Biden seemed just fine until the last two answers. This really does fit the endurance narrative. Three hours up there was too much for him?
BTW, I agree with you about that. I hope he’ll soon be out of the race for this very reason.
Yang only has one policy, and it’s got about as much chance of becoming law as I’ve got of becoming Glamour’s Woman of the Year. He should drop out.
I’m beginning to tire of the endless dissection of differences between health insurance proposals. The first half hour or more was wasted on the same questions and answers as the last two rounds, and frankly the presidential primary is not very relevant to the outcome of any legislative fight to expand health insurance. Unless one of the candidates wants to issue a veto threat against another’s plan (which I doubt any of them would do), find other topics to talk about for a while.
The same thing happened in 2008, with a long-running and acrimonious dispute between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over whether there should be an individual mandate. It ended up being totally irrelevant to what Barack Obama (who was the anti-mandate candidate) signed into law.
Mayor Pete’s very quick, and he hasn’t flubbed once, as far as I can remember.
I came away most impressed by Warren. I’ve posted previously that I thought Trump would beat her easily by running a Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis style campaign against her if she gets the nomination. After seeing her performance I think she would do a lot better than Dukakis did.
Castro went too far in his attacks against Biden. On the other hand I think Biden is showing signs of his age becoming a factor, which I don’t see in Warren or Sanders.
Regarding Sanders, he seemed like he was constantly angry. Maybe it’s just how his voice sounds now, but I think in a one on one against Trump he would turn off too many voters by coming across like that teacher who was always getting after you, even when you didn’t do anything wrong.
In other words, for this voter who considers electability the main factor in my decision making, right now I’m on team Warren.
heyyyyyyy joe instead of saying no we can’t how about yes we can
Wtf?
Harris didn’t respond to the point in hand. The courts will strike down Executive Orders on banning guns. The courts strike Trump down when he is unconstitutional too with EOs and he throws the toys out of the pram. It has to be done through Congress.
Maybe that’s we he meant but it’s such a bizarre argument. Yes, there are more people to insure. There are also more people to pay for it and do the work on it.
Biden’s focus on the cost of MFA without noting the *savings *from the obsoletion of the bulk of the vastly-less-efficient private system continued this time. It’s just not an honest representation. It also doesn’t help him that he thinks Obamacare is the best we can do, just because it’s the best he *did *do.
I recall that she wanted people to pay for insurance and he did not.
I merged two threads that had 12 and 36 posts, so there may be some odd threading. I kept the thread title that was started first.
[/moderating]
You have been proven wrong already. 70% of Coloradans voted against a single-payer system because they didn’t want to pay higher taxes although their overall cost would go down counting co-pays, deductibles, insurance premiums, etc. even accounting for the higher taxes.
And Bernie’s home state of Vermont passed single payer and then repealed it for the same reason. He was asked about this at one debate, I think, and had no coherent answer that I can recall. I believe his real answer, if you gave him truth serum, is that “I hate the big corporations and I just want to do this no matter how much it costs or how disruptive it is.”
Is it an “honest representation” to call a single payer healthcare bill with no resemblance to Medicare “Medicare for All”? Or to double down on that by saying you are going to phase it in over four years by lowering the eligibility age to 55, then 45, and so on – even though they are totally different programs and therefore this makes no sense? :dubious:
Maybe. There are multiple proposals that have been filled in under an attractive-sounding name.
Isn’t that what you call bait and switch? Or just plain false advertising?
I believe the name gets the idea across. I do think annually lowering the age of eligibility is a great idea. It gives medical and insurance employees time to find another job, and government time to lower costs.
Product development and test marketing.
I doubt very highly that Donald Trump will ever agree to debate anyone ever again. There are not going to be any general election debates.
He didn’t debate, he yelled at his opponent and interrupted her.
Anyone who is worried about who would do best in a debate with him is using the wrong analysis approach - remember how easily Hillary handled him? And how little it helped her on Election Day? The Deplorables simply saw her being put back in her place by a Manly Winning Man.