• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

I don't know that you can make sweeping reforms without a backlash in the next election.
 
tiltdeac said:
I just read that piece and don't see anything in there to support the headline. This line seems like a more accurate summary. "Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end." Is there something specific in there that particularly bothered you?
Click to expand...
How does it not support the headline? It's Pelosi's policy advisor describing the difficulties of M4A to a BCBS exec? Just what exactly do think the purpose is of that? Did you think the BCBS exec was on-board with M4A and Pelosi wanted to talk him out of it?

To be clear, since you're gaslighting me - M4A is supposedly a Democratic policy goal, which health insurance execs will spend millions and billions to oppose.

You all have brainworms. The fucking speaker of the house would collude with health insurance conglomerates against the stated policy goals of Democratic Presidential candidates, and you don't see a problem just because you...don't think M4A is realistic??
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
How does it not support the headline? It's Pelosi's policy advisor describing the difficulties of M4A to a BCBS exec? Just what exactly do think the purpose is of that? Did you think the BCBS exec was on-board with M4A and Pelosi wanted to talk him out of it?

To be clear, since you're gaslighting me - M4A is supposedly a Democratic policy goal, which health insurance execs will spend millions and billions to oppose.

You all have brainworms. The fucking speaker of the house would collude with health insurance conglomerates against the stated policy goals of Democratic Presidential candidates, and you don't see a problem just because you...don't think M4A is realistic??
Click to expand...

your plan is to create policy that radically transforms an entire sector of our economy without input from that sector and expect that plant to succeed

wheeeeeeeeeeeee
 
ImTheCaptain said:
is it really that far from your Truth
Click to expand...
Dude what in the fuck are you talking about? Honestly, like why am I not just blocking you to miss all the random stupid snide comments you post? At this point I just straight up dislike you because you literally never stop talking shit. What's the purpose of this back and forth - you're a hemorrhoid to me.
 
If Pelosi blocks M4A under a Dem pres and Senate who want it, she’ll be gone.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all/
TOP NANCY PELOSI AIDE PRIVATELY TELLS INSURANCE EXECUTIVES NOT TO WORRY ABOUT DEMOCRATS PUSHING “MEDICARE FOR ALL”

"...Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices, specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing."
Click to expand...

Wendell Primus sounds like the name of a Marvel villain.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
How does it not support the headline? It's Pelosi's policy advisor describing the difficulties of M4A to a BCBS exec? Just what exactly do think the purpose is of that? Did you think the BCBS exec was on-board with M4A and Pelosi wanted to talk him out of it?

To be clear, since you're gaslighting me - M4A is supposedly a Democratic policy goal, which health insurance execs will spend millions and billions to oppose.

You all have brainworms. The fucking speaker of the house would collude with health insurance conglomerates against the stated policy goals of Democratic Presidential candidates, and you don't see a problem just because you...don't think M4A is realistic??
Click to expand...

If you look back at my posts, I think you'll see that I've tried to engage with you and MDH in good faith and will continue to do so, accusations aside.

M4A is *not* a Democratic policy goal. The policy goal is (and should be) affordable universal health care. M4A is one particular policy to achieve that, and it has been endorsed by some Democrats (though many of them have endorsed multiple pieces of possible health care legislation across the universal health care spectrum, and it's not clear to me they understand exactly what M4A would mean). We can have a separate discussion about M4A the policy. I'm personally not sure it's the right approach, it's to the left of essentially the entire world, and is very unpopular with the public once explained in any detail. But again, that's a separate discussion (we should probably have 1 or more threads about policy ideas, I'd enjoy hearing and learning about the ideas people have on here).

I wouldn't think it surprising that the Speaker of the House and the PhD economist who are representing her, both of whom were architects of the ACA, continue to support strengthening the program. I also wouldn't think it surprising that they would try to court the powerful insurance lobby to help with what is in this case a shared goal, trying to decrease drug costs. I think the purpose of the discussion of M4A and its potential difficulties is to try to keep them at the table (and I doubt any real promises were made) by (correctly) stating that there are ways to obtain universal health care that still involve the insurance industry (like most of the world does).

I do get that it can feel a little gross to see interactions between dem leadership and the insurance industry, especially if you see them as partially responsible for the past and current state of health care in this country. And if your position is that no dem should be working with *any* corporate interest, fine, I guess. But I think acting as if this is some betrayal of the party, or collusion again dem presidential candidates, just seems silly to me. Clearly some dems will still push for and support M4A regardless of what the Speaker thinks and that's great! I hope there is robust debate of lots of different plans to achieve universal coverage, and we can come up with the best one in the end. But in the mean time, I just don't think it's a big deal to take a stab at pitting the insurance industry against the drug companies to help drive down prices while we wait.
 
bym051d said:
Yeah, that won't happen.
Click to expand...

It sounds like Wendell Primus (again, what an awesome name) is assuring industry folks that it will.

I hope Ph is right, but history suggests we’ll get whatever top donors pay for and convince ourselves that it’s an incremental approach.
 
tiltdeac said:
If you look back at my posts, I think you'll see that I've tried to engage with you and MDH in good faith and will continue to do so, accusations aside.

M4A is *not* a Democratic policy goal. The policy goal is (and should be) affordable universal health care. M4A is one particular policy to achieve that, and it has been endorsed by some Democrats (though many of them have endorsed multiple pieces of possible health care legislation across the universal health care spectrum, and it's not clear to me they understand exactly what M4A would mean). We can have a separate discussion about M4A the policy. I'm personally not sure it's the right approach, it's to the left of essentially the entire world, and is very unpopular with the public once explained in any detail. But again, that's a separate discussion (we should probably have 1 or more threads about policy ideas, I'd enjoy hearing and learning about the ideas people have on here).

I wouldn't think it surprising that the Speaker of the House and the PhD economist who are representing her, both of whom were architects of the ACA, continue to support strengthening the program. I also wouldn't think it surprising that they would try to court the powerful insurance lobby to help with what is in this case a shared goal, trying to decrease drug costs. I think the purpose of the discussion of M4A and its potential difficulties is to try to keep them at the table (and I doubt any real promises were made) by (correctly) stating that there are ways to obtain universal health care that still involve the insurance industry (like most of the world does).

I do get that it can feel a little gross to see interactions between dem leadership and the insurance industry, especially if you see them as partially responsible for the past and current state of health care in this country. And if your position is that no dem should be working with *any* corporate interest, fine, I guess. But I think acting as if this is some betrayal of the party, or collusion again dem presidential candidates, just seems silly to me. Clearly some dems will still push for and support M4A regardless of what the Speaker thinks and that's great! I hope there is robust debate of lots of different plans to achieve universal coverage, and we can come up with the best one in the end. But in the mean time, I just don't think it's a big deal to take a stab at pitting the insurance industry against the drug companies to help drive down prices while we wait.
Click to expand...

This is a great post.

Ph, this is how you start a dialogue.

mdmh, interested to hear your thoughts, as this post addresses your concerns.

There’s definitely politicking/gaslighting at play from some of our #resistance heroes who are stumping as progressives at the moment, but tilt is right - M4A is an immensely popular grassroots issue at best; it’s nowhere near an establishment platform. Unless someone is willing to champion an actual it as a key issue, I’m not sure why anybody would assume somebody like Pelosi would be into it...

Ph, interested to hear how you might sell something like this - arguably a core progressive value in 2019 - to a center that just isn’t interested. Incrementalism isn’t an answer. We have the ACA already as an incrementalist policy.
 
All the M4A polls I’ve seen indicate the center wants it. It’s just a question of how. What polling are you basing things on?
 
PhDeac said:
All the M4A polls I’ve seen indicate the center wants it. It’s just a question of how. What polling are you basing things on?
Click to expand...

What centrist politicians tell their constituencies.

You should post the polling data, though, so ChrisL can have another laugh.

For the record, I think tilt is right about the contradiction between being into the rhetoric vs. the actual policy.
 
Polling indicates that people like "Medicare 4 All." Polling indicates people do not like the idea of giving up their own insurance plans, given about 70% of the population likes their current insurance plan.

Democrats in general and candidates specifically can start the process of trying to convince the voting public that doing away with all or substantially all of private health insurance is a good thing, but I don't know that a majority of the country believes that now.

I think destroying the private health insurance industry ends up as a net positive. People will have more freedom to take jobs that currently do not provide insurance. Nobody will be stuck in the cycle of debt, poverty, and bankruptcy that arises when medical emergencies arise for which there is no (or insubstantial) coverage. The overall cost curve should adjust as we have the ability to incentivize certain treatment patterns and lifestyle choices to try and create a healthier country. But that doesn't change the fact that your are talking about a drastic change. And most people in this country don't want a drastic change.
 
Strickland33 said:
I’m glad that made you laugh out loud. Short of taking my post out of context, what was so funny about it? Tilt and I agree.
Click to expand...


Something that polls in the mid 50s in the abstract but drops considerably when you explain how it would actually be enacted is "immensely popular"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top