Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Regardless of the virtues of Medicare For All, speaking just politically (as in winning elections) I think Medicare For All (MFA) is a losing proposal.

    Even with the Democratic party it does not have majority support once you look closer. From recent Monmouth University Poll:
    On the issue of health care, 58% of party voters say it is very important to them that the Democrats nominate someone who supports “Medicare for All.” Another 23% say it is somewhat important, 10% say it is not important, and 9% are unsure. However, it is not clear that Medicare for All means the same thing to all voters. When asked specifically about what type of health insurance system they prefer, 53% of Democratic voters say they want a system that offers an opt in to Medicare while retaining the private insurance market. Just 22% say they want to move to a system where Medicare for All replaces private insurance. Another 7% prefer to keep insurance private for people under 65 but regulate the costs and 11% want to leave the system basically as it is now.

    Those who prefer a public option are divided into two camps that include 18% who would like to move to a universal public insurance system eventually and 33% who say that there should always be the choice of private coverage. In other words, only 4-in-10 Democrats want to get rid of the private insurance market when the 22% who want Medicare for All now are combined with the 18% who would like to move to a universal public system at some point in the future.

    “We asked the public option question in our Iowa poll earlier this month and got a lot of flak from Medicare for All advocates who claim that polls show widespread support for their idea. It seems from these results, though, the term has a wide range of meanings among Democratic voters. Many conflate the public-only program name with a public option. There is a lot more nuance in public opinion on this issue that could become problematic for proponents as voters become more familiar with what Medicare for All actually entails,” said Murray.

    The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from August 16 to 20, 2019 with 800 adults in the United States. Results in this release are based on 298 registered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, which has a +/- 5.7 percentage point sampling margin of error. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

    And this is before the highly effective Republican and insurance industry fear-mongering has begun! And this doesn't count Republicans!

    It's just common sense: If you force people to accept something that you think will be (and may well be) good for them, there are going to people who resist, especially when it comes to health care. However, if you give them a choice (public option) then there's no reason to resist.

    Or to use the phraseology of my man, Pete Buttigieg, who proposes Medicare For All Who Want It, you are not forcing the people who don't want (and want to keep their current coverage, warts and all) to succumb. Requiring people to accept MFA only loses you votes.

    With Medicare For All Who Want It, you get the support of everybody who wants to be covered by a MFA system, without raising the fear and resistance of people who are not too sure about that just yet, and who's fear is certain to be stoked by the Republican. And its a really easy issue to stoke fear about! So if people aren't ready to give up the private/company/union health care, they can still vote for the Democrat without hesitation!

    Why force people (which they will see as the government taking something away) when there's a fine option to let them choose? That's just bad politics, which plays right into Trumps hands.
    Last edited by Barry; 09-01-2019 at 11:45 PM.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 8 members:

  3. TopTop #2
    M/M's Avatar
    M/M
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Barry wrote: View Post
    Regardless of the virtues of Medicare For All, speaking just politically (as in winning elections) I think Medicare For All (MFA) is a losing proposal. ....
    Medicare for All who want it is another divide-and-conquer strategy.... It ignores much of how private insurers make deals w/hospitals to reimburse only so much and also over charge to make up losses... how it denies care... et cetera... And, does one give up one's voice, one's preference, to choose what may 'win' - based on polls that may be skewed, devised to prove or drive home a particular point?

    Article has good interview snippets w/both Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker:
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...bernie-sanders
    Activist Ady Barkan's "Heartfelt" and "Moving" Conversation With Bernie Sanders on the Fight for Medicare for All

    Everyone should have health care.
    Last edited by Barry; 11-11-2019 at 08:28 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  5. TopTop #3
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote M/M wrote: View Post
    Medicare for All who want it is another divide-and-conquer strategy.... .. And, does one give up one's voice, one's preference, to choose what may 'win' - based on polls that may be skewed, devised to prove or drive home a particular point?.....
    Everyone should have health care.
    well, even though I wouldn't explain it that way - even if it was a divide & conquer strategy - well, that's often a solid strategy! Wishing the polls were skewed doesn't help. There's very little evidence that they are, and well respected pollsters who back them. So if the goal is to get everyone health care, dividing the opposition and taking victories one at a time seems like a cunning plan (tm). Those supporting it have explained in detail why it makes sense to them. Most of the MA proponents explain why it'd be a good thing, which may be true but isn't the point; not if its proponents can't put it into place.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  7. TopTop #4
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    What was it Reagan said? The nine scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" ?

    There are millions of democrats who have good private health insurance who will not, under any circumstance, give it up for some promised government program.

    There are even more who will simply not trust a government program- period.

    And...as I've said before- "medicare for all" will be a nightmare. The government- which can shift views and values every 2 years- will decide what is- and what isn't covered. Just a few things that might change between governments: Womens health. Contraception. Abortion. Addiction treatment. How about HIV treatment? Or HIV prevention "(PREP/Truvada) ? Hormones or reassignment surgery for transgenders? How about genetic diseases that tend to target minorities?

    And what would this do to the healthcare system- where coverages may be tied up in court for years... and where hospitals and doctors have to worry if the services they provide today will be covered tomorrow?

    And...what will it do to drug development- when the government not the free market decides if a drug makes it market? What does this mean for the myriad of drugs that when first put out were, at best, marginally better then existing drugs... but doctors started to realize that they were were far more effective for another condition than existing drugs?


    Now the caveat- most of us are smart enough to know that despite promises- "medicare for all" will never pass congress. the ACA was a thinly won victory- that we've been fighting over ever since. But just the (false) promise of "medicare for all" will turn off a huge portion of democrats. I for one would never vote for anyone backing such a flawed plan.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  9. TopTop #5
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    ...And...what will it do to drug development- when the government not the free market decides if a drug makes it market? What does this mean for the myriad of drugs that when first put out were, at best, marginally better then existing drugs... but doctors started to realize that they were were far more effective for another condition than existing drugs?...
    rats, thought this was played out..
    but really? you think government/CDC would do worse that big Pharma as for developing new medical treatment?
    I also can't quite interpret your posited history of 'myriad of drugs'.. are you suggesting that for-profit pharma has put out a bunch of drugs that were considered of marginal use at best but instead turned out to be really great for other things? I suspect this happens but if it's typical, and if it's something that is more likely to happen when drugs are developed for-profit rather than by pure-research institutions, I'd like to hear the evidence.
    I'll pit horror stories of for-profit drug development vs. disfunctional government/academic research institutions any time.

    (ok, don't take me up on it.. I don't have a pack-rat memory enough to collect stories like that. It's just a plausible assertion for interweb debate...)
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. TopTop #6
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Thanks for your comments, everybody, but you are getting into the weeds and morality of health care policy.

    My point is that we need to win this election, to save the planet, besides improving health care. Regardless of profits, morality, advantages/disadvantages of MFA, when polled properly and subjected to Republican fear-mongering, we're going to lose votes in the general election vs a Medicare for All Who Want It plan.

    I'm a big supporter of Pete Buttigieg, but I also think Elizabeth Warren if great, too, but I fear her support for MFA may well cost us the (general) election!

    Please put aside what you think is "right" or "best" and start thinking about the strongest position to take to win this election, while advancing the ball.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  11. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  12. TopTop #7
    spam1's Avatar
    spam1
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote podfish wrote: View Post
    ...for-profit pharma has put out a bunch of drugs that were considered of marginal use at best but instead turned out to be really great for other things?
    I believe that Sildenafil citrate fits that description. It was developed to help control high blood pressure.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. TopTop #8
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote spam1 wrote: View Post
    I believe that Sildenafil citrate fits that description. It was developed to help control high blood pressure.
    oh I know it happens. My quibble was to whether that was particularly common, and even more as to whether that's a feature peculiar to profit-making pharma vs. other researchers. I think it's quibbleable.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #9

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Barry wrote: View Post
    Thanks for your comments, everybody, but you are getting into the weeds and morality of health care policy.

    My point is that we need to win this election, to save the planet, besides improving health care. Regardless of profits, morality, advantages/disadvantages of MFA, when polled properly and subjected to Republican fear-mongering, we're going to lose votes in the general election vs a Medicare for All Who Want It plan.

    I'm a big supporter of Pete Buttigieg, but I also think Elizabeth Warren if great, too, but I fear her support for MFA may well cost us the (general) election!

    Please put aside what you think is "right" or "best" and start thinking about the strongest position to take to win this election, while advancing the ball.
    If your concerns are genuinely as stated, that the primary objective needs to be winning this election, and your issue with MFA is that the polls indicate it would be a deal breaker for the Democrats in the general, then why are you supporting Buttigieg? He barely, if at all, polls ahead of Trump.

    I find it difficult to believe that your issues with Sanders, Warren and Medicare for All, are merely rooted in your deep concern that we must win the Oval. Bernie, who wrote the damn bill, polls second behind Biden in a match up between him and Trump. On the other hand, Buttigeig frequently polls behind Trump, or at best barely beating him with less than the margin of error difference.

    Are we to believe that the most important agenda item in your opinion is winning the general election while you simultaneously attempt to direct us toward Buttigieg?

    If the vital agenda is winning, regardless of what comes with the package, then by all accounts you should be supporting Biden. Currently via the most recent Real Clear Politics poll, Biden beats Trump by +12.2 points, Bernie beats Trump by +8.6, Warren by +5.4 and your man Buttigieg barely squeaks by with a 2 point lead. Close enough to give it to Trump with no questions asked.....

    Looks to me like your backing a losing horse in a race that you suggest is so important to win that we should “put aside what we think is 'right' or 'best' and start thinking about the strongest position to take to win this election, while advancing the ball.”

    All of the polls, past and present, coupled with candidate's policies, indicate that both elements of your established criteria, winning and advancing the ball, are best achieved with the highest probability of success by supporting Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden is a stronger win but doesn't advance the ball.

    Buttigieg on the other hand does neither. He is the centrist DNC darling who will do nothing to significantly change the paradigm and, as polls suggest, has an extremely small chance of beating Trump.

    How do you reconcile supporting a candidate who has the least observable ability to fit your stated primary objective, winning the general election?

    Secondly, how do you reconcile supporting a candidate who, by his record of accomplishments after 8 years as South Bend's Mayor, has done little to 'advance the ball' in his own town regarding poverty, racial discrimination, unemployment and class divide, to name just a few major issues of national social importance?

    With all due respect, considering you started this thread imploring us to put aside what might be right or best for those less privileged than ourselves, I think it's a fair request to ask that you weigh in with some explanation of your seemingly self-defeating approach to the upcoming elections.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  16. TopTop #10
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!


    Elizabeth Warren's choice:
    'Medicare for All' purity or a path to beating Donald Trump?

    Jill Lawrence, USA TODAYPublished 4:00 a.m. ET Sept. 23, 2019

    Warren is not as all or nothing as her health care rhetoric suggests. But her support for phasing out private insurance is scaring people off.

    Elizabeth Warren is increasingly less of a long shot to win the Democratic presidential nomination, as a new Iowa poll shows. She now has a window to either expand her appeal to millions of voters who are uncertain about her candidacy, or make sure they write her off.

    It all comes down to health care.

    The Massachusetts senator portrays herself as the candidate of dreaming big and fighting hard. That is working well when it comes to her signature promise of fixing what she calls a rigged economic system that favors rich people and corporations at the expense of much of the rest of America.

    Financial struggles and insecurity are problems that know no party, after all. And polls show 6 in 10 believe that wealthy people aren't paying their fair share. The same large majority favors raising their income taxes or (as Warren has proposed) imposing a wealth tax. An even larger 69% say corporations aren't paying enough.

    Warren's support for "Medicare for All" and the phaseout of almost all private insurance, however, is working much less well. In fact, it’s scaring people off.

    People want choices on health care

    Seven in 10 like the idea
    of giving everyone a choice
    between private insurance
    or a public, government-run
    option...
    Even a majority of
    Democrats favor that
    approach over
    Medicare for All.
    Warren won predictable applause at the last Democratic debate when she declared, “I've actually never met anybody who likes their health insurance company.” They like their doctors, nurses and pharmacists, she said, and they’d be able to keep them — the only difference would be the bill would go to the government, not an insurance company.

    That tremendously oversimplifies an intensely personal, complicated issue.

    A few months ago, a friend told me over dinner that he liked his health insurance and would oppose any plan or candidate that forced him to give it up. That came as an utter shock, but then I considered the sources of our respective plans. He has excellent insurance through a top university. I have expensive, skimpy insurance in an industry that has fallen on hard times.

    There are lots of people with marginal insurance or no coverage at all. But there are also lots of people like my friend. That has become increasingly clear as unions, a core Democratic constituency, defend the private health insurance plans they have negotiated, sometimes giving up higher wages in exchange.

    Polling reflects this reluctance to throw out the existing patchwork of private insurance and public plans like Medicare and Medicaid. Most people prefer to build on the current system, the premise of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rather than move to Medicare-only. Seven in 10 like the idea of giving everyone a choice between private insurance or a public, government-run option (like Medicare, for instance). Even a majority of Democrats favor that approach over Medicare for All.

    Medicare for All as 'goal' to fight for

    Former Vice President Joe Biden, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who all oppose eliminating private insurance companies, make arguments tailored to those numbers. Buttigieg at the debate framed Sen. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan as “my way or the highway” versus trust and choice, as in Buttigieg's proposal for Medicare for all who want it: “I trust the American people to make the right choice for them.”

    Warren's health plan is headlined “Health care is a basic human right” and says that while we must defend the ACA from damage, “it’s time for the next step.” That step is Medicare for All, "a goal worth fighting for." There are no specifics about costs, transitions, structure or timing. There are, however, details on other ways Warren is trying to improve health care.

    She has introduced bills to make drugs more affordable, expand mental health coverage and help communities fight the opioid epidemic. She has several proposals to ensure that rural areas have the health care facilities and workforce they need. And while she co-sponsored Sanders' Medicare for All bill, she has also co-sponsored a State Public Option Act to let states sell Medicaid plans to anyone, regardless of income.

    When you've lost Mia Farrow ...

    So Warren is not as all-or-nothing as her rhetoric suggests. She has plenty to talk about besides taking away private insurance. If she wanted to, she could sound more like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, also a Medicare for All backer. “There is an urgency right now in this nation. Everybody feels it," he said at the Sept. 12 debate. "And as a person who has an ideal, I know we cannot sacrifice progress on the altar of purity.”

    This may be a matter of trying to keep the focus on the highest, most aspirational goal, much as Republicans did when they ran on killing the ACA while Obama was in the White House with a veto pen. The difference is that their rallying cry mobilized the GOP base. Warren’s runs the risk of alienating even many liberal Democrats. Mia Farrow is hardly an average American or a swing voter, but she spoke for many when she tweeted after the last debate, “Love @ewarren but if people like their pvt healthcare, taking it away is too extreme.”

    If that's what Farrow says, imagine what President Donald Trump would say.

    Warren's Medicare for All emphasis may be part of why she is surging (apparently at the expense of Sanders) in Iowa, which kicks off the nominating season Feb. 3. But as the Democrats' 2020 standard bearer, a prospect not out of the question, she’d be saddled with a position making it much harder to achieve the overarching goal of more than half the country: beating Trump.


    Jill Lawrence is the commentary editor of USA TODAY and author of "The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock." Follow her on Twitter: @JillDLawrence
    Last edited by Barry; 09-27-2019 at 12:53 PM.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. Gratitude expressed by:

  18. TopTop #11
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    ^^^ well, first- as to the Iowa poll mentioned... the reporting I saw on it also showed that only something like 18% of the voters that chose her in the poll were actually committed to her- the rest could swing elsewhere...

    And...as to healthcare- this is one of the things that concerns me most about Warren. For a person with a plan for absolutely everything... she has no health care plan. She's supported Sanders plan... though has hedged here and there it seems...

    And...as I've said before- I will never support nationalized healthcare in our country- our government is too chaotic to be trusted with it. Women's issues- especially reproductive issues, LGBTQ issues, other minority issues, addiction issues- will all swing with the political tides- which can change ever 2 years in this country. That is *NOT* a workable solution for either the health care industry or its patients (ie: us).
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. Gratitude expressed by:

  20. TopTop #12
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    The Hill: Poll: Voters back Medicare expansion, keeping private insurance

    The majority of voters in a new poll supports a health care plan that would expand a public option but maintain the private insurance industry.

    Sixty-seven percent of registered voters support allowing people under 65 to have an option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program, while keeping private insurance options available, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll released Sunday.

    Less than half of registered voters, 41 percent, support a single-payer Medicare for All system that would eliminate the private health insurance industry, according to the survey

    That proposals are more popular among Democratic voters. But even among Democrats, keeping a private insurance option is more widely supported, pollsters found.

    The survey found 78 percent of Democratic primary voters said they support allowing people under 65 to have the option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program.

    A smaller percentage of Democratic voters, 63 percent, said they support a single-payer health care system that would eliminate private health insurance

    The results come as Democrats in the presidential primary debate different health care proposals. Progressive candidates such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) support a Medicare for All system that would entirely rid the private health care industry.

    Others White House hopefuls, including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and South Bend., Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), have proposals that would expand Medicare for more Americans but keep private options open for those who want it.

    Former Vice President Joe Biden does not support a Medicare for All plan, and has instead proposed expanding on the Affordable Care Act, which he said he aided in creating during his time in the Obama administration.

    The new poll surveyed 900 registered voters, including 506 who said they would vote in a Democratic caucus or primary. The poll was conducted between Sept. 13 and 16. It has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points for the full sample and 4.4 percentage points for questioning involving only Democratic voters.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. Gratitude expressed by:

  22. TopTop #13
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote RicoBoccia wrote: View Post
    I believe this is wrong. M4A initially got positive reactions when Bernie Sanders first explained it NOT because people think they can keep their private insurance ....
    Note that no-one wants to keep their private insurance. They want to go to the providers they use, and have the experience be close enough - no new paperwork/processes/restrictions, etc. Of course no-one would mind if they had a few changes for the better.

    But I haven't heard any proposals to shut all hospitals and clinics, replacing them with, what, rooms in the Social Security offices?? Any change would be very slow, and I suspect all the existing institutions would attempt to keep their businesses in place and their clients in place. It'll be nice to get to those details but we're a long way from that.
    Last edited by Barry; 11-11-2019 at 09:07 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  24. TopTop #14
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote RicoBoccia wrote: View Post
    I believe this is wrong. M4A initially got positive reactions when Bernie Sanders first explained it NOT because people think they can keep their private insurance but because (1) it would cover EVERYONE and eliminate (2) the possibility of going bankrupt because you got sick and (3) the need to decide between healthcare and groceries. Then bogus politicians like E. Warren, Mayo Pete, and others tried to steal the phrase and twist it into something palatable to Big Insurance and Big Pharma (to name just two of their donor bases). As far as paying for the real M4A, Bernie has explained in detail how it would be paid for. If you're ignorant of that, it's not because "no one has said anything about how to pay for it" but because you haven't been paying attention.
    Why is it that is always the Bernie Sanders supporters that seek to denigrate the other candidates and their supporters?

    Elizabeth Warren also supports MFA and has even made a good faith effort to explain how it could be paid for, yet her supporters are always respectful of the the other candidates and supporters.

    As for "Bernie has explained in detail how it would be paid for" this is not true. He has put for some "options" but these are far short of a detailed plan, such as Elizabeth Warren has put forth.

    From NPR:
    "You're asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American — how much you're going to pay more in taxes, how much I'm going to pay," he said. "I don't think I have to do that right now.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  26. TopTop #15

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Please stop ginning up the fear and reiterating what appears to me to be a disingenuous objection to MFA – “it's going to cost us votes..... and possibly the election”.

    If winning the Oval is your primary goal you would be pushing for Biden or Sanders. In head to head polling with Trump they both poll higher than any other Dem candidate. Buttigieg on the other hand barely beats Trump, if at all, in head to head polls. Bottom line, Mayor Pete, if the nominee, would likely cost us the election.

    Your commentary about MFA is simply inconsistent with your choice of candidate. So let's get to your real issues with Medicare for All.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #16
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Rustie wrote: View Post
    Your commentary about MFA is simply inconsistent with your choice of candidate. So let's get to your real issues with Medicare for All.

    You're fortunate enough to have health insurance that has provided you with acceptable health care and you don't want anything to upset your apple cart. Fair enough. Now let's try addressing those concerns.
    >snip<
    In my opinion, it's time to get rid of our profit driven health industry and replace it with a non-profit system dedicated to health care.
    Well- I kinda feel this is a “pot meet kettle” situation… berating someone for supporting someone who would protect something that apparently they have worked hard to obtain, while supporting someone who will give them something they were apparently never obtain themselves?

    And… for the record- Kaiser is a non-profit.

    Quote RicoBoccia wrote: View Post
    I believe this is wrong. M4A initially got positive reactions when Bernie Sanders first explained it NOT because people think they can keep their private insurance but because (1) it would cover EVERYONE and eliminate (2) the possibility of going bankrupt because you got sick and (3) the need to decide between healthcare and groceries. Then bogus politicians like E. Warren, Mayo Pete, and others tried to steal the phrase and twist it into something palatable to Big Insurance and Big Pharma (to name just two of their donor bases). As far as paying for the real M4A, Bernie has explained in detail how it would be paid for. If you're ignorant of that, it's not because "no one has said anything about how to pay for it" but because you haven't been paying attention.
    Hmm. Bernie has taken more $ from the insurance and pharmacy industries (according to open secrets- then Warren or Buttigieg ( true- one can argue it’s a smaller % of his total but… ) . And of course- Bernie admits it WILL cause a tax increase on the middle class. Warren is still in denial on that… and both of their plans, are by pretty much all analysis, shall we say… optimistic. Low 20 to mid 30 TRILLION dollars over 10. years.

    Quote podfish wrote: View Post
    Note that no-one wants to keep their private insurance.
    I’d strongly disagree with this. I’ve decided to go back east to see family for the holidays, and have been looking into seeing old friends. I’ve been talking to friends in WI, MI, OH, PA, MD, NC.. A lot of friends in unions. A lot just with good jobs for their region. They are pretty much all very leery of loosing the good health insurance they have fought for (and in many cases… built their life around- taking manufacturing or construction jobs in their region because they made a choice for themselves and/or their families to take jobs with good enough prospects and good benefits.

    For the record here- I don’t have health insurance. And I don’t believe it is the governments place to provide it to me. I *would* like the government to continue was was started under the ACA, and continue to reform the industry and level the playing field. And continue to increase availability for the most vulnerable in our society. For the rest of us- I just want a level playing field/

    And- I don’t have a candidate support. I likely will not bother voting this year for President - the D candidate will be decided before the CA primary. And there’s probably not much point in voting for President in CA…

    The big caveats here.. I don’t see Warren or Sanders being able to win the democratic nomination (another caveat- if they buried their pride and desire for power and one dropped out and became VP *before* the primaries then yes.. ). Even if one of them one I see a .0003% chance of MFA and all the needed taxes passing congress. My big fear of course, is that again, we’ll have a split ticket- one of the more centrist Dems (Biden Buttigieg, Bloomberg,…Clinton?) vs Warren or Sanders… against…. Trump? …or will it be Pence? Or Romney? Or…???

    And final thought… our nation needs to reel in spending and the debt- not increase it. The two issues the federal gov’t needs to spend on is climate change, and their portion of our crumbling infrastructure. In terms of healthcare - and so many other societal issues their focus should be in reeling in the abuses and leveling the playing field for all. Provide aid for those that truly need it- but focus on providing a world where all have opportunities… and let people make their own ^#%) decisions for better o worse. I don’t need a nanny. And I will live with the choices I have made in my life.
    Last edited by Barry; 11-12-2019 at 12:34 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. TopTop #17
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Barry wrote: View Post
    Why is it that is always the Bernie Sanders supporters that seek to denigrate the other candidates and their supporters?
    Well... Bernie is the exemplification of "the angry white male" . And alarmingly - both polls and the last election show a lot of his supporters will vote for Trump if they can't vote for him. People that just want to burn the system down.

    Just look at one of the nuanced maps of our country (one that shows shades of blue, red, and purple). Irony, I've come to have respect for those on the right that make the case our country was formed as a Republic and *not* as a Democracy. It seems many on the far left believe the same but can't or won't articulate that. (Go back to my posts from years ago on "where on the political spectrum are you?" and my comments about if things are viewed as a circle the far left and right are much closer together then those in the middle of the spectrums
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. TopTop #18
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Rustie wrote: View Post
    Your commentary about MFA is simply inconsistent with your choice of candidate. So let's get to your real issues with Medicare for All.
    It's true that Sanders is polling marginally better the Buttigieg in head to head polls with trump and the moment.

    However, I believe this is because people are still getting to know Pete, where as Bernie is well known from his 2016 campaign (where he only had to share the field with one other candidate, rather than then current 10-20). Speaking of his 2016 campaign, Bernie got 49.59% of the vote, but his current Real Clear Politics average in Iowa is only 15.8%. He has lost a lot of support!

    Meanwhile, Pete's Iowa Real Clear Politics average is 17.5% Iowa is where Pete has been campaigning the most and is currently surging since he established his field offices there.

    Specifically regarding MFA, it has only been subjected to friendly fire from other Democratic candidates. Republicans have been keeping their powder dry in the hopes of Sanders (or Warren) is nominated so they can let lose their highly effective fear monger machine. And there is no more vulnerable target to create fear about than people's health care. Their attacks needn't be factually accurate, or only accurate in anecdotal cases to have a very large effect.

    As the polling below shows, there is much broader support for a public option rather than mandatory MFA.

    Medicare For All is too much, too fast. It will encounter substantial resistance and we will lose votes with that platform.

    Here's more info from The Kaiser Family Foundation (Oct 15, 2019):


    Yet, it is unclear how much staying power this support [for MFA] has once people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side. Current KFF polling finds that Americans know little about how the leading Medicare-for-all proposals would reshape the way all Americans get and pay for health care (Figure 9),



    and public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 10). [Please ignore the first 2 questions below, they introduce unnecessary issues - Barry]




    KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan (Figure 11),





    suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 12).






    Medicare-for-all, an issue which really gained traction during Bernie Sanders’ run during the 2016 presidential primary, does seem to be on the minds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents at the beginning of the 2020 primary season. But KFF polling finds more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the ACA in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 13).





    Recently, we have found broad support for proposals that expand the role of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid as well as a government-administered public option (Figure 14).



    And while partisans are divided on a Medicare-for-all national health plan, there is robust support among Democrats, and even support among Republicans, for an expansion of the Medicare program through a Medicare buy-in or a Medicaid buy-in proposal (Figure 15).



    So while the general idea of a national health plan (whether accomplished through an expansion of Medicare or some other way) may enjoy fairly broad support in the abstract, it remains unclear how this issue will play out in the 2020 election and beyond.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  31. TopTop #19
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Barry wrote: View Post
    It's true that Sanders is polling marginally better the Buttigieg in head to head polls with trump and the moment.

    However, I believe this is because people are still getting to know Pete, where are Bernie is well known from his 2016 campaign ....
    I largely agree with you- I hadn't paid much attention to Pete but I increasingly see him as one of the most solid candidates. Sadly I'm not quite sure if older, especially midwest, southern, and black dems will be willing to support a gay man. Same for the many moderate (and even, maybe especially, hardcore republicans who are appalled by trump). But well see... for many evangelicals etc Jesus would not approve of either Pete or Trump... and Pete, on most issues, is more in line with Jesus then Trump so... "god Knows" I guess....

    I'll add... for as much praise Warren got for her line a couple weeks ago (in Iowa?) when someone said they believed marriage should be between "a man and a woman" and she responded "fine....just marry one woman then".... the thing no one is really talking about is she lost a hell of a lot of votes by following up with "if you can find one".

    Barry- you mentioned in another thread about Sanders supporters be derisive of others. Warren with this one off the cuff remark showed her disrespect to millions of Americans. We may not agree with their views but... It feels like we are moving into a dangerous world where we have to sides that believe they- and only they, are right. Everyone else be damned.

    I think this election is going to tell us a lot about whether this country can survive...or not....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  33. TopTop #20
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    I likely will not bother voting this year for President - the D candidate will be decided before the CA primary. And there’s probably not much point in voting for President in CA…

    THIS IS NOT TRUE! The California primary has been moved up to Super Tuesday, March 3! The race will be wide open then. Your vote will count!


    Regarding concerns about Pete being gay... those concerns start to fade away once people get to know him and see how wholesome he is. That's what's happening in Iowa!

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  34. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  35. TopTop #21
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    "No-one wants to keep their private insurance"

    I’d strongly disagree with this. ... I’ve been talking to friends (who) are pretty much all very leery of loosing the good health insurance they have fought for....
    you ignored the second part - people want to keep their current level of services. They don't give a damn about the insurance company, they care about their doctor and other medical facilities they use. True, they aren't given a believable promise that it won't change (thanks, Obama!) but that should be the goal. There's no reason that a union can't offer supplemental care so their level of coverage doesn't change. Yes, there's no guarantees. But there are also examples of privately funded medical care, that people thought they were entitled to, disappearing as circumstances change.

    For the record here- I don’t have health insurance. And I don’t believe it is the governments place to provide it to me.
    fine, but even if you're willing to die quietly in the street, our society's not really offering that as a choice. Not that some people don't manage to do it anyway, but it's not a deliberate design feature. I think in a civilized society we should expect to have the government provide the minimum essentials of life. It's kind of bogus to rely on individual's sense of charity; it in effect "punishes" (sorry, I hate that term in political/economic arguments, but I'll adopt it for once) those who are ethical and humane. We all benefit from our cultural resources, and it's fair to pay to uphold what laughingly passes as our civilization as well. I wish it extended to basic foodstuffs and lodging, but that's the next fight. But seriously, people step in for a dog hit in the street or a bird that falls from its nest. You really think our society can let people sit in their room, or on a cardboard box in an alley, nursing a burst appendix with nothing but a bummed bottle of whiskey?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  36. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  37. TopTop #22
    wisewomn's Avatar
    wisewomn
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    SPC, all these figures come from Kaiser Family Foundation. Were you able to find figures that came from a less-invested source?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  38. Gratitude expressed by:

  39. TopTop #23
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote wisewomn wrote: View Post
    SPC, all these figures come from Kaiser Family Foundation. Were you able to find figures that came from a less-invested source?
    "The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries." From here


    From Media Bias/Fact Check:

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  40. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  41. TopTop #24
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!



    Democrats Increasingly Vocal in Calling ‘Medicare for All’ a Political Liability
    Party leaders are describing the health care proposal that appeals to the party’s left as a risky bet that could neutralize one of the Democrats’ prime issues in 2020.

    By Lisa Lerer and Katie Glueck
    Nov. 26, 2019

    Prominent Democratic leaders are sounding increasingly vocal alarms to try to halt political momentum for “Medicare for all,” opting to risk alienating liberals and deepening the divide in the party rather than enter an election year with a sweeping health care proposal that many see as a liability for candidates up and down the ballot.

    From Michigan to Georgia, North Dakota to Texas, Democratic elected officials, strategists and pollsters are warning that the party’s commitment to the Obama-era Affordable Care Act — widely seen as critical to electoral gains in 2018 and 2019 — could slip away as a political advantage in 2020 if Republicans seize on Medicare for all and try to paint Democrats as socialists on health care.

    “When you say Medicare for all, it’s a risk. It makes people feel afraid,” said Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, who headed a successful national effort as chairwoman of the Democratic Governors Association, to win governor’s mansions in Kentucky and Louisiana this month. “We won in Kentucky and Louisiana, barely, in part, because we won on health care. I don’t think we can afford to lose on health care.”

    While Democrats won the House in 2018 by decrying Republican efforts to undercut popular provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the Democratic presidential primary race has turned in large part on whether to replace that law with a more expansive, single-payer system, financed by higher taxes and linked to an end to private health insurance.

    The two liberal candidates pushing Medicare for all, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have highly energized supporters who want this form of universal health care, and collectively garner about 40 percent of the vote in most polls. More moderate leaders in the race, like Joseph R. Biden Jr., the former vice president, and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., support adding a public health care option to the current law. While the primary race is fluid and unpredictable, Medicare for all has steadily driven much of the Democratic discussion of health care.

    A determination to shift those conversations is now spurring top Democratic officials to speak out more forcefully against Medicare for all, playing to the anxieties of Democrats who fear their party could once more lose crucial Electoral College battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Mr. Trump if they push for a nationwide overhaul of health care coverage and benefits.

    Warnings are being issued at all levels of the Democratic Party, from union members who fear losing hard-won benefits, to candidates running in swing districts, all the way up to former President Barack Obama, who offered a pointed warning about the risks of overreach at a gathering of donors in Washington, D.C., this month. People close to the former president said his remarks were rooted in his experience passing the health care law, which prompted his concerns about how willing voters would be to embrace an even more sweeping change.

    Continues here



    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  42. TopTop #25
    luke32
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Its been a loser for a lonnnng time - and Elizabeth and the grumpyy old man are finally beginning to feel it.
    POLITICO: Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...bs-poll-074054
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  43. TopTop #26
    markwjam's Avatar
    markwjam
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    chickenshit mainstream corporate Democrats of course are terrified of the proposition, and won't get behind it....too bad....a unified stance could help win the Presidential election and MANY other elections.....

    getting the real word out on how well it works in so many countries would help to loosen the hold of the propoganda that childish Americans have been sold on: that it's so expensive.....Democrats have run such weak elections by going Republican lightweight, while not bringing a strong message, that they have lost so many winnable elections, in duding 2016

    Quote luke32 wrote: View Post
    Its been a loser for a lonnnng time - and Elizabeth and the grumpyy old man are finally beginning to feel it.
    POLITICO: Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...bs-poll-074054
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  44. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  45. TopTop #27
    Hotspring 44's Avatar
    Hotspring 44
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Logistically and strategically speaking, America as a whole, particularly when considering the electoral college, because, whether we like it or not the electoral college makes the Midwest And Southern states a juggernaut, Whereas the States that have larger populations are at a distinct disadvantage when electing a President of the United States.

    One example is that an individual person's vote who lives in Wyoming has 3 times the weight as an individual person's vote in California. That's a 3 to 1 ratio!

    Also, larger populated states as far as per person representation is concerned; are not necessarily represented evenly either, because compared to the Midwest and Southern states, who in combination with battleground states are a combined voting strength not to be take lightly.

    That combined voting strength is something that has to be considered seriously when in such close and contentious political competition for national representation as is in this round of the upcoming 2020 elections.

    Remember, Hillary Clinton had 3 million more popular votes but lost the general election because of the electoral college.

    This time around, for the presidential election, the stakes are too high to vote my conscience rather than strategically voting.

    I remember that I have stated in previous posts over the years that I would not vote strategically because I live in California and it doesn't matter. However, this time the 2020 election is a beast of its own , so I am reevaluating my purist idioms when it comes to voting.

    That being said, emotionally, I totally agree with what's in the quote-box below regarding embedded establishment wing of the Democratic Party.
    Strategically speaking, being a healthcare for all purist could very well be a losing battle to strictly hold when the stakes are so high and there is still so much division about it.

    Quote markwjam wrote: View Post
    chickenshit mainstream corporate Democrats of course are terrified of the proposition, and won't get behind it....too bad....a unified stance could help win the Presidential election and MANY other elections.....
    Yes, I think there does have to be radical change. I don't think the voting population in this country as a whole is ready to vote for it in 2020.

    Considering the presidential election and the electoral college, the divisiveness regarding healthcare and the attitudes of those who still have some that already pay so much who are afraid they are not going to get their money's worth with higher taxes, knowing that Congress probably isn't going to give it enough money to work etc. I seriously have my doubts that healthcare for all is going to be a winning scheme in 2020. In fact, it may be a detriment

    The voting population in 2024 might be more willing to vote in that direction because of the younger people who will become of age to vote, but maybe not even then because the global warming issue is going to take precedent.

    The huge thing to consider for 2020 is whether or not the country is going to be so gerrymandered where the population in this country as a whole could even have equal representation.
    I will be more likely than not be voting strategically.

    I almost wish the California primary were going to be held later rather than sooner.

    I know my preface has been kind of long-winded, but I don't know any other way for it to make sense what I'm going to elude to next.

    I saw an interesting take tonight on the PBS news hour on the Shields and Brooks segment titled:
    "Shields and Brooks on impeachment public opinion, shifting 2020 Democratic race" on the healthcare for all issue that is quite concerning to me as a fan of healthcare for all.
    It is a hard slap in the face of reality which hurts and saddens me, but it is today's reality.

    The whole segment is about 11 minutes and 4 seconds long, but this topic sort of starts at 5 minutes 20 seconds into the clip.
    Very good historic reference given by the one with glasses, (I don't remember which one he is to name him).

    See transcript here.

    My opinion is that a lot can happen between now and the general election. California is having an early primary.
    It'll be interesting to see what actually happens with the Democratic presidential race in 2020 even in California.

    I think it is very possible that democracy itself is at stake, (not directly related to healthcare for all though)...
    ...Therefore, for me this time around strategic voting is more important than my purist values.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  46. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  47. TopTop #28
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Hotspring 44 wrote: View Post
    ...Yes, I think there does have to be radical change. I don't think the voting population in this country as a whole is ready to vote for it in 2020. ... I will be more likely than not be voting strategically.
    OK, so please elaborate, what's your strategy?

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  48. Gratitude expressed by:

  49. TopTop #29
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Quote Hotspring 44 wrote: View Post
    Strategically speaking, being a healthcare for all purist could very well be a losing battle to strictly hold when the stakes are so high and there is still so much division about it.


    Yes, I think there does have to be radical change. I don't think the voting population in this country as a whole is ready to vote for it in 2020.
    this touches on an idea that crosses my mind once in a while. It's this thought that there are a bunch of people out there voting against their own interests who are preventing good things from happening.

    I mean, I believe it too. They don't, apparently, and they're sure I'm as wrong as I know that they are. But once in a while it gives me pause.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  50. Gratitude expressed by:

  51. TopTop #30
    Hotspring 44's Avatar
    Hotspring 44
     

    Re: Medicare for All is a losing general election position!

    Strategically speaking I could answer the question in 2 paragraphs.
    Instead, I will elaborate some using reasoning instead of by just saying a couple of what's, who's and why's within a couple of simple, minimal and bleak paragraphs with a simplified statement or two that would surely sound like it came right out of the "establishment wing" of the DNC.

    Quote Barry wrote: View Post
    OK, so please elaborate, what's your strategy?
    Number 1 priority is to vote so as to not have Trump, or any Republican for that matter, be the next president of the United States.

    My favorite candidate who is running this year so far is Bernie Sanders; the next in line is Elizabeth Warren.
    There is no 3rd as of yet and there may not be.

    This time around, as for the Primary Election, I very well may not be voting for my 'favorite' or even 2nd 'favorite' candidate.

    However, that being said, the the aforementioned "radical change" that some Democratic candidates represent being of focus as topic:

    Consider the facts; whereas, many voters that are in the swing states, i.e. battleground states, Southern states and the Midwest don't want an experimental situation which, IMHO, Bernie Sanders at this point in time, is exactly that, experimental.

    As far as the country as a whole is concerned Bernie Sanders being the president at this point in time is more like an experiment because as I previously mentioned, the country isn't ready for much of any of what Bernie Sanders represents yet and would virtually take up arms to resist him.

    To further elaborate; I, in the recent past, switched the who I would vote for from Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren because Warren had a "health care" plan that she was able to elaborate specifics on, whereas Bernie Sanders hasn't been as specific as Elizabeth Warren.

    Bernie's lack of specificity is one of several signs of weakness which I think for a hard-core election like what's coming up in 2020 would become a serious problem. Another one of Bernie Sanders' weaknesses is his health which is the main reason I was leaning towards voting for Elizabeth Warren.

    Because I want to stay more on topic, I'm making the effort to stay within the range of healthcare so I'm not going to elaborate on all the gory details of Bernie Sanders', Elizabeth Warren's or anybody else's weaknesses much beyond the healthcare for all aspect.

    One of the things that I have taken notice of at this point in time, is the survivalist like tendencies of groups of people in this country which has become increasingly more divisive instead of a coming together and solving problems.
    The divisiveness is one of the major problems where misunderstandings get amplified.

    I think at this point in time, most people of voting age who actually vote think that what Bernie Sanders is saying about "socialism" is a one-way ticket to the hell of a totalitarian communism like in the peak of the Cold War, such as, the People's Republic of China, the USSR and Cuba, etc.... ...They believe that they will get taxed out of house & home and more!

    Anyway, back to the healthcare for all.
    The fact that America is at or near the very bottom of the barrel considering overall healthcare and even actual healthiness when compared with 10 other developed countries... ...Note the 2 below links:

    Link with some data:
    https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pre...-people-higher

    Link with allot more data and more links on the page with even more data to go to if you are into that:
    https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start

    Bernie Sanders mentions time and time again, (note the above 2 links and that, which are also mentioned above).

    I think that people of voting age in this country, (who actually do get out and vote), as a whole, frequently choose to use a blind-eye to 'look that way', and conceal from themselves seeing of the painful truth rather than have to deal with or do something about such an extremely difficult topic; such as, what the difference is between an autocratic communism brand of so-called socialism, whereas, the autocrat or Oligarch government who were labeled as "communist" that are infamous and are historically, so well known to use their military force to subdue the citizenry... ...and, the very different from of so-called 'socialism', such as the form of democratic socialism that Bernie Sanders' represents and how much it aligns with with what Theodore Roosevelt and America did in the 1900s, The New Deal do have in common.

    Also note the paragraph just below the 2nd image on the the below link's first web page:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6708086.html

    There are lots of things I can elaborate on that frightens people, allot of which are fear-based misunderstandings.

    There are allot of unknowns of how to address healthcare 'system' as it is today. The topic of healthcare in America is rife with fear and misunderstanding etc..
    It is no wonder that working people who pay taxes and have healthcare do not want to rock-the-boat!

    I will stay on healthcare topic here, (mostly anyway)..

    The monetary cost for reasonably good Healthcare for All as it would look like when using the current system as a price-guide may not be accurate enough for practical use to estimate what the cost of a completely different, not for profit, system would actually cost, nor does it address exactly where the money is going to ultimately come from.

    the current and growing healthcare demand as the baby-boomer generation ages is already getting very high.

    Anyway, for example, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have stated that the "government" will pay a lot more for Medicare for their Healthcare for All plan than it has ever spent on Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

    Couple that expenditure, which is ultimately an added tax that will be levied onto someone; then imagine the anxiety that is felt when they lose a job and lose all of the medical benefits they were accustomed to having, or ending up, for whatever reason, with diminished medical benefits from a job they have, or their health care premiums go skyrocketing diminishing the value of the health care benefits they do have.

    To many, the thought of "loosing" the healthcare they do have and being steered or 'forced' into a one-size-fits-all 'government system', to them, is like adding insult to injury.
    On top of that, when what they are hearing most loudly in the well funded corporate owned media is that there will be higher taxes to pay for a bare-bones, welfare-recipient like, low-quality kind of so-called healthcare coverage in place of what they have for healthcare now.

    back to more directly answering question: to "elaborate" [my] strategy?...
    ...1- I will vote for whichever Democrat I think has the best chance to win in the general election against Trump when it's time to vote in the primaries here in California.

    Of course, to further elaborate my answers to the questions:

    Like I alluded to in my previous post, it's not just healthcare for all, ( which, itself isn't even at stake because it doesn't currently exist), rather, it's the Democratic and constitutional parts of our 'constitutional democratic republic' that could very well be at stake in 2020.

    A voter deciding to vote for a candidate that absolutely refuses to budge from an all or nothing stance to force-in "Medicare for All" is like a gamble against a stacked deck of cards in an all or nothing poker game.

    Yes, unfortunately the deck is most certainly stacked against the the way that "Medicare for All" is being presented and how it is currently perceived in America as a whole!

    The next question I suppose I'm going to be asked is: Who am I going to vote for in the primary?…
    …Guess what?… …I have not made up my mind yet.
    Last edited by Hotspring 44; 11-30-2019 at 06:56 PM. Reason: correct typo
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  52. Gratitude expressed by:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 04:44 PM
  2. How the West Is Losing Turkey
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 06:21 AM
  3. Winning and Losing in Gaza
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 08:42 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2008, 10:37 AM
  5. The art of losing is...
    By SEELOVE in forum Poetry and Prose
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 08:32 AM

Bookmarks