I still think her gender plays a part in it all. I think what you state is accurate as well. There are times that Warren can come across as very charismatic and formidable. However with a crowd that is skeptical she can come across as less than genuine or at a minimum that she is afraid to be herself. When she first announced her decision to run for 2020 she came across as terrible and guarded and fake. However later in her campaign she came across exceptional at some of her rallies and presentations. I do question how comfortable she would be in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan. She connects exceptionally well with people in urban areas and younger professionals. However when she goes into a a place like Youngstown or Scranton; how is she going to translate? She has been a product of academia and in large surrounded by very well educated people and not by blue collar workers that will drop an "n bomb" on the weekend after taking their family out to eat after church at Ruby Tuesdays.
Well I wouldn't put the cost to the side because that was my gripe. Talking points about M4A costing significantly more than our current system are flat out lies, being pushed by disingenuous people. That's what I was adressing because the narrative absolutely is, that M4A cost an insane pie in the sky amount of money. Biden quite literally said in the middle of a debate, that Bernie's healthcare plan cost 30+ trillion, and that his own (Biden's) healthcare plan only cost 750 billion, and that Bernie needs to do the math. None of the moderators in any of the debates held him accountable for that, nor did any of the mainstream media, nobody blinks an eye when dishonest horse **** talking points like that are thrown out. Which are thrown out even more by the right. I'm sure if you ask the average conservative person about medicare for all, the first thing they will say is we can't afford it. The next deceptive line is that people will "lose their insurance" people regularly recite that over half the country will "lose" insurance, giving the disingenuous perception that 150+ million will be left uninsured. That being said, I agree the details are very important, the biggest issue with her plan is the employer's head tax being flat and not progressive, as well as loopholes like independent contractors. With that said, the debate still is ultimately, are we for trying to make a M4A system work, or are we for trying to make our current system, what are the end goals which each system? With this question in mind, you flat out agreed, the end goal of an M4A system is clearly the best choice. After you've had that conversation, the next conversation what the best plan / design is, what Warren needs to fix on her plans, are absolutely fair game discussions.
This was a pretty fair opinion piece until he wrote this. 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. Those candidates have already separated themselves why could the author not even acknowledge this fact.
The fact that you don't realize there is no way Doctors and Hospitals will not stay the same means that you are not looking at this realistically. And the fact that you called Biden/Amy and Pete disingenuous corrupt politicians says a whole lot about you and where you stand politically. Not saying you need to like them but using this rhetoric I can see how Trump could be reelected.
You are doing some Trump level cherry picking of what people are saying and unless you have dissected all of Bernies numbers from his plan you don't actually know the cost. Also that is not the ultimate debate there is a lot of middle ground as well.
Yeah, that's my bad for the framing, Biden, I view as corrupt, Pete and Amy not so much, I think Pete is actually pretty heavily influenced by the establishment and big money, but he just hasn't been around long enough for me to judge, and Amy might actually just be the most honest to per political stances to me, which I view her as being near center-right. For all 3, certainly dishonest on medicare for all, especially Joe, anyone framing medicare for all as costing 40 times more for the country is being incredibly dishonest. Pants on fire lying dishonest.
Do you not trust multiple independent studies on the cost? The majority lie between 30-40 trillion over 10 years, the majority show M4A saves the American people trillions over our current Obamacare system being continued. You think I'm cherry-picking what people are saying? Regarding many thinking that we can't afford M4A and that it cost significantly more then our current system? I'm not cherry-picking that's my honest perception. It's the ultimate debate for me, get rid of the middle man, insure everybody with quality insurance, save the American people money while doing so.
https://www.urban.org/research/publ...ous-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs https://www.mercatus.org/publicatio...medium=bridgepost&utm_campaign=medicareforall https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...st-medicare-all-sticker-shock-or-bill-relief/ http://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost
What is the commonality in a voter who voted for Obama then voted for Trump instead of Hillary....??? Someone who is ticked at the system and is voting for someone who will completely change the dynamic in DC to stick it to those who they feel are lining their pockets at the expense of the working class. I continue the believe that Warren, if she wins the primary, has a real chance at running the table in those rust belt states. Yes... she does have a risk of losing some of the suburban voters who have turned on Trump since 18, but the election isn’t won in the suburbs. Confessional seats are but the presidency is won in those rust belt of animosity that Warren can really tap into that a Bloomberg type cannot.
So to any hardcore warren supporters... she is trailing big time on the RCP aggregate poll. Are you all banking on Joe having a heart attack? Because that is her only shot, next to him admitting he has dementia and has to step aside.
Joe planning on stepping up the attacks on "Miss Smarty Britches": (CNN)Joe Biden said Elizabeth Warren has an "elitist attitude" in a radio interview. He wrote on Medium that the Massachusetts senator is "condescending." He told donors her 2020 Democratic campaign is based on a "my-way-or-the-highway attitude." And he told reporters on Wednesday that Warren was the one who started it. The former vice president has sharply escalated his attacks on Warren in recent days, shifting from dismissing Warren's policy ideas as unrealistic to a more personal attack on the former Harvard professor. Three months from the Iowa caucuses, Biden's new approach reflects a new phase in the 2020 primary, with Democratic candidates sharpening their criticism of their foes and drawing more distinctions. The campaign is reframing its critiques of Warren, a source close to Biden's campaign told CNN. It is no longer that "she is a liar," the source said. "It's 'Warren is a smarty britches who thinks if you don't agree with her, you're an idiot,'" the source said in describing Biden's new approach. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-elitist/index.html
https://www.urban.org/research/publ...ous-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs We Do Not Know How Much M4A Would Disrupt the Availability and Quality of Health Services M4A would markedly increase the demand for healthcare services while simultaneously cutting payments to providers by more than 40 percent relative to private insurance rates, reducing payments to levels that are lower on average than providers’ current costs of providing care. It cannot be known how much providers will react to these losses by reducing the availability of existing health services, the quality of such services, or both. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...st-medicare-all-sticker-shock-or-bill-relief/ There is no debate that federal spending on health care would rise dramatically under Medicare for All. Based on two independent estimates, the program would add about $32 trillion to the federal budget over the next 10 years. But if it’s a better deal for citizens depends on the other number Sanders put out there, the $50 trillion cost for keeping the system as it is. That’s not federal health care spending. That’s the government’s estimate of total health care spending across the board, both public and private, over the coming decade. (It’s actually $47 trillion by 2027.) Medicare for All would shift a lot, but not all, of the private spending over to the government. In 2017, payments from private insurance and households were about 45% of all bills. The modeling is a challenge — how much would hospitals, doctors and drug makers be paid? Without insurance company profits, what are the net savings? What would be the cost when more affordable care leads to more use? Urban Institute fellow John Holahan pointed out that Medicare for All doesn’t cover some large areas of health care spending, such as institutional long-term care and veterans health care. The amount would be in the trillions of dollars. Sanders’ left that out when he compared the Medicare for All price tag to total health expenditures. Still, Sanders’ proposals would raise about $16 trillion over the decade. That’s half of what the program would cost and he hasn’t said how he would close the gap. http://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending. _______________________________________________________________________________ Yes the estimates are coming in at around 30 million but there are a lot of unknowns and things left out like the cost for long term care and what will happen to actual billings and access to care. None of those say the savings would be better than Obama care going to single payer. You may not be cherry picking but you are leaving a lot out of the debate and these plans are not accounting for everything.
Truthfully, it doesn't matter if these studies are correct or not because it's merely too unpalatable for the American public to undergo such a major shift. People are very skeptical that the government could pull off such an undertaking, I'm one of them. You seem to be leaving out that in order for it to work as intended, it will be passed in full by congress. There’s very little chance there won’t have to be compromise.
Those studies acknowledge that the current plans don't account for everything and ignore a lot of things that impact society. They all acknowledge that its not as simple as adding and subtracting a finite number.
