In spite of everything, Biden reaffirms dislike of M4A

[Silvanus]

There were not 51 who gave support when reconciliation was brought up. There was 51 when it was deadlocked and wasn't going to pass, but several of the ardent public option supporters gave up support when it started to look like it would pass. That is the point, strong policy stances are only for getting elected, not for acting upon. When it comes time to act it becomes a game of self-sabotage. Refer to the lede quotes of the article I posted.

Right, so this reflects badly on those 9-or-so Senators who backtracked (if we assume there was nothing in the actual substance of the bill that made backtracking a matter of principle).

It's why I don't trust Biden, he's cut from the cloth of these Democrats who will talk a big game to get elected, then immediately turn when they would actually have to perform. That he's very publicly against anything that would hinder private insurance companies just screams 'do not trust me to help you'.

You don't trust Joe Biden because 9-or-so Senators withdrew support, and he didn't insist on pushing the vote anyway?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Right, so this reflects badly on those 9-or-so Senators who backtracked (if we assume there was nothing in the actual substance of the bill that made backtracking a matter of principle).



You don't trust Joe Biden because 9-or-so Senators withdrew support, and he didn't insist on pushing the vote anyway?

Like the rest of the article said, this isn't a one-off event. It's the standard operating procedure of party insiders to rotate through who sabotages a key policy so that, for example, a congress that was elected to end Bush's terrible policies instead cements them as law.

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it's Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it's Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and "breaking with their party" to ensure Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General; then it's Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it's Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can't blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don't need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

And Joe Biden himself has a shoddy as hell record that is largely actively opposed to his current platform, I don't see a reason to trust him. Pretending like politics have only existed since 2016 is not useful, I remember when the party insiders have screwed me over and I'm wary. Biden does nothing to really assuage that when the last time he was in the WH, he and Obama were offering resistance to a public option, let along M4A.

 

[tstorm823]

Could someone provide me with some information on how a Medicare for All plan would differ from, say, a Canadian-Style system (something I favor as a possibility for the USA)?

There's not a set plan as different people have different ideas, but Imma go broadly with bigger and more federal.

Edit to be specific: Canadian healthcare would sort of be like Medicaid for All, it's a mandate to the territories to insure for a big list of things with some funding tossed in to make it happen. If the US did that sort of system, and told states or counties they had to cover healthcare, it would be much more comparable to Medicaid administration.

 

[tstorm823]

Like the rest of the article said, this isn't a one-off event. It's the standard operating procedure of party insiders to rotate through who sabotages a key policy so that, for example, a congress that was elected to end Bush's terrible policies instead cements them as law.

Worth noting, this is standard as the backup plan. Plan A is always to write bills that look reasonable on the surface but are actually terrible and then boo and hiss when Republicans vote it down. Plan B if it looks like the bill they don't want to pass might actually make it is to sabotage from the inside.

 

[Silvanus]

Like the rest of the article said, this isn't a one-off event. It's the standard operating procedure of party insiders to rotate through who sabotages a key policy so that, for example, a congress that was elected to end Bush's terrible policies instead cements them as law.

I get that, but the rest of the article was also quite a mess of defunct links. I tried following several of them to no avail.

The idea of a choreographed effort to "rotate" in order to scupper any bill that makes it too far just doesn't stand up to Occam's Razor, particularly since most people are unaware of this stuff to begin with. It seems much likelier to me that a vague statement of being open to the idea of a public option in principle doesn't necessarily translate into support for a specific bill.

Especially since the accusation of "rotation" also necessitates an accusation towards those Senators who still told the whip they would support it afterwards... which is based on nothing in their record, just hypothesis.

And Joe Biden himself has a shoddy as hell record that is largely actively opposed to his current platform, I don't see a reason to trust him. Pretending like politics have only existed since 2016 is not useful, I remember when the party insiders have screwed me over and I'm wary. Biden does nothing to really assuage that when the last time he was in the WH, he and Obama were offering resistance to a public option, let along M4A.

Yep, nothing in his record would indicate support for M4A, though several other elements of the platform build quite logically on existing ACA provisions (like the premium limit). There's nothing in the record to indicate anything anywhere close to a 800 billion cut, too. Are we using the record solely to discount positive possibilities?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I get that, but the rest of the article was also quite a mess of defunct links. I tried following several of them to no avail.

The idea of a choreographed effort to "rotate" in order to scupper any bill that makes it too far just doesn't stand up to Occam's Razor, particularly since most people are unaware of this stuff to begin with. It seems much likelier to me that a vague statement of being open to the idea of a public option in principle doesn't necessarily translate into support for a specific bill.

Especially since the accusation of "rotation" also necessitates an accusation towards those Senators who still told the whip they would support it afterwards... which is based on nothing in their record, just hypothesis.

It largely becomes academic whether it's intentional or just a result of a massive gulf between what people vote for and what they get. Whatever the reason behind it, it's the end result of the vote blue no matter who mentality. You don't get blue votes. It happens too much and too often to be coincidence in my mind, but it doesn't have to be intentional to get the same result and demonstrate the need to vote on policy, not team color.

The end result is that I don't trust Biden. I have no reason to trust Biden. He's still against M4A and any statement of support of a public option is countered by him helping shoot it down before.

Yep, nothing in his record would indicate support for M4A, though several other elements of the platform build quite logically on existing ACA provisions (like the premium limit). There's nothing in the record to indicate anything anywhere close to a 800 billion cut, too. Are we using the record solely to discount positive possibilities?

There are however decades of cuts, counting up to a total that I don't even want to think about. And since I don't want cuts period, I don't like Joe Biden on this front. Really I just don't like him on any front because he's a Republican at heart. I don't care for the lesser of two evils argument because that sets the new normal. It has done so for decades and the Democrats can't keep getting away with it.

 

[Trunkage]

Fine. But if you're expecting anything even anywhere close to a $800 billion cut, then you're making assumptions drastically outside of anything in his record would indicate, and outside anything he's said would indicate. You're also expecting the vast majority of Democratic Reps to drop the entire party platform and go full-tilt in the other direction, further than ever before-- it would be a greater reversal than any US election has ever seen. None of this is remotely realistic.

For the equivalence to work, enormous assumption needs to be piled on top of enormous assumption.

I don't think I said Biden and Trump's plans were equivalent. Biden is the better option. It's just not a good one

 

[ObsidianJones]

Biden himself has said if hypothetically M4A came across his desk, he'd veto it. Yeah, he threw in some political BS about balanced budget and shit so that he could pretend like he was vetoing it for a "good reason" but the man himself has said he'd veto it.

If the man wouldn't even let M4A pass in a hypothetical situation, I have no idea why you would think he wouldn't veto it.

Look, as much as I only like the man as the better of two options, and I wouldn't cast another look at him if there anyone else, let's be fair.

“I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now,” Biden responded. “If they got that through in by some miracle or there’s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, ‘OK, it’s passed,’ then you got to look at the cost.”

Biden added: “I want to know, how did they find $35 trillion? What is that doing? Is it going to significantly raise taxes on the middle class, which it will? What’s going to happen?”

This is literally no different than us asking Trump where is he getting money for the 'wall'.

I ask myself if I personally want a person with that much power actually looking through the things that are coming over his desk, or do I want a person who will pass something without thought because it's popular?

I don't want Medicare 4 All just because I think it's the smartest thing. I want a system that works. And given that I'm someone who constantly looks over things, I don't mind someone else doing the same.

Besides, Insurance is a dog whistle issue. It's the side option to what people don't want to do, and that's addressing how unrestrained capitalism is failing. The Chargemaster is more to blame for what financially ails you in the world of medicine than insurance is. Why don't we try to actually have real guidelines on what Hospitals can reasonably charge instead of looking at insurance to cover the bill?

The system that will charge 7 dollars for a bandaid and 622 dollars for a room. Or we can talk about how a man chopping veggies and getting his hand cut cost his insurance $14k for 45 minutes of work and a few stitches. Or the many, many other infractions that the Hospitals are just allowed to get away with

Medicare 4 All and Universal Healthcare is another political argument that people use to distract us from stepping back and asking these hospitals why the hell the same bandaid that I can buy 100 for 2.99 suddenly costs 7 dollars for one once I enter into a hospital?

Do I get a discount if I bring my own?

 

[Tireseas]

The system that will charge 7 dollars for a bandaid and 622 dollars for a room. Or we can talk about how a man chopping veggies and getting his hand cut cost his insurance $14k for 45 minutes of work and a few stitches. Or the many, many other infractions that the Hospitals are just allowed to get away with

Medicare 4 All and Universal Healthcare is another political argument that people use to distract us from stepping back and asking these hospitals why the hell the same bandaid that I can buy 100 for 2.99 suddenly costs 7 dollars for one once I enter into a hospital?

Do I get a discount if I bring my own?

Ironically, those chargemaster documents and insurance companies are inextricably linked, as excessive demands by insurers to get the best possible deal has encouraged the hospitals to upcharge everything so that when their preferred insurance providers get charged, they're only paying a much more reasonable rate, while everybody else get's massively overcharged.

It's a broken system in most cases, with better running and less expensive systems (Such as Kaiser Permanente Northwest) being both the exception and still being expensive on the consumer end if you're purchasing insurance directly as a consumer.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Ironically, those chargemaster documents and insurance companies are inextricably linked, as excessive demands by insurers to get the best possible deal has encouraged the hospitals to upcharge everything so that when their preferred insurance providers get charged, they're only paying a much more reasonable rate, while everybody else get's massively overcharged.

It's a broken system in most cases, with better running and less expensive systems (Such as Kaiser Permanente Northwest) being both the exception and still being expensive on the consumer end if you're purchasing insurance directly as a consumer.

Most systems that are based on corruption are usually linked. And once actual restrictions were set in place, you would get two birds with one stone.

Medicare 4 All is an answer for a problem that is not addressed by it's implementation. Reign in medical costs so people wouldn't have to choose if a hospital visit is worth bankrupting the family, or having severe complications if the family decides that money can be better used somewhere else.

 

[Trunkage]

Besides, Insurance is a dog whistle issue. It's the side option to what people don't want to do, and that's addressing how unrestrained capitalism is failing.

I would say that crony Capitalism is failing. No country has ever been close to Capitalism. But it's like Communism, an unrealistic pipe dream that doesn't understand human beings. Try to attain it is impossible

 

[tippy2k2]

Look, as much as I only like the man as the better of two options, and I wouldn't cast another look at him if there anyone else, let's be fair.

This is literally no different than us asking Trump where is he getting money for the 'wall'.

I ask myself if I personally want a person with that much power actually looking through the things that are coming over his desk, or do I want a person who will pass something without thought because it's popular?

I don't want Medicare 4 All just because I think it's the smartest thing. I want a system that works. And given that I'm someone who constantly looks over things, I don't mind someone else doing the same.

Besides, Insurance is a dog whistle issue. It's the side option to what people don't want to do, and that's addressing how unrestrained capitalism is failing. The Chargemaster is more to blame for what financially ails you in the world of medicine than insurance is. Why don't we try to actually have real guidelines on what Hospitals can reasonably charge instead of looking at insurance to cover the bill?

The system that will charge 7 dollars for a bandaid and 622 dollars for a room. Or we can talk about how a man chopping veggies and getting his hand cut cost his insurance $14k for 45 minutes of work and a few stitches. Or the many, many other infractions that the Hospitals are just allowed to get away with

Medicare 4 All and Universal Healthcare is another political argument that people use to distract us from stepping back and asking these hospitals why the hell the same bandaid that I can buy 100 for 2.99 suddenly costs 7 dollars for one once I enter into a hospital?

Do I get a discount if I bring my own?

Every other First World Country has somehow figured out how to pay for it. This isn't some strange new Pie in the Sky Utopia Vision that is completely untested and unknown. Not to mention that (at least under Bernie's version), it has been demonstrated that at worst, M4A would likely pay for itself (because all that shit you linked above is done because hospitals CAN charge stupid amounts of money because they know insurance companies will just eat the cost so if you're in a For-Profit system, of course you're going to go ahead and charge what you can because we're in a fucked up Bizzarro world of a country where a basic human right is For-Profit) and at best, M4A would actually MAKE us money as hospitals couldn't get away with charging $7 for a band-aid anymore. But you know what, even if it cost us a shit-ton of money to make the switch, I would STILL be on-board with M4A because our current system is absolute horse shit.

Right now, I will not vote for Biden. There are a LOT of issues I want taken care of but I would be willing to toss aside all those demands if Biden would at least PRETEND like he would consider maybe possibly thinking about letting us have some decent fucking health care in this country (and everyone, not his bullshit "We're gonna drop Medicare to 55!" garbage). But no, he can't even give me the that much.

If Biden would rather try to court Moderate Republicans that would be scared away by M4A, then he can court them. Hopefully there are more of them than there are people like me. It's not like 2/3 of Americans believe that M4A should be implemented or something...

 

[Worgen]

Right now, I will not vote for Biden. There are a LOT of issues I want taken care of but I would be willing to toss aside all those demands if Biden would at least PRETEND like he would consider maybe possibly thinking about letting us have some decent fucking health care in this country (and everyone, not his bullshit "We're gonna drop Medicare to 55!" garbage). But no, he can't even give me the that much.

If Biden would rather try to court Moderate Republicans that would be scared away by M4A, then he can court them. Hopefully there are more of them than there are people like me. It's not like 2/3 of Americans believe that M4A should be implemented or something...

GASP! Are you privy to the super secret health care plan that trump has that will solve all our issues and give everyone a handyJ? You must be, because you seem to think his dumb ass is going to solve these issues.

 

[tippy2k2]

GASP! Are you privy to the super secret health care plan that trump has that will solve all our issues and give everyone a handyJ? You must be, because you seem to think his dumb ass is going to solve these issues.

Weird, I didn't say anything about voting for Trump either...

 

[Worgen]

Weird, I didn't say anything about voting for Trump either...

But you did, you said you werent going to vote for Biden which means you must be ok with trump therefore you are super excited for his beautiful healthcare plan that will surely do everything you want.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Every other First World Country has somehow figured out how to pay for it. This isn't some strange new Pie in the Sky Utopia Vision that is completely untested and unknown. Not to mention that (at least under Bernie's version), it has been demonstrated that at worst, M4A would likely pay for itself (because all that shit you linked above is done because hospitals CAN charge stupid amounts of money because they know insurance companies will just eat the cost so if you're in a For-Profit system, of course you're going to go ahead and charge what you can because we're in a fucked up Bizzarro world of a country where a basic human right is For-Profit) and at best, M4A would actually MAKE us money as hospitals couldn't get away with charging $7 for a band-aid anymore. But you know what, even if it cost us a shit-ton of money to make the switch, I would STILL be on-board with M4A because our current system is absolute horse shit.

Right now, I will not vote for Biden. There are a LOT of issues I want taken care of but I would be willing to toss aside all those demands if Biden would at least PRETEND like he would consider maybe possibly thinking about letting us have some decent fucking health care in this country (and everyone, not his bullshit "We're gonna drop Medicare to 55!" garbage). But no, he can't even give me the that much.

If Biden would rather try to court Moderate Republicans that would be scared away by M4A, then he can court them. Hopefully there are more of them than there are people like me. It's not like 2/3 of Americans believe that M4A should be implemented or something...

I know every other first world country has figured it out. I lived in Montreal for a lot of my college years. I get it.

Point of fact, I really don't trust anything that a campaigning candidate says. Especially when going against someone who defies reason like Trump does. Who can inspire people to forgo their wellbeing because there was a catchy slogan tied to it.

Hell, I still like Obama on a personal level. But I have to admit the sheepishness that he displayed when he was campaigning. In 2011, when they wanted him to talk about Gay Marriage, he expressed his support for gay marriage, but didn't campaign to get it done. Who knows how many points that he would have lost if he did it.

Again, I might think Obama is a cool guy, but he's a politician. They play to crowds. Biden is trying to court the undecideds and some of the republicans not in the cult. He's going to say what he thinks gives enough doubt in everyone's heads.

 

[tippy2k2]

But you did, you said you werent going to vote for Biden which means you must be ok with trump therefore you are super excited for his beautiful healthcare plan that will surely do everything you want.

Not OK with Trump either but I'm not going to play this DNC Game anymore and let them keep dangling this Sword of Damocles of "Vote for us OR ELSE THE EVIL REPUBLICANS WILL WIN!!!!" bullshit.

The DNC can give me a reason to vote for their candidate (in this case, M4A) or it can find someone else to vote for them.

 

[tippy2k2]

I know every other first world country has figured it out. I lived in Montreal for a lot of my college years. I get it.

Point of fact, I really don't trust anything that a campaigning candidate says. Especially when going against someone who defies reason like Trump does. Who can inspire people to forgo their wellbeing because there was a catchy slogan tied to it.

Hell, I still like Obama on a personal level. But I have to admit the sheepishness that he displayed when he was campaigning. In 2011, when they wanted him to talk about Gay Marriage, he expressed his support for gay marriage, but didn't campaign to get it done. Who knows how many points that he would have lost if he did it.

Again, I might think Obama is a cool guy, but he's a politician. They play to crowds. Biden is trying to court the undecideds and some of the republicans not in the cult. He's going to say what he thinks gives enough doubt in everyone's heads.

Honestly, if Biden came out tomorrow and said "You know what, I changed my mind, M4A is my #1 goal! And not that bullshit Obama-Care M4A but the real one that every other country has figured out how to make work!!!!", I sincerely doubt I could believe him.

But at least wouldn't feel dirty voting for him. I suppose that's just fooling myself if this were to somehow happen. Is False Hope better than No Hope?

 

[Worgen]

Not OK with Trump either but I'm not going to play this DNC Game anymore and let them keep dangling this Sword of Damocles of "Vote for us OR ELSE THE EVIL REPUBLICANS WILL WIN!!!!" bullshit.

The DNC can give me a reason to vote for their candidate (in this case, M4A) or it can find someone else to vote for them.

Well, lets look at this logically. We have a 2 party system, the incumbent has the advantage, not voting means you don't matter, voting for a third party is a waste of your vote since they have no chance, therefore by not voting for the candidate that has a chance to beat the incumbent you are essentially giving approval to the incumbent.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Honestly, if Biden came out tomorrow and said "You know what, I changed my mind, M4A is my #1 goal! And not that bullshit Obama-Care M4A but the real one that every other country has figured out how to make work!!!!", I sincerely doubt I could believe him.

But at least wouldn't feel dirty voting for him. I suppose that's just fooling myself if this were to somehow happen. Is False Hope better than No Hope?

I mean, that's for you to decide. We have different goals. Mine is as cut and dry as removing someone that I've seen has caused nothing but division and strife for this country.

I don't know what kind of President Biden would be. I assume not one of note. And after four years of this BS, that's perfectly fine with me. So Biden isn't going to be the Democratic Messiah. As much as I like Bernie, neither would he have been. It takes a lot more than just getting a President in to enact real change. We need a favorable Supreme Court. We need a Progressive or Progressive Sympathetic Senate and House. We need Judges.

As Known As things we're not going to get for years. Years.

So at this time, yeah, Trump's removal is at the highest priority for me. Then trying to get at least some more judges. Vote in more Progressives and/or Non-Corporate Democrats or Independents. Clean the mess up before anything else.