20
   

Hillary Clinton Get's it. Will her supporters listen?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 05:39 pm
@Robert Gentel,
The anger from Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008 was understandable. They lost a closely contested election. Obama and his supporters reached out to them and included them in the campaign (and in his administration).

The anger from Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016, after she has won the primary, is truly remarkable. I really don't understand it.

This nastiness will not help us (and I do mean us) win in November.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 05:41 pm
@maxdancona,
I think you are overstating the anger, I don't see much of it myself and think that most of the friction in this Dem primary is just people who have tired of each other repeating themselves to each other as happens in every election everywhere.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 05:49 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Maybe. I was an Obama supporter in 2008 from very early in the primary cycle. So I might have a different perspective of that election. I remember being happy (rather than angry) after that election was over. I don't remember telling anyone to "shut the **** up".

The primary is over. I am ready to get on to the task of beating Trump.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 05:56 pm
@maxdancona,
One personal experience does not mean much in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it supports the notion that Clinton supporters are any angrier than usual or than Sanders'. Maybe your interlocutors are merely not as indefatigable as you in these discussions.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2016 09:57 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote max:
Quote:
he primary is over. I am ready to get on to the task of beating Trump.

Sounds good. The apparent triumph of Hillary only really took hold last week in New York and solidified last night, so everybody needs a few days to calm down.

Personally, I don't mind at all if Bernie keeps on campaigning and making his points, I think he's got some good ones. And the more he can campaign on the small donation model instead of the taking corporate money model, the better the chance that the small donation model will become the norm at some point. That would be good.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2016 10:16 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I'm so tired of you.

I'm with you, MAPORSCHE....
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2016 10:18 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Oh stop it.


You can say that again!! MAX-D needs to eat a few prunes.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2016 02:10 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

All I want is the nastiness to stop.



Ha! Ha! If it stops, you'll have nothing to do...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2016 07:05 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I have a son serving in the Army. I want a discussion about the cost of military intervention to be part of the convention... and I want Bernie to push Hillary on this issue. I have rather strong personal interest in this issue.

Wow. I can see why you worry about this issue.

If it makes you feel better, Hillary will only take the US to war for a very important reason.

And Mr. Trump doesn't seem to care about defending our allies. He'll likely only take us to war if there is a threat to the US itself.

Also, if Mr. Trump accidentally stumbles into a war with China due to a diplomacy fail, the Army is unlikely to play a major role in the war.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2016 07:51 pm
@maxdancona,
I'll quit when you and your pal Lash do. OK?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2016 08:12 pm
@RABEL222,
Sure Rabel. That sounds great to me.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 06:46 am
Ok, in the spirit of unity, lets discuss one of the concessions Bernie is demanding Hillary adopt in order to earn his support. His health care plan. Usually when people say single payer health care, they say great. However, when you start looking at Bernie's proposals he has put forward in the past, it is not so simple to go along with.

Study: Bernie Sanders's single-payer plan is almost twice as expensive as he says

5 unanswered questions about Bernie Sanders' health care plan

The false charms of Bernie Sanders’s single-payer plan

I think rather than scraping the hard won ACA which barely passed because of a temporary supermajority and concessions to conservatives, we should concentrate on trying to reform the present health care system and work our way towards having free health care for everyone. Meaningful changes rarely work all at once but progress over time in small steps by steps.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 06:54 am
@revelette2,
Are you are taking the same position in 2016 where Hillary won that you did in 2008 where Hillary lost? Hillary went into the convention in 2008 knowing that she had lost, but also with a fair amount of political capital to spend. And she spent it well.

As long as you applying the same standards when your candidate wins that you did when your candidate lost, then I have no problem with what you are saying.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 07:00 am
@revelette2,
Let's just say I disagree with you about Obamacare, and the numbers back me up. Obamacare did lower the number of uninsured... and that is a good thing.

But Obamacare is failing economically. Hospitals are shutting down under Obamacare. People in poor and rural areas are driving further to get medical care (it is not very helpful to be insured if you can't get to a hospital). Premiums are increasing. Obamacare is not sustainable over the long term. The experts know this and the unbiased ones are saying so.

Bernie is correct that the US spends significant more than countries like Canada and England on healthcare without any better results. We are paying more and getting less.

Single Payer healthcare has been proven, in country after country, to provide universal healthcare while lowering cost. Whatever your propaganda says is clearly wrong. You can't argue against what you can see with your own eyes in Canada.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 07:25 am
Yes, Hillary is smarter than her A2K supporters... Pretty obvious, no? That's perhaps why revelette and hisporsche are not going to become president, while Hillary most probably will.
revelette2
 
  4  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 08:12 am
@maxdancona,
We can work on fixing the problems within the ACA without totally scraping the good things with the ACA and putting in place which number one will never pass and number two will be twice as costly, risky and number three not as good quality care. Our health care cost twice as much as much as other countries so we will have to raise taxes twice or more than Bernie Sanders has said. Moreover when you add the other things he wants free, there is no way Americans will be able afford it, we will end up paying all our (or a lot) earned money we get working into the government for these services. I don't believe in the conservative way with trickle down economics and letting the economy pay for services and private charities but neither do I believe in a total extreme social government. There is balance in everything.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 08:13 am
@Olivier5,
Hillary has not said nor will she say she is going with Sander's proposals. You are such a needless smart elect.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 08:16 am
@maxdancona,
I am applying the same standards, Hillary did not demand Obama accept her would be proposals in order to support Obama after she lost.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 08:32 am
The following is from PBS, hardly a conservative or biased in favor of Obama/Hillary news source.

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The most ambitious “repeal and replace” health care plan from a presidential candidate comes from Sen. Bernie Sanders, not from a Republican.

The Vermont independent who’s seeking the Democratic nomination has been chastised by front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for espousing an all-inclusive, government-run system.

It’s called the “single-payer” plan, loosely modeled on how health care is financed in Canada and most of Western Europe.

Basically it means putting almost all the $3.2 trillion-a-year U.S. health care system in the hands of the federal government, with states acting as administrative subcontractors.

Currently, government at all levels pays about half of the nation’s health care bill.

Clinton accuses Sanders of wanting to “eliminate” popular programs such Medicare and Medicaid, which cover about one-third of Americans. She also contends Sanders would ditch President Barack Obama’s health law.

Actually Sanders would incorporate those programs into the new system, promising that patients would have no gaps in coverage.

What would be eliminated would be things such as insurance premiums, deductibles and copays. In their place would be taxes, something else that few like.


Some things to know about what’s being called BernieCare:

DEFINITELY WOULDN’T HAPPEN ON DAY ONE

A Sanders presidency remains a long shot. Even more improbable is his health care proposal sweeping through Congress.

Health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, powerful lobbying groups now at odds over high drug prices, would unite to oppose Sanders’ plan. For insurers, survival would be at stake. For drugmakers, the single-payer system means government-set prices, a reality they must endure in other countries.

Business groups would fight the plan’s payroll tax, designed to recoup much of what employers now pay for health care, and funnel those dollars into the new system.

Conservatives who howled about Obama’s public-private approach to coverage, modeled in part on older GOP proposals, would finally be facing a full government takeover of health care.

Democrats are likely to be divided. Single-payer is an ideal embraced by many liberals. Moderates may prefer to stick with incremental improvements to existing programs.

Sanders is under no illusions. The single-payer bill the senator introduced two years ago has no co-sponsors. If elected, Sanders says he would lead a movement for such a system, but there are no guarantees about how it might turn out.

PROS AND CONS FOR CONSUMERS

Simplicity of use and breadth of coverage would be big draws for consumers.

You could go to the doctor or spend two weeks in the hospital and not worry about getting a bill.

No insurance premiums, deductibles, cost-sharing or copays, even for brand-name medications. Gone would be worries about being penalized for seeing an out-of-network doctor.

Long-term care would be covered, whether in a nursing facility or one’s own home. Most dental care would be covered, too.

That’s attractive, especially for working families struggling with out-of-pocket costs for health care.

But the plan would raise taxes. Among them would be a new 2.2 percent “health care income tax,” with higher rates for upper-income earners.

A single-payer system could lead to waiting lists for tests and surgeries not deemed urgent. Not everybody who’s nursing back pain may be willing to wait a few weeks for an MRI.

WHAT ABOUT INSURERS?

Economic changes, new technologies, and globalization have disrupted many industries. People in the United States have learned to live with fast-paced change, even if they don’t like it. But rarely does the government shut down a major industry.

That’s basically what would happen to health insurance companies under Sanders’ plan. Insurers would be relegated to selling supplemental coverage for services not covered under the single-payer plan.

States could hire them to help administer coverage. But hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear. Billions of dollars in shareholder equity would evaporate.

Sanders has proposed a transition plan for workers displaced by the conversion to single-payer. That plan, too, would have to be paid for with taxes.

COST CONTROL

Single-payer advocates say they don’t plan to suddenly slam the brakes on spending. With health care accounting for 18 percent of the economy, that would be a shock with wide-reaching consequences. The U.S. still would spend more on health care than any other economically advanced country.

Instead, single-payer would aim to slow the rate of growth in costs by putting hospitals on budgets, negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and eliminating much of the waste that many experts believe characterizes the U.S. health care system.

Administrative savings would come from doing away with layers of insurance company bureaucracy. Those would be offset somewhat because the government bureaucracy would grow.

It may take some time for any expected savings from a single-payer system to start showing up, especially when the costs of the transition get factored in.

Over the long haul, some experts believe that single-payer gives policymakers more powerful tools to control costs. But that doesn’t magically solve the problem. Countries with long-established government-run systems also struggle with their health care spending.

THE STATE ROLE

States would have some leeway under Sanders’ plan. His office says, for example, that states could determine whether to cover immigrants who are in the country illegally.

But states could not buck the system. Many Republican-led states have refused to enact the Medicaid expansion provided under Obama’s health law. Sanders’ office says states would not be allowed to opt out of single-payer. The federal government would step in.

As with Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income people, states would be expected to cover part of the cost of new system. How much remains to be determined.


source
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2016 08:52 am
@revelette2,
PBS does have liberal bias (but so do I so I don't mind). But that doesn't matter here.

There is nothing in this piece that contradicts what I am saying.

1) Obamacare has been successful at significantly lowering the rate of uninsured people in the US.

2) Obamacare is failing economically. Premiums and health care cost in general continues to rise. The current health care system (with Obamacare) is economically unsustainable.

3) Other countries that have single payer systems provide universal healthcare at significantly lower cost (to both consumers and society at large) with equal or better health outcomes.

Yes there are political considerations. But the basic argument I am making is factually correct. If you have a fact-based argument against the basic points I am making, I would be interested to hear it.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 02:20:42