Well put. I would also suggest those who appreciate his honesty knows he will not sell out to big money. His honesty would prevent him from doing something that he didnt feel was 100% right. That said, his ideas are so progressive that his honesty would prevent his ideas from ever having a snowballs chance in hell.
This is about the bar being one level for one party and about fifty rungs lower for the other party. Let's put them on the same playing field and judge them accordingly for once. Didn't Trump lie about where his father was born? What hasn't he lied about?
In general... democrat and liberal prefer women over men - reverse sexism if you will. The exact opposite for republican and conservative. Moderate - probably more toward the conservative side. So the polling didn't surprise me as that "moderate" group was on the conservative side and yet favor Bernie over Warren although he is clearly more liberal. Being a woman is a factor, but not the only factor.
Over all, 40 percent describe themselves as conservative, compared with 16 percent who say they’re liberal. Forty percent are moderate. That's why they voted Trump, his ability to find common ground.
we were talking about why people who don’t agree with either bernie or warren still hold bernie in a favorable light trump has nothing to do with it
Op-ed in the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/has-elizabeth-warren-wrecked-the-left-11573084685?mod=hp_opin_pos_2 Has Elizabeth Warren Wrecked the Left? The Warren Medicare for All plan shows that progressivism is undeliverable pie in the sky. By Daniel Henninger Nov. 6, 2019 6:58 pm ET The fallout from the release of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for All plan is the biggest event so far in the 2020 presidential campaign. It’s big enough that Sen. Warren’s campaign may have buckled beneath the weight of her plan’s fantastic details. But it might be bigger than that. The Warren meltdown could prove to be the Democratic left’s Chernobyl, a lasting catastrophe. In 2016, capitalizing on socialist Bernie Sanders’s strong performance in the primaries against Hillary Clinton, the organized left muscled the Democratic establishment out of the picture and captured the party’s levers of power and its ideological direction. Recall earlier this year what happened when the party’s presidential candidates began their 2020 runs. Bernie was back, and in short order the progressives put down an array of policy markers and litmus tests—Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, free public college tuition, forgiveness of student debt. The astonishing thing then wasn’t Bernie bellowing about Medicare for All or even Ms. Warren waving it forward. More surprising was how quickly more “moderate” Democrats, such as Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, saluted the left’s agenda. Both signed on to a Green New Deal resolution introduced in February by the left-wing social-media influencer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Recall also how the American Action Forum estimated that the Green New Deal, including its “social justice” policies, could cost $51 trillion to $93 trillion between 2020 and 2029. No matter. The bended-knee obeisances of the Democratic presidential candidates to most of this stuff were a testament to the progressive left’s ascendancy. Then Elizabeth Warren began to introduce her “plans.” In retrospect, the purpose of her incredible policy detail seems clear: She would be competing with Mr. Sanders in the same lane for progressive primary voters. To distinguish herself from Bernie’s mystical left-wing status, Ms. Warren offered a welter of progressive policy detail. Her schools plan, for instance, is a paint-by-numbers Valentine to the progressive-controlled teachers unions, a force in producing party voter turnout. She promised to “quadruple” federal spending on education, to $800 billion over a decade. (You almost have to admire a candidate who vows to quadruple spending.) This came after her $1.07 trillion “universal child-care” plan. Somehow Ms. Warren was slipping by with all this maxed-out progressivism, including kid-glove media profiles—until last week and the release of her Medicare for All plan. Uh-oh. So this is what nationalized health care looks like. We knew that half the U.S. population—some 177 million people—would lose their private insurance. Now we find out that federalized health care would cost nearly $52 trillion over 10 years, paid for by myriad bureaucratic “savings” and new taxes. There’d be a new Employer Medicare Contribution (i.e., a tax) plus an annual tax on the unrealized capital gains of the “wealthiest,” plus a threat to abrogate drug companies’ patents if they don’t comply with federal price controls. Doctors, some warned, might leave the profession. If costs outpace economic growth (and they would), “I will use available policy tools, which include global budgets, population-based budgets and automatic rate reductions to bring it back in line.” The left may never forgive Elizabeth Warren for releasing all this detail. Ms. Warren has let the cat out of the bag: Progressivism is basically undeliverable pie in the sky. Indeed, by stringing together in detail so many progressive wish lists, she has made clear how difficult, if not impossible, it is for them to survive the most basic tests of political or fiscal plausibility. Mr. Sanders has always understood this, which is why he has risen by never offering anything more substantive than the wings and prayers of his stirring stump speech. His pitch to millennials and white gentry liberals is wholly emotional. No wonder Ms. Ocasio-Cortez chose to endorse Bernie. Like him, AOC knows the progressive enterprise is about sailing into power on a river of aspirational rhetoric. In the wake of Ms. Warren’s plan reveal, it just got a lot harder for the party’s presidential candidates to dismiss or duck questions about the price tag for their spending policies. Surely this is why Nancy Pelosi, a self-described woman of the left, warned this week: “What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan.” The party’s “moderate” candidates—Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar and the reimagined Pete Buttigieg—have been criticizing Ms. Warren’s health-care plan, but whether they will separate themselves from the party’s dreamland left remains to be seen. President Trump has been telling audiences: You may or may not like me, but you’re going to have to vote for me to avoid the Democrats destroying the gains in your 401(k). It’s not a bad line. Now Mr. Trump can say—finally: Don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself what’s in the Democratic “plan” after he’s gone. Write henninger@wsj.com.
This is the debate We spend 40+ trillion on our current system over the next 10 years, 80+ million people stay un/underinsued, private health insurance companies make boatloads or We spend -40+ trillion on M4A over the next 10 years, everybody is covered with quality health insurance. Doctors and hospitals stay the same, and in fact, now everybody has more choice as every hospital and doctor in the country would be "in-network". OR we can repost disingenuous articles, pretending like healthcare costing 40 trillion is some asinine number, compare only government spending under a M4A system vs our current system without actually including the actual cost of our current system lol. We can have disingenuous corrupt politicians like Biden/Amy/Pete champion these false talking points. Here's a basic video, that should highlight how disingenuous it is when people try to concern troll over the cost of medicare for all.
I’d think Trump’s impeachment inquiry would be the biggest story for the 2020 campaign at this point, but I’m assuming Mr. Henninger is speaking solely of the Dem Campaign. Otherwise, I’ve screenshotted Mr. Henninger’s list of op-eds recently (down below). Needless to say, he loves going after Dems with regularity...considering he also writes an opinion column for the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal, I’d say he might be a tad biased against them. Which is fine, always good to see what the other side is saying.
Ha! I couldn't tell if that was the list of Henninger's op-ed's or threads started by @Os Trigonum. Maybe they are one and the same.
not sensing fear. Agree with Ray that it’s good to hear from multiple outlooks. Happy to see the WSJ column FWIW, but... Fear might be someone suggesting one candidate could single-handedly “destroy” a huge political entity.
If these were really the two options, it would be a no-brainer. But no one who actually studies health policy - on the left or the right - believes thats the case. Let's ignore costs for now. Her plan involves slashing reimbursement rates. If hospitals and private doctor's offices and clinics only get a fraction of the money they get now, how do you think coverage remains the same? Massive cuts will have to be made to services across the board - almost no doctor or hospital can currently survive on Medicare reimbursement rates alone. They only work as incremental revenue with private care reimbursement rates being the cornerstone. Many rural hospitals have already shuttered their doors due to smaller Trump changes and resulting cuts - most health economists are in agreement the Warren plan would cause much more damage there and massively affect rural care and access. Hospitals also would get bundled payments - meaning if they are getting more patients, *they would not necessarily get more money*. So it creates a lot of perverse incentives. The details matter, and the details of how she gets her numbers down are extremely problematic - much of the deeper criticism of this stuff comes from the *left*, including Bernie, who railed on her plan. At the end of the day, regardless of cost, it doesn't do a good job of delivering quality health care. Outside of the topline numbers that you've read, do you know anything about the underlying dynamics of the plan or how it is designed to work? *That's* where the debate actually is - not this disingenuous, pie-in-the-sky 'we'll just get rid of the greedy insurers and everything else will stay the same !' stuff.
