Major's essential claim is that 80% of Americans always work at an employer with excellent insurance is contrary to fact. Probably most Americans have gone through periods (and often several periods) of losing their health coverage due to job changes and have gone temporarily without coverage or have had to scramble through the maze of Obamacare or indigent coverage or other aspects of our fragmented health care system. I would draw your attention to the numerous folks being laid off in the oil patch in Houston for instance. Have any of you guys ever dealt with the joys of COBRA after a layoff? Ask around about this at times largely mythical i.e unaffordable coverage for you to self pay for your corporate coverage at full cost for eighteen months after being laid off. Good luck with that for many folks.
Good thing that's not what I claimed. I said nothing about "always". But at any given time, about 80% of people have healthcare coverage that they don't directly pay for - whether its through an employer or Medicare or Medicaid or whatever. Those people, in general, aren't going to prioritize universal health care because they HAVE health care, and generally a policy that they are reasonably content with. Again, if you want to get support for health care reform, you have to focus on the tangible benefits that people actually experience. Lower costs, for example, would be a plus. But talking about universal coverage is meaningless to most people. It was a huge marketing mistake for Obama, and it's a marketing mistake for Sanders.
Most Americans have fallen prey to the anti-tax koolaid that benefits only the billionaires and millionaires, but not the middle or even upper middle class. This nutty anti-tax mantra which ignores modern American history in which the economy has frequently done great during high tax periods and is the key to the whole trickle up redistribution to the wealthy that has led to declining or stagnant living standard for many Americans. Hillary is pandering to this ignorance, but it is hard to know exactly why given who finances her.
Typical Americans, like the Manchurian Candidate, are programmed to hate/despise certain words and ideas. So politicians, like chimpanzees, fling pariah poo at each other trying to get these kill words to stick on an opponent. The best politicians dodge those turd missiles and are able to keep the typical American in a trance so as to not draw the focused ire. Get hit by a turd missile and you're done. Even if the label is baseless, YOU'RE DONE!!!
Trickle up still working it's magic. Thirty years of a massive redustribution of wealth and many people just want more of it. It's preposterous.
Come on. If healthcare was free, you could get paid more, OR you could pay your employees more if you're a small or medium business. Some important facts: Also, how come Bernie is suddenly whooping Hillary on healthcare now that she brought healthcare to center stage? <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A big change in CNN's Iowa polls: Clinton was judged to be best on health care 63-31, now it's Sanders 51-45. <a href="https://t.co/im9wwTSzNX">pic.twitter.com/im9wwTSzNX</a></p>— Taniel (@Taniel) <a href="https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/690282424689913856">January 21, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> I think you're misjudging the situation. Healthcare is a bigger issue than that. There is so much more to it than "oh my employer pays for it anyway". Primarily: I can quit my job and still have it, no matter what. No one can threaten my independence based on healthcare if I have a dependent or if I can't afford a decent insurance plan. This is a big deal. There are a lot more people in dire situations than you think, perhaps.
I agree. Lower costs (singer payer push cost down). Mobility (if you lose your job or want to start a business, you still have health coverage). Ease of use (no need for pre-approve, no restricted network, no paperwork, no bill). Health, even for those with coverage, is hardly easy to use or a pleasant worry-free experience. Should I get this checked out for OOP costs? Who do I go to? Are they in network (if you even understand to think that way). What is this story about I have no control over what's charged? What is this story about I have no control over if I will get an OON specialist or not? What happen if I lose my job or if I want to start a busn? What plans should I get? Can I afford the OOP max... And of course, the overall benefit to the nation's health and reduced costs on health care spending. I think liberal in general understand some of this and agree to it. It's the larger population that Bernie would have trouble with.
Sure - but the average employee is not going to assume that their employer is just going to jack up their salary because they can. Because you're looking at more partisan Democratic primary voters instead of the general electorate. There are lots of people that could be affected by that. But until it's very real and you actually lose your healthcare, it's only a theoretical problem. Telling people you're going to raise their taxes to pay for someone else's healthcare is much more real. Just look how they reacted to Obamacare which addressed those exact same issues - you were guaranteed to get coverage, it would be subsidized if you don't much money, you were protected from pre-existing conditions, etc. Obamacare was really, really popular during the 2008 campaign - it didn't stay that way when it got dissected in every which way and people started attacking it. The Democrats made the mistake of primarily talking about how we were gong to cover everyone - but most people were already covered. They needed to talk about things like cost and how it would benefit the people who already had insurance. The same applies here.
A lot of people get healthcare through their employer, but in many cases the employer and employee share the cost. I don't think 80% of the population has their employer pick up the entire cost. And many people still have policies with a large deductible.
Certainly merely stating "universal coverage" without explanation is meaningless. However, I think you are possibly projecting too much from your own situation which includes 100% of the premiums paid for yourself and possible dependents with no copays and a strong drug plan etc? Most people I know are complaining about their increasing costs and copays etc. whether they receive their coverage through work or the ACA. Last time I had really good insurance through my wife's large employer plan for the whole family it cost about $800/month plus drugs which were about $30 per prescription. It was a good HMO coverage with virtually no copays. Of course for the 29 million without any coverage and those who care about them or those who experience periodic layoffs or job changes universal coverage is important. Certainly Sanders is now talking about how it will lower costs. Maybe you aren't listening to him, but only focused on Hillary's vague: "we will make improvements to the ACA?" . Sanders is giving the example of "if you save $10,000 in insurance premiums and costs but pay $5,000 in taxes you come out ahead."
lol Hillary is far behind in New Hampshire so she wants another debate on Feb 4th. The DNC through her chair Debbie Wasserman Schwatz, Hillary's previous campaign chair, scheduled only six debates, many on weekends and holdidays, This schedule was widely seen as an attempt to insure Hillary could have no effective challengers. Both Sand Now they want another debate in New Hampshire and Sanders has said that he will only do so if Hillary agrees to additional debates in March, April and June http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/28/sanders-camp-we-cant-schedule-debates-only-when-cl/
She did really well in the debate the Saturday before the '08 New Hampshire primary. It was where Obama said the infamous "you're likable enough, Hillary" line. Then Hillary cried on Monday and pulled off the upset win that helped lengthen the Democratic fight for another four months.
Well Hillary apparently wants the chance to try to beat Sanders in NH so bad she has agreed to asking for some more debates in April and May. Do you think she can get away with crying again? I wonder if her old campaign chair, Wasserman Schwartz will swallow her pride and accede to Hillary's request. I like this outcome since I think all HIllarry has over Bernie especially among minority voters is name recognition which fades quickly when they weigh their respective policies.
Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers NEWS IN BRIEF January 29, 2016 VOL 52 ISSUE 03 Politics · Politicians · Hillary Clinton · Election 2016 · Bernie Sanders HUMBOLDT, IA—After making sure to douse every home, farm, and business located in the municipality with gasoline, retreating Clinton campaign staffers reportedly set the central Iowa town of Humboldt ablaze Friday to stem the advance of Bernie Sanders volunteers. “Once we received word the Sanders campaign had begun canvassing in nearby Fort Dodge, we only had a matter of hours to burn everything to the ground,” said communications director Jennifer Palmieri, who tossed a lit torch through the window of the town’s hardware store before rushing over to help a group of Hillary for America workers erect a roadblock made of dead livestock to prevent all entrance to and exit from the city. “With so little time left before voting day, we simply can’t allow them to establish a foothold in this part of the state. Besides, you can’t convince anyone to caucus for Bernie Sanders if the civilian population is gone and all that’s left is smoldering rubble.” At press time, Clinton campaign staffers were spotted rigging a nearby bridge with C-4 as they hastily retreated to Algona. http://www.theonion.com/article/retreating-clinton-campaign-torches-iowa-town-slow-52261
