c) just the right thing to do for employee Many small employers just give you "cash" and let you deal with health insurance on your own. I don't now how this change the overall points. 1- M4A with no private option isn't popular simply because many people already have insurance (even if it's crappy, it's something). Change is hard and scary. An increase in pay (significant increase for the vast majority of these people) is very attractive. 2- There is really not that big of an impact to employers. They still pay about the same expense (less actually). I see tax increase as a separate topic as that impact everyone, not just the companies that currently offer or do not offer health insurance.
There was never the animosity toward those 2 candidates like Trump. There was not a strain of never a within their own parties. Your analogies are not logical.
The point is that it is not a dollar for dollar expense for employers such that one could say simply shift it to the employee. Employers who choose to provide their employees get the benefit of being able to insure themselves while being partially subsidized with a deduction. If you think that employers are going to simply turn over the money they are currently paying for insurance and put it to higher pay for all employees, that is not going to happen.
Well, now she's prepared. That's one positive of the situation. Also explaining how the questioner was wrong could take longer than the allotted time etc. I don't know. It was definitely a bad debate moment. Her answer about how it's a waste of time for candidates to get up on stage and talk about why they can't do things and make changes was a strong debate moment.
The whole idea of playing scared because Democrats are afraid to turn off voters with bold new ideas is a losing strategy. You play to win. Don't play to 'not lose'. Approaching from the 'we will turn off voters with these bold new ideas' is displaying weakness. It isn't inspiring. The idea that people would vote for Trump rather than a Democrat who wants Medicare for all isn't going to happen. What might happen is new ideas will bring new voters and broaden the base.
I think there are people who would hold their nose and vote Trump even if they dislike him if the other choice is what they view to be an overly progressive program. It sounds great to say the centrists are "not fighting" but that is ignoring the reality that there may be a sizeable voting block that legitimately does not share some of the more progressive views irrespective of whether they like trump or detest him. Throwing away those votes for an "aspirational" platform seems foolhardy.
Just tired of the media has an agenda whining. Chris Mathews is a Ford in the wool liberal and loves Warren. i agree she had some great moments is truth be told is my personal favorite candidate. But she has to reach to answer these types of questions especially from this type of interviewer.
There maybe voters like you say. I doubt they outweigh those that look for a way forward, would be motivated to vote for a change and sway others. Look at 2016. There are plenty that held their nose and voted for Hillary. Trump won the election. If we look at those on this website who are praising the most moderate candidates are the Trump supporters who would never vote Democrat no matter what. The moderate candidates are closer to what they like. So they give a reluctant nod of acceptance to moderate candidates but won't vote for a Democrat. It is playing not lose and that lost in 2016.
You may be right. We are both just going with our guts here, and we know that professional pollsters throwing a ton of time and money at it still can get it wrong. My guess is that the people who post the most here regarding politics (on whatever side) are not representative of the average potential voter. We seem to have people who are more strongly progressive or conservative than the average voter -- to the point that being a "centrist" is criticized. But my gut (read: "guess") is that there are a lot of voters who hold a mix of views but probably are a lot more "centrist" than what some of the candidates are offering. You are right that the real question is whether a strongly progressive platform will gain more votes through people turning out who otherwise may not or lose more due to some people deciding not to show up for a progressive candidate or to even vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils.
Better if they are incentivized, but as I said, it's not necessary voluntary. As for the math, it can be fairly simple. It can be the avg of what employer pay out for health plan prem and accounts. It can be lower than the avg. It can take into consideration health ded vs salary ded. Whatever that details, it can be calculated. That itself isn't the problem.
Agreed. It is absolutely a guess from me. My politics are pretty far to the left. So in addition to my gut and and guess about what will help in the election, I have the philosophy it is better to win or lose supporting someone you actually believe in rather than possibly lose because there is a candidate chosen because they are supposedly 'electable'
[Premium Post] Biden is a stuttering, stammering fool! Looks like he needs to go sit in a rocking chair at Brookdale Senior Living! Kneepads Harris is just trying to remember her lines. The opposite of authentic. Hillary-esque. Gillibrand is a joke and has a squeaky little voice like she's trying to talk her way out of a speeding ticket. GOOD DAY
[Premium Post] RIP Joe Biden... and it might actually happen tonight, folks -- very sad to say. I think we might have just witnessed a stroke on national TV! Kamala failing too -- too scripted and fake. Not ready for the spotlight. She's just not it. GOOD DAY
