Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:40 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,851
Pete wants Medicare for all who want it. It's hard to ague against that. If you want it you can have it. This will soothe the fears of millions of people who think taking away their private employer provided insurance is a bad thing.

Pete is a veteran. He's already made fun of Cadet Bone Spurs, and can continue to do so.

Pete is a moderate. Most people are moderate.

Pete is a liberal. Their is no reason those on the left can't rally behind him.

The pack now consists of people too old, too leftist, or too boring.

I keep hearing people say, "I don't like Trump, but I'll vote for him over Warren or Sanders. Trump is an asshole but Bernie will ruin this country." Maybe their plants of the Trump (or Biden) campaigns, but I hear it a lot.

I like Bernie okay. I don't object to any of his proposals really. I certainly respect Senator Warren as well. Biden would be fine too. But, I think the most electable right now appear to be Klobuchar and Pete.
  #102  
Old 02-06-2020, 08:17 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Charisma is an interesting attribute. There is no way I see charisma in Pete as in the vein of JFK, Reagan and Obama. Those three whether you liked them or not had a way with words to transcend normal political speeches and audiences.

But there was another president who Pete does resemble to me. Bill Clinton. He never made a particularly memorable speech in terms of the content of the speech, but he had a soft charm when he did speak of making it seem he was talking specifically to you. He had composure and poise. I do see those two things in Pete. Clinton was embraced by his supporters as the explainer-in-chief because he spoke so clearly and emphatically and by his detractors as an empty suit who used flowery language to run around an issue. But also someone who his detractors could not find someone to match. All due respect to Bob Dole but he stood no chance against Clinton. One was a young president who was embracing the dot-com bubble and talking about leading the country into the 21st century. The other was someone who was on the republican ticket twenty years earlier and was talking about embracing typical republican talking points as if the country didn't already have twelve years of that before Clinton.

Not to mention he made George Bush look like out of touch in the 92' debates.

Pete has the Bill Clinton way of appearing above the fray. I've always had Bill down as a political genius the way he managed to get people dancing to his tune. That's who Pete reminds me of. Which is a little ironic since Pete doesn't seem to think much of Clinton but maybe that's not a bad thing. Take the good things of that presidency and make sure you learn from the mistakes. I think Bill was a good president but it's his own defects that is why he isn't considered a great.
  #103  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:02 PM
Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Electability this year will be the same as it is every year: Charisma. If you have more of it than the other guy, you win. Period. End of story. Done. Finito. It really is that simple. Pete has more of it than Trump so he’ll win.
You might be prescient. But saying it's all about 'charisma' involves measuring something hard to nail down and often defined in past politicians in hindsight. They might have been found extremely charismatic because they won, but may have won for a whole bunch of other reasons. IOW proving your hypothesis is not as easy IMO as saying 'OK look at Bill Clinton, Obama, Reagan' etc. How would you show their charisma was the big factor (not to say eg. Obama wasn't charismatic but the stock market meltdown helped him a lot in 2008, and he had the advantage of incumbency in 2012, etc, there are always other important factors).

And general elections now tend to be won from the part of the electorate that doesn't vote every time, will it be more Democratic leaning people or more Republican leaning people in that big group who turn out to vote this time? There is a small slice of the pie, not totally unimportant, that sometimes votes for Democrats for president and sometimes for Republicans (like Obama then Trump voters, but AFAIK polls say they tend to prefer Sanders among the Democratic options this time). But it has become pretty small I think.

I don't think 2016 voters for Trump think Buttigieg is 'charismatic' necessarily or care. More important I'm not sure black voters who've given Buttigieg literally zero support in some primary polls in some states, and not a lot in any, think so, at this moment anyway. Again by and large they will not vote for Trump, but it doesn't mean they are equally likely to vote at all regardless of who the Democratic candidate is, and very unclear they'd be most inspired by Buttigieg.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-06-2020 at 11:06 PM.
  #104  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:59 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
...I think the most electable right now appear to be Klobuchar and Pete.
I keep hearing people say this yet no data we have supports it...at all. Not even close. Literally nothing out there tells us this. Things may change but they would have to change a lot.

Personally I had cautious hopes for Buttigieg. Cautious because of his come from nowhere candidacy for president (Obama was kinda from nowhere too but at least he made senator first). Maybe here is another Jack Kennedy. Smart, well spoken...

Then he turned all corporacrat on us. "Medicare for all who want it, skip those who don't" (not an actual quote, just his take on it)....c'mon. It does not work like that and he is smart enough to know better. Going in big time for PAC money... Such a disappointment.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #105  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:10 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
You must have a wildly different definition of charisma than anything I've heard before.
Charisma is one of those things that you know when you see. You’ll never have 100% agreement on it but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real, or that some people can more of it than others. There are people who don’t think Obama was charismatic. The fact they don’t see what the rest of us see doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but it certainly doesn’t make the rest of us wrong either. There are people who don’t care for The Godfather. That doesn’t mean those who do are imagining things.

The bottom line is that 13 months ago Pete Buttigieg was a complete nobody from Bumblefuck Nowhere whose candidacy should by all conventional wisdom have been mocked to death the second it was announced. But now he’s just beaten Joe Biden in Iowa. He’s got something.
  #106  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:48 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,149
Quote:
Buttigieg would be taking over a complete clusterf**k. There simply has been no continuity since Jan 20, 2017. I suspect he'd need to go back to Obama era officials to get any real help with the transition. Not sure such a tyro, even a very bright, energetic and willing tyro, would be up to the task.
That's pretty much what ALL incoming Presidents do- they drag in guys from previous administrations, but in higher positions, or in some cases, the same positions.

Look at someone like say... Leon Panetta. Clinton's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and subsequently, the White House Chief of Staff.

Then, under Obama, he was appointed Director of the CIA and then Secretary of Defense.

Same thing for say... Robert Gates- Director of the CIA under George HW Bush, and Secretary of Defense under George W Bush and Obama.

So I'd suspect the next Democratic president will dig up someone like James Clapper and install them as Secretary of Defense.
  #107  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:00 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Pete wants Medicare for all who want it. It's hard to ague against that. If you want it you can have it. This will soothe the fears of millions of people who think taking away their private employer provided insurance is a bad thing.

Pete is a veteran. He's already made fun of Cadet Bone Spurs, and can continue to do so.

Pete is a moderate. Most people are moderate.

Pete is a liberal. Their is no reason those on the left can't rally behind him.

The pack now consists of people too old, too leftist, or too boring.

I keep hearing people say, "I don't like Trump, but I'll vote for him over Warren or Sanders. Trump is an asshole but Bernie will ruin this country." Maybe their plants of the Trump (or Biden) campaigns, but I hear it a lot.

I like Bernie okay. I don't object to any of his proposals really. I certainly respect Senator Warren as well. Biden would be fine too. But, I think the most electable right now appear to be Klobuchar and Pete.
Bolding the contradiction.

Pete's also sketchy and can swoon many a people over with meaningless vacuous platitudes.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #108  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:07 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
TimfromNapa
He has to be an incredibly well-organized, inspiring leader to have gone so far on a resume that ought to be printed on the skin of a helium balloon. He is charismatic, calculating, and wicked smart.
To people who are in the upper strata of society, with a profession, in their 50's maybe, to everyone under that, I don't think so.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #109  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:16 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,851
His response to the woman who wanted to take her vote back was perfect.

Quote:
What I want her to know is that I'm running to be her president too. Of course, I wish she was able to see that my love is the same as her love for those that she cares about — that my marriage means as much to me as hers if she's married. But if she can't see that, and even if because she can't see that, she won't vote for me, I am still, if I am elected president, going to get up in the morning and try to make the best decisions for her and the people that she loves. As I will work to serve every American, whether they supported me or not.
  #110  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:33 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Charisma is an interesting attribute. There is no way I see charisma in Pete as in the vein of JFK, Reagan and Obama. Those three whether you liked them or not had a way with words to transcend normal political speeches and audiences.
...
Pete has the Bill Clinton way of appearing above the fray. I've always had Bill down as a political genius the way he managed to get people dancing to his tune. That's who Pete reminds me of.
Agreed. But charisma does not require you to be able to give a rousing speech, a la Obama or Reagan. Clinton on the campaign trail was not that kind of charismatic, but charisma dripped from him in other ways, as you alluded to. Thus I think the Clinton comparison is apt, even though I am not ready to elevate Buttigieg to his level as of yet. I would like to see him debate Trump first, and on the trail as the nominee.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Some think when you ask him " hardball questions, whether it be on the debate stage or in interviews he has an immediate response, that is well reasoned, articulated and thought out, these aren't canned responses either, and that he can do this off the cuff", while I think that every response he gives is focus-tested to the point of blandness, that he can do this off the cuff because his brain isn't really engaged and he is just regurgitating talking points.

Buttigieg is the emperor with no clothes. He's an empty suit. We aren't talking policy in this thread because he doesn't bring anything to the table. If you want a charismatic candidate then ask Tom Hanks to run.
As to the canned responses, well then we just get a different vibe. I have no idea if what he says is focus-tested, but see no reason to think he is different from others, in this election or others, who are able to get across what they would do as president. But to me, if you are able to give reasonable, coherent answers to a large variety of questions, as I think Buttigieg does, it suggests you understand the issues and haven't just memorized things.

As to whether or not Buttigieg is an "awful, awful" candidate, the fact that an absolute unknown can rise to the top tier of Democratic hopefuls in such a short time shows he has something going for him, whatever you want to call it, thus it makes little sense to me to come to that conclusion as of now. I saw Buttigieg on the CNN town hall last night, and found him to be empathetic and intelligent, saying clearly and concisely what he wants to do as president. Which goes to your "empty suit" comment. What does that mean? I don't want to define that term for you. If the opposite of an empty suit is a "full suit", though, and that means having specific experience in the things you are asked about, okay, his suit is a certainly empty in some respects. But that in and of itself doesn't make him an awful candidate. Political experience is good, but can be overrated. Obama had little legislative experience, as did George W. Bush as governor (a role in Texas that is largely as a figurehead). But McCain and Gore? Experience out the ass. Ditto John Kerry when he ran against Bush.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
Then he turned all corporacrat on us. "Medicare for all who want it, skip those who don't" (not an actual quote, just his take on it)....c'mon. It does not work like that and he is smart enough to know better. Going in big time for PAC money... Such a disappointment.
I don't know if your "turned all corporacrat" comment is in regards to Buttigieg's tweet in February 2018, so forgive me here, but it just reminded me of it. He said

"I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered," Buttigieg tweeted in February 2018. "Now if you'll excuse me, potholes await."

I've seen people take this as evidence that he once supported Medicare for All, and is now essentially a turncoat. It's clear to me that he was being faceitious. Anyway, just because he supports something which will harm the insurance companies less than getting rid of them completely through universal care (duh!), doesn't mean he's doing it because he "works" for those companies. If he thinks his partial plan will succeed such that those who get it like it, surely he believes the word will spread and its popularity will lead to the demise of insurance companies. I personally haven't seen any reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
  #111  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:38 PM
GrassFox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 5
I'm a minority, and there is no way I will vote for Pete. He won't get the minority vote in the primaries, so he won't be in the General election. I would probably vote for Bernie, but I'd rather have Biden.
  #112  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:42 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrassFox View Post
I'm a minority, and there is no way I will vote for Pete. He won't get the minority vote in the primaries, so he won't be in the General election.
Why? What did he do?
  #113  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:03 PM
asterion is offline
Your Ad Here
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,793
And as we all know, minorities are a hive mind, lockstep in voting.
  #114  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:15 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrassFox View Post
I'm a minority, and there is no way I will vote for Pete. He won't get the minority vote in the primaries, so he won't be in the General election. I would probably vote for Bernie, but I'd rather have Biden.
Given how far apart Bernie and Biden are on the issues, that’s a pretty incoherent position.

Also, how do you know Pete won’t get the minority vote? Right now, nearly all the candidates are struggling to attract minority voters, because minority voters are irrationally attached to Joe Biden. When he inevitably drops out, who’s to say Pete won’t pick some of them up?
  #115  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:46 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
His response to the woman who wanted to take her vote back was perfect.
Great, now what's his position on medicare for all, the green new deal and student debt?
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #116  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Great, now what's his position on medicare for all, the green new deal and student debt?
Medicare for all who want it
https://peteforamerica.com/pete-trusts-you/

Nobody cares about the green new deal anymore

Provide free college for families earning under $100k
https://peteforamerica.com/policies/higher-education/
  #117  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:12 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Great, now what's his position on medicare for all, the green new deal and student debt?
Hopefully something moderate that won’t lose us the election. Baby steps in the right direction and the end of Trump. That’s all I ask.
  #118  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:20 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Medicare for all who want it
https://peteforamerica.com/pete-trusts-you/

Nobody cares about the green new deal anymore

Provide free college for families earning under $100k
https://peteforamerica.com/policies/higher-education/
I care about the Green new deal, that's why I asked.

You've got to laugh at this phrasing;

1. Medicare for all who want it (Because who in their right mind doesn't want medicare)
  • Preserves Medicare Advantage for 22 million seniors and people with disabilities
  • Allows you to make your own choices whether that’s private insurance or the public option

2.Medicare for All Whether You Want It or Not(Because you're going to refuse free medical assistance, right? Or do you want to pay for that ambulance?)

As if this wouldn't be covered in Universal healthcare! How can you fall for this bullshit? As for the other part, good stuff, so all the high risk customers get dumped on the public sector whereas the private sector gets to still keep servicing all the low risk customers, creating a two tier service and enough scope for a future administration to defund the 'failing' Public sector.

As for the student debt I'll leave that to someone else but his medicare for all postion is disingenuous.

Quote:
Procrustus
Hopefully something moderate that won’t lose us the election. Baby steps in the right direction and the end of Trump. That’s all I ask.
Nope, I'm sorry but you have to dream big and promote a postion which is gonna fire people up to vote for you, because at least if they reach office and propose it to the Senate they'll be alot further towards what they wanted initially than stating a much more modest proposal which also would be in the same unfortunate position of being watered down before being passed into law.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #119  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:28 PM
carrps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Charisma is one of those things that you know when you see. You’ll never have 100% agreement on it but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real, or that some people can more of it than others.
What got me was the person upthread who said Bernie had charisma. For me? No way. Every time I hear/see him speak my muscles tense up in response. An angry yell-y old white guy waving his finger in my face. And his politics are probably closest to mine than any other candidate other than Warren, so it's not that.

So, yeah, charisma can be very personal.
  #120  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:50 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I care about the Green new deal, that's why I asked.

You've got to laugh at this phrasing;

1. Medicare for all who want it (Because who in their right mind doesn't want medicare)
  • Preserves Medicare Advantage for 22 million seniors and people with disabilities
  • Allows you to make your own choices whether that’s private insurance or the public option

2.Medicare for All Whether You Want It or Not(Because you're going to refuse free medical assistance, right? Or do you want to pay for that ambulance?)

As if this wouldn't be covered in Universal healthcare! How can you fall for this bullshit?
It's a $45 charge for an ambulance here in Ontario, I'm sorry to say.
  #121  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:04 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
CarnalK
It's a $45 charge for an ambulance here in Ontario, I'm sorry to say.
Oh my god, say it isn't so! Unfunded systems in the US charge between $500 to $1000
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #122  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:05 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I care about the Green new deal, that's why I asked.

You've got to laugh at this phrasing;

1. Medicare for all who want it (Because who in their right mind doesn't want medicare)
It's just a way to get the idea across.

More important: everyone wants medical care. Not everyone wants Medicare. That's all he's saying. Why piss off loads of people who like their insurance (maybe irrationally, but that is irrelevant) and thus may not vote for you? And quite frankly, if Bernie were elected and somehow signed a bill getting rid of insurance companies and implementing universal care for all immediately (bear with me, I know this is a crazy hypothetical), even if coverage were better it would be an unfair thing to do. Great Britain essentially did this after WWII with broad consensus of the populace. We don't have that here. To throw people off their medical care, something that they have had for years and invested thought, time, and money in, would cause needless worry and angst. I put forward this hypothetical to illustrate that sometimes the fair way to do things isn't always the fastest. But if Buttigieg is right, and his plan works and costs less, people will flock to it, and insurance companies will die out.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-07-2020 at 05:06 PM.
  #123  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I care about the Green new deal, that's why I asked.

You've got to laugh at this phrasing;

...

2.Medicare for All Whether You Want It or Not(Because you're going to refuse free medical assistance, right? Or do you want to pay for that ambulance?)

As if this wouldn't be covered in Universal healthcare! How can you fall for this bullshit?....
1. Bernies plan has nothing whatsoever to do with Medicare. He is flat out lying. It's 100% socialized medicine, take it ... that's the only choice. It will raise taxes by a huge amount and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

You can have UHC without Bernies really bad plan. GB does, for example.

and it's not- in any way shape or form- free.

  #124  
Old 02-07-2020, 06:00 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
1. Bernies plan has nothing whatsoever to do with Medicare. He is flat out lying. It's 100% socialized medicine, take it ... that's the only choice. It will raise taxes by a huge amount and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

You can have UHC without Bernies really bad plan. GB does, for example.

and it's not- in any way shape or form- free.

You do realize that GB's National Health Service is functionally the same as Sanders' Medicare for All, right? Now, British does allow for over the top private insurance, but it's not overly common (only used by 8% of the population). However, the NHS is free at the point of service.

One can say the NHS is more "socialized" as it owns all of the hospitals in Britain.

Last edited by ISiddiqui; 02-07-2020 at 06:01 PM.
  #125  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
You do realize that GB's National Health Service is functionally the same as Sanders' Medicare for All, right? Now, British does allow for over the top private insurance, but it's not overly common (only used by 8% of the population). However, the NHS is free at the point of service.

One can say the NHS is more "socialized" as it owns all of the hospitals in Britain.

Now, British does allow for over the top private insurance, but it's not overly common

A critical difference. Sanders plan outlaws them. And it is crazy expensive, and he has no idea how to pay for it.

And there's this: (wiki)The English NHS also requires patients to pay prescription charges with a range of exemptions from these charges.

and this :..."free at the point of use for people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, apart from dental treatment and optical care" (we'd have to watch illegals die in the streets then)


So, no- Sanders plan isnt the same and it's not- in any way shape or form- "Medicare for All"- he is flat out lying there. The lie bothers me.

He could have called it "Socialized Health care for all" or even US-UHC" but by calling it "Medicare for All" he is lying.

and then this:Under pressure in recent years as a result of economic austerity according to Unite,[42] public satisfaction with the NHS has fallen from 70% in 2010 to 53% in 2018

UK NHS would cost every american (man, woman, child) about $3000*. Assuming about half of Americans pay taxes- that would mean each Taxpaying American would pay $6000. And that's for the UK NHS. adding free drugs, dental and vision could double that. So, $10,000 a year extra taxes- for each of us.

* that's what it comes out to per person in the UK, about 2000 pounds for every person as a share.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service

So, Bernies plan is crap.


Petes plan could work.

So could Bidens. Honestly Petes may be better.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...eking-nhs-care

The NHS introduced upfront charging for elective care in 2017 as part of the government’s “hostile environment” towards immigrants.


Under the policy, patients who are not entitled to free NHS care – including overseas visitors, but also undocumented immigrants and rejected asylum seekers in England – must pay the cost of treatment upfront
....
  #126  
Old 02-07-2020, 08:39 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
It's just a way to get the idea across.

More important: everyone wants medical care. Not everyone wants Medicare. That's all he's saying. Why piss off loads of people who like their insurance (maybe irrationally, but that is irrelevant) and thus may not vote for you? And quite frankly, if Bernie were elected and somehow signed a bill getting rid of insurance companies and implementing universal care for all immediately (bear with me, I know this is a crazy hypothetical), even if coverage were better it would be an unfair thing to do. Great Britain essentially did this after WWII with broad consensus of the populace. We don't have that here. To throw people off their medical care, something that they have had for years and invested thought, time, and money in, would cause needless worry and angst. I put forward this hypothetical to illustrate that sometimes the fair way to do things isn't always the fastest. But if Buttigieg is right, and his plan works and costs less, people will flock to it, and insurance companies will die out.
No they won't, the public option will just be a dumping ground for high risk claimants and will be gutted by the next Republican administration, it's set up to fail.
You don't go to the senate with a watered down proposal, you go in with the most outlandish proposal which if it gets watered down through compromise, at least gets alot more of what you initially promised than if you didn't propose it in the first place. Buttigiegs is the worst of both worlds because that's what the medical insurance industry wants.

Quote:
To throw people off their medical care, something that they have had for years and invested thought, time, and money in, would cause needless worry and angst.
why would anyone care about this if they're getting the same service through their taxes at a lower cost per capita. The justifications are crazy.

Quote:
DrDeth
1. Bernies plan has nothing whatsoever to do with Medicare. He is flat out lying. It's 100% socialized medicine, take it ... that's the only choice. It will raise taxes by a huge amount and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.
No it won't, why are you so terrified of effective and cheaper healthcare?

Quote:
You can have UHC without Bernies really bad plan. GB does, for example.

and it's not- in any way shape or form- free.
It's free at the point of use, that's the whole point. I don't pay hundreds of dollars because I used the ambulance in an emergency, or if I need to see a doctor for a consultation or check up. The only time you pay something is for prescriptions, of which the medicine is discounted if you're on a low income or unemployed.

Quote:
and this :..."free at the point of use for people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, apart from dental treatment and optical care" (we'd have to watch illegals die in the streets then)
Dental is free if you're unemployed or on a low income.

https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-que...nt-in-england/

Quote:
Under the policy, patients who are not entitled to free NHS care – including overseas visitors, but also undocumented immigrants and rejected asylum seekers in England – must pay the cost of treatment upfront....
Garbage

Quote:
The following groups are exempt from charge:

refugees (those granted asylum, humanitarian protection or temporary protection under the immigration rules) and their dependents
asylum seekers (those applying for asylum, humanitarian protection or temporary protection whose claims, including appeals, have not yet been determined) and their dependents
individuals receiving support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) from the Home Office
those whose application for asylum was rejected, but they are supported:
under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by the Home Office
by a local authority under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948
under Part 1 (care and support) of the Care Act 2014
children looked after by a local authority
victims, and suspected victims, of modern slavery or human trafficking, as determined by the UK Human Trafficking Centre or the Home Office, plus their spouse or civil partner, and any children under 18 provided they are lawfully present in the UK
those receiving compulsory treatment under a court order, or who are liable to be detained in an NHS hospital or deprived of their liberty (for example, under the Mental Health Act 1983 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005) are exempt from charge for all treatment provided, in accordance with the court order, or for the duration of their detention
prisoners and immigration detainees
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #127  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:59 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,949
DrDeth, I really don't think you understood how the NHS worked in your first post. You seemed to praise NHS before trying to bury it the next post. Without realizing it is definitely more expensive than any M4A would be. You missed the part where the NHS owns hospitals as well. That's more expensive than any M4A plan. Having to pay copays for a few things and it not covering others (such as dental) doesn't make it less socialist than M4A. 8% of the population having over the top private insurance doesn't make it less comprehensive.


There is a reason when Buttigieg entered the race he said Medicare For All was a compromise position between our system and the NHS. Because the NHS is more all encompassing - to the point where the government employs doctors.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Last edited by ISiddiqui; 02-07-2020 at 10:03 PM.
  #128  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
...


No it won't, why are you so terrified of effective and cheaper healthcare?



It's free at the point of use, that's the whole point. I don't pay hundreds of dollars because I used the ambulance in an emergency, or if I need to see a doctor for a consultation or check up. The only time you pay something is for prescriptions, of which the medicine is discounted if you're on a low income or unemployed.








Garbage
Not better and about ten times the price.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/comm...ame=healthcare

To be clear, no one on either side of this debate questioned my central finding that M4A would increase federal costs by an unprecedented amount, likely between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion over 10 years—a federal tab so large that even doubling all projected federal individual and corporate income taxes couldn’t finance it. Yet M4A advocates continued to believe that it could bring national health spending down. That’s become substantially more difficult to argue in light of subsequent events.

You know, if I have to pay a extra $10000 a year in taxes- which is five times what my healthcare costs- it's not "free". You keep using that word- i do not think it means what you think it means. And it's only free if you are a legal resident, etc.


Not garbage your cite confirmed my cite:
Under the policy, patients who are not entitled to free NHS care – including overseas visitors, but also undocumented immigrants and rejected asylum seekers in England – must pay the cost of treatment upfront..

Yes, accepted asylum seekers get a card. Rejected seekers do not. My cite and your cite concur.
  #129  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
DrDeth, I really don't think you understood how the NHS worked in your first post. You seemed to praise NHS before trying to bury it the next post. Without realizing it is definitely more expensive than any M4A would be. You missed the part where the NHS owns hospitals as well. That's more expensive than any M4A plan. Having to pay copays for a few things and it not covering others (such as dental) doesn't make it less socialist than M4A. 8% of the population having over the top private insurance doesn't make it less comprehensive.


There is a reason when Buttigieg entered the race he said Medicare For All was a compromise position between our system and the NHS. Because the NHS is more all encompassing - to the point where the government employs doctors.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
No, under Sanders plan, the US would effectively own all the hospitals and all the doctors too. Private insurance would not be allowed. Other than stuff like breast implants for strippers, there'd be no private doctors to speak off.

Expert after expert says the Sanders plan would be more comprehensive and more expensive that NHS.

Now sure, NHS has issues. But it's a decent plan.

I like Petes plan better.

Last edited by DrDeth; 02-07-2020 at 11:03 PM.
  #130  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:13 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
DrDeth
Not better and about ten times the price.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/comm...ame=healthcare
Dude, the stats don't lie, Universal healthcare is better, even for business because the labour is more able to be mobile due to not having employees underutilising their expertise in one job which they have to stay with just for the health benefits. It's a waste of money and producitivity, even if just from a purely business centric point of view.

Quote:
To be clear, no one on either side of this debate questioned my central finding that M4A would increase federal costs by an unprecedented amount, likely between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion over 10 years—a federal tab so large that even doubling all projected federal individual and corporate income taxes couldn’t finance it. Yet M4A advocates continued to believe that it could bring national health spending down. That’s become substantially more difficult to argue in light of subsequent events.
According to the Mercatus model, total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. Total national health spending would be $2 trillion lower from 2022 to 2031 under the plan, the report found.

If they can afford tax cuts for the wealthiest of society to the point where they pay less than the average Joe, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then that's a society which can afford universal health coverage.

Quote:
You know, if I have to pay a extra $10000 a year in taxes- which is five times what my healthcare costs- it's not "free". You keep using that word- i do not think it means what you think it means. And it's only free if you are a legal resident, etc.
It's free at the point of use, as in, I don't have to find nearly £1000 upfront for treatment in an emergency, or be condemned to death because I cannot afford Cancer treatment.

Quote:
Not garbage your cite confirmed my cite:
Under the policy, patients who are not entitled to free NHS care – including overseas visitors, but also undocumented immigrants and rejected asylum seekers in England – must pay the cost of treatment upfront.
They pay a £400 surcharge, that's it, and your assumption was garbage.

Quote:
Yes, accepted asylum seekers get a card. Rejected seekers do not. My cite and your cite concur.
Refused asylum seekers can be registered with a GP and receive free primary care services and, where NHS hospital treatment (secondary care) is needed, accident and emergency services are free as is the diagnosis of infectious diseases (even if there is a negative result) and treatment of those diseases, if positive. The treatment of certain types of violence (such as a consequence of sexual violence) is also free of charge.

Quote:
You are exempt from paying for NHS healthcare if you are:

granted refugee status in the UK
seeking asylum or temporary or humanitarian protection until your application (including appeals) is decided
receiving support from the Home Office under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
a failed asylum seeker and receive support from the Home Office under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or from a local authority under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 or Part 1 (care and support) of the Care Act 2014
a child looked after by a local authority
formally identified as, or suspected of being, a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking – this includes your spouse or civil partner and any children under 18 as long as they are lawfully present in the UK
receiving compulsory psychiatric treatment or treatment imposed by a court order
detained in prison or by the immigration authorities in the UK
NATO personnel and the service cannot be provided by armed forces medical services – this includes spouses or civil partners and any children under 18 as long as they are lawfully present in the UK

Since 21 August 2017, any overseas visitors working on UK-registered ships are no longer entitled to free NHS care and their employer is liable for their NHS costs.
https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/nhs...nhs-treatment/
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #131  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:13 AM
jo1010 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 4
Medicare for All Who Want It is absolutely not a "corporacrat" position. Pete is proposing setting up a government health insurance option for anyone who wants it. In other words a government plan that doesn't screw people over when they get sick, that will compete with private insurers. Those private insurers will either have to compete with Medicare for All Who Want It or risk dying off. That's very far from a "corporacrat" position. Medicare for All Who Want It won't turn off voters who like their private insurance and who may be fearful of being forced into a government program. But it also will eliminate a lot of the problems private health insurance has been causing. It's also much more likely to get through Congress. Even if we have a Democratic house and senate, imagine all the angry calls Democratic representatives would be getting from their constituents if a vote to eliminate private health insurance came up. I like Sanders and Warren's plans, but America unfortunately isn't ready to go that far yet. Buttigieg's plan is designed to weaken and maybe someday kill off private insurers without all the downsides that come with that.

Pete's problems with minorities especially blacks are definitely an issue. Whether it's serious enough to prevent him winning the nomination time will tell. A lot of the attacks on him over race issues aren't completely fair (just like the attacks against Kamala Harris weren't completely fair) because a lot of minority voters in South Bend saw him as a force for good. He needs to start making a big deal about all the good he achieved for minorities in South Bend and not let the critics use his mistakes to destroy his candidacy. If he does win the nomination, he needs to pick a black VP because black voter turnout is crucial. A Pete Buttigieg/Stacey Abrams ticket would probably be unbeatable.
  #132  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:16 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, under Sanders plan, the US would effectively own all the hospitals and all the doctors too. Private insurance would not be allowed. Other than stuff like breast implants for strippers, there'd be no private doctors to speak off.

Expert after expert says the Sanders plan would be more comprehensive and more expensive that NHS.

Now sure, NHS has issues. But it's a decent plan.

I like Petes plan better.
This makes absolutely no sense. "Effectively" owning hospitals by being a single payer is not the same as actually owning the hospitals and actually employing doctors.

An example: For a while in Kentucky, there was only one insurance in the state - Blue Cross and Blue Shield - does that mean BCBS effectively owned the hospitals? After all unless they took cash or the person was uninsured, they'd have to charge and accept the allowed amount BCBSK offered as they were the only insurance. So why would the government being the only insurance company be much different aside from who and what would be covered and what the cost sharing would be at point of sale?

Remember (again) that initially Pete Buttigieg called M4A a compromise position between our system and the British NHS.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Last edited by ISiddiqui; 02-08-2020 at 01:18 PM.
  #133  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Dude, the stats don't lie, Universal healthcare is better, even for business because the labour is more able to be mobile due to not having employees underutilising their expertise in one job which they have to stay with just for the health benefits. It's a waste of money and producitivity, even if just from a purely business centric point of view.
...

They pay a £400 surcharge, that's it, and your assumption was garbage.


..[/url]
Why does everyone think that saying Sander's weird, poorly thought out, super expensive, lying and totally unworkable health plan mean i dont want uHC?

UHC is a great idea. The USA needs it.

Sanders UHC plan is garbage.

I made no "assumptions", I gave cites.
  #134  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:28 PM
ShadowFacts is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,277
Pete is not "my guy" at the moment, though I will happily and enthusiastically vote for him (and any of the others) in the general. I keep hearing about how bad his support is from POC and how that will hamstring him in both the primary and hypothetically in the general. I just came across this Medium article detailing his efforts as Mayor to promote racial equity and justice. I wonder if he will be able to change the narrative around this or if it is already baked in.
  #135  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:52 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Pete is all in on PAC money.

Pete is not a progressive and barely liberal.

He is basically Hillary Clinton in a different package.

I really, really wanted to like him. I am really bummed he sold out pretty much instantly.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #136  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:15 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
jo1010
Medicare for All Who Want It is absolutely not a "corporacrat" position. Pete is proposing setting up a government health insurance option for anyone who wants it.
Come on man, do you really think that Public and Private will be set on a level playing field, or that Public will have precedence over private? It's a con job, designed to show how a Public option will fail and justify to the average citizen to be continued to be screwed over by the medical industry.

Quote:
In other words a government plan that doesn't screw people over when they get sick, that will compete with private insurers.
What's the point of this when it's cheaper just to cover everyone?

Quote:
Those private insurers will either have to compete with Medicare for All Who Want It or risk dying off.
They won't die off because the public option would be set up to fail. No other advanced country with UHC allows for a private sector option to compete.

Quote:
That's very far from a "corporacrat" position. Medicare for All Who Want It won't turn off voters who like their private insurance and who may be fearful of being forced into a government program.
Why would they be fearful, they're getting essentially medicare for all but it being applied to everyone and not just people over 65. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to miss their monthly premiums or disqualifications due to the their risk assessment being rejected.

Quote:
But it also will eliminate a lot of the problems private health insurance has been causing. It's also much more likely to get through Congress. Even if we have a Democratic house and senate, imagine all the angry calls Democratic representatives would be getting from their constituents if a vote to eliminate private health insurance came up.
UHC is popular with the American public

Quote:
I like Sanders and Warren's plans, but America unfortunately isn't ready to go that far yet. Buttigieg's plan is designed to weaken and maybe someday kill off private insurers without all the downsides that come with that.
Garbage, if the US government can bail out Wallstreet to the tune of nearly a $1trillion and fight endless wars, it can definitely afford this. Why are you all so afraid of having what is in the rest of the industralised world considered a Human right.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #137  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:17 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why does everyone think that saying Sander's weird, poorly thought out, super expensive, lying and totally unworkable health plan mean i dont want uHC?

UHC is a great idea. The USA needs it.

Sanders UHC plan is garbage.

I made no "assumptions", I gave cites.
So did I, Sanders plan for UHC isn't garbage and your own citation said it would save money.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #138  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFacts View Post
Pete is not "my guy" at the moment, though I will happily and enthusiastically vote for him (and any of the others) in the general. I keep hearing about how bad his support is from POC and how that will hamstring him in both the primary and hypothetically in the general. I just came across this Medium article detailing his efforts as Mayor to promote racial equity and justice. I wonder if he will be able to change the narrative around this or if it is already baked in.
I think his poor standing with POC is getting a little overblown. Biden has been dominating that demographic since the beginning with Bernie peeling off some of the black millennials/GenZ. Of course Buttigieg can't pull good numbers just because he speaks pretty.
  #139  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:46 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I've seen people take this as evidence that he once supported Medicare for All, and is now essentially a turncoat. It's clear to me that he was being faceitious. Anyway, just because he supports something which will harm the insurance companies less than getting rid of them completely through universal care (duh!), doesn't mean he's doing it because he "works" for those companies. If he thinks his partial plan will succeed such that those who get it like it, surely he believes the word will spread and its popularity will lead to the demise of insurance companies. I personally haven't seen any reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
Not sure what you are on about.

Buttigieg was for Medicare for All then backed off to "Medicare for All Who Want It".

Of course, it does not work that way and he knows it. He is a smart guy. He knows better but he is going in for this "middle" ground that does not really exist.

So, Buttigieg is trying to have it both ways. He is in the pocket of big money now and cannot be trusted.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #140  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:06 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Not sure what you are on about.

Buttigieg was for Medicare for All then backed off to "Medicare for All Who Want It".

Of course, it does not work that way and he knows it. He is a smart guy. He knows better but he is going in for this "middle" ground that does not really exist.

So, Buttigieg is trying to have it both ways. He is in the pocket of big money now and cannot be trusted.
And a year ago, he was also for packing the Supreme Court. Now, he's ridiculing the idea.

So that's two rather big things where he's not only abandoned the position he held last year, but is attacking or ridiculing those who currently hold it.

What positions will he be attacking and ridiculing a year from now, that he appears to support now?

I don't want to have to wonder that about a guy who is trying hard to be President of the United States a year from now.
  #141  
Old 02-09-2020, 09:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So did I, Sanders plan for UHC isn't garbage and your own citation said it would save money.
In the long run, and by putting everyone in the health insurance business out of work- and that's only if it would work as envisioned.

The savings would not be passed onto the taxpayers, who would see enormous tax increases.
  #142  
Old 02-09-2020, 09:05 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I think his poor standing with POC is getting a little overblown. Biden has been dominating that demographic since the beginning with Bernie peeling off some of the black millennials/GenZ. Of course Buttigieg can't pull good numbers just because he speaks pretty.
Biden is leading with blacks (though Bernie leads with blacks under 35), but Bernie is leading with Hispanics and "other" minorities. So, (a) Bernie is awesome, and (b) Biden's grip on the minority vote isn't actually so strong that other candidates' failure to make a dent in it shouldn't count against them.
  #143  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:58 AM
sweepkick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know, if I have to pay a extra $10000 a year in taxes- which is five times what my healthcare costs- it's not "free".
Can you explain what you mean when you say $10000/yr is five times what your healthcare costs are?

Are you saying you pay the full cost of your own healthcare entirely by yourself, and that it runs around $166.66 per month?
  #144  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:29 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Not sure what you are on about.

Buttigieg was for Medicare for All then backed off to "Medicare for All Who Want It".
As I said and liked to (at Politico), there was a tweet from Buttigieg where he said he was for Medicare for All, but this was clearly a facetious remark not to be taken seriously. I am not saying he never said he was for Medicare for All elsewhere, I just haven't seen where he said this, but please do point it out.
...
So, Buttigieg is trying to have it both ways. He is in the pocket of big money now and cannot be trusted.[/QUOTE]

As for being in the pocket of big money, we don't know this as of now. But for all I know, he may be in that pocket. But not necessarily, and promoting his plan doesn't prove anything. As I also tried to say, just because that plan may help the insurance industry doesn't mean that's why he is promoting it. He could be promoting it because he knows some people want to keep their insurance.
  #145  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:39 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
EDIT: Btw, in post #144 I forgot to start Whack's quote. It should start at "So, Buttigieg..."

More about that tweet. Now, I just found this from the Hill.

Quote:
Seeking to explain that statement, Buttigieg told The Nevada Independent that the meaning of Medicare for All has changed, and what he meant was that everyone should have the option of Medicare, not that everyone should be forced onto it.

“Only in the last few months did it become the case that Medicare for All was defined by politicians to mean ending private insurance, and I’ve never believed that that’s the right pathway,” Buttigieg said in the interview. “I still think that we should move toward an environment of Medicare for All.”
Has the meaning of Medicare for All changed? I have no idea. But again, given that flippant tweet, can this not be a reasonable explanation by Buttigieg about what he wants to do? That as he says repeatedly, he wants to preserve current insurance but work towards full MFA in the future? (see bold)

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-10-2020 at 11:42 AM.
  #146  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:50 AM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,949
That's just mealy mouthed nonsense. Medicare for All was promoted as an alternative to the Public Option (which is what Medicare for All Who Want it functionally is). All of the bills for M4A was an all encompassing health care plan - after all, as Senator Sanders likes to constantly say "I wrote the damn bill".
  #147  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:03 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
That's just mealy mouthed nonsense. Medicare for All was promoted as an alternative to the Public Option (which is what Medicare for All Who Want it functionally is). All of the bills for M4A was an all encompassing health care plan - after all, as Senator Sanders likes to constantly say "I wrote the damn bill".
Okay, as I said, I don't know if the definition has changed. But we know what he is promoting now. Seems to me this is the thing to discuss now.
  #148  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:16 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,949
Right, we know what he's promoting now. But he also seems to be lying about his previous comments about Medicare for All - so I think the lie is probably valid to discuss as well.
  #149  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:29 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Right, we know what he's promoting now. But he also seems to be lying about his previous comments about Medicare for All - so I think the lie is probably valid to discuss as well.
Absolutely. I'd say it's his plan should have top priority, but that's just me.

ETA:

Not sure if I ever posted his actual tweet from back in 2018:

"Gosh! Okay... I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered. Now if you'll excuse me, potholes await."

Even though he is being sarcastic at the beginning, even back then he says he is for any measure that would help get all Americans covered. So to me, his plan is a good way to do this and fits in with this statement.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-10-2020 at 12:34 PM.
  #150  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:35 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Not sure if I ever posted his actual tweet from back in 2018:

"Gosh! Okay... I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered. Now if you'll excuse me, potholes await."

Even though he is being sarcastic at the beginning, even back then he says he is for any measure that would help get all Americans covered. So to me, his plan is a good way to do this and fits in with this statement.
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 11:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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