|
Re: 2020 Election
The democrats are working again to lose in 2020 because as has been suggested already by Obama and also patently obvious is that the party has drifted too far to the left. Serves them right for allowing Warren and Sanders to run under the Democrat name. They've only succeeded in scaring off the mainline voters, traditional Democrats and those Republicans who may have been thinking of voting democrat this time around and yes there are such things as voters who are registered to either one of the two parties that decide to vote either way in an election for a number of reasons. Hope always springs eternal in the human breast however so perhaps Biden despite his faults will finally prevail
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12770003)
ION
I have seen more Bloomberg commercials in the past two days than all the other candidates combined ... other than Tom Steyer but I'm counting the (pro impeachment) ones that Steyer ran before he even entered the race. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12770499)
So you are comparing 2 candidates diving the vote against polls including how many do we have now 20 or so?
I am sure they learned their lesson in 2016 and realised the need to take her put early, they have Bernie and Elizabeth splitting their vote and now we have Mayor Pete coming through, which is weird to say the least. Presumably to allow Biden to walk it. Difficult to keep up. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 12770540)
Whichever way you want to cut it, there are a boatload of candidates polling better than her. Really she’s just noise at this point. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12770532)
Me too! I'm in AZ at the moment, and he's bombarding the TV stations. The ads are very good (IMO) - upbeat, positive, and don't attack anyone except Trump. Regarding Healthcare, his line is 'Everyone without health insurance can get it, and everyone who likes theirs, keep it". Even if his campaign goes nowhere, having this much 'airtime' dedicated to advancing the healthcare issue with voters is a good thing. It can only serve to make Trump look bad.
That is a good line, simple and probably effective. That is what every democratic candidate should have said, as details will have to be worked out later with Congress. AFAIK, even that one line statement is more than republicans can offer - they have nothing except Trump-fealty. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12770542)
Exactly. Discussing Gabbard is a waste of oxygen!
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by robin1234
(Post 12770548)
‘Everyone without health insurance can get it, and everyone who likes theirs, keep it’ That is a good line, simple and probably effective. That is what every democratic candidate should have said, as details will have to be worked out later with Congress. AFAIK, even that one line statement is more than republicans can offer - they have nothing except Trump-fealty. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12770616)
I agree it sounds great, and should appeal to the greatest audience. The problem, I suspect, is that if you allow 'everyone who likes theirs to keep it', then you are going to siphon off most of the 'good' clients - the healthy, working folks with existing work-related insurance - and be left with the older, unemployed, undocumented, folks who don't have access to good 'group' coverage (like me!). Thus, the government will be left having to provide healthcare to the most expensive segment of the population. If you outlaw private insurance, as proposed by Warren and the grouchy finger-wagger (Sanders), then you have a chance to spread the costs across a much greater population.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12770616)
I agree it sounds great, and should appeal to the greatest audience. The problem, I suspect, is that if you allow 'everyone who likes theirs to keep it', then you are going to siphon off most of the 'good' clients - the healthy, working folks with existing work-related insurance - and be left with the older, unemployed, undocumented, folks who don't have access to good 'group' coverage (like me!). Thus, the government will be left having to provide healthcare to the most expensive segment of the population. If you outlaw private insurance, as proposed by Warren and the grouchy finger-wagger (Sanders), then you have a chance to spread the costs across a much greater population.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 12770647)
it’s a real conundrum. The more separate risk pools you create, the more likely you are to end up with the situation you describe. Thus M for A is the logically sound approach. But politically it’s highly risky. Extract: Among adults overall, a narrow majority (53%) support the idea of a Medicare-for-all plan while a larger majority (65%) say they support a government-run public option that would compete with private insurance. Large majorities of Democrats support both a public option (88%) and Medicare-for-all (77%), and while most Republicans oppose both approaches to expanding coverage, more favor the public option proposal (41%) than a Medicare-for-all plan (27%). Definitely less risky, politically, to go for the 'public option'. Let's see how much fear the Insurance Industry stirs up over the next 12 months ... |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12770619)
Not sure most people if shove came to push would keep their paid for Insurance if they could get it free. Might be a market for top insurance if you go with whatever the State was providing.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by robin1234
(Post 12770846)
Why would they get it free? I don't think anyone is offering "free" insurance. It has to be paid for. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12770933)
Then how is that different to the current situation?
Currently, my g/f pays about $200 / mo for her Medicare coverage. She is very happy with it. Her coverage, at $200/mo is vastly superior to the coverage I get with an ACA plan costing me over $700 / mo. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12770946)
How about pay less / get more? Seems to work as a marketing method for just about every business on the planet.
Currently, my g/f pays about $200 / mo for her Medicare coverage. She is very happy with it. Her coverage, at $200/mo is vastly superior to the coverage I get with an ACA plan costing me over $700 / mo. I still am confused about what Bloomberg is suggesting however. And how it is different to the current situation. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12770946)
How about pay less / get more? Seems to work as a marketing method for just about every business on the planet.
Currently, my g/f pays about $200 / mo for her Medicare coverage. She is very happy with it. Her coverage, at $200/mo is vastly superior to the coverage I get with an ACA plan costing me over $700 / mo. and if she doesn't have supplemental insurance, you are only covered for 80% of hospital costs. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sh...nd-deductibles |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:16 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.