In spite of everything, Biden reaffirms dislike of M4A

[tippy2k2]

You don't see it as worth voting for the introduction of a public option, the cap on premiums, or the premium-free coverage for those in states not covered by Medicaid? Those would be pretty drastic improvements.

It seems a lot of people aren't willing to support any improvement to the existing system, unless it's complete replacement. I daresay that approach probably contributed to the situation the American healthcare system is currently in.

At this point, I do not. Democrats come in, declare their tiny little baby improvements, compromise on even those tiny little baby improvements, and call themselves heroes. Then Republicans come in and absolutely gut everything back out. Then the Democrats can cry about how the mean old Republicans have ruined everything but don't you worry, THEY'LL come in with their tiny little baby improvements and fix everything! Then the cycle continues. Nothing is fixed, everything is still fucked, but Democrats get to pat themselves on the back and pretend like they're heroes.

Our entire Medical System is a gigantic fire. Grabbing a bottle of water and tossing it onto the burning garbage and declaring that you've saved your house isn't helpful. The Entire Health Care System at this point NEEDS to be absolutely gutted and taken out at this point. Anyone not in support of this overhaul won't get my vote. The fact that 2/3s of Americans support this kind of overhaul feels like it should have been the easiest slam dunk in the world for Biden but he somehow managed to miss it anyway.

 

[i am the Lucid Dream]

At this point, I do not. Democrats come in, declare their tiny little baby improvements

It seems to me what Biden is proposing are only "little baby improvements" if you presume that M4A is the only acceptable policy proposal wrt healthcare. A circular argument. Saying the ACA was a "little baby improvement" as a whole is ridiculous, even if it didn't improve your individual life, for which I'm sorry, and for which I agree improvement, whether Biden's ACA on Steroids or Bernies M4A, is needed.

As an individual, you have the right to vote for whomever you choose, for whatever reason you choose. As a hypothetical proxy for the Progressive movement as a whole, it seems shortsighted to burn down the bridge between the Progressives, and the Institutional Democrats and the #LiberalElites. It's clear that, after the failure of Bernie to emulate Trump's 2016 "takeover" (1) of the GOP, that if the Progressives want to get into power to pursue their policy goals they are going to have to, in some significant form, draw support from Institutional Democrats and #LiberalElites.

I mean, you clearly have not forgotten perceived betrayal from the Dems toward the Progressive wing. If Trump were to win in 2020 and the #LiberalElites (who HATE Trump more than any other group, and then some) perceive it to be the fault of a lack of support from the Progressives, why would you expect them to forgive it come 2024 or whenever it's the Progressives turn for the Presidency?

(1)- Forgotten is how hard Trump worked to court Republican donors and voting blocks in the wake of his candidacy, or that he completely forgot about his populist promises (infrastructure spending, promises to protect social entitlements) when he became President Trump. It's like if Bernie promised M4A and then, once elected, never lifted a finger to even get the ball rolling.

On topic: I seriously doubt that, should M4A actually get through Congress and onto Biden's desk (which it wouldn't, but whatever) that he would veto it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But the majority of Democratic Senators told the whip they would vote for it even after Reconciliation. Their voters did get blue votes.

But not enough to pass. And some of the senators that flipped had made a big deal about a public option. Democrat senators break trust constantly, and you can't tell which of their promises they're going to break, but without fail progressive policies are shuttered nearly every time.

That's fair enough. Though there's plenty in his record that is broadly in line with the measures to expand coverage to those eligible for Medicaid, and to cap premiums-- these both build logically on ACA provisions that were restricted by outside forces such as the Supreme Court.

It seems to me that you're discounting any improvement to the current system if it isn't complete replacement with M4A. And that will merely result in a severely degrading system, and still no replacement.

Well the thing is, and I've said it in a different thread, the ACA doesn't really help that much. It's barely a bandaid. What I want is a system that lets you go to a doctor or hospital when sick and not go bankrupt, and the ACA literally does nothing to prevent that.

Despite Promises of ACA, Study Shows Two-Thirds of Personal Bankruptcies Still Caused by Illness and Medical Bills

"We need to move ahead from the ACA to a single-payer, Medicare for All system that assures first-dollar coverage for everyone."

www.commondreams.org

Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act

American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)

ajph.aphapublications.org

I don't want what Biden's selling.

I went over, in detail, every healthcare cut or freeze that Joe Biden has been involved with in another thread. The worst was support for a year-long freeze, which is shitty indeed, but absolutely nothing came anywhere remotely close to a decade of cuts coming to 800 billion.

This equivalence is not based on record or substance. It's not true scepticism: that would necessitate you consider figures, consider scale.

Well here's what it means to me, in practical terms. At the current rate, Social Security will be insolvent by the end of the decade. Biden likes to cut SS and it may become insolvent sooner. Trump proposed a big cut and it could become insolvent even sooner than that.

But it doesn't really matter since it goes insolvent decades before I or millions of other Americans will get it because of either of them.

In fact the only people who will be seriously effected by this difference of policy are the people who are planning to live and collect past when Trump causes it to go insolvent but die before it would have become insolvent because of Biden.

Yes, there is a numerical value that is different, in the strictest terms their policies are different. I'm still going to say they both suck largely equally on issues important to me because the end results of their policies aren't very different.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Well here's what it means to me, in practical terms. At the current rate, Social Security will be insolvent by the end of the decade. Biden likes to cut SS and it may become insolvent sooner. Trump proposed a big cut and it could become insolvent even sooner than that.

That increasing FICA cap to $250k/year and reducing it to...6% if I remember right...while still having indefinite solvency, or increasing it to $1m/year and introducing progressive taxation rates, is completely off the table for both parties says everything you need to know about the current state of political affairs.

Which is, in my humble opinion, fuck 'em both. If Democrats won't be arsed to do anything but screw my long-term economic prospects, ability to retire, and enjoy a pretense of quality of life during my golden years, in order to pander to the most entitled and toxic generation and class of Americans since the demise of chattel slavery, they don't get my vote. Now or ever.

 

[CM156]

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.

I see.

I'm no means an expert on healthcare policy. While I used to be strongly opposed to any public healthcare, I've come around on the idea. What about some sort of system where the federal government guarantees a level of insurance for every citizen/resident to cover most/all essential care, with states being free to tack on additional coverage if they feel its necessary?

 

[Agema]

Call it Medicare For All. Call it Single Payer. Call it Trump Care for all it matters to me. I want this country to treat Health Care like the Right it should be, not the For Profit dumpster fire we currently have. How anyone could look at the millions of jobs (and therefore insurance coverage) lost in the middle of a global pandemic and decide "This is Fine" is baffling to me.

This is fine. You shouldn't expect other people to cough up their hard inherited dollars just because you were too much of a lazy, wasteful bum to save up a few hundred thousand dollars in case of emergencies. You want healthcare? Then you found Wal-mart, Tesla or Microsoft, because no-one's going to be giving Americans jobs if we tax hero entrepreneurs another five cents in the dollar.

Smithers, release the hounds.

 

[tippy2k2]

It seems to me what Biden is proposing are only "little baby improvements" if you presume that M4A is the only acceptable policy proposal wrt healthcare. A circular argument. Saying the ACA was a "little baby improvement" as a whole is ridiculous, even if it didn't improve your individual life, for which I'm sorry, and for which I agree improvement, whether Biden's ACA on Steroids or Bernies M4A, is needed.

As an individual, you have the right to vote for whomever you choose, for whatever reason you choose. As a hypothetical proxy for the Progressive movement as a whole, it seems shortsighted to burn down the bridge between the Progressives, and the Institutional Democrats and the #LiberalElites. It's clear that, after the failure of Bernie to emulate Trump's 2016 "takeover" (1) of the GOP, that if the Progressives want to get into power to pursue their policy goals they are going to have to, in some significant form, draw support from Institutional Democrats and #LiberalElites.

I mean, you clearly have not forgotten perceived betrayal from the Dems toward the Progressive wing. If Trump were to win in 2020 and the #LiberalElites (who HATE Trump more than any other group, and then some) perceive it to be the fault of a lack of support from the Progressives, why would you expect them to forgive it come 2024 or whenever it's the Progressives turn for the Presidency?

(1)- Forgotten is how hard Trump worked to court Republican donors and voting blocks in the wake of his candidacy, or that he completely forgot about his populist promises (infrastructure spending, promises to protect social entitlements) when he became President Trump. It's like if Bernie promised M4A and then, once elected, never lifted a finger to even get the ball rolling.

On topic: I seriously doubt that, should M4A actually get through Congress and onto Biden's desk (which it wouldn't, but whatever) that he would veto it.

To be kind of blunt, I couldn't care less what the established democrats think. They blamed me for 2016, they decided to run the same playbook for 2020, and they'll again blame me if they lose in 2020. Corporate Democrats are killing us just like Republicans are, they're just a lot sneakier about it.

While yeah, they absolutely did Progressives (specifically Bernie) dirty in 2016 and now 2020, I'd STILL be willing to vote for Biden if he were to adopt some of the Progressive Movements wishes (in this case as I have probably clearly established by now, M4A). But for whatever reason, he's not willing to do that. Shit, he's not only not willing to do that, he's going on record specifically that he would shoot down the one proposal that I specifically want from him. So like a broken record; M4A or he's going to have to get the Moderate Republicans he loves so much to vote for him.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I'm no means an expert on healthcare policy. While I used to be strongly opposed to any public healthcare, I've come around on the idea. What about some sort of system where the federal government guarantees a level of insurance for every citizen/resident to cover most/all essential care, with states being free to tack on additional coverage if they feel its necessary?

Look at it this way: no matter whose math you use as long as they're not dead-ass lying and completely making shit up, M4A is the fiscally-conservative plan. Workers' deducted payments to employer-provided health care still wouldn't be more than any forthcoming FICA increase, unless you're already earning over the wage base at which point, get over it, that's an increase forty years past due and it will have to happen to save social security and Medicare/Medicaid regardless. That's before taking into account eliminated financial liability through deductibles, coinsurance, and copays, and taking that into account FICA could still be increased three or four times over (if I remember my math right) and still be less fiscal burden to citizens.

I haven't even discussed cost reduction like eliminating profit motive-related overhead, ridiculous and expensive "fraud protection", and an overall shift towards a preventative health-prioritized system which can and does reduce cost in the long run.

It's just not the corporatist plan, and that's the "problem". Elected officials love their campaign cash and kickbacks more than they do their constituents.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm no means an expert on healthcare policy. While I used to be strongly opposed to any public healthcare, I've come around on the idea. What about some sort of system where the federal government guarantees a level of insurance for every citizen/resident to cover most/all essential care, with states being free to tack on additional coverage if they feel its necessary?

So, in Oz, we have a bunch of stuff covered. But you can also get private insurance and go to private hospitals. Generally, the quality of care is worse in public system but, to me, not significantly.

For example, we have private insurance. We had one kid born in the private but went public for the second. Mainly because private insurance doesn't cover all expenses but public does. The level of care wasn't that different, mainly private rooms compared to shared room. (And the private rooms were bigger.)

Also, generic drugs are covered under Medicare. Only monopolized drug brand can be expensive are covered but the government leans on those company to make it cheaper

Now, listening to American economist I heard from, they're generally aren't for the government using it's power to coerce cheaper prices for consumers. So, now companies are very willing to do it back to the governments with no consequences. You going to have to sell that idea to the public too

 

[i am the Lucid Dream]

To be kind of blunt, I couldn't care less what the established democrats think

Okay, so what's the Progressive plan to acquire the political power to establish their agenda if the support of Institutional Democrats and/or the #LiberalElite aren't required?

Given the reality of the two party system, it just seems like it's cutting off your nose to spite your face if the goal is Progressive political power.

Shit, he's not only not willing to do that, he's going on record specifically that he would shoot down the one proposal that I specifically want from him.

That's an exaggeration of what Biden said. He implied that he would consider vetoing it based on the cost.

 

[tippy2k2]

Okay, so what's the Progressive plan to acquire the political power to establish their agenda if the support of Institutional Democrats and/or the #LiberalElite aren't required?

Given the reality of the two party system, it just seems like it's cutting off your nose to spite your face if the goal is Progressive political power.



That's an exaggeration of what Biden said. He implied that he would consider vetoing it based on the cost.

and Biden is doing nothing to make me vote for him so I guess we're all at a stand still here. I'm not willing to vote for someone who will not support M4A and he's not willing to support M4A. The End.

I've compromised with these clowns my entire voting life; it's time that they get to compromise with me a little bit. If they can't or won't accept that, then we're done here. Good luck in November DNC, hope this "He's not Trump, therefore Vote for him" plan works better than it did in 2016.

 

[CM156]

Look at it this way: no matter whose math you use as long as they're not dead-ass lying and completely making shit up, M4A is the fiscally-conservative plan. Workers' deducted payments to employer-provided health care still wouldn't be more than any forthcoming FICA increase, unless you're already earning over the wage base at which point, get over it, that's an increase forty years past due and it will have to happen to save social security and Medicare/Medicaid regardless. That's before taking into account eliminated financial liability through deductibles, coinsurance, and copays, and taking that into account FICA could still be increased three or four times over (if I remember my math right) and still be less fiscal burden to citizens.

I haven't even discussed cost reduction like eliminating profit motive-related overhead, ridiculous and expensive "fraud protection", and an overall shift towards a preventative health-prioritized system which can and does reduce cost in the long run.

It's just not the corporatist plan, and that's the "problem". Elected officials love their campaign cash and kickbacks more than they do their constituents.

So, in Oz, we have a bunch of stuff covered. But you can also get private insurance and go to private hospitals. Generally, the quality of care is worse in public system but, to me, not significantly.

For example, we have private insurance. We had one kid born in the private but went public for the second. Mainly because private insurance doesn't cover all expenses but public does. The level of care wasn't that different, mainly private rooms compared to shared room. (And the private rooms were bigger.)

Also, generic drugs are covered under Medicare. Only monopolized drug brand can be expensive are covered but the government leans on those company to make it cheaper

Now, listening to American economist I heard from, they're generally aren't for the government using it's power to coerce cheaper prices for consumers. So, now companies are very willing to do it back to the governments with no consequences. You going to have to sell that idea to the public too

My major concern about any major government insurance program is that people would have to be committed to making it work. And knowing my party, they're going to take every chance they can to undermine it.

I've tried selling the idea of some sort of a single-payer system to my fellow right-wingers by appealing to their values, such as saving money. And owning the libs. This has had mixed results. Except for my more far-right friends, who are onboard with the idea because they promote unity through nationality and strength in numbers.

 

[Silvanus]

At this point, I do not. Democrats come in, declare their tiny little baby improvements, compromise on even those tiny little baby improvements, and call themselves heroes. Then Republicans come in and absolutely gut everything back out. Then the Democrats can cry about how the mean old Republicans have ruined everything but don't you worry, THEY'LL come in with their tiny little baby improvements and fix everything! Then the cycle continues. Nothing is fixed, everything is still fucked, but Democrats get to pat themselves on the back and pretend like they're heroes.

Our entire Medical System is a gigantic fire. Grabbing a bottle of water and tossing it onto the burning garbage and declaring that you've saved your house isn't helpful. The Entire Health Care System at this point NEEDS to be absolutely gutted and taken out at this point. Anyone not in support of this overhaul won't get my vote. The fact that 2/3s of Americans support this kind of overhaul feels like it should have been the easiest slam dunk in the world for Biden but he somehow managed to miss it anyway.

The premium-free coverage of people in states that refused to roll out Medicare expansion would save hundreds of thousands of lives, compared with the alternative (not to mention saving countless uninsured people from bankruptcy). Is that a "tiny baby" improvement? Worth passing on?

But not enough to pass. And some of the senators that flipped had made a big deal about a public option. Democrat senators break trust constantly, and you can't tell which of their promises they're going to break, but without fail progressive policies are shuttered nearly every time.

Not enough to pass, that's right, though those that didn't flip outnumber those that did... 4 to 1, I think?

Will you only support a party which doesn't have a single member go back on their word? And would you vote for a Democratic Representative or Senator who didn't flip?

I can understand withholding your vote from a specific candidate who flipped. I can't understand using it as a justification to hobble those who actually kept faith; punishing them for doing so.

Well the thing is, and I've said it in a different thread, the ACA doesn't really help that much. It's barely a bandaid. What I want is a system that lets you go to a doctor or hospital when sick and not go bankrupt, and the ACA literally does nothing to prevent that.

A public option would, a cap on premiums would, and premium-free coverage in states that didn't roll out medicare would. But you've already stated that even the Democratic Party offered these things, you wouldn't believe them.

Well here's what it means to me, in practical terms. At the current rate, Social Security will be insolvent by the end of the decade. Biden likes to cut SS and it may become insolvent sooner. Trump proposed a big cut and it could become insolvent even sooner than that.

But it doesn't really matter since it goes insolvent decades before I or millions of other Americans will get it because of either of them.

In fact the only people who will be seriously effected by this difference of policy are the people who are planning to live and collect past when Trump causes it to go insolvent but die before it would have become insolvent because of Biden.

Yes, there is a numerical value that is different, in the strictest terms their policies are different. I'm still going to say they both suck largely equally on issues important to me because the end results of their policies aren't very different.

How many tens of millions of people would lose coverage in the interim between those two timeframes? The gap between a year-long freeze (about the worst Biden implemented) and 800 billion over a decade is immense, after all; the difference in timeframe would realistically be enormous.

It's not "in the strictest terms". If you're focused solely on the insolvency of the entire programme, then it's millions of people. If you're talking about the stripping back of specific protections gradually over a longer time, then you're talking hundreds of millions.

There's a reason that pretty much all campaigners, charities, health organisations, and genuine left-wing politicians like Sanders uniformly agree that the plans are not equivalent and one is incomparably worse.

 

[tippy2k2]

The premium-free coverage of people in states that refused to roll out Medicare expansion would save hundreds of thousands of lives, compared with the alternative (not to mention saving countless uninsured people from bankruptcy). Is that a "tiny baby" improvement? Worth passing on?

I'm assuming that was to me since those words quoted were my words, not Worgen's

And absolutely worth passing on. It's the same playbook the Democrats have been running since I've been able to vote.

"Look, here's some crumbs everyone! Eat them and praise us for it! We could actually fight for meaningful change that would actually do a lot of good but we're getting rich by not pissing off our Corporate Donors AND you guys will eat it all up and call us heroes for it so why would we bother?! So get down on your knees and praise us for our benevolence! Make sure to trash all those people fighting for actual change to the system because we can't let The Republicans win this time, it's too important!!!! Once we win this round, NEXT time we'll fight for actual change and a fix to our system!"
-Next Republican comes in and takes it all away
"Did you see what those mean old Republicans did?!?! Well vote for us and we'll be SURE you get all these wonderful tasty crumbs that we had given you last time but were taken away the millisecond we lost power. But we HAVE to do it this way this time, it's too important this time to let the Republicans win. But don't you worry, NEXT time we'll fight for actual change and a fix to our system!"
-Repeat

So yeah, per my copy/paste in every post here; Biden can support M4A as 2/3rds of Americans want him to or he can try to earn someone else's vote because I'm out.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Not enough to pass, that's right, though those that didn't flip outnumber those that did... 4 to 1, I think?

Will you only support a party which doesn't have a single member go back on their word? And would you vote for a Democratic Representative or Senator who didn't flip?

I can understand withholding your vote from a specific candidate who flipped. I can't understand using it as a justification to hobble those who actually kept faith; punishing them for doing so.

I'm trying to tell you establishment Democrats don't. In this one specific vote it's those handful, in another vote it will be a different group, and in another vote it will be another group. You're falling for what the article talks about, because it's different members of the establishment who break their promises on any given vote, they want you to believe the party as a whole is just and friendly.

But every single time the party moves right. And here we have a candidate who flat out says they don't support M4A and was in the white house when the white house pushed to end a public option with the ACA saying he's the candidate for healthcare? No, he's a liar. A lying liar who lies.

A public option would, a cap on premiums would, and premium-free coverage in states that didn't roll out medicare would. But you've already stated that even the Democratic Party offered these things, you wouldn't believe them.

Because they've lied about specifically that before. The presidential candidate in question has lied specifically about that before.

How many tens of millions of people would lose coverage in the interim between those two timeframes? The gap between a year-long freeze (about the worst Biden implemented) and 800 billion over a decade is immense, after all; the difference in timeframe would realistically be enormous.

Less than 10 years. Either way, since neither candidate wants to help SS, it dissolves.

Maybe you should listen when I say it doesn't matter to the majority of Americans. The program will be defunct by 2030. Whether a candidate wants to break it sooner or even sooner than that is largely immaterial.

It certainly has 0 effect on me and literally everyone I know since none of them are pulling from SS in the next 10 years. And again, unless you plan on dying before 2030, all you're doing if you're on SS is putting off when you can't afford to live anymore. Literally you're picking your poison. And 2030 is being generous, assuming Biden's cuts don't cause it to go insolvent sooner.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not enough to pass, that's right, though those that didn't flip outnumber those that did... 4 to 1, I think?

Why have everyone break trust when you can guarantee the result with only 20% doing so?

 

[Worgen]

I'm assuming that was to me since those words quoted were my words, not Worgen's

And absolutely worth passing on. It's the same playbook the Democrats have been running since I've been able to vote.

"Look, here's some crumbs everyone! Eat them and praise us for it! We could actually fight for meaningful change that would actually do a lot of good but we're getting rich by not pissing off our Corporate Donors AND you guys will eat it all up and call us heroes for it so why would we bother?! So get down on your knees and praise us for our benevolence! Make sure to trash all those people fighting for actual change to the system because we can't let The Republicans win this time, it's too important!!!! Once we win this round, NEXT time we'll fight for actual change and a fix to our system!"
-Next Republican comes in and takes it all away
"Did you see what those mean old Republicans did?!?! Well vote for us and we'll be SURE you get all these wonderful tasty crumbs that we had given you last time but were taken away the millisecond we lost power. But we HAVE to do it this way this time, it's too important this time to let the Republicans win. But don't you worry, NEXT time we'll fight for actual change and a fix to our system!"
-Repeat

So yeah, per my copy/paste in every post here; Biden can support M4A as 2/3rds of Americans want him to or he can try to earn someone else's vote because I'm out.

Whats that? Democrats had a full 2 years of the last 20 to fix everything and during it they also had to deal with the housing crisis? That's no excuse, we elected a KING with ultimate power, there are no 3 branches of government.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Whats that? Democrats had a full 2 years of the last 20 to fix everything and during it they also had to deal with the housing crisis? That's no excuse, we elected a KING with ultimate power, there are no 3 branches of government.

And yet for some reason that doesn't seem to faze the Republicans.

 

[Worgen]

And yet for some reason that doesn't seem to faze the Republicans.

Because republicans whole thing is not wanting government to do anything, they want it to be smaller and be very limited in what it does. They are fine with government inefficiency because it just further proves their point that government is inefficient and the role that government plays should be left to the states or private industry.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Because republicans whole thing is not wanting government to do anything, they want it to be smaller and be very limited in what it does. They are fine with government inefficiency because it just further proves their point that government is inefficient and the role that government plays should be left to the states or private industry.

"Reasonable, pragmatic" centrist Democrats generally agree with that perspective.

This is their messaging! "It's not about policy"!