Oh please - highlighting that one statistic as a “yellow light” was a kneejerk reaction to begin with. Caution, Democrats! Some of you are pushing an idea that 60% of swing voters don’t like! You are also pushing 4 major ideas they do like, in some cases more than 70% of them, but the important point is that one of your ideas (which just happens to be tied to a particular front-runner) is under water!
Yes. Healthcare concerns in public policy are to voters in the midwest what Boston is to college towns.
Probably not important.
(2018 Exit polls: 41% of voters said healthcare was the issue most important to their vote. 23% said immigration, 21% said “the economy”.)
Dismiss as just another issue on equal weight with others at your own risk.
Menzo
6495
Enough people seem to like tax cuts no matter what the costs, guns for everyone no matter how many lives lost, and hard-right judges no matter how little experience.
Alstein
6496
I do think folks are too scared of M4A at this time- the only way we’re going to get it is via a public option that kicks the ass out of the insurance industry, and then when the government has a near-monopoly, you put the squeeze on the providers.
BTW, I think the best argument against that flag about lack of support for M4A is this: in 2018, voters were a year away from almost seeing the ACA revoked by congress, saved by a single vote in the Senate. And voters were also seeing various Republican state attorneys general bringing court cases to re-challenge various ACA provisions. It was very front of mind for many voters.
In 2020, we’ll be 3 years removed from McCain’s thumbs-down. Medicare expansion in states has grown. The AGs who were challenging in this court have quietly stepped down some of their efforts. The ACA at least appears to be fairly safe, and certainly safer than it looked in 2018.
So to seize initiative on healthcare as an issue in 2020, the Democrats do probably need something more than just protecting the status quo. But if the approach is a fairly uniform reconstruction of how healthcare works in the US…well, that’s going to have to be messaged heavily, almost at the cost of any other issue. And it still could be a net loser overall.
Or you could look at what voters said about their priorities in that same poll (about 8% think it’s the most important thing, though it the top actual issue). Or you could look at who voters want to vote for and consider whether the specific policy positions polled are the ones driving those preferences. Or you could look at polls that actually compare the options candidates are considering (like M4A v “we will have a beautiful plan that you will love, we just have to get Obamacare out of there first”).
KevinC
6500
Not slagging on Gates but I have to be honest here: I really don’t care how much of a tax is levied at someone who has 100 billion dollars. There is absolutely no reason any person should have that kind of money. There’s no reason we should incentivize anyone to accumulate that kind of money. Tax him for 95 of those 100 billion dollars for all I care. I know it’ll take some adjustment to only have $5 billion to live off of, but I’m sure there are resources to help poor billionaires manage.
Again, nothing personal against Gates. I appreciate that he’s doing some good with that wealth. But when we live in a country that is racking up debt by the trillions while millions still go without access to medical care (or go bankrupt from getting the medical care they do have access to), are buried under student loans, and are just struggling to make ends meet? Yeah, I have no problems bringing back the old tax rates and by taxing Scrooge McDuck’s treasure vault.
I know some of the more conservative/wealthy members of the forum probably disagree strongly with that but that’s okay. I still like you even if you’re wrong. ;)
Matt_W
6501
I know this is a heavy political lift, but the entire reason for a wealth tax for me is to actively disincentivize people from accumulating that kind of money. I don’t care about using tax receipts to fund other programs. The purpose of a wealth tax isn’t to raise money; it’s to reduce inequality.
Oh, there are going to be people in the world that will fight you over those words.
Very stupid people, but they are out there.
Personally I agree with you 100%.
It’s (probably) a political non-starter here, but I’d personally like to see a wealth cap in addition to a tax. We don’t really need billionaires, and no one really needs a billion dollars. I’d be cool with setting it (much) lower than that, but as an example.
Happy October Revolution Day, y’all!
Nesrie
6504
There’s no reason to go that extreme. Capping billionaires in this country is just going to send them to other countries, them and potentially their companies. I don’t see how we’re better of if companies like Microsoft existed in Germany or China or any other country instead.
We don’t have to go that… extreme. We can just get a very large tax on the income of these people like we used have and not make it more complicated than that, well and close loopholes of course.
The thing is, why is he arguing that they should not tax away all his wealth? Because Warren isn’t proposing to do that. It’s a strawman claim about wealth taxes, dishonest and being made for the purpose of discrediting the idea. And it isn’t really credible that Gates doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Banning billionaires and their goods/services like banning private jets and banning private schools are part of Labours campaign so the actual mechanics of it might be put into play in a few months if they win.
And to be fair to Gates, he didn’t really say that either. He said he already pays a lot (which was self-serving, sure) but he’d be willing to pay far, far more than he does today. Then he made a small joke about how he hopes the final percentage that they settle on is less than 100%, and finally he noted that the actual percentage could realistically be fairly high and still incentivize people to make money.
Gates at least uses his money for good, to affect positive change in the world. I have a lot of respect for him.
Not every billionaire is Bill Gates. They’re usually Waltons or Kochs.
Nesrie
6509
All that force “for good” won’t mean much though if he helps the GOP burn down the USA government so he can get… more money.
Sure, but it’s kind of like a rounding error, right? He’s not using his money for good, he’s using a fraction of his money for good.
Umm. The gates foundation had a $50 billion endowment. Then he made it all back and started another foundation, Gates Ventures, that’s working on education, climate change, health, and more with a similar endowment.
That’s not a rounding error. He’s probably paid more personal wealth on the public good than any other individual in history.
I think the Gates Foundation amounts to more than a rounding error. Maybe not… anyway as billionaires go I will take Gates over, say, Murdoch or Adelson, for what that’s worth.
