Wrong. 1) The reason Matthews pushed her on it is because she doesn't want to directly say she would raise taxes on anyone but the richest Americans. He flat out said to her "I know that combined costs are lower, but why won't she answer whether taxes go up?" And she refused still. 2) The "anyone with critical thinking knows this is a good deal" trope is annoying. It's all based on averages. Average cost of healthcare, average premium, deductible, etc. However, for people who have great jobs working for successful companies or unions that have tremendous benefits at little to no out of pocket cost, this is would be a big loss. They'd see their taxes go up for little to no increase in benefits. Additionally, the "average deductible" and "average copay" stuff is stupid. The typical American doesn't use their deductible. So, 35 year old oil and gas guy in Houston with two kids who gets his insurance paid for by his employer with a $250 deductible will get dinged hard by Medicare for all. He'll end up paying thousands more in taxes and will see no "benefit" except in a year where he meets his deductible and he saved $200. Yay.
All "journalist" and moderators have been trained by something to ask these dumb stupid questions, over and over. But it is also on Warren and these candidates to answer directly. On top of that, these debate format give no time for a proper response. If you didn't already know their positions, you didn't learn much of anything. If you did, you didn't learn much of anything new. Except for Williamson. Impressive performance.
Medicare for all is a great deal for people who: A) Don't get insurance through their employer B) Get insurance through their employer but it's very expensive or has high deductibles THAT THEY USE C) Sick people For a lot of upper middle class people it would be a bad deal. Thousands and thousands more in taxes, not real benefit increase for them. On top of that you would be putting tens of thousands of people out of work. This is something Democrats do across the board. You want to change something to make something "better" or "more fair" for a subset of people that are getting screwed and you will pay for it on the backs of upper middle class folks and kill thousands of jobs and say, even if not out loud, that those jobs didn't matter any way. Screw those guys who work for insurance companies and hospitals and drug companies they are part of the problem!
It was a great line, but she's wrong. Delaney just isn't a good personality or he could have easily clapped back. He's just not an effective communicator in that format (don't know enough of him to comment on outside of debates) and it's always difficult to get feisty with female candidates.
The employer paid for that benefit. Roll that back into the employee's income. Not doing so IS SHIFTING the cost from employers to tax payers - a no no.
Honestly, I don't even remember what they were exchanging about. But she's not wrong. The message is Delaney isn't progressive enough - he give up too easy and isn't a fighter for the people. Old and same. She knocked him out there.
all that maybe true but His lack of response made him look dazed and confused Looks like he got a weak chin and won't get up I would be shocked he last . his chances are slim and none . .and slim just left . . . he is definitely out Rocket River
This has been the going theory for a while. Bernie and Warren make a single voting bloc. However, that voting bloc won't come into focus until we get down to the final 5-6 candidates. Right now name recognition is driving the bus. We know this because Biden voters' second choice candidate is Bernie, and vice versa, which makes absolutely no sense if you are voting based on policy. Data shows Warren is peeling off voters from everyone except Bernie, so they really aren't in competition with each other at all and they know it, which is great news.
It makes perfect sense. Here's where your dogma clouds your vision. For many of us, it is any Democrat, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum of party ideology. What an incredibly diverse set of candidates and ideas. Some I like, some I don't. But I, and I hope every other person that is not a mistake-in-chief supporter, will vote for whomever wins the nomination, rather than standing on ceremony and watching them lose.
Man it's so awesome that employers are so charitable in reducing premiums of their employees. It's very simple math. Employers aren't charaties. They are taking money away from potentional salary increases for subsidizing premiums for private health insurance companies who have higher overhead costs by a significant margin than public options. Why do you think it's efficient to pay for the provide motive of hosptials AND arbitrary middle men. Warren's argument is that moving insurance from arbitrary middlemen who have a profit motive with significantly higher overhead costs well wecause they have to generate profit to the public with public tax reveneue where there is no profit motive will have a overall net effect of saving money even for middle class Individuals who recieve their "excellen5 coverage" from their employer. Stop buying into a narrative that that excellent coverage subsidized by your employer is a charity that doesn't effect the company's expenses where they take into consideration the cost of subsidising when they determine the payroll.
all hail the kind hearted employer who is gifting us healthcare out of the goodnesses of their hearts.
Something like that. Structure it some way so that employers shift what they already paid to employee (in the way of health plan costs) to the employee salaries. FWIW - I don't like the idea, but if you want to get people on board politically, you have to do this IMO.
Yawn. Tens of thousands of good paying jobs up in a puff of smoke, tens of thousands of people paying more in taxes and the only response is some witty quip about the charity of employers.
You're overthinking it. We are like 3% of the way there in the primaries. Most people can barely name more than 1 person running for the Democratic nomination. We tend to think everyone is as politically engaged as we are here, and that's very much not the case. As time passes and name recognition fades as a criteria we will see hard(er) lines start forming.
So employers are that charitable huh. They don't take account subsidizing your healthcare into their expenditures? Unsubsidized private health insurance with actual worthwhile coverage is ****ing expensive. That savings employers provide doesn't come from magical fairy dust.
