2020 Presidential Race

#21,143
#21,143
volfanhill said:
Did you miss the part where it said Trump had a 43% job approval?
Click to expand...
No Isaw that..but thought it was interesting that he had his highest approval with them a week after the judicial impeachment hearings

"Within days of a historic impeachment vote in the House of Representatives, President Donald Trump matches his best job approval rating ever, as 43 percent of registered voters say they approve of the job he is doing, while 52 percent disapprove, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today."
 
#21,145
#21,145
VolnJC said:
No Isaw that..but thought it was interesting that he had his highest approval with them a week after the judicial impeachment hearings

"Within days of a historic impeachment vote in the House of Representatives, President Donald Trump matches his best job approval rating ever, as 43 percent of registered voters say they approve of the job he is doing, while 52 percent disapprove, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today."
Click to expand...
Ah got it
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#21,146
#21,146
Persian Vol said:
@zeppelin128



Read the thread and tell me what you think.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with much of it, save for one key thing. I'm not ready to burn the private insurance market to the ground. Many people have private insurance, through their companies, unions, or the ACA, that they like and want to keep. I'm also very supportive of a public option to provide Medicare for all who want it, whether because it is a better plan, provides a larger network, or for whatever reason one wants to sign up for it.
Potter can call it a false or manipulated choice, but literally providing a choice between private insurance or Medicare sounds like an actual choice to me. There is something to be said for competition as well; if Medicare is a better plan, it will force private insurers to offer better plans. If Medicare is the best plan for everyone, it will put private insurers out of business. I like this process of allowing choice to consumers much better as opposed to an abrupt nationalization of healthcare. Provide both private and public options, and see what works.
 
#21,147
#21,147
Persian Vol said:


Happy now?
Click to expand...

Nope. That is a pretty weak side-step on Bernie's part. Also, I want some cancel culture for Cenk Uygur from woke Twitter. Let's include his nephew that threatened a New Yorker reporter today, along with some other questionable stuff he's said in the past few months. Just want to be fair, since #NeverPete and canceling Pete is all the rage right now among the Red Roses on Twitter for things so egregious as working for McKinsey, "not being progressive enough", and existing apparently. Might as well include the Texas democrat Bernie bro Justin Lecea that called for Pete to be hanged yesterday. By the way, you can bet your ass that I and many in the campaign reported him to the FBI. Oh, and here's a message sent to the same New Yorker reporter Hasan Piker (Cenk's nephew) has been threatening all day, along with the other "unbiased" folks over at the Young Turks, with doxing. So no, I'm not happy.

Well, it got removed by our neighborhood mod. So yeah, use your imagination.
 
Last edited:
#21,150
#21,150
I don't really disagree with much of it, save for one key thing. I'm not ready to burn the private insurance market to the ground. Many people have private insurance, through their companies, unions, or the ACA, that they like and want to keep.
Click to expand...

The coverage under the proposed M4A is fully comprehensive, more so than any private plan at the moment. People just want to get covered. Unless someone has an odd obsession with their Humana card, I can't imagine them to care about this with all information on hand. Now when people make statements such as "millions of people will be stripped of their insurance", and end it without mentioning that they would still be covered by a comprehensive plan, then yes the scare tactics and gaslighting will certainly alter the public's perception.

I'm also very supportive of a public option to provide Medicare for all who want it, whether because it is a better plan, provides a larger network, or for whatever reason one wants to sign up for it.
Click to expand...

A proposed M4A plan would provide the largest and most simplistic network, allowing people the most choice when it comes to their ability to go to any hospital or doctor they want (a choice they care more about than which insurance company rips them off). It's incredibly odd to me to deny them of that opportunity, in order to maintain their ability of switching insurance coverage.

Potter can call it a false or manipulated choice, but literally providing a choice between private insurance or Medicare sounds like an actual choice to me.
Click to expand...

The manipulation comes through shifting the argument that the "choice" is predicated on the insurance coverage. Like I said, people don't care about the insurance coverage, as long as they are covered. In reality most people don't even have any choice. Their job offers them a plan, and they choose between one plan with high deductibles or another plan with insanely high deductibles. Not to mention there is a lack of freedom of job mobility when you have to worry about losing you and your family's insurance when quitting a job you may not particularly enjoy. Yet these companies gaslight people into believing that removing their existence will limit their "choice", as they strategically place ad images of doctors talking to patients insinuating they may not be able to see their doctor anymore.

There is something to be said for competition as well; if Medicare is a better plan, it will force private insurers to offer better plans. If Medicare is the best plan for everyone, it will put private insurers out of business. I like this process of allowing choice to consumers much better as opposed to an abrupt nationalization of healthcare. Provide both private and public options, and see what works.
Click to expand...

This is naïve. The multibillion dollar insurance industry will not be "run out of business". They will lobby in congress, and do everything they can to protect their profits. In the end, it will result in the sick population being pushed to the government run plan, while the healthy population will primarily be covered under the private industry. This will lead to a skewed risk pool, and an overburdened government program that will be subject to criticism. There are many flaws to M4A, and it's okay to address them and talk about the trade-offs, as no plan is perfect. But the arguments I hear from Pete and the other centrist democrats are illogical and disingenuous, and truly appear as gaslighting when you have knowledge of the details.

@zeppelin128
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top