My question was a bit hyperbole, but my point is that the left in the United States would be considered centre left/centre in the rest of the world. Hence the idea that a far left trying to upend the system, as called by Clinton, is ridiculous.Yes?
I guess I need to revise my first comment. Do you know any people who live in the United States?
Can't particularly blame her for being careful during the election considering how she was getting savaged for every little move. Though maybe more fire could have helped her. Then again she's still getting flak for the whole 'deplorables' thing.
My goodness. Clinton is still in the news?
She reminds me of that Klingon at the end of Star Trek 3 who was hanging onto Kirk's bolt trying to take them both off the cliff
Dems need to be like:
My question was a bit hyperbole, but my point is that the left in the United States would be considered centre left/centre in the rest of the world. Hence the idea that a far left trying to upend the system, as called by Clinton, is ridiculous.
Yeah that interview was interesting.She's on this week's Pod Save America, and she sounds pretty candid, not really what I expected. There's still a lot of hindsight obviously.
(Haha, just saw SeanC's post, now everyone is going to know we get these checks from Bezos)
Hillary Clinton is a very bad liar.
This is a very bad trait for a candidate.
And who exactly do you think is standing in the way of a stronger welfare state?Compared to the rest of the world? Nope. The Democratic Party would be regarded as a center-right party in Europe. The Republican Party would be like Alternative für Deutschland or something.
Did you just call Obama a dummy?
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.
The goal of Medicare Expansion or a Public Option is not to necessarily make them go extinct! It's only a slow boiling frog if they just start pulling out of exchanges and leave the US Government as the de facto single payer in a slow, expanding proportion of the country.The idea that you're going to con insurance companies by replacing them so slowly they're like a frog in a boiling pot is totally implausible. If the end game is to render private insurance extinct, they're going to go nuclear no matter how slowly you do it. The only difference with a public opinion is that they will lobby to ensure the public opinion is inadequately cost controlled or dump off high risk pools to the public option. That's why they supported the medicaid expansion, because it dumped a bunch of poor sick people they didn't profit off into the government's arms--especially because it was coupled with compelling a bunch of middle class healthy people to buy insurance they didn't want to prop up their profit margins. That's totally fine, companies should self-maximize, but again there is no scenario that ends with the companies happily bankrupt or defunct.
Also, while you correctly argue that continuing to shrink the number of people without coverage is not going to concern insurers as much as poaching their existing clients by offering them something better, you are also missing that from a politics/optics standpoint, every firm that isn't a health or insurance company stands to benefit massively from dismantling private health insurance. Non-health/insurance businesses will be very happy to support efforts to remove their hands from the health care system, which they don't want to be in to begin with.
My goodness. Clinton is still in the news?
She reminds me of that Klingon at the end of Star Trek 3 who was hanging onto Kirk's boot trying to take them both off the cliff.
Dems need to be like:
Yes, despite your apparent wishes, the person known as Hillary Clinton is still alive and well and is occasionally asked about things to wish she responds
The point is, well never move ahead as a nation if we keep following a failed candidate. Its time to think about Sanders 2020.
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.)
Read up on the American Socialist movements. Specifically the IWW.My question was a bit hyperbole, but my point is that the left in the United States would be considered centre left/centre in the rest of the world. Hence the idea that a far left trying to upend the system, as called by Clinton, is ridiculous.
This is still far less tax increases then it would be if you add on the 140 million people covered under employer health plans!But, it's not a drop in the bucket. That's what I'm telling you. You would have to cover about 1/4 of all of the rest of the health care spending just to expand Medicare down to 55.
39% of healthcare spending, already, is the 14% of the us population that is senior citizens. Those people are already covered by Public spending. The spending that's left over is not evenly distributed
Another 13% of people are 55-64. These people have about double the annual costs of health care as the national average of the rest of the people left over. Back of the envelope math is that it's about 30% of the 60% left over for another 20% of the total health care expenditures. At this point Medicare would be covering about 30% of the population, that accounts for 60% of all the health care spending. That's roughly in today's numbers, and it would even higher in 10 years, as baby boomers age out.
Is it easier to say we would need to almost double Medicare spending to cover another 13% of the population, where most of the population won't see a direct benefit for years? or is it easier to say we would need to almost triple it to cover another 86%?
Both are probably dead in today's political environment, and Hillary doesn't seem to have really though the math through. I can guarantee you that Hillary's plan to double Medicare spending has no better chance of passing a Repuvlican Congress than Bernies plan to cover everybody with Medicare-like spending.
I'm not necessarily endorsing single payer, as I think a public option to opt-in to Medicare is just as good from a practical perspective, but to suggest that single payer is impossible while endorsing Medicare expansion is some kind of realpolitik savvy move that will get by a Republican house is just not true. Both will increase Government health care spending by full blown multiples, and will need to have significant tax increases to fund them.
Disagree. If anything has any less of a chance than UHC passing, it's UBI. Conservatives would riot over that shit. Wouldn't want all those lazy no good minorities getting free money.UBI is realistic. Don't be cynical.
Hillary? A Moderate? MILDSHOCK.gif.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!
Some Clinton moments below,
I'm kind of disappointed with you here. You know that when she says far left, she means mild social democracy, not anarchists and revolutionary communists and that "blowing up the system" means redistributing some wealth, not ending private property and creating the People's Republic of America.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.
No, that's what you interpret her words as because you want an excuse to be outraged.I'm kind of disappointed with you here. You know that when she says far left, she means mild social democracy, not anarchists and revolutionary communists and that "blowing up the system" means redistributing some wealth, not ending private property and creating the People's Republic of America.
Did she really just call herself a centrist in this? What the fuck, and certain Dems wonder what a lot of liberals don't like her.
I voted for her but fucking hell the shit she says half the time infuriates me.