Support NeoGAF

[And_Gignac]

No, she considered running on a position if it were achievable despite politics.

You very much need to have this explained because you clearly do not understand the distinction.

Yeah! Exactly, she considered it. Thats enough for her analogy on ponies to be contradictory. I dont think she needed handed to her a research study regarding how UBI, basically communism through super taxing corpos / ending all social programs, was not a politically easy promise to keep.

Honestly sounds like that poster just wants a reason to be mad, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here. I wish someone would do a sentiment analysis of GAF posts. I swear some people react more negatively to any time she says something than they do to Trump, and it's embarrassing

 

[KingV]

Achieving UHC via Single Payer means kicking everyone off of their employer-sponsored health care coverage and forcing them to buy into a government-run system, either directly via premiums or indirectly vs other types of taxes. (They can then purchase supplementary plans if they so choose.)

Achieving UHC via Medicare/Medicaid expansion means that you're allowing people access to government run programs that they were previously ineligible for and subsidizing their coverage for some of those people.

The latter is far, far more politically possible than the former for many reasons. One is that the vast majority of working people have employer-sponsored health coverage. Another is that those people are largely unaware of just how much money their employers spend on their health coverage behind-the-scenes (hence the sticker shock when they see premium costs on the open market.) And finally, those health insurers providing coverage to all those employers are not going to be happy with having a gigantic market of customers shut down and taken over by the government. It's a massive amount of destruction of private infrastructure.

The goal is to avoid what just happened with the GOP and Obamacare repeal. They ran on it for nearly a decade. Got a RRR setup. Couldn't do it.

This happened to the Dems w/ Carter and UHC and many other progressive goals. His presidency was a trainwreck for the party.

But that's not what she says in the interview. She says she is against it because it's unaffordable. But expanding Medicare downwards is going to start by adding in the most expensive part of the population that is not covered by government programs, it's already going to be really expensive. So how is she theoretically going to pay for it without substantial tax increases that make single payer impossible?

 

[kirblar]

Yeah! Exactly, she considered it. Thats enough for her position to be on ponies to be contradictory. I dont think she needed handed to her a research study regarding how UBI, basically communism through super taxing corpos / ending all social programs, was not a politically easy promise to keep.

It's not contradictory! She considered it, then tabled it because she could not get the math to work. Not because it would be demonized by the GOP, but because they couldn't find the cash to pay for it. (This is the exact thing she criticized Sanders' proposals about during the campaign.

They thought they could backdoor it somehow, and found they couldn't figure out a way to do that.

 

[Cipherr]

So you both want 4 more years of Trump?

If you keep asking this stupid question we will nominate Hillary in 2020.

In fact, this is why she won the nomination. Because you ask these kinds of questions Hench. Do you want us to vote for Hillary to win the nom in 2020 Hench? Do you want her to run again in 2020 Hench?

No?

Then stop asking that stupid question.

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here. I wish someone would do a sentiment analysis of GAF posts. I swear some people react more negatively to any time she says something than they do to Trump, and it's embarrassing

Oh its absolutely true. It was crazy before they started the bans too, before the full political season got into swing; the way they would carpet bomb every thread she was mentioned in with some sort of "I wish this *** would just disappear" or some derivation. The graveyard threads taught those that remained to shroud that bile a little more carefully, but its definitely still there.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Nah

 

[kirblar]

But that's not what she says in the interview. She says she is against it because it's unaffordable. But expanding Medicare downwards is going to start by adding in the most expensive part of the population that is not covered by government programs, it's already going to be really expensive. So how is she theoretically going to pay for it without substantial tax increases that make single payer impossible?

Because the tax increases necessary to pay for a Medicare/Medicaid expansion (or via a Public Option being created) are a drop in the bucket compared to the funds necessary for Single Payer.

It's a question of relative scale, and we've seen Vermont abandon its attempt to make single payer happen at the state level because of the projected costs, we've seen Colorado's voters reject it in a referendum, and we've seen California's proponents unable to come up with a realistic actual workable proposal for it (in part because due to California's insane proposition system limited tax revenues, it may not even be possible to raise the revenue necessary.)

 

[Maxim726X]

It's not contradictory! She considered it, then tabled it because she could not get the math to work. Not because it would be demonized by the GOP, but because they couldn't find the cash to pay for it. (This is the exact thing she criticized Sanders' proposals about during the campaign.

They thought they could backdoor it somehow, and found they couldn't figure out a way to do that.

We saw it here on this very community, when Vox released a potential tax calculation if Bernie's platforms had come to pass.

Suddenly, no one wanted it anymore.

Hate to turn this into another 'Hillary vs Bernie' thread but this point is important because it's going to come up again: If you can't even get the far left on board, what hope is there for the rest of the country?

 

[Father_Brain]

Invoking Hamilton to defend money in politics is some peak HRC, all right.

 

[And_Gignac]

Omg Ezra Klein has the most smug wealthy pseudo lefist face I have ever seen. I want to slap him and then kiss him profoundly.

 

[CrisKre]

*sigh*

This woman would have made a FANTASTIC president.

you really fucked up america.

 

[Autodidact]

...

What the hell. Who actually uses cucks?

You know who.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

You know who.

People who say "Yas Queens"?

 

[Spiritreaver]

Watched the whole thing, but that ending is one hell of a bitter pill to swallow.

I'm usually one of the most optimistic people around, but when it comes to American politics and progressive ideals. I don't share those feelings anymore. I don't think the left will get it together by next year. We will be arguing over Clinton/Sanders all the way until November without any idea of who we should be voting and for and pushing for. We won't have an idea who we should be thrusting our interest in leading into 2020.

I think things are going to get worse, far worse than now. Even if Trump gets removed from office. But I hope to be proven wrong, and boy I better be.

 

[Kill3r7]

Watched the whole thing, but that ending is one hell of a bitter pill to swallow.

I'm usually one of the most optimistic people around, but when it comes to American politics and progressive ideals. I don't share those feelings anymore. I don't think the left will get it together by next year. We will be arguing over Clinton/Sanders all the way until November without any idea of who we should be voting and for and pushing for. We won't have an idea who we should be thrusting our interest in leading into 2020.

I think things are going to get worse, far worse than now. Even if Trump gets removed from office.

It depends on how much the GOP fucks things up but yeah I have little faith that things will change during the midterms. 2020 is more realistic.

 

[Tylercrat]

So, she was in the selling ponies business too? Lol

UBI is realistic. Don't be cynical.

 

[nomis]

UHC and Single Payer are not synonyms.

Thanks tips, next you’ll inform me that rectangle and square aren’t synonyms, as if I didn’t already know

 

[kirblar]

Thanks tips, next you’ll inform me that rectangle and square aren’t synonyms, as if I didn’t already know

The idea that Hillary Clinton secretly doesn't want UHC to work is completely ridiculous.

 

[MThanded]

Great interview.

Solid discussion and a cogent breakdown.

 

[old manatee]

I like this Hillary Clinton a lot more than the weird manufactured Hillary Clinton they rolled out during the campaign.

 

[MThanded]

I like this Hillary Clinton a lot more than the weird manufactured Hillary Clinton they rolled out during the campaign.

I don't think anyone was rolled out. Ezra had a great opening statement. She's more relaxed because the pressure is off. There were a lot of eggshells to walk on during the campaign.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I like this Hillary Clinton a lot more than the weird manufactured Hillary Clinton they rolled out during the campaign.

She's so much more at ease than she usually is. It's sad how she even specifically addresses this in the interview.

I think most people in this thread, if they listen to nothing else, really need to listen to the segment from 2:55 to 6:35. This segment epitomizes her mindset and approach to politics, mainly that she's almost pragmatic to a fault

 

[Wvrs]

Not sure how comfortable I am with using Trump's victory as reason for making a martyr out of Clinton. I'd prefer for her to fade away. One of the worst candidates the democrats could have fielded, and I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Like every western leader since new economics achieved salience, she's just another enabler of the status quo and does not have the interests of ordinary people at heart.

Being a preferable option to Trump is a very, very low bar to surmount. I'd like to see the US have a real socialist candidate get past the primaries, although to be honest even a true centrist would be welcome. Social progress alone isn't enough, any fiscal conservative can achieve their economic agenda in tandem with paying lip service to social reform.

 

[OceanBlue]

It may be unpopular among the left but I still support Clinton and the more pragmatic, measured policy and rhetoric that I associate her with. I listened both to this and to the Pod Save America interviews and her reluctance to promise grand policy ideas because she felt that they were, and should be, scrutinized in the general is something I agree with.

 

[nomis]

The idea that Hillary Clinton secretly doesn't want UHC to work is completely ridiculous.

how dare i imply that the woman who referred to single payer as “free ponies” and “zero minute abs” is insufficiently invested in uhc/single payer/socialized medicine/any valiant thereof to help make it reality

this isn’t conspiratorial, the end result of powerful influencers hiding their lack of passion for real policy gains behind fabled pragmatism is identical to if they were vehemently opposed to it

 

[Emarv]

I think I remember a recent Vox podcast episode where they talked about the lack of progressive thinktank white papers on the possibilities of paying for Single Payer. For political reasons or not, the lack of specific numbers on Single Payer cost just weren't readily available. Liberals can campaign on Single Payer or UHC or whatever, but I'm in agreement with also demanding numbers and details.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

UBI is realistic. Don't be cynical.

Lmao.


What happens if you replace every social program with a universal basic income

 

[Stumpokapow]

Achieving UHC via Single Payer means kicking everyone off of their employer-sponsored health care coverage and forcing them to buy into a government-run system, either directly via premiums or indirectly vs other types of taxes. (They can then purchase supplementary plans if they so choose.)

Achieving UHC via Medicare/Medicaid expansion means that you're allowing people access to government run programs that they were previously ineligible for and subsidizing their coverage for some of those people.

The latter is far, far more politically possible than the former for many reasons. One is that the vast majority of working people have employer-sponsored health coverage. Another is that those people are largely unaware of just how much money their employers spend on their health coverage behind-the-scenes (hence the sticker shock when they see premium costs on the open market.) And finally, those health insurers providing coverage to all those employers are not going to be happy with having a gigantic market of customers shut down and taken over by the government. It's a massive amount of destruction of private infrastructure.

This mostly seems to be hand-wringing about the rollout and handover more than any actual policy distinction. Insurers are going to be mad if you take away their customers by sticking them on a government program. It's true that they might be less mad if it's gradual, but they'll be mad regardless. UHC by any means is going to involve the market as it stands getting blown up. The key is leveraging the support of businesses large and small to help blunt the opposition of the losers in the exchange. And UHC doesn't just matter for those who don't have it now, it also matters to help cost control those who do have it now.

The goal is to avoid what just happened with the GOP and Obamacare repeal. They ran on it for nearly a decade. Got a RRR setup. Couldn't do it.

The Republicans were going to run against the ACA regardless of if some dummy said "if u like ur doctor u can keep him", so I think getting too caught up in the gotcha they picked in the end is unnecessary.

 

[OceanBlue]

I think I remember a recent Vox podcast episode where they talked about the lack of progressive thinktank white papers on the possibilities of paying for Single Payer. For political reasons or not, the lack of specific numbers on Single Payer cost just weren't readily available. Liberals can campaign on Single Payer or UHC or whatever, but I'm in agreement with also demanding numbers and details.

I believe it was an episode of The Weeds where Matt was saying that there was a lack of serious attempts by policy experts to come up with feasible implementations of UHC. There was a debate on whether that sort of thing should be bothered with when Democrats aren't in power but he just found it strange.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I don't think anyone was rolled out. Ezra had a great opening statement. She's more relaxed because the pressure is off. There were a lot of eggshells to walk on during the campaign.

Yeah, during the campaign she wasn't even allowed to call out bigotry for what it is without the right and certain "progressives" jumping on her back.

 

[AmayaPapaya]

Her pony line is so damaging. I wish she wouldnt adopt Republican tactics to hurt progressive politics. She's making it harder than it already is to enact some if the things we want to do.

 

[makingmusic476]

She's wondering if she should've just gone with the UBI idea, but still rips into Bernie for pushing for something provably workable like single-payer?

 

[kirblar]

how dare i imply that the woman who referred to single payer as “free ponies” and “zero minute abs” is insufficiently invested in uhc/single payer/socialized medicine/any valiant thereof to help make it reality

this isn’t conspiratorial, the end result of powerful influencers hiding their lack of passion for real policy gains behind fabled pragmatism is identical to if they were vehemently opposed to it

In 1993 Clinton proposed a much broader restructuring of the US Health Care system than the one she and Obama proposed different variants on in '08.

You don't think that it crashing and burning hard might have left her with strong opinions on the dangers of attempting to go that wide?

Your belief that you can gauge how much passion someone has based on their willingness to support bad unimplementable proposals in bad faith is ridiculous.

I think I remember a recent Vox podcast episode where they talked about the lack of progressive thinktank white papers on the possibilities of paying for Single Payer. For political reasons or not, the lack of specific numbers on Single Payer cost just weren't readily available. Liberals can campaign on Single Payer or UHC or whatever, but I'm in agreement with also demanding numbers and details.

The numbers aren't out there because they'd be used against us politically if they were, yes.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Her pony line is so damaging. I wish she wouldnt adopt Republican tactics to hurt progressive politics. She's making it harder than it already is to enact some if the things we want to do.

I don't think it's really hurting them. She's simply bringing up the practicalities not only how to implement such programs, but how to garner enough support during the transition. The latter point is probably MORE difficult than the former because you don't really have the luxury of disrupting people's livelihoods while these programs are being completely revamped. But she flat out says she supports universal health care. She's never implied otherwise. The only difference is what she felt was the best path towards it

 

[kirblar]

This mostly seems to be hand-wringing about the rollout and handover more than any actual policy distinction. Insurers are going to be mad if you take away their customers by sticking them on a government program. It's true that they might be less mad if it's gradual, but they'll be mad regardless. UHC by any means is going to involve the market as it stands getting blown up. The key is leveraging the support of businesses large and small to help blunt the opposition of the losers in the exchange. And UHC doesn't just matter for those who don't have it now, it also matters to help cost control those who do have it now.

It is not hand-wringing. There are very, very large differences in how the policies impact both individual people and private insurers.

In the Medicaid/Medicare expansion scenario, the US government is primarily concerned with simply covering people without insurance (who the insurers aren't interested in) In the case of the public option, providing a voluntary alternative on the market. Neither of these is incompatible with the private insurers maintaining their customer base and income stream in the short/medium term. We had the Insurance companies on board for both the Medicaid expansion and Public Option in '09.

In the Single Payer scenario, these insurers are having that income stream involuntarily cut off hard. They will have to drastically reduce the size of their business and retool their offerings completely. Insurance companies are not going to go quietly into the grave if this is attempted.

 

[Novel Mike]

Watched the whole thing, but that ending is one hell of a bitter pill to swallow.

I'm usually one of the most optimistic people around, but when it comes to American politics and progressive ideals. I don't share those feelings anymore. I don't think the left will get it together by next year. We will be arguing over Clinton/Sanders all the way until November without any idea of who we should be voting and for and pushing for. We won't have an idea who we should be thrusting our interest in leading into 2020.

I think things are going to get worse, far worse than now. Even if Trump gets removed from office. But I hope to be proven wrong, and boy I better be.

Honestly I think part of that whole problem is Hillary herself just won't stop talking about it. She's done interviews, shes got a book out now which we had a topic on already thats attacking Sanders and it all just drags us back to last year when we need to move on. The party needs new leaders to step up and really take charge and right now we don't have that at all.

 

[Regulus Tera]

It's telling how most of her grievances in the interview are with Bernie Sanders and not Trump. No wonder the Dems are a mess.

There's also a point in the interview where she mentions how the far right and far left want to destroy the political system and I'm like what

 

[Tylercrat]

Lmao.


What happens if you replace every social program with a universal basic income

I didn't say eliminate the welfare state. I'm saying dramatically increase it. I agree with you it would be terrible to cut everything else to pay for it.

 

[kirblar]

Honestly I think part of that whole problem is Hillary herself just won't stop talking about it. She's done interviews, shes got a book out now which we had a topic on already thats attacking Sanders and it all just drags us back to last year when we need to move on. The party needs new leaders to step up and really take charge and right now we don't have that at all.

We won't be getting new leaders till '09 because putting yourself out there this early gives the GOP (and TYT types) the ability to define you 2 years before the primary campaigns actually start.

Hillary being "known" to be the candidate years in advance was why Benghazi and EMAILS were a thing, they deliberately went after her hard expecting to be able to weaken her.

 

[Holmes]

Actually a really interesting interview. Watched the first twenty minutes, I'll finish it later but I did find it insightful how she says she tried to be realistic with the expectation that she would have been hit with "if you're proposing it now, you need to explain why the Obama administration didn't get it done" or "you've been around for so long, why didn't you get it done before?" (although she was attacked with that last line a bit anyway on things that didn't even relate to her)

Omg Ezra Klein has the most smug wealthy pseudo lefist face I have ever seen. I want to slap him and then kiss him profoundly.

You into that fam?

 

[elrechazado]

This mostly seems to be hand-wringing about the rollout and handover more than any actual policy distinction. Insurers are going to be mad if you take away their customers by sticking them on a government program. It's true that they might be less mad if it's gradual, but they'll be mad regardless. UHC by any means is going to involve the market as it stands getting blown up. The key is leveraging the support of businesses large and small to help blunt the opposition of the losers in the exchange. And UHC doesn't just matter for those who don't have it now, it also matters to help cost control those who do have it now.



The Republicans were going to run against the ACA regardless of if some dummy said "if u like ur doctor u can keep him", so I think getting too caught up in the gotcha they picked in the end is unnecessary.

Did you just call Obama a dummy?

 

[iammeiam]

She's wondering if she should've just gone with the UBI idea, but still rips into Bernie for pushing for something provably workable like single-payer?

To further torture the example that's driving everyone crazy:

She wanted to run on giving everyone a unicorn. She couldn't figure out how to make a unicorn something she could realistically even start to work on delivering. Ran the numbers, crunched, considered, reconsidered, but her path to unicorns was basically interrupted by the Grand Canyon early on.

So then she runs without the unicorn promise, and her opponent is promising everyone he'll get them ponies. She doesn't understand how he's going to do that, but people respond. People want ponies! She doesn't want them to have ponies! She's an out of touch shill propped up by Big Glue to prevent the people from having ponies!

Meanwhile, Trump is promising everyone rocket-powered robohorses that nuke terrorists and emit a sonic frequency that will drive people with darker skin away. People respond! They love it!

So she beats the pony guy, is still regarded as paid off to have an anti-pony agenda, and loses to the rocket-powered robohorse guy. She understands people found her less likable because she was so anti-pony-promises, and wonders at this point if she should have just promised everyone unicorns she knew she couldn't deliver, because fantasy dream equines were a huge component of popularity.

Like, all else aside, her wanting UBI, rejecting it as something she could run on, and wondering if running on it anyway might have ultimately helped her campaign seems super consistent.

 

[pigeon]

It's telling how most of her grievances in the interview are with Bernie Sanders and not Trump. No wonder the Dems are a mess.

There's also a point in the interview where she mentions how the far right and far left want to destroy the political system and I'm like what

Do you...maybe not know any people on the far right and far left?

I have a bunch of friends on the far left, and I can assure you, they want to destroy the American political system.

And I understand why! I disagree with them on means, not ends.

 

[Gaogaogao]

Omg Ezra Klein has the most smug wealthy pseudo lefist face I have ever seen. I want to slap him and then kiss him profoundly.

wut

 

[old manatee]

Honestly I think part of that whole problem is Hillary herself just won't stop talking about it. She's done interviews, shes got a book out now which we had a topic on already thats attacking Sanders and it all just drags us back to last year when we need to move on. The party needs new leaders to step up and really take charge and right now we don't have that at all.

She was at the center of a crazy historical event. She's allowed to write a book about her experience.

 

[Conciliator]

there is something about ezra klein with his perfectly selected glasses and his faux-ira glass stutter. I want him to...tickle me, maybe?

 

[Camel Master]

I would vote for her again in 2020

Definitely. She should run, as a healing experience for this country. She would win and the message from the voters would be "yes, we fucked up by staying home, sorry". In 8 years of Clinton crazy amount of progress would be made.

If not, well Hillary is still the best and USA doesn't deserve her! She comes and offer greatness for the people but noo people had to stay home or vote Jill Stein.

Those who criticize Hillary, please don't try to divide us.

 

[Regulus Tera]

Do you...maybe not know any people on the far right and far left?

I have a bunch of friends on the far left, and I can assure you, they want to destroy the American political system.

And I understand why! I disagree with them on means, not ends.

Is there even a real left in the United States?

 

[kambaybolongo]

Definitely. She should run, as a healing experience for this country. She would win and the message from the voters would be "yes, we fucked up by staying home, sorry". In 8 years of Clinton crazy amount of progress would be made.

If not, well Hillary is still the best and USA doesn't deserve her! She comes and offer greatness for the people but noo people had to stay home or vote Jill Stein.

Those who criticize Hillary, please don't try to divide us.

I just have to believe this is a troll post.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

1/3 of the way through... HIllary: I'm so great and practical. Why is everyone else not as down to earth as me?

(What she thinks is bounded by what she perceives as "real," opposed to how things should be. She lacks imagination.)

Is this going to continue for the rest of the of the video? Stay tuned!

EDIT:
Some Clinton moments below,

ezra: "A lot of people feel obama could've done more to punish bankers, could've gone further on healthcare, that there were deals cut... there's evidence for, is that these donations give interests more of a voice..."

clinton: "But, it's always been thus!"

clinton: "I think we operate better when we're kinda between center-right and center-left."

My response,

 

[pigeon]

Is there even a real left in the United States?

Yes?

I guess I need to revise my first comment. Do you know any people who live in the United States?