• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Might be difficult considering Medicare is substantially more expensive than any employer insurance.
Medicare only covers the most expensive demographic right now.

The $ currently going into employer sponsored insurance will be reduced by billions just by cutting out the overhead costs from admin fees (which goes to CEOs, shareholders, etc) under a system where they're (largely) kept out of the loop.
 
I hope the next liberal Democratic president likes signing into law Kyrstin Sinema's policy positions.

Those of us hoping for a POTUS Liz Warren are hoping people like Sinema can be pulled to the left to at least some extent with Warren as the leader of the democratic party.
 
Medicare only covers the most expensive demographic right now.

The $ currently going into employer sponsored insurance will be reduced by billions just by cutting out the overhead costs from admin fees (which goes to CEOs, shareholders, etc) under a system where they're (largely) kept out of the loop.

It seems the defining features of Medicare are that it covers a limited number of services, with cost sharing, for an aged, blind, disabled population. That is what separates it from that other program that has minimal cost sharing, covers most services, and covers people of all levels of acuity.

Are you sure you mean expanding Medicare for more people or letting them buy in? I don't know why we want average people buying into a system designed around geriatric and disabled care. And if it isn't that, why are you calling it Medicare?
 
Are you sure you mean expanding Medicare for more people or letting them buy in? I don't know why we want average people buying into a system designed around geriatric and disabled care. And if it isn't that, why are you calling it Medicare?

A health care system should be designed for people who need health care. That's the whole point.

It's being called Medicare because it will build on the existing Medicare framework and infrastructure, and because Medicare is popular.
 
You think the leader of the democratic party holds zero sway over congressional democrats?

No influence at all there?

If they had meaningful power, blue dogs would not have so successfully sunk a public option.

Your reply is bizarre. Non zero and meaningful impact on the things you care about are not the same.
 
A health care system should be designed for people who need health care. That's the whole point.

It's being called Medicare because it will build on the existing Medicare framework and infrastructure, and because Medicare is popular.

But it isn't the existing Medicare framework. Services, eligibility, price setting, financing, cost sharing, etc, are all different.

It sounds a lot more like the Medicaid framework.
 
If they had meaningful power, blue dogs would not have so successfully sunk a public option.

Your reply is bizarre. Non zero and meaningful impact on the things you care about are not the same.

It was Obama who decided to ditch the public option. And Obama, the leader of the democratic party, got all these people to go along with it:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...50-dems-pledge-to-vote-only-for-public-option

At least fifty Democrats, it turns out, have pledged to only vote for a healthcare reform bill that includes a public option.
 
But it isn't the existing Medicare framework. Services, eligibility, price setting, financing, cost sharing, etc, are all different.

It sounds a lot more like the Medicaid framework.

Changing stuff like eligibility criteria is not changing the infrastructure at all.
 
Changing stuff like eligibility criteria is not changing the infrastructure at all.

Yes it is.

ETA: as someone who does this for a living, changes like Medicare to everyone is a major change to infrastructure. There are projects that are not (Medicaid expansion) and others that are (managed long term care).
 
Last edited:
Because there was not 60 votes in the Senate. A whip count including the house is meaningless.

Reid was all ready to do it with reconciliation, but Obama called him off.
https://www.politico.com/livepulse/0210/Reid_would_back_a_public_option_in_reconciliation.html#
Reid would back a public option in reconciliation
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signaled today that he would support including a public option in a reconciliation bill.

Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau put out this statement:

Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition. That is why he included the measure in his original health care proposal. If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, House and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.


The move is a significant step forward for a public option left for dead (again) only a few months ago
 
Reid was all ready to do it with reconciliation, but Obama called him off.
https://www.politico.com/livepulse/0210/Reid_would_back_a_public_option_in_reconciliation.html#

Doesn't matter what Reid says. He didn't have the votes

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/02/why-obama-dropped-the-public-option/346546/

It Never Had Senate's Support Nate Silver says Obama didn't kill it because it was already dead. "In August, a whip count on the public option showed only 43 firm yes votes, one of which was Senator Kennedy," he writes. "And these totals reflected how Senators claim they would have voted if the public option were considered under regular order -- not under reconciliation, which is the process in play now. You might have to subtract some additional votes from among those Senators who are either opposed using reconciliation for health care in general, or opposed to including a public option in a reconciliation package specifically."
 
Last edited:

That link also says:


Obama Could Have Secured It The Washington Post's Greg Sargent scratches his head. "It's unclear why [White House Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs is deciding in advance that there isn't enough support to pass this idea. Momentum has been gathering for days. It's also very likely that it would continue to gain steam if Obama racks up a victory at the summit and Dems press forward with plans to pass reform themselves via reconciliation. But Gibbs's statement seems likely, willfully or not, to slow that momentum in advance."

Obama Only Pretended To Support It In The New York Times, Glenn Greenwald suspects the worst. "It now seems obvious that White House's claim of support for the public option was a pretense used to placate the progressive base," he writes. "But it seems clear that the filibuster is a convenient excuse Democrats use to justify their inaction (we'd like to pass it but can't because, sadly, we just don't have 60 votes). As the health care debacle demonstrates, even with that obstacle removed, the White House still refuse to push for progressive provisions."
 

Also, the Nate Silver link linked to also has him saying:

In August, a whip count on the public option showed only 43 firm yes votes, one of which was Senator Kennedy. Last month, Jane Hamsher claimed to have found 51 votes for a public option,..

What’s reasonably clear is that the Democrats were quite a ways away from having 50 firm commitments to the public option. How close they could have gotten if Obama and Harry Reid had done everything in their power to whip the votes for it, we don’t know. Instead, it’s been pretty obvious, from the reporting of people like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn, that the White House regarded the latest reincarnation of public option as a nuisance that they hoped would go away.

As we saw here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_death_of_the_public_option.html

The public option died tonight. So, it seems, did its eager successor, the Medicare buy-in. Harry Reid buried the ideas at a somber meeting of the Senate Democratic Caucus. "Could it have been better?" asked Sen. Jay Rockefeller. "Yeah. But it could've been so much worse if we'd just decided not to do anything because we didn't get everything we wanted."

The calculation, in the end, was pretty simple. The White House wants the Senate done with health-care legislation by Christmas.

Obama euthanized the public option.
 
That is speculation. The number of senators stating support is a fact.

And 50 senators who'd taken the pledge to not support it without a public option is also a fact.

But Obama did things like bring them on board Air Force One to chat in private with him about it to get them to break the promise.

Anywho, the leader of the democratic party, a democratic POTUS, does, in fact, hold a lot of sway over congressional democrats.
 
And 50 senators who'd taken the pledge to not support it without a public option is also a fact.

But Obama did things like bring them on board Air Force One to chat in private with him about it to get them to break the promise.

Anywho, the leader of the democratic party, a democratic POTUS, does, in fact, hold a lot of sway over congressional democrats.
Can you link to the pledge, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom