|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29336
Location: La La Land
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | I guess I just don't have confidence there would be a linear progression from public option to single payer. |
But you do have confidence that the Feds are just going to immediately be able to dismantle the current system and just install single payer with no problems . . . ?
| Quote: | | A worry of a difficult transition period isn't a good enough excuse IMO |
But that's exactly what you are doing in the first quote. |
Never said there would be no problems. I'm saying there are gonna be problems either way (single payer or public option). But at least with single payer. Everybody would be incentivized to make it work. Since everybody has something to gain/lose.
We already have a Medicare system to model things by. We already have almost every other industrialized nation's healthcare systems to model, compare, contrast, and improve upon.
I'm not arguing single payer is without problems. I'm arguing with the public option it's gonna be two steps forward one to two steps back over and over again. And we have the same problems we do now 10, 20, 30 years from now. Even with the ACA there were people arguing smaller changes then what we got would've been better and its a smarter way to get everyone covered.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time. |
So it's the price tag of $600 you are fortunate to have. That's what makes it better. Not like you're getting some sort of medical coverage you wouldn't get on Medicare.
And if you were switched onto Medicare in a M4A system. The "shoving down your throat" is paying the same taxes as everyone for healthcare.
Some of the things that make M4A superior to just a public option include.
*A public option would allow companies to continue profiting off the sick.
*For-profit insurance company waste would continue under a public option, but not Medicare for All.
*Medicare for All would guarantee access to home and community-based care for everyone.
*There would be no more price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
If we start off with a public option and the transition to a single payer system is a perfect dream politically. There would be a very real cost of human lives.
You're talking about private plans dying so nonchalantly. But people are gonna get junk plans in this transition and they'll go broke and/or die. |
I think you have it backward. Trying to go from a for profit to a m4a plan overnight would be the most likely chaos situation. There's a ton of infrastructure to set up and a ton to tear down. And that's not even getting into the fact that he best models in the world have public/private components and the devil is always in the details.
You're not going to have junk plans if you outlaw them (that was part of what angered a bunch of people with Obamacare, ironically, because their premiums went "up" because they could no longer buy cheap plans that were basically junk)
The public option is how you ramp into single payer. There's always going to be a transition. One that works is best. |
I guess I just don't have confidence there would be a linear progression from public option to single payer. Some might argue, if the progression doesn't occur naturally, it means the private insurance is superior. But that couldn't be further from the truth. A public option could be sabotaged the same way Trump has hurt the ACA since coming into office. The same way Republicans have run government programs poorly on purpose to prove "big government" sucks since ... I've been alive. Not to mention the millions of dollars from private insurance and pharmaceutical companies fighting it every step of the way.
With everyone having skin in the game (single payer). I think it's a a more promising starting point if the goal is to make a good system that works.
Whether you're talking about people's lives, people's pocket books, or the ever rising costs our country is accumulating related to healthcare. It's tough to convince me it's a good idea to drag our feet.
A worry of a difficult transition period isn't a good enough excuse IMO. Sounds like being penny rich and pound foolish. |
You're worrying about a transition period but don't want me to worry about a less organized transition period? And guess what, single payer can be sabotaged too. Look at public education.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29336
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | You're worrying about a transition period but don't want me to worry about a less organized transition period? And guess what, single payer can be sabotaged too. Look at public education. |
I think my response to DMR above addresses your first point.
And part of the reason why people are comfortable sabotaging public education is because private education is an available alternative. Not too dissimilar to a public option. Are the saboteurs still doing it if their kids have to attend public education?
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| May be a dumb question, but: why doesn't the government just make private health care 100% tax deductible or allow everyone to pay their premiums through tax free Health Savings Accounts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | May be a dumb question, but: why doesn't the government just make private health care 100% tax deductible or allow everyone to pay their premiums through tax free Health Savings Accounts? |
There are many reasons, but first, would this be a tax credit, that goes against what is owed, or a tax, that goes against earnings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | May be a dumb question, but: why doesn't the government just make private health care 100% tax deductible or allow everyone to pay their premiums through tax free Health Savings Accounts? |
There are many reasons, but first, would this be a tax credit, that goes against what is owed, or a tax, that goes against earnings? |
What is owed I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | You're worrying about a transition period but don't want me to worry about a less organized transition period? And guess what, single payer can be sabotaged too. Look at public education. |
I think my response to DMR above addresses your first point.
And part of the reason why people are comfortable sabotaging public education is because private education is an available alternative. Not too dissimilar to a public option. Are the saboteurs still doing it if their kids have to attend public education? |
You're envisioning a world where private fee for service is illegal? You do realize that private pay medicine is legal in the vast majority of single payer systems? That in most cases the single payer is just that, a payer, not the entire system? That it would probably be illegal to outlaw fee for service?
And I think a lot of you are so spiritually attracted to the concept that the real world application becomes a case of sanitize all the hurdles while maximizing all the hurdles of a competitive idea. Have you ever considered how you're going to unwind the current system? You do realize that Medicare as it exists now loses money even at the direct community level for providers? You understand the ramifications of telling a doctor's office that it can't pay its current payroll with the reimbursement it is getting?
I work for a health related charity, had to negotiate with a dozen providers to find someone to replace the last clinic provider that pulled out from where I live, and just spent a couple years passing a local taxing district to fund health care. I've spent an inordinate amount of time around everyone from government bodies to charities to insurers to systems large and small, and none of that experience jives with what you're trying to sell me, even as I know you are doing so in good faith.
Simple answers to complex problems are almost always bad answers.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People are forgetting that even Republican housewives have figured out that keeping and expanding Obamacare is both doable and preferable to the GOP plan. That's how we won the house. Obamacare is still better than before despite a decade of GOP obstruction and attacks on it, gutting and stalling everything they can. The same protections that help people with pre-existing conditions can help the self employed, and we can expand medicaid coverage for those with no care, build in a public option, and regulate against price gouging. And win elections doing it.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | May be a dumb question, but: why doesn't the government just make private health care 100% tax deductible or allow everyone to pay their premiums through tax free Health Savings Accounts? |
That would help on one level, but not really change access to or cost of care.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | I guess I just don't have confidence there would be a linear progression from public option to single payer. |
But you do have confidence that the Feds are just going to immediately be able to dismantle the current system and just install single payer with no problems . . . ?
| Quote: | | A worry of a difficult transition period isn't a good enough excuse IMO |
But that's exactly what you are doing in the first quote. |
Never said there would be no problems. I'm saying there are gonna be problems either way (single payer or public option). But at least with single payer. Everybody would be incentivized to make it work. Since everybody has something to gain/lose.
We already have a Medicare system to model things by. We already have almost every other industrialized nation's healthcare systems to model, compare, contrast, and improve upon.
I'm not arguing single payer is without problems. I'm arguing with the public option it's gonna be two steps forward one to two steps back over and over again. And we have the same problems we do now 10, 20, 30 years from now. Even with the ACA there were people arguing smaller changes then what we got would've been better and its a smarter way to get everyone covered. |
Logic and experience demonstrate that when huge change is to take place, an approach that involves transitional steps is invariably going to be smoother and have a higher likelihood for success.
You are downplaying the obvious and monumental problems presented by wholesale change and exaggerating the issues involved in a transitional approach and that just defies common sense and logic. Prioritizing a desire for instant gratification over a path that increases the likelihood of success rarely (if ever) works out well.
To your other point, we can certainly look other countries' models as to what they have done, but you can't effectively do so while ignoring the fact that this nation's sheer size in population that comprised of many individual states presents a much larger task with far more obstacles to navigate.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | May be a dumb question, but: why doesn't the government just make private health care 100% tax deductible or allow everyone to pay their premiums through tax free Health Savings Accounts? |
There are many reasons, but first, would this be a tax credit, that goes against what is owed, or a tax, that goes against earnings? |
What is owed I guess. |
If it was a credit, that subtracted what is owed, say you make $75000 annually and owe $10000 in taxes. You are a family of 4, aged 30, and want to buy a silver plan that, without the government subsidy, will cost you ~$16500 annually. Assuming the credit would only subtract back to $0 income and not pay (or refund) you beyond what you owe in taxes, as some credits do, the government will, effectively, pay $10000 of your health care, while you would pay $6500. The existing system (ACA), you would pay $7140 per year, while the government would pay $9304 per year.
In this case, that I just picked out of thin air, the difference is minor, but a savings nonetheless.
If you were a lower income person, say $35000 annually and owing $3500 in taxes, you're a gonna get screwed by this idea. Using the same variables as above, you would owe for your plan, under the ACA, $1145 annually, while the government would pay $15299. If we go your deductible route, the government will pay $3500, while you would pay, ~$13000.
I used the Kaiser calculator
This hurt my head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddiejonze
Star Player
Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Biden takes the lead in one Iowa poll:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/joe-biden-iowa-poll-101192
| Quote: | | Also in the survey, Democrats were asked what they would do if their first choice in the caucuses were not viable. While 75 percent said they would realign with another candidate, 17 percent said they would remain uncommitted and 4 percent said they would go home. |
How much you wanna bet the go homers support just one particular candidate?
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eddiejonze wrote: | Biden takes the lead in one Iowa poll:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/joe-biden-iowa-poll-101192
| Quote: | | Also in the survey, Democrats were asked what they would do if their first choice in the caucuses were not viable. While 75 percent said they would realign with another candidate, 17 percent said they would remain uncommitted and 4 percent said they would go home. |
How much you wanna bet the go homers support just one particular candidate? |
Biden now the favorite second choice as well.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FWIW, if you want to see a successful public private hybrid (think fully empowered and subsidized Obamacare), look at the Netherlands, which has one of the absolute best outcome based results.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eddiejonze wrote: |
How much you wanna bet the go homers support just one particular candidate? |
Hmmmmmmm . . . what candidate would that be . . .
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | eddiejonze wrote: |
How much you wanna bet the go homers support just one particular candidate? |
Hmmmmmmm . . . what candidate would that be . . . |
Tulsi of course
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | eddiejonze wrote: |
How much you wanna bet the go homers support just one particular candidate? |
Hmmmmmmm . . . what candidate would that be . . . |
Tulsi of course |
Of course! I should have Gabbard that!
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | I guess I just don't have confidence there would be a linear progression from public option to single payer. |
But you do have confidence that the Feds are just going to immediately be able to dismantle the current system and just install single payer with no problems . . . ?
| Quote: | | A worry of a difficult transition period isn't a good enough excuse IMO |
But that's exactly what you are doing in the first quote. |
Never said there would be no problems. I'm saying there are gonna be problems either way (single payer or public option). But at least with single payer. Everybody would be incentivized to make it work. Since everybody has something to gain/lose.
We already have a Medicare system to model things by. We already have almost every other industrialized nation's healthcare systems to model, compare, contrast, and improve upon.
I'm not arguing single payer is without problems. I'm arguing with the public option it's gonna be two steps forward one to two steps back over and over again. And we have the same problems we do now 10, 20, 30 years from now. Even with the ACA there were people arguing smaller changes then what we got would've been better and its a smarter way to get everyone covered. |
Logic and experience demonstrate that when huge change is to take place, an approach that involves transitional steps is invariably going to be smoother and have a higher likelihood for success.
You are downplaying the obvious and monumental problems presented by wholesale change and exaggerating the issues involved in a transitional approach and that just defies common sense and logic. Prioritizing a desire for instant gratification over a path that increases the likelihood of success rarely (if ever) works out well.
To your other point, we can certainly look other countries' models as to what they have done, but you can't effectively do so while ignoring the fact that this nation's sheer size in population that comprised of many individual states presents a much larger task with far more obstacles to navigate. |
The M4A bill Sanders introduced last year included a 4-year window for implementation. I don't know what that 4-year window would look like for those not already enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid, but there would be some time allotted for that "transition" to single payer.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | eddiejonze wrote: |
How much you wanna bet the go homers support just one particular candidate? |
Hmmmmmmm . . . what candidate would that be . . . |
Tulsi of course |
Of course! I should have Gabbard that! |
Wait, there's no way someone with 1% support could also have 4% who would go home if she doesn't win. Math is hard.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look at this hit piece op-ed from a Sanders surrogate promoted by Sanders PR flack David Sirota on social media:
‘Middle Class’ Joe Biden has a corruption problem – it makes him a weak candidate
The Guardian
Need to get that SEO hit linking Biden with the term "corruption" while doing nothing to substantiate the accusation in the headline. Biden took pharma money and doesn't support M4A? Put two and two together *wink wink*
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Look at this hit piece op-ed from a Sanders surrogate promoted by Sanders PR flack David Sirota on social media:
‘Middle Class’ Joe Biden has a corruption problem – it makes him a weak candidate
The Guardian
Need to get that SEO hit linking Biden with the term "corruption" while doing nothing to substantiate the accusation in the headline. Biden took pharma money and doesn't support M4A? Put two and two together *wink wink* |
Aside from the clickbate title, here is the point of the article: “But here’s the thing: nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to defeat Trump. It will allow Trump to muddy the water, to once again pretend he is the one “draining the swamp”, running against Washington culture. Trump and the Cambridge Analytica of 2020 will campaign, as they did in 2016, on a message of radical nihilism: everybody lies, everybody is corrupt, nothing matters, there is no truth.“
And this: “Corrupt politicians always use whataboutism. With Biden, we are basically handing Trump a whataboutism playbook. The comparison won’t be fair, but if you think he won’t use Biden’s closeness to donors as a cudgel to try to keep people home, you haven’t been paying attention. Unlike Democrats, who must give voters a reason to come out, Trump doesn’t need voters to love him. He just needs to convince people the whole game is ugly.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29336
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | Prioritizing a desire for instant gratification over a path that increases the likelihood of success rarely (if ever) works out well.
|
I don't think that's an accurate depiction of my stance. And I don't think starting with a public option increases the likelihood of success.
I believe Republicans will fight even small changes as much as large. Not to mention the millions of dollars being spent by private insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
I think having EVERYONE on a healthcare plan gives greater incentive to make it work. But we are arguing hypotheticals here. No matter what, best case scenario. We'll get small change.
Which brings up another big point. Starting off with a public option as a goal is negotiating against ourselves. Remember Obama didn't go into healthcare reform asking for the modest change we ended up having to compromise with. It's probably smarter to go in asking for single payer, and if we're lucky. We'll end up with EVERYONE covered when we're done negotiating with Republicans.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | Prioritizing a desire for instant gratification over a path that increases the likelihood of success rarely (if ever) works out well.
|
I don't think that's an accurate depiction of my stance. And I don't think starting with a public option increases the likelihood of success.
I believe Republicans will fight even small changes as much as large. Not to mention the millions of dollars being spent by private insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
I think having EVERYONE on a healthcare plan gives greater incentive to make it work. But we are arguing hypotheticals here. No matter what, best case scenario. We'll get small change.
Which brings up another big point. Starting off with a public option as a goal is negotiating against ourselves. Remember Obama didn't go into healthcare reform with the modest change we ended up having to compromise with. It's probably smarter to go in asking for single payer, and if we're lucky. We'll end up with EVERYONE covered when we're done negotiating with Republicans. |
And that's not an accurate depiction of my stance. I have been very clear that public option is not the goal, but the best way to transition. And if you don't think that Republicans are going to fight even harder to hinder a wholesale change to M4A, then I have to say that I believe you are fooling yourself.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Look at this hit piece op-ed from a Sanders surrogate promoted by Sanders PR flack David Sirota on social media:
‘Middle Class’ Joe Biden has a corruption problem – it makes him a weak candidate
The Guardian
Need to get that SEO hit linking Biden with the term "corruption" while doing nothing to substantiate the accusation in the headline. Biden took pharma money and doesn't support M4A? Put two and two together *wink wink* |
Aside from the clickbate title, here is the point of the article: “But here’s the thing: nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to defeat Trump. It will allow Trump to muddy the water, to once again pretend he is the one “draining the swamp”, running against Washington culture. Trump and the Cambridge Analytica of 2020 will campaign, as they did in 2016, on a message of radical nihilism: everybody lies, everybody is corrupt, nothing matters, there is no truth.“
And this: “Corrupt politicians always use whataboutism. With Biden, we are basically handing Trump a whataboutism playbook. The comparison won’t be fair, but if you think he won’t use Biden’s closeness to donors as a cudgel to try to keep people home, you haven’t been paying attention. Unlike Democrats, who must give voters a reason to come out, Trump doesn’t need voters to love him. He just needs to convince people the whole game is ugly.” |
He's going to say that about any of the remaining candidates, and other things as well. Maybe he gets a bit more ammo in that regard with Biden, but that clearly doesn't outweigh the clear advantage that has been pointed out that Biden has with the AA vote. So strategically, that's really not a point worth factoring in.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Look at this hit piece op-ed from a Sanders surrogate promoted by Sanders PR flack David Sirota on social media:
‘Middle Class’ Joe Biden has a corruption problem – it makes him a weak candidate
The Guardian
Need to get that SEO hit linking Biden with the term "corruption" while doing nothing to substantiate the accusation in the headline. Biden took pharma money and doesn't support M4A? Put two and two together *wink wink* |
Aside from the clickbate title, here is the point of the article: “But here’s the thing: nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to defeat Trump. It will allow Trump to muddy the water, to once again pretend he is the one “draining the swamp”, running against Washington culture. Trump and the Cambridge Analytica of 2020 will campaign, as they did in 2016, on a message of radical nihilism: everybody lies, everybody is corrupt, nothing matters, there is no truth.“
And this: “Corrupt politicians always use whataboutism. With Biden, we are basically handing Trump a whataboutism playbook. The comparison won’t be fair, but if you think he won’t use Biden’s closeness to donors as a cudgel to try to keep people home, you haven’t been paying attention. Unlike Democrats, who must give voters a reason to come out, Trump doesn’t need voters to love him. He just needs to convince people the whole game is ugly.” |
There's an impeachment trial starting on Wednesday in which Trump tried to use aid as leverage against the leader of a foreign nation to announce a fabricated investigation into nonexistent Biden family corruption. This hit piece comes out right before that trial using underpants gnome logic to try and smear Biden as corrupt without any proof beyond insinuations while Sanders campaign staffers go on MSNBC and use the "many people are saying" bs Trump uses as a preamble to his fattest lies.
It's an election, I get it. It's not in the same universe as a Willie Horton add. But it's nice to see Sanders' playbook clearly laid out - send his cut-outs to attack while he plays clean; hammer other candidates on their lack of committed vision while being a career compromiser, etc. It's cold and could very well work. It seems a bit desperate and cheap coming on the heels of the Warren smear.
_________________
Under New Management
Last edited by Baron Von Humongous on Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
