As an old guy, I look at Medicare. Medicare stands at the center of everything when it comes to insuring Americans over 65. But people still have options, they can and often do buy more insurance. And it would be a very, very heavy political lift to claim that they should not be able to.
There is a swath of voters who object to the idea that government should see to it that every American over 65 can obtain a decent level of health insurance. But that is a manageable number of opponents. And these people are all firmly in the Republican tent anyway, so no point trying to please them.
But there is a whole other swath of voters who would object to the idea that they cannot choose to buy more than what the government deems decent. And not only is that probably a larger number of voters, it is also includes a whole lot of people not in the Republican tent.
I think that this is mirrored in the debate about health insurance for people under the age of 65.
The specifics now being debated are all premature, and no point knocking ourselves out over them. But it is politically dangerous to allow your talk to signal that this latter group of voters may be shit out of luck. And the talk about keeping their own insurance is code for that issue. “Maybe I don’t have insurance I like, but what if I did? And won’t I get to look around for some I like?” That’s where the power of the Republican counterattack will obtain its power, I think.
Again, this is all about spectrum signaling. The eventual nominee will pivot right or left (depending where they are now) and if they campaign for MFA, they will not insist on eliminating all provide insurance as part of it. Well, maybe Bernie would, but he won’t be the nominee.
I mostly agree. My main point was to explain the meaning and power of the political sloganeering around people wanting to keep their own insurance, and not underestimating it because (like most slogans) it is not precise.
But in our current media era, it also may be more difficult to slough off primary campaign signaling, once the real campaign begins. And in the hands of Republican operatives, this may turn out to be an opening for “they aren’t just trying to make you pay to bring those beneath you up, they intend to equalize by pushing you middle class voters down.”
In the current atmosphere, economic issues are kind of getting pushed aside by cultural issues, so maybe this doesn’t matter. But I am far from certain. A lot of fairly comfortable middle class votes are with us on cultural issues, but it is theoretical rather than visceral; messages that they face personal financial risk could have an effect.
It’s easy for some to think/say these things now, in August of 2019. It is still early enough to cling to one’s perception of the ideal. Time will present more variables, the upcoming deadline of the election will instill urgency and the very real possibility of a horrible outcome will lead to more “practical” decisions.
Also, it is unfair Bernie to jump to speculative actions he would take (“until dragged off the stage”) based on random goobers on twitter.
They’re not random goobers, and he has a track record after all.
Yes, he does. Did he not quit until dragged off the stage at the convention before? His track record is one of fighting for others - I know he got dragged off by police when protesting civil rights, but your suggestion is that he is so petulant that he would not accept the results of the primary is ridiculous.
So was Bush Jr.
I will be voting for whoever the candidate is but we’ve seen this story before.
Strange you should ask. Last time he was eliminated well before the end of the primaries on on June 12 but did not concede for more than a month. Already this time he has refused to say that he would concede if he loses the primary.
You know, predictions are just guesses, informed by past and current behavior. Perhaps I am wrong, but there’s no reason to take it personally.
Person offers up evidence-less premise.
Other person agrees with it without question.
Original person then cites an example that is the very embodiment of refuting his own original premise.
:)
CraigM
4328
Spotted in the wild west of Des Moines: a Tulsi 2020 billboard.
People are weird.
These are all valid points. And before I begin, I just want to say I’m not at all opposed to a public option along side of private insurance (although i would prefer decoupling insurance from the employer)
But in terms of choice, the vast majority of people get their insurance through their employer. When looking for a new job, I’m willing to bet almost no one asks “which insurance carrier do you use and is my doctor in their network?” Or when an employer decides to change insurance carriers (as mine has at least four times that I remember) no one demands that they be allowed to keep the previous one. The point I’m trying to make is that most people don’t have a choice anyway. Ergo, I can’t see how it’s a ‘catastrophic policy trap’ to argue for a plan where you never have to worry about if this or that health condition is covered or if your hospital or doctor is in this or that network.
During the 2008 primary, Obama campaigned strongly against an individual mandate - but that stance vanished as soon as the ACA legislation started getting written. Campaigns are ultimately about a vision of where you want to lead the country. The devil may be in the details, but the details are subject to the legislative process. (The media’s obsession* with “but whatabout private insurance!” sounds to me like so much scaremongering and it just triggers me into obsession lol. Sorry.)
I may have my issues with Buttigieg but he’s right:
“It is time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say,” he said. “It is true if we embrace a far-left agenda, they are going to say we are a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they’re going to do? They’re going to say we’re a bunch of crazy socialists. So let’s just stand up for the right policy and go out there and defend it.”
*Republicans don’t have to work too hard to attack a Democrat’s plan as the media in many cases does that job for them :P
Hardly “dragged off the stage at the convention”. And it worked towards his goals. The Democratic platform was more progressive than it would have been had he simply dropped out early.
That is an odd inference.
Hyperbole. I’m pretty sure you didn’t think I meant it literally, but if you did think that, I accept the blame.
I agree with Buttigieg. Certainly with this President and this GOP there is no bottom for the absurdity and lies they will tell about whomever the Democrats nominate and will be aided and abetted by most of Fox but not all of Fox.
To me the litmus test is how will Chris Wallace and Sam Shepherd describe the candidates policy. I think they will call it like they see it and Bernie and Warrens plan warrant the socialist label.
I spent the last week visiting my mom in Washington, with my sister, BIL and 40 year old niece and her kids. Last time I saw them was election day 2018. At the time they had nothing good to say about Trump. Their rhetoric has only gotten harsher, although he is still better than Hillary.
My BIL is hopeless, not pro-Trump just anti-Democrats, it is possible my sister may not vote for Trump.
But my niece is gettable. She told me she is not longer a Republican and open to voting for someone else, but she has major policy disagreements with the Democrats…
Her family has one of those Christian Medical share, purely from a financial perspective. I don’t blame her $695 for a family of 5, with a max $200 deductible per incident is hell of a lot better than an ACA plan. But even the threat of these being outlawed are absolutely enough to keep her voting GOP.
Finally, I think it important to take off our rose colored glass about ACA and the joys of government healthcare. IIRC, very few members of this forum actually had to get ACA insurance when the program was rolled out. Of those that did several of you were in CA, which was one of the very few states where the exchange rollout wasn’t a complete clusterfuck. I remember spending the first two weeks of Oct 2013, spending a couple hours a day Hawaii’s healthcare exchange in futile effort to get registered for ACA insurance. It was an immense relief to find my existing Kaiser program was grandfathered and I could skip the signup…
Replacing private insurance involves 20 times more people and is at least an order of magnitude more complicated than opening an exchange.
CraigM
4335
My wife and kids did, in Illinois. Which while somewhat tricky was better than the alternatives, including going on my work insurance.
I didn’t have to do it for several years, but eventually I had to buy insurance on the Arizona exchange. It worked pretty well, and wasn’t hard to do. Of course the insurance sucked, but insurance basically sucks.
I agree with that assessment. On the other hand, it’s perfectly clear that all the people needed to manage the administration of Medicare for 350 million people will come from the ranks of those people currently doing the same for private health insurance, so probably there won’t actually be any job losses; at least, not over the longer term.
And how was the process of signing up in Oct 2013?
