• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Vox: Hillary Clinton "Unleashed" interview w/ Ezra Klein

Deuce Deuce

Member
Oct 21, 2016
659
0
0
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:

 

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Mar 2, 2008
50,646
0
0
twitter.com
Yes?

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

Kasumin

Member
Feb 16, 2013
727
0
0
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.

As a woman running for the highest office in the United States of America, she was in a perpetual "damned if you do, damned if you don't" conundrum. Anything she did was viewed far differently from her opponent. It'd be one thing if her opponent was your run-of-the-mill white male Republican, but it ended up being the one person emblematic of everything wrong with the US: including numerous double standards!

I'll have to check out the interview, but I'm not keen to watch it right away. Whenever I see her I get really bummed out. Not because of her as a person, but because I'm just reminded of how 20+ years of ridiculous propaganda and misogyny triumphed in this country last year.

It's like all of the parables I ran into throughout grade school where the person who works hard gets rewarded were never internalized by ~40% of the population.
 
Jun 27, 2015
12,540
2
345
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:


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
 

Magni

Member
Dec 6, 2008
7,027
0
825
Planet Earth (currently Tokyo, JP)
It's painfully obvious who in this thread listened to the full interview and who didn't.

Of course some might have pressed play on the video, but that doesn't mean they actually listened to it.

Quite sad how much hate this woman gets. She's far from perfect, but she's also far from deserving the amount of vitriol she gets, especially from those who claim to be progressives.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
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.

Right.

That point is stupid and reflects a shallow understanding of Americans.

There are people on the far left here, just as there are in other countries. They have less political representation, that's all.
 

Foffy

Banned
May 14, 2009
22,560
2
0
Yo what the fuck, she supported UBI?!?!

She did an interview with this same guy during the campaign and was against it! She called it "giving up on people."

I know she supported it somewhat behind the scenes, but for them to start with that question...damn.
 

Staccat0

Fail out bailed
Apr 13, 2007
13,695
2
0
Austin, TX
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)
Yeah that interview was interesting.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,972
2,574
1,360
Hillary Clinton is a very bad liar.

This is a very bad trait for a candidate.

It was kind of hilarious how bad she was at playing it off when she got caught in a lie too. I mean, everyone gets caught lying from time to time. Politicians get caught lying all the damn time. But you have to know how to react when you're caught, and you will get caught a lot during your political career. The fact that she spent 30 years in politics and never learned the simple and fundamental act of playing it off when caught in a lie was baffling.
 

Barren Mind

Member
Jan 15, 2017
68
0
0
I've been extremely disappointed with how she's chosen to proceed. Understanding that her "true self" has been buried under decades of criticism I can only hope that she can become what she once was.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
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.
And who exactly do you think is standing in the way of a stronger welfare state?
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
Did you just call Obama a dummy?

Yes?

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 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.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
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.
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.

Yes, splitting the link between insurance coverage and employment would be great. But then you have an issue of companies now pocketing those funds that they were previously paying out rather than converting them to salary, because of course they're not just going to start paying people more! I would love to transition to a world where it works like Car Insurance, but I suspect that's something that would take a very, very long time to do without breaking everything in the process.
 
Jul 24, 2014
15,885
0
0
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



It's Time for Hillary Clinton to Gracefully Bow Out of Public Life, Along with All Other Women
 

Cranster

Banned
May 8, 2015
2,847
3
365
A quick glance through this thread and a few posts almost made me feel like I was on a pro-trump reddit board.
 

KingV

Member
Jul 30, 2004
5,540
2
1,450
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.)

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.
 
Sep 15, 2013
17,006
2
795
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.
Read up on the American Socialist movements. Specifically the IWW.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
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.
This is still far less tax increases then it would be if you add on the 140 million people covered under employer health plans!

You don't seem to understand which margin im referring to. Yes, covering the currently uninsured is expensive. That's not where the difference between expansion and SP is.
 

legacyzero

Banned
Feb 20, 2011
27,932
307
1,030
Nebraska
www.youtube.com
UBI is realistic. Don't be cynical.
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.
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,



My response,
Hillary? A Moderate? MILDSHOCK.gif.

I always did get a laugh when she'd said "most Profressive platform in History, while running against Bernie fucking Sanders lol.
 
Jul 25, 2015
4,582
0
0
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.
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.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
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.
No, that's what you interpret her words as because you want an excuse to be outraged.
 

Jimothy

Member
Dec 21, 2011
5,156
0
0
Her answer to the single payer question really encapsulated everything wrong with her political philosophy.

"I believe every American has the right to healthcare"

*bill gets introduced giving every American the right to healthcare*

"no not like that"
 

TWrecks310

Banned
Nov 30, 2014
3,370
0
0
Maryland
Did she really just call herself a centrist in this? What the fuck, and certain Dems wonder why a lot of liberals don't like her.

I voted for her but fucking hell the shit she says half the time infuriates me.
 

KingV

Member
Jul 30, 2004
5,540
2
1,450
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.

At that's finally settled, and we can stop saying she was the most progressive candidate ever/progressive hero/lifelong progressive/etc.

It's from her own mouth, no walking it back now.
 

Dubz

Member
Aug 8, 2013
3,536
0
0
Hillary was the worst Democrattic candidate of all time, and I say that as a guy that voted for her and her husband. How do I know this?

Because Trump is President.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Jun 6, 2004
20,904
1
0
Hillary was the worst Democrattic candidate of all time, and Insay that as a guy that voted for her and her husband. How do I know this?

Because Trump is President.

I like this new incoherent Hillary hate.

No basic english required!