This from AOC is great. Basically every country in the EU has some version of ‘Medicare for all’ (some use private insurance but the effect is the same). Dems running for President on the America is so great we can’t afford that platform ought to be sent packing early and often.
There are many ways to get there. I would prefer one that doesn’t shock the system into oblivion. A public option that would eventually push insurances out, or reform the system is something I’m in favor of.
wavey
2654
I heard a properly jaw-dropping podcast on US healthcare costs recently. (Jaw-dropping to me as a non-American, anyway - I assume it will be common knowledge to those in the US following the healthcare debate)
It was a BBC statistics-centred show on the World Service, which fact-checked a Bernie Sanders tweet comparing the costs of giving birth in America vs Finland. (It’s only 9 minutes long and worth a listen.)
Most of it was as expected - the overall cost of the procedure is indeed much less in Finland, and the Finnish system gives better outcomes and is nearly all funded via tax.
The shocking part was how much taxpayers in each country pay the government for healthcare - in Finland, on average $4100 per person, vs $4800 in the US. This is before any private insurance is added to the equation.
It’s just staggering to me that people in the US are apparently already paying more than enough in tax for a good quality, fully socialized healthcare system, but instead seem to want to pay much, much more in addition for demonstrably poorer outcomes.
On the one hand, I understand this view. On the other, lack of access to health care kills people, and it’s a bit tough to say we should go slowly so we don’t upset things.
It’s all about who has power. The people who decide have power, have money, and get excellent health care outcomes they can afford. The people who pay more than they can afford for bad outcomes have no power. I guess it’s a classic example of some basic political principle, but it sure is crazy.
The thing that blows my mind is that the right can combine we are the greatest country ever with we can’t afford what everyone else can afford and not blush while they do it. But I guess I should get over being surprised at the basic dishonesty of the right.
LMN8R
2656
I just don’t understand why a candidate who no one knows would try to make his name this way of all ways.
This idea from Pete is…very, very bad.
I mean, 5 is an odd number. How do 5 Dem judges and 5 Rep judges ever agree on 5 ‘non-partisan’ members? What actually is a non-partisan member? We find these apolitical judges on the current federal bench? When one side judges it wrong, doesn’t that give the other side a majority anyway? If they don’t agree, there is effectively no Court? WTF!?
Disagree - the plan might not be perfect, but what draws me to Buttigieg is that he is the only one who seems willing to attack the systematic issues that have resulted in minority party rule in this country.
He’s also been quick to point out that he’s open to alternative ideas to address the problem.
I would to see fixed terms, so that one young person doesn’t get to hang around for decades.
Also, one and done. You get one, let’s say 10 year term on the supreme Court. After that, you can go back to the lower courts or retire.
Oh, it’s perfect; it’s a recipe for right centrism, and it has the added beauty of being entirely symbolic because there is zero chance it can pass. Pete is using it to tell us who he is, and we should listen.
What a Democratic President needs to do is put liberal judges on the Court, not engineer safe seats for conservatives on the Court.
Watching Mayor Pete’s townhall on MSNBC and falling in love all over again. He’s just so damn good.
I especially loved his answer to the women, who asked how can you ask women to vote yet another man for President. “Even if you can’t vote for me that’s ok, I’ll still support you.” It was so nice and reassuring.
I also would really like him to answer the question of why him and not the others, and not talk about his resume/experience or his youth. What seperates him from the rest of the field is his communication skills. He is able to articulate his ideas/policies, even (and maybe especially) when you disagree with them, that makes them seem less threaten and more sensible.
For instance, he still opposes giving prisoners the right to vote, which I agree with him. But the reason, he thinks it is worthwhile discussion is because blacks are so disproportionally incarcerated, that giving prisoners the right to vote is a way of redressing racism in society. Bernie Sanders didn’t clearly articulate that position, nor did the small number of folks on the forum who agree with Bernie. So with one sentence, Mayor Pete has changed my opinion, from that’s a crazy idea to I still disagree but it is not crazy idea.
The ability to reframe ideas in a way that makes more sense to opponents is an incredibly powerful tool in the President’s arsenal.
Edit
Also he missed an easy answer to name a living Republican who you respect. Robert Mueller certainly qualifies, I’d say James Comey although that would be probably politically risky. It is 100% worth reminding any Republican/independent viewers that Robert Mueller isn’t Democrat out to get Trump, but Republican appointed by Republicans.
Of course I had a couple of hours to think of this answer…It is really remarkable how well Pete thinks on his feet.
Huh. Kind of expected Grampy Joe’s Environment platform to be terrible.
But it isn’t terrible. And on the Grampy Joe sliding scale grade on the curve…it’s far better than anyone I think expected.
I think from this point we should expect all of the candidates to have variations on a theme in regards to their platform. Some one (Warren) will say 1.5 trillion to clean energy. The next one to write their answer in the form of an essay will say, 1.7 trillion, and so on.
Grampy Joe still has to prove to me why I will vote for him beyond, “he polls better so he can win this.” I like some of what he’s said. But he sits somewhere between great with words (Buttigieg) and great with policy (Warren) on my scale.
He still is polling better than others across all demographics, for now. I want to see some debates between the candidates though.
From the polling so far this week, it looks like we’ve kind of hit a stall on movement in the polls, and probably won’t see much change until after the debates start.
magnet
2667
That’s like saying: Mayor Pete still has to prove to me why I will vote for him beyond, “he is great with words so he can win this.” He sits somewhere between great with polls (Biden) and great with policy (Warren) on my scale.
I’ve listened to Mayor Pete in two different town halls. He’s the real deal. I’ve heard Biden only once so far. You can like or not like my scale, but don’t take it to mean much. It’s certainly not me saying Mayor Pete isn’t any good with policy, nor Warren good with words. I’m just my lackluster placement on an arbitrary line that means nothing.
My vote is shifting a lot and I like a lot of what multiple candidates have said or posted. I meant what I said about Biden though. I need to hear more.
No legal marijuana in your platform or no sale for me. I’ve never even smoked the stuff but if you can’t see how much damage the current drug policy has done to criminal justice then you are not my candidate. Legal marijuana is a step 1 acknowledgement of the issues for me. Without it you’re just blowing smoke.
My takeaway listening to Pete Buttigieg is that his top priority is addressing decay in our system.
Most Dems I talk to, their top priority involves a fairly particular injustice in America, standing up for a particular group or two cut off from real power.
Personally, I see things more broadly than that, thinking that we need to address the general imbalance in power and wealth, not particular subgroups by name. (Because our opponents routinely re-purpose our efforts on behalf of specific subgroups into attacks on other have-nots.)
But Buttigieg seems to see things even more broadly than that, seeing our decision-making processes as so outdated that that is the place we must start.
I see his point, but also notice that we have a whole lot of states with a high degree of self-interest in maintaining the electoral college, and almost as many that are conservative enough to be skeptical of a supreme court plan that would thwart conservative movement types. So he would have to win by a landslide to have the political capital to pull this off.
But he does remind me a bit of Kennedy and Reagan, looming over all the competition in terms of charisma, so maybe he could pull it off.
One thing that’ll be interesting in the debates to come: Buttigieg yesterday said in his Town Hall with Chris Matthews that he wouldn’t have called for Al Franken to step down without having first spent more time looking at the allegations and Franken’s own responses to same.
So yeah, Gillibrand at least is going to go after him hard on that.
