppose ACA from the right and the progressives opposed ACA from the left his vote can certainly be understood. I just think that specific issue shouldn't be lumped in with any others because Obama corrupted the health care issue for many. You should have heard some of my calls to the Democrat Congressional Rep of my district 2008-2010.

Protecting a corporate Heritage Foundation plan absolutely should not be a litmus test for being a progressive.

 

[Red Dreams]

The first step towards Universal Health Care is to introduce a Public Option.
Any candidate that does not even support that does not get my vote.

 

[Red Viking]

You've raised a lot of good points that bear more critical look into where Beto is really coming from.

But the bold and comments like it always wobble my mind. A hyper-conservative Heritage foundation idea, written by the HMOs and pharmaceuticals that had only been implemented by Mitt Romney is somehow being held up as a standard for progressives? To be honest I don't believe anyone can support the ACA and call themselves a progressive. Anyone that voted for Obamacare in 2010 needs to prove their progressive credentials and explain why they voted for a conservative plan. With Obama co-opting such a corporate right-wing health care plan, that entire issue is just corrupted. A lot of progressives I know have always opposed Obamacare from the left. If Beto is in a district where the conservatives oppose ACA from the right and the progressives opposed ACA from the left his vote can certainly be understood. I just think that specific issue shouldn't be lumped in with any others because Obama corrupted the health care issue for many. You should have heard some of my calls to the Democrat Congressional Rep of my district 2008-2010.

Protecting a corporate Heritage Foundation plan absolutely should not be a litmus test for being a progressive.

The Republicans have for a long time wished to destroy the Affordable Care Act for the wrong reasons and that is to increase the profits of the pharmaceutical industry and the private insurance companies as the lot of them take huge bribes from them. This is why the current administration is trying to get the Supreme court to abolish the ACA for being unconstitutional so they can replace it with something far worse that will be devastating for ordinary Americans. The ACA is better than what it replaced but it was far from being what the country needed. Beto O´Rourke have aided the Republicans in their endeavour to destroy the ACA without replacing it with something better. Replacing the ACA is the right choice but only if something better is being put in place otherwise the cost in human life will be obscene.

 

[Red Dreams]

Every Republican senator standing in 2020 for election who voted to repeal the ACA will go down in flames.
The ACA is far from perfect, but it was a first imperfect step to Universal health care.

Obama was gutless not to fight for the Public Option.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

A rather amusing tidbit and probably why @Eboue is willing to consider her.

 

[Sweet Square]

Beto is one of the many reasons why the term ''Progressive'' is fecking useless.

 

[Raoul]

Beto is one of the many reasons why the term ''Progressive'' is fecking useless.

It is a rather pointless label that means increasingly less as time goes by.

 

[Red Dreams]

Gillibrand?
She is a Hillary appointee...Caroline Kennedy was supposed to have got that seat but the bitter crone intervened.

I have my doubts.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I have to disagree that was an effective or meaningful "first step" to universal healthcare. In fact I think it was the polar opposite; it prevented any meaningful first steps toward a public option. I feel like Democrats saying "it was better than what we had before" is a bit like Trump claiming the USMCA is better than NAFTA. The main problem is Obamacare did absolutely nothing to change the perverse incentives that make privatized health care so inefficient and ineffective for the population and at the same time it created even more ingrained corporate bureaucracy. The good things some states did do, like California expanding coverage, could have been achieved much easier and simpler without all the Heritage foundation garbage Obama forced on us and I would argue California would have expanded coverage anyway without Obama so not sure how much he really helped.

Then Obamacare created new disastrous incentives by enforcing all this employer based health care crap. The result is that many private and public employers will now only hire people 19-20 hours to avoid giving them benefits. That's a new problem that Obama created. I heard from a family friend who works 50-60 hours at a week at three jobs but gets no healthcare. No employer will hire for more than 19 hours because then they have to pay benefits. I've seen college campuses try to hire classified employees at 19 hrs/week to avoid giving them benefits. So there are a helluva lot of unintended bad consequences to Obamacare that rarely get discussed because Democrats pretend its all roses and Republicans are busy attacking it for kooky reasons.

The positive impact of the ACA gets vastly overstated by Democrats. Technically I am counted as one of the statistics that Obamacare is helping. I was uninsured before 2010 and now technically I am under Covered California which is basically a shitty HMO plan that forces me to see certain doctors and specialists in their crappy pool. I can't afford expensive PPO insurance for myself (paid for it for the kids though). To be honest I feel like I will get worse health care now if anything happened. If something happened before I could goto the emergency room of the best local hospital and eventually declare bankruptcy to wipe out my medical expense. That wouldn't be economically efficient for the rest of the taxpayers who bailed me out but its definitely preferable for me to go to the best local hospital rather than go to wherever this HMO plan is sending me and to doctors I can't select myself.

I certainly don't trust Republicans to do the right thing but protecting the ACA is not something I want as a progressive. For me its the public option and no compromise. We need universal healthcare.

 

[Red Dreams]

Medicare expansion has already happened under the ACA.
That is why even Republican Governors are against gutting it. It also says how many people are living at or near poverty levels.
Universal health care is happening. Its a matter of how soon.

In Minnesota the Governor elect fought for a Public Option. He has the House and only one short in the Senate. Think he will get his way.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

It is a rather pointless label that means increasingly less as time goes by.

Every label is pointless. Labels are too reductive and as Orwell would say a substitute for original thinking.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Medicare expansion has already happened under the ACA.
That is why even Republican Governors are against gutting it. It also says how many people are living at or near poverty levels.
Universal health care is happening. Its a matter of how soon.

In Minnesota the Governor elect fought for a Public Option. He has the House and only one short in the Senate. Think he will get his way.

What I am questioning is that medicare expansion is happening because of the ACA. The ACA is a monstrosity and a handful of select individual aspects that might be considered "good" could have happened much easier and more efficiently without all the bloated crap that comes with it.

I think California for example probably could have developed a better plan than this shit one I get from ACA based Covered California without all the Obamacare beaucracy getting involved.

 

[Raoul]

Medicare expansion has already happened under the ACA.
That is why even Republican Governors are against gutting it. It also says how many people are living at or near poverty levels.
Universal health care is happening. Its a matter of how soon.

In Minnesota the Governor elect fought for a Public Option. He has the House and only one short in the Senate. Think he will get his way.

The ACA has definitely served a valuable purpose in moving the needle to the next stage towards what may eventually become the Sanders plan. Once something becomes an entitlement and the public begin to rely on it for their basic welfare, then it's really hard for Republicans or anyone else to remove it without the prospects of paying a massive political price.

 

[Red Dreams]

What I am questioning is that medicare expansion is happening because of the ACA. The ACA is a monstrosity and a handful of select individual aspects that might be considered "good" could have happened much easier and more efficiently without all the bloated crap that comes with it.

I think California for example probably could have developed a better plan than this shit one I get from ACA based Covered California without all the Obamacare beaucracy getting involved.

Actually I have been rather surprised that California does not already have at least a Public Option.
Perhaps with the new legislature?

As for the ACA. Lets remember The Democrats in power then were Corporatists. These same people are still fighting the True progressives about Universal Health Care as a policy platform for 2020.

 

[Red Dreams]

The ACA has definitely served a valuable purpose in moving the needle to the next stage towards what may eventually become the Sanders plan. Once something becomes an entitlement and the public begin to rely on it for their basic welfare, then it's really hard for Republicans or anyone else to remove it without the prospects of paying a massive political price.

I agree. Could things have moved quicker with a Public Option? Yes. But here we are.

Bernie has said he will fight for Medicare for All. But he would be willing to compromise with a Public Option.

A public Option will totally dismantle the health Insurance industry.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

The ACA has definitely served a valuable purpose in moving the needle to the next stage towards what may eventually become the Sanders plan. Once something becomes an entitlement and the public begin to rely on it for their basic welfare, then it's really hard for Republicans or anyone else to remove it without the prospects of paying a massive political price.

The suggestion that a Heritage Foundation right wing idea that created a massive new private sector bureaucracy that will do everything to protect itself by keeping health insurance privatized is somehow a "valuable" step in moving towards universal public health insurance is neither logically valid nor supported by empirical examples. Its just a myth you are repeating.

Actually I have been rather surprised that California does not already have at least a Public Option.
Perhaps with the new legislature?

As for the ACA. Lets remember The Democrats in power then were Corporatists. These same people are still fighting the True progressives about Universal Health Care as a policy platform for 2020.

Agreed. Its why I spend time arguing with suggestions like Raoul's that the ACA was necessary or 'valuable'. California hasn't had a public option because too many of the top Democrats are entrenched corporatists like Feinstein or they are just their own brand of wing nut like Jerry Brown none of whom have historically cared about the idea. Only Newsom of the state wide politicians has cared enough to talk about universal health insurance.

 

[Raoul]

I agree. Could things have moved quicker with a Public Option? Yes. But here we are.

Bernie has said he will fight for Medicare for All. But he would be willing to compromise with a Public Option.

A public Option will totally dismantle the health Insurance industry.

Its definitely going to be an incremental process. There will definitely be no medicare for all in the next Presidency given the current precarious political dynamics in the house and senate, so the best the Dems (even with Sanders as President) would get is some sort of patchwork fix for Obamacare that will reimpose the individual mandate again to bring costs down.