2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | nEw PolL

bluesunstorm wrote:HRC didn't lose the election based on the Iraq War vote, it was barely an issue that registered.

It didn't help. It was also a major reason she lost the 2008 primary.

I mean, you don't have to vote for Democrats, but change is often incremental?

It's not incremental, it's fucking nonexistant. The Republicans are the only ones who have achieved anything in the last 40 years.

How are you going to get a super costly m4a when there was so much push back against even the ACA?

How do you ask that question without your brain leaking out through your nose?

Nevermind. See René's answer.

René wrote:

bluesunstorm wrote:HRC didn't lose the election based on the Iraq War vote, it was barely an issue that registered. I mean, you don't have to vote for Democrats, but change is often incremental? How are you going to get a super costly m4a when there was so much push back against even the ACA?

America seems so dumb and incapable from an international perspective. If Scotland (a way poorer country) can afford M4A and make it work brilliantly and provide coverage for *everyone* without charging overly high taxes, while spending a fraction of what the US spends per capita to provide only a lucky subset of its population with usually vastly inferior coverage, with ridiculous numbers of people not being able to see the doctor or afford their medicines or going bankrupt trying to pay for life-saving drugs and operations, what does it say about America that what we have here is apparently utterly unaffordable and impossible to make work?

Is your country just inept? Is it ignorance of how things work in other countries? I thought you were the most advanced nation on Earth?

You're right -- it's so simple! Never mind that eliminating private insurance (which a lot of people like better and employs a lot of people), raising taxes across the board (including for younger people who don't want or use insurance anyway), and replacing everything with a completely government-run one (who can't even manage social security correctly) will cause major issues. There was a big push back for even having a penalty for not having insurance under the ACA, but everyone is going to love m4a? America isn't Europe; more people are skeptical and leery of government overreach here, and for good reason. I certainly think the government is most often incompetent at best, and don't want them eliminating private insurance, and I know many who feel the same way.

If m4a was ever actually implemented, it would be a dumpster fire, and I'm very confident in saying that.

I've never understood the American aversion to social healthcare.

For all the negative press ours gets (it's been on the brink of ruin and collapse for decades! Still here though) it's been nothing but incredible for me and my family.

We're such special snowflakes that we are the only one of 33 developed nations that just can't do it. That's American Exceptionalism for you - immiserated and proud.

PopTart wrote:I've never understood the American aversion to social healthcare.

For all the negative press ours gets (it's been on the brink of ruin and collapse for decades! Still here though) it's been nothing but incredible for me and my family.

You could probably write entire books discussing this.

A lot of Americans haven't had any vision past the US border. The map for many Americans is "USA" and "Not USA". There are plenty who blindly believe whatever we do must be best. And so on.

This is speculation, but I also wonder if one issue at one time wasn't that healthcare might not have been as big a crisis as it is now. Our safety net at the bottom might well have been better (I can't say this definitively with health care, but I do get the feeling that was the case in general). And it seems very possible that more people had coverage through an employer.

And, of course, in recent years, with Medicare for All discussions, there has probably been a lot of propaganda from insurance companies who don't want their cash cow dying. So there is a lot of talk to scare people about "how bad" it is in Europe. Talk about wait times is one tactic. Of course, that propaganda doesn't mention that waits can be a problem in our system--particularly if you don't have good insurance. (And even with good insurance, it's a problem--my father, at the end of his life, had regular appointments with one doctor, and those had to be scheduled months in advance. My father probably had good insurance.) The propaganda also never mentions the number of people who go bankrupt or die because of our system.

And there is also the impact of Democrats, who keep yelling about what's "not possible." Or talk about "how do we afford it?" (maybe even minutes after signing a new bloated defense budget).

If you're adamant about medicare-for-all, why not try a public option first? If that's successful, then maybe something like other western countries have is possible, but without completely eliminating private insurance. You have to sell everyone on higher income taxes and a VAT though.

Here we are again with no choice but another old, white, straight male. It will be the lesser of two dotards — if we are lucky.

bluesunstorm wrote:You're right -- it's so simple! Never mind that eliminating private insurance (which a lot of people like better and employs a lot of people)

Which a lot of people? I've never met these apparently vast masses of masochists who enjoy being fleeced by private industry.

I certainly think the government is most often incompetent at best, and don't want them eliminating private insurance, and I know many who feel the same way.

I'd take supposed incompetence over systemic greed any day.

Jzone wrote:Here we are again with no choice but another old, white, straight male. It will be the lesser of two dotards — if we are lucky.

I don't see how this is particularly relevant in a situation where one of the old, white, straight men has been the best option the whole time.

Sullivan wrote:

Jzone wrote:Here we are again with no choice but another old, white, straight male. It will be the lesser of two dotards — if we are lucky.

I don't see how this is particularly relevant in a situation where one of the old, white, straight men has been the best option the whole time.

What if you have no material or moral interest in anything and you only see politics as an aesthetic contest?

Presidents need to be at least 35. Stop trying to corrupt our perfect system.

Eh, I'd vote for them. I have no idea who they are, but I bet they support M4A.

You're staring blindly at trust-fund twinks hoping for a miracle.

My best-case scenario at this point is that Joe dies in office. It's given some solace.

Sullivan wrote:You're staring blindly at trust-fund twinks hoping for a miracle.

Aren't you a trust-fund twink?

Yes, and I don't think I've ever suggested anyone should vote for me.

Too late, I'm voting for you. I'm going to the polls in November and writing in ' Johnny '

If you're angling for a cabinet position just know that I'm very bribable and will gladly discuss details over pm.