Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-23-2019, 02:48 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
before Obama the last senator elected president was JFK. The trend for 50+ years is to elect someone from outside DC such as Carter, Bush Jr, Clinton, Trump, Reagan.
A very good point. To add a bit, Obama's was a gifted speaker. Harris is not in his class.
  #102  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:19 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
... You have to mollify those 95 million moderate gun owners. ...
So we had a past thread in which the data was presented that moderate gun owners want some gun control and that gun control is nowhere near the big issue in their minds. They simply are not afraid that anyone is going to come and take their guns right now (and after Heller they certainly should not be), and they are more afraid of gun violence right now. Meanwhile the data clearly showed that the other side, those who want stricter gun control measures, do rate it as a higher item.

So no. You have to mollify those many many voters who want more gun control or you will lose. Too weak on the issue is a bigger risk than too strong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is misleading as to Harris's position on firearms. First, Heller didn't make Harris's position in SF moot. Existing CA law at the time did that. ...


... And sure, gun rights will be a minor issue for many, probably the majority. But it is a significant if not only issue for a large number of people. People who only come out to vote if they are motivated by gun issues. Can you say with certainty that those less than 100K people across the three states WI, PA, and MI would have been as energized to vote for Trump if Clinton had been less gun banny? ...
You of course miss the point.

Testing out what the law was, how the courts would judge in the states in the nation, was something many were doing. And it has been decided. It is established.

There is no fear that handguns will be banned anymore. No matter how slippery the slope, be it frictionless, the bottom is not so far down now. No matter who is president, not without constitutional amendments passing or a completely new court.

I can say that the data is clear that right now being too weak on gun control is more likely to decrease turnout for a D than being too strong is to increase votes against the D. The fact that HRC's positions would be labelled "gun banny" prove to me that any position advocating stronger gun control that will appeal to those who may not otherwise vote (younger voters, Black voters, female voters as broad demographics) will be smeared as that. And pandering to those few who will turn out only when the NRA fear mongers will hurt more than help. The fear mongering gun banny smears will happen against any D and will help them in this cycle.

As to Harris, her gun control position and the other Ds will be pretty much the same. Each will be falling over themselves to sound stronger on it during the primaries. Pretty much all will promote stupid assault weapon bans but everything else they promote is going to be pretty mild or even superfluous. And it will be labelled by the GOP as gun banny fer sure.


Very few are in Obama's speaking class FWIW. Harris to my listen though is the best of current crop. Brown's good just because it is different and very authentic (Sanders has that too.). The others, including Booker to my listen, not so powerful or authentic sounding.
  #103  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:24 AM
suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,902
Iím a California resident, and I think Kamala Harris is fantastic. How many others agree with me, I canít say.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #104  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:44 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You of course miss the point.

Testing out what the law was, how the courts would judge in the states in the nation, was something many were doing. And it has been decided. It is established.

There is no fear that handguns will be banned anymore. No matter how slippery the slope, be it frictionless, the bottom is not so far down now. No matter who is president, not without constitutional amendments passing or a completely new court.
What point do you think I'm missing?

You seem to be saying that pre-Heller, local municipalities were testing the limits of what was permissible under the law and acceptable to their electorate. As a result, some measures like the gun ban passed in SF (Prop H in 2005). Do I have that right?

That's not the point I'm making. Even absent Heller, prop H was contradicted by CA state law that had been well established. If state law says that cities cannot do X, and then a city says, nah, we're going to do X, that's not testing what the law is. That is ignoring what the law is. That Harris would support this shows Harris's views. In 1982, nearly 23 years prior and therefore well established, a similar law was pushed and signed into law by Diane Feinstein. That law which also banned handguns within the city of SF, was also struck down by the courts.

This had nothing to do with Heller. CA has statewide preemption for gun laws. The state legislature intends to occupy all of the space regarding gun laws and therefore cities are preempted from enacting their own. This was the basis upon which both the 1982 ordinance and the 2005 proposition were struck down. It was already decided, and established in CA that what Harris supported contradicted state law. So your claim that it is decided isn't very reassuring, since Harris has shown she doesn't care about what the law is.

You say there is no fear that handguns will be banned anymore, save for a constitutional amendment or a new court. I disagree. The right can be widdled away by lower courts and by inaction by the high court. Would you say the same thing about abortion? That it's settled law and there is no fear that abortion will be banned anymore? Just last year there were additional gun bans passed in CA. There are new restrictive gun laws passed with regularity. Without Trump being elected, I fully expected Heller to be neutered even more than it already has been by lower courts. No, SCOTUS needs a stronger majority to take bolder action with regard to firearms. Any person Harris would nominate would likely not fit that bill.

A new court is always just one president away, given a certain set of circumstances.

How that plays into the calculus of the electorate is a different line of discussion. I'm not sure what policy position will be a winner for the Democratic Party.
  #105  
Old 01-24-2019, 03:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So we had a past thread in which the data was presented that moderate gun owners want some gun control and that gun control is nowhere near the big issue in their minds. They simply are not afraid that anyone is going to come and take their guns right now (and after Heller they certainly should not be), and they are more afraid of gun violence right now. Meanwhile the data clearly showed that the other side, those who want stricter gun control measures, do rate it as a higher item.

So no. You have to mollify those many many voters who want more gun control or you will lose. Too weak on the issue is a bigger risk than too strong.



You of course miss the point.

Testing out what the law was, how the courts would judge in the states in the nation, was something many were doing. And it has been decided. It is established.

There is no fear that handguns will be banned anymore. No matter how slippery the slope, be it frictionless, the bottom is not so far down now. No matter who is president, not without constitutional amendments passing or a completely new court.

I can say that the data is clear that right now being too weak on gun control is more likely to decrease turnout for a D than being too strong is to increase votes against the D. The fact that HRC's positions would be labelled "gun banny" prove to me that any position advocating stronger gun control that will appeal to those who may not otherwise vote (younger voters, Black voters, female voters as broad demographics) will be smeared as that...

As to Harris, her gun control position and the other Ds will be pretty much the same. Each will be falling over themselves to sound stronger on it during the primaries. Pretty much all will promote stupid assault weapon bans but everything else they promote is going to be pretty mild or even superfluous...
But you see they are afraid. Harris has shown a complete disregard for the 2nd Ad. and when she cant do a handgun ban, she tries a run around, like a ban on all new models of handguns, based upon totally spurious bad science. And a ban on all guns and magazines over 10 rounds. End runs. That would ban the Glock, for example, and the Beretta, two of the most popular handguns in America, even with Police and security. And "Assault weapons" can be defined however you want- and Harris is perfectly capable of pressing for a ban on all semi-automatics. She already supported a ban on all rifles with magazines over 10 rounds. And semi-automatic shotguns and rifles are very popular with deer and duck hunters. The "Moderate" gun owners. So yeah, they would be afraid.

If you are just talking banning new sales of AR15 like guns, sure, that might work. But when Harris pushed the handgun ban in SF, it was a confiscation with no recompense. So there are "assault weapon bans" and "assault weapons bans"- one would ban new sales of guns designed after military weapons, one would confiscate all semi-automatic weapons without recompense. The first the moderates would go along with, the second would terrify them.

The point is, yes Harris will say anything to get elected. Her new public stance will sound quite a bit like all the others. But actions speak louder than words, and The GOP and the NRA will gleefully point out her earlier actions. And those actions will scare the moderates.
  #106  
Old 01-24-2019, 03:46 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Yes, she'll say what it takes to get elected, and that would include supporting gun control. If the Russian-front GOP and the Russian-front NRA choose to help emphasize that, it's all for the good of our society. So, for that matter, is honest interpretation of the entire Constitution.
  #107  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:20 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Iím a California resident, and I think Kamala Harris is fantastic. How many others agree with me, I canít say.
I'm a California resident, and can't remember any impression Harris made on me one way or another, as SF DA or state Attorney General.

As a senator, all I can recall is her grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearings; giving the impression that she knew something big related to a conversation Kavanaugh may have had...which never came to fruition. So, she's about my 6th favorite Democratic candidate at the moment.
  #108  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:28 PM
suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
I'm a California resident, and can't remember any impression Harris made on me one way or another, as SF DA or state Attorney General.

As a senator, all I can recall is her grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearings; giving the impression that she knew something big related to a conversation Kavanaugh may have had...which never came to fruition. So, she's about my 6th favorite Democratic candidate at the moment.
What I like about her is that she’s very outspokenly anti-Trump. She says what I want to say about Trump’s policies, but much more eloquently.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!

Last edited by suranyi; 01-24-2019 at 06:29 PM.
  #109  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:31 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,811
She might just have a following if she's attracting conspiracy theories. Coming soon to a Facebook meme near you.

If she wants to ban guns, she's got my vote and she doesn't have the gun lover vote. If she doesn't want to ban guns, she still has my vote and still won't have the gun lover vote. If I was in the NRA, I'd be more worried about my organization having ties to Russia than about any microstamping.
  #110  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
What I like about her is that sheís very outspokenly anti-Trump. She says what I want to say about Trumpís policies, but much more eloquently.
Which Democrat doesnt?
  #111  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:47 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The right can be widdled away by lower courts and by inaction by the high court.
The word is "whittled," you yankee.
Quote:
I'm not sure what policy position will be a winner for the Democratic Party.
Probably the one that appeals to the minority, urban, younger, & heavily female voters they want to turn out. Probably something less than "ban all handguns"—but with an ability for states and possibly localities to license & regulate firearms pretty tightly. If this doesn't appeal to you, a GOP-leaning pro-gun voter, well, too bad.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 01-24-2019 at 08:51 PM. Reason: changed a conjunction from "to" to "for"
  #112  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:16 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
My 20,000 foot view of the 2020 primary is that there are four factors which will be helpful to a candidate. First, and most important, is not being too closely associated with either side of the Great Pissing Match of 2016. The other three are being a minority, a woman, and under 60.

Harris is the only candidate in the field thus far who checks all four boxes. I have no idea if she is a good enough politician to take advantage of her starting position, but I think that position is excellent.
  #113  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:16 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,727
For years, I’ve been predicting that the nakedly ambitious California Democrat to run for president in 2020 would be Harris’s mentor, Gavin Newsom. And his career is certainly progressing that way: mayor to Lt. governor to governor, right on schedule. But where I went wrong was the timing: due to our accelerated election cycle, he would’ve needed to announce for president the same week as his inauguration as governor, and that’s not a good look.
  #114  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
My 20,000 foot view of the 2020 primary is that there are four factors which will be helpful to a candidate. First, and most important, is not being too closely associated with either side of the Great Pissing Match of 2016. The other three are being a minority, a woman, and under 60.
Other than your own preferences, is there some reason you think those are actually important boxes to tick? The first one, sure bury the hatchet and all that. But you're relegating experience/record, charisma and policy positions to afterthoughts?
  #115  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:50 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
The word is "whittled," you yankee.
Sadface.
  #116  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:30 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,528
I just want someone who can defeat Trump, who has coattails to help democrats win races at the state and local level, and who is willing to use every ounce of power given to them in the executive branch to get their agenda pushed through.

If Harris can do that, I'd be happy to vote for her.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #117  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
My 20,000 foot view of the 2020 primary is that there are four factors which will be helpful to a candidate. First, and most important, is not being too closely associated with either side of the Great Pissing Match of 2016. The other three are being a minority, a woman, and under 60.
.
I dont think any of those last three will help in the general election, they may not be as big of a hindrance as in the past, but they are certainly not advantages.
  #118  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:32 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
For years, I’ve been predicting that the nakedly ambitious California Democrat to run for president in 2020 would be Harris’s mentor, Gavin Newsom. And his career is certainly progressing that way: mayor to Lt. governor to governor, right on schedule. But where I went wrong was the timing: due to our accelerated election cycle, he would’ve needed to announce for president the same week as his inauguration as governor, and that’s not a good look.
I'm predicting Newsom will run (and get the nomination) in 2028.

If Newsom can get medicare for all passed in california, he will be a shoe in to get the nomination for president.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-24-2019 at 11:32 PM.
  #119  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:12 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,541
The Democratic candidate absolutely must appeal to the young, women, and minorities. And being those things probably helps in appealing to them. But it's neither a guarantee nor a requirement. Consider, for instance, that in Texas, an Irishman appealed much more to Hispanics than another Hispanic did.
  #120  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The Democratic candidate absolutely must appeal to the young, women, and minorities. And being those things probably helps in appealing to them. But it's neither a guarantee nor a requirement. Consider, for instance, that in Texas, an Irishman appealed much more to Hispanics than another Hispanic did.
Right. Appeal to is not the same as be one.

And of course a young, female minority veep could balance the old white guy Pres candidate.
  #121  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:03 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
I'm from California and Kamala Harris favorably impressed me -- smart, principled, energetic, and not tied to Big anything. She is not as easy to pigeonhole as Warren and Sanders.

I'm sure the Right will hate her to death for being a woman far more than being any non-white race.

Apparently some on the right hate her for "not being an American citizen". Yes, folks; Birtherisim is back. Well, it never left.
  #122  
Old 01-25-2019, 09:03 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
Yes, folks; Birtherisim is back. Well, it never left.
It didn't even skip the 2016 cycle. Between Obama and Harris there was another target for it - Ted Cruz.

Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

CNN wasn't wrong. There were court cases questioning whether Cruz was eligible to be on the ballot in some places.
  #123  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:02 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
I'll say about Harris what I've said from the beginning: she's a strong candidate on paper who will lose all her support when she has to debate. Her townhall where she called for an end to private insurance is just the first of many statements that will sink her, and that's before we've even delved into her record as California AG.
  #124  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:51 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,520
After much discussion and back-and-forthing, California finally decided to move their primaries to March so that we can have more input into who are actually the candidates. This is going to have a very strong impact on Harris's chances to be the candidate.
  #125  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:58 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,513
As I mentioned before, she will play well to the traditional/current base of the Democrats, but unless she attains some crossover appeal, she cannot win against Trump. I tend to think the voters will be automatic 40% D and 40% R, with the remaining 20% up for grabs. Trying to understand the 20% and what would sway their vote may be hard to do, but looking at the last election, you can get a picture of who is in that 20% - and I have concern about their interest in getting behind someone like Harris.

Hopefully, as her positions become more public and widely known, it will become more clear her potential.
  #126  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:00 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I'll say about Harris what I've said from the beginning: she's a strong candidate on paper who will lose all her support when she has to debate. Her townhall where she called for an end to private insurance is just the first of many statements that will sink her, and that's before we've even delved into her record as California AG.
Do you think there is a large constituency that likes private medical insurance?
  #127  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:22 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
There is a large constituency that hates anything they can be told is a "government takeover of health care". So it amounts to the same thing.
  #128  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:39 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
There is a large constituency that hates anything they can be told is a "government takeover of health care". So it amounts to the same thing.
But don't take away their medicare.
  #129  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:43 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
A disturbing number of images of "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE" signs at rallies.
  #130  
Old 01-29-2019, 04:02 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Her townhall where she called for an end to private insurance is just the first of many statements that will sink her, and that's before we've even delved into her record as California AG.
The Republicans are trying to spin her answer that way, but watch the actual video. While her answer clearly signals to progressive voters that she wants to eliminate private insurance, it also gives her plausible deniability if she gets called out on it later. Truly a Hillary-worthy answer.

(Of course Medicare for everyone would not eliminate private insurance. Medicare has not eliminated private insurance for old people. Has she ever heard of a Medicare Supplement Plan? But I digress.)
  #131  
Old 01-29-2019, 05:42 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Iím a California resident, and I think Kamala Harris is fantastic. How many others agree with me, I canít say.
I'm in Virginia and I'm all out for Harris ::high five::
  #132  
Old 01-29-2019, 05:58 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
After much discussion and back-and-forthing, California finally decided to move their primaries to March so that we can have more input into who are actually the candidates. This is going to have a very strong impact on Harris's chances to be the candidate.
That's true if it's a delegate race to the end. In terms of momentum it can only hurt. Home state candidates have to win their primaries and it gives them no momentum when they do. If they don't win their home state, the race is over. But if it does come down to just numbers of delegates, California is a delegate rich state.
  #133  
Old 01-29-2019, 06:02 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,846
Jonathan Chait thinks an answer she gave, vague as it was, was a sign that she would outlaw private health insurance. He thinks that's too extreme.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...insurance.html

Isn't it more likely that she'll try to make private insurance no longer necessary, letting supplemental insurance exist as it can?

Anyway, if she is trying to replace private insurance, that makes me like her more.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 01-29-2019 at 06:03 PM. Reason: added link
  #134  
Old 01-29-2019, 06:08 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Do you think there is a large constituency that likes private medical insurance?
80% of Americans like their insurance. There's a reason Obama had to promise no one would lose their insurance.

Support for Medicare for All drops to 37% once people are told they lose their private insurance:

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-for-all-poll/

But when the Kaiser poll told them that "Medicare for all" would eliminate private insurance companies, support collapsed. Just 37% said they back it knowing it would mean getting rid of their existing health plans.
  #135  
Old 01-29-2019, 06:14 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
80% of Americans like their insurance. There's a reason Obama had to promise no one would lose their insurance.

Support for Medicare for All drops to 37% once people are told they lose their private insurance:
Wow. If true, that shows why I could never get elected. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the American electorate. On the other hand, it seems like a number that could shift dramatically with a little education.
  #136  
Old 01-29-2019, 07:05 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
80% of Americans like their insurance. There's a reason Obama had to promise no one would lose their insurance.

Support for Medicare for All drops to 37% once people are told they lose their private insurance:

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-for-all-poll/

But when the Kaiser poll told them that "Medicare for all" would eliminate private insurance companies, support collapsed. Just 37% said they back it knowing it would mean getting rid of their existing health plans.
I wonder how many will back it once they know it also involves attaching venomous snakes to their genitals.
  #137  
Old 01-29-2019, 07:55 PM
suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
80% of Americans like their insurance. There's a reason Obama had to promise no one would lose their insurance.

Support for Medicare for All drops to 37% once people are told they lose their private insurance:

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-for-all-poll/

But when the Kaiser poll told them that "Medicare for all" would eliminate private insurance companies, support collapsed. Just 37% said they back it knowing it would mean getting rid of their existing health plans.
Medicare for All wouldnít necessarily eliminate private insurance companies. After all, Medicare supplemental plans exist.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #138  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:10 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
(Of course Medicare for everyone would not eliminate private insurance. Medicare has not eliminated private insurance for old people. Has she ever heard of a Medicare Supplement Plan? But I digress.)
It depends on the proposal. The most-discussed bill, AFAIK, is the one introduced by Bernie Sanders (which I think Senator Harris has co-sponsored), which would eliminate private insurance as well as repeal and replace Medicare. "Medicare For All", in that case, does not mean putting the entire population on Medicare, it means creating a new program called "Medicare" and hoping that people's good feelings for the current program extend to a whole new thing just because it would share the name. (I actually support the ends, but I'm incredibly pessimistic about the means.)

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-29-2019 at 09:15 PM.
  #139  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:28 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,541
80% of Americans don't like the insurance they have now, because the vast majority of Americans have no idea what their insurance is like.
  #140  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:36 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
80% of Americans don't like the insurance they have now, because the vast majority of Americans have no idea what their insurance is like.
valid argument but also just as true of Medicare and foreign health care systems. Politicians don't know what it is either, or they just lie about it, because they say Medicare 'covers everything medically necessary', which is absolutely false unless you define 'medically necessary' exactly how Blue Cross and Aetna define it.
  #141  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:37 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Medicare for All wouldn’t necessarily eliminate private insurance companies. After all, Medicare supplemental plans exist.
That's nice, but supplemental plans in that bill can't cover any actual medical care, they can just cover out of pocket costs or special treatment like a private room. If you need cancer treatment and Medicare denies you, your supplemental can't cover you on that count either.

Good luck getting unions to give up their plans. I bet federal workers are going to demand an exemption as well.

Last edited by adaher; 01-29-2019 at 09:38 PM.
  #142  
Old 01-30-2019, 01:10 AM
suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That's nice, but supplemental plans in that bill can't cover any actual medical care, they can just cover out of pocket costs or special treatment like a private room. If you need cancer treatment and Medicare denies you, your supplemental can't cover you on that count either.

Good luck getting unions to give up their plans. I bet federal workers are going to demand an exemption as well.
It all depends. My wife is a union member, and weíd love it if we could get on Medicare. Her union plan is terrible.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #143  
Old 01-30-2019, 02:26 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Iím a California resident, and I think Kamala Harris is fantastic. How many others agree with me, I canít say.

I live here, and i think she is a dangerous demagogue.
  #144  
Old 01-30-2019, 03:03 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,034
It's hard to be a strong-willed District Attorney of a major city and make tough choices without offending people. I view Harris' experience as a big plus, but I'm sure it gives people plenty of reasons to vote against her.

I oppose the candidacy of Ms. Harris for several reasons, none of which is related to her competence or qualifications.

(a) I do NOT think her speaking style is particularly charismatic. It may appeal to her supporters, but turn off the masses.
(b) In Senate hearings her questioning comes across as silly and pedantic, working on little Gotchas.
(c) She is vehemently anti-gun. That makes her unelectable in a country which perversely places gun rights above human rights.
(d) I don't know if the Trumpettes will go so far as to demand to see her birth certificate from Oakland, but the fact that her parents were not citizens will be all that the Liars, Hypocrites and Assholes ever talk about.

A "Democrat to be named later" might beat Trump in a landslide. But the actual D's likely to be nominated? I'm desperately afraid that several of the top contenders have fatal flaws.
  #145  
Old 01-30-2019, 09:36 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
80% of Americans don't like the insurance they have now, because the vast majority of Americans have no idea what their insurance is like.
I do wonder if you actually put them through scenarios, and they actually saw what wasn't covered, what kind of out of pocket costs they will be on the hook for, what kinds of complexities are involved in "in network" and "out of network" providers who may even be working in the same practice, as well as how beholden they are to their employer to continue to offer both employment and a generous benefit in the health plan, how many would be happy to give up their private insurance.

Just start with, "You like your insurance plan? What will you do if you lose your job, or your employer drops or changes your plan?"
  #146  
Old 01-30-2019, 10:28 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Support for Medicare for All drops to 37% once people are told they lose their private insurance:
Talk about loaded questions! Single-payer eliminates private insurance, not expanding eligibility for Medicare. Even current Medicare recipients often carry private supplemental policies. Further, if the question did not lay out the benefits of either option as well as the downsides, then it was written as a partisan scare tactic and its results can be ignored.

So why are you wasting our time, and yours, with that nonsense?
  #147  
Old 01-30-2019, 11:01 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,641
It doesn't make any sense. "Hey, I'm all for tax funded healthcare but only if I can also keep spending money on my private insurance!"

But hey, people aren't always rational and maybe they follow adaher's reasoning that their private insurance is more likely to pay for some crazy cancer therapy than Medicare would. I doubt it, unless you are buying super gold plated insurance, but yeah I can see people thinking that. It would certainly be possible to craft legislation that allows for rich people health clinics paid for by private insurance.
  #148  
Old 01-30-2019, 11:10 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,641
Harris is sending signals that she isn't wedded to eliminating private insurance:
Quote:
As the furor grew, a Harris adviser on Tuesday signaled that the candidate would also be open to the more moderate health reform plans, which would preserve the industry, being floated by other congressional Democrats. It represents a compromise position that risks angering "Medicare-for-all" proponents, who view eliminating private health insurance as key to enacting their comprehensive reform.

Both the adviser and Harris national press secretary Ian Sams said her willingness to consider alternate routes to a single payer system should not cast doubt on her commitment to the policy.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/polit...ash/index.html
  #149  
Old 01-30-2019, 04:29 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Other than your own preferences, is there some reason you think those are actually important boxes to tick? The first one, sure bury the hatchet and all that. But you're relegating experience/record, charisma and policy positions to afterthoughts?
Those aren't MY preferences; I want to nominate an 80 year old white guy from Vermont. But most people prefer to vote for people who they think resemble themselves, and minorities, women and young people constitute the bulk of the Democratic primary electorate. Obviously the candidate's personal qualities matter, but demographics can give one candidate a big head start against an otherwise comparable opponent.
  #150  
Old 01-30-2019, 04:30 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont think any of those last three will help in the general election, they may not be as big of a hindrance as in the past, but they are certainly not advantages.
Sorry, I meant in the Democratic primary, not the general.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017