Progressives (Liberals)

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I don't think the solution is to scrap the ACA and start with something new. Something brand new is not likely to pass and Pelosi is right that with the way government works, until they have the votes it's not worth the time to debate the extreme position. Work on incremental improvements so that the leap to MFA isn't one that the public can't get behind.

Start with lowering the age requirements for Medicare. It's 67 today, start reducing it by a year or two every few years. This will get the sickest people in the private insurance market out of the system and make it more affordable for all the younger people still in it.

It's 65 today I think.

Would people younger than 65 be able to take Medicare for free if they have worked for 10 years? If so, how does the government pay for the expansion?

Would people younger than 65 have to pay for Medicare themselves? If so, how is that any improvement over private insurance?

maporsche wrote:

Also expand subsidies and Medicaid.

Medicaid sucks. Why not give poor people real health care?

maporsche wrote:

Also add a public option into the ACA marketplace.

Like the one it had up through the end of 2017?

Or something different? If something different, what exactly would it be?

0 Replies

Al Jazeera English
· ·
Putin and Saudi crown prince MBS share smiles and a high five at the #G20Argentina summit. Latest updates: http://aje.io/den9b

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I don't think the solution is to scrap the ACA and start with something new. Something brand new is not likely to pass and Pelosi is right that with the way government works, until they have the votes it's not worth the time to debate the extreme position. Work on incremental improvements so that the leap to MFA isn't one that the public can't get behind.

I agree every single point you made, except for one. I don't believe it's a waste of time debating and pursuing Medicare For All. Whether or not we currently have the votes, I think we should be debating and pursuing Medicare For All. I also believe we should be pursuing incremental improvements as well. As you clearly stated, no bill passes unless you have the votes. I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Quote:

Start with lowering the age requirements for Medicare. It's 67 today, start reducing it by a year or two every few years. This will get the sickest people in the private insurance market out of the system and make it more affordable for all the younger people still in it.

Also expand subsidies and Medicaid.

Also add a public option into the ACA marketplace.

These are good incremental improvements.

0 Replies

Increments is the loser's strategy, as proven over several cycles.

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

It's the Democrats' trickle down strategy.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Increments is the loser's strategy, as proven over several cycles.

Bullshit. Simple. Pure. Bullshit.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

If she had 50 votes for Medicare for All in the house, I don't think she'd vote 'Nay'.

I believe you are correct that Pelosi would vote yes for Medicare For All if she had the votes.

1 Reply

Increments is a way of saying, I want a celery stick from the banquet. The opposition gets the feast.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Quote:
If she had 50 votes for Medicare for All in the house, I don't think she'd vote 'Nay'.

I believe you are correct that Pelosi would vote yes for Medicare For All if she had the votes.

Not likely, Establishment Dems get paid to lose.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Increments is the loser's strategy, as proven over several cycles.

What is wrong with pursuing Medicare For All and incremental improvements at the same time?
It doesn't make sense to me to reject expanding Medicaid subsidies, or lowering the Medicare age, or having a public option, simply because it's not Medicare For All.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support Medicare For All. I also believe the dems should at least be fighting for Medicare For All. If you don't fight for Medicare For All, you will never get Medicare For All. So, I am definitely with you on fighting for Medicare For All. But, I wouldn't reject incremental improvements while we are fighting for Medicare For All.

I still believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

0 Replies

Things we used to have:
Voters rights
Prisons for actual criminals, not profit
Growing Medicare and SS
Less expensive medicine
Some military accountability
Taxes for the rich
DACA
Emigrants rights
Obamacare
Infrastructure
Welfare

Just off the top of my head. Wake me when increments restores this stuff.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Things we used to have:
Voters rights
Prisons for actual criminals, not profit
Growing Medicare and SS
Less expensive medicine
Some military accountability
Taxes for the rich
DACA
Emigrants rights
Obamacare
Infrastructure
Welfare

Just off the top of my head. Wake me when increments restores this stuff.

What years did we have these things Edgar? What years do you think these things were at their highest levels (however you define that).

Also, some of these are a direct result by people like you, voting in a way that allows people like Trump to get elected. Or people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

People who are working against the causes that the left supports should at the very least be mindful of their own accountability in how we got where we are.

0 Replies

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Fake_News_lr_11-28-1820181128122055.jpg

https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2018/11/28/161657

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Things we used to have:
Voters rights
Prisons for actual criminals, not profit
Growing Medicare and SS
Less expensive medicine
Some military accountability
Taxes for the rich
DACA
Emigrants rights
Obamacare
Infrastructure
Welfare

Just off the top of my head. Wake me when increments restores this stuff.

Each thing on this list is unique and should be discussed and argued separately.

The first thing on your list is voters rights

The Republican Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to invalidate Section 5 of the Voters Rights Act. Prior to that 5-4 decision, section 5 use to have preclearance requirements in the Voters Rights Act. Immediately afterward Republican legislatures across the nation started passing voter suppression laws. What does what the republican supreme court did have to do with the dems? What does the voter suppression laws being passed by republican legislators across the country have to do with the dems? The dems are constantly fighting against these voter suppression laws that are being passed by republican legislators across the country.

I could go down your list and discuss each one of your items on their own merits.
Each item on your list will be a different discussion and a different argument.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

Quote:

The Republican Supreme Court

No such animal, ask the Chief Justice.

0 Replies

GoFundMe if you want treatment - hospital

0 Replies

@Real Music,

You wish.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I'm not the enemy.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

I don't consider you an enemy. But I feel the time to be nice is behind us. Republicans are playing to win it all, by hook or crook, and they rarely negotiate and if they give any it's to get around you to gain something greater. My complaint about Democrats is, they often seem oblivious of this basic fact.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Companies in which Rep. Joe Kennedy III owns shares:

I get the concern, but those companies are on just about every diverse portfolio. I wouldn't consider that list to be particularly condemning. If anything, that level of diversification means that any one company does not have a lot of pull.

2 Replies

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know