I did not watch the debate and I read here that Bernie

[wasupaloopa]

and Warren did well.
I see again the old idealism vs pragmatism.

I happen to think that pragmatism will get more votes than idealism.

It was said in the debate analyst that the President does not write the bills. What ever health care system we have will have passed the House and the Senate.

So if we have MFA it will be a compromised system.

We already have the ACA and people like it. Adding a public option is the fastest way to get to universal health care. It offers choice not forced change.

MFA will cost us votes we need to beat trump.

[floppyboo]

1. funny, i see MFA as pragmatic, and plans that allay unfounded fears as idealistic

Was surprised to read differently past the first 2 lines in the body of your OP.

Adding stuff to ACA and thinking it will get 'more better' is idealism, IMO

[wasupaloopa]

3. We already know what a public option is. We almost

had it with the ACA. It is not new.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. Yeah. We almost had it but pragmatic centrists like Joe Lieberman killed it.

[ehrnst]

15. I don't think one could describe Lieberman as a centrist...

False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true-or one is acceptable and the other is not. Often, there are other alternatives, or both choices might be false or true.

http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/false_dilemma_examples/491/

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. Lol. Ok. He's only a founding member of The New Democrat Senate Coalition

That describes itself as “moderate centrists”....

But ok.

[ehrnst]

18. lol. Ok. He hasn't been a Dem since 2006. The ACA was 2009/10. And you call ANY Democrat who didn't

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2019, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

support the public option for the ACA (in 2010) a "Joe Leiberman Democratic pragmatic centrist" when Leiberman was not a Democrat, let alone a 'centrist' Democrat, in 2010. You know, when he voted against the public option. Which is what you were talking about.

But OK.

Don't believe everything you think...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Lol.

Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln are the other “not Democratic pragmatic centrists” who helped kill the public option.

Joe was only an independent because he got beat in the primary. Party leaders like Dianne Feinstein campaigned for him.

Revisionist history.

[ehrnst]

21. So you're backing off your fallacious description of Joe Leiberman now that you got corrected

on his party affilliation when he voted on the public option, in an offhande effort to equate and on DU, smear, the political progressive cred of actual Democrats who didn't support the public option on the ACA with Joe Leiberman the Independent ?

Or not?

Because Obama is included in that group you're trying to casually damn. He dropped his support of it before the vote. Isn't that "killing it?"

It was during the post-9/11 years that Lieberman linked arms with Republicans Graham and McCain, two other hawks who, like their Democratic friend, were known to thwart their party. The trio traveled the world together and became known as the "Three Amigos." So high was their mutual regard that McCain reportedly wanted Lieberman to be his 2008 running mate, though he eventually succumbed to pressure to pick conservative Sarah Palin instead.

Still, Lieberman stood by his friend.

"In the Senate, during the three-and-a-half years that Sen. Barack Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to ... accomplish anything significant, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party to get something done," he said at the 2008 Republican convention.

Democrats viewed that speech as blasphemy.

"He could have given a speech defending John McCain, but instead he went on the offense and blistered Obama over his lack of foreign policy skills, which were a major Republican talking point," said Manley, a long-time senior aide to Harry Reid, the former Democratic Senate leader. "It caused a lot of ill will."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/why-democrats-dont-like-joe-lieberman/index.html



Lol.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. If you look back and actually read what I said in my initial reply I didn't say he was a Democrat.

“Yeah. We almost had it but pragmatic centrists like Joe Lieberman killed it.”

When you said he wasn’t a centrist, I used his being a founding member of the centrist New Democrat Senate Coalition as proof that he is a self described “centrist.”

You’ll note (really you won’t admit it) nowhere did I say he was a Democrat when he helped kill the legislation. Because it had nothing to do with my point.

Lol. Ok. He's only a founding member of The New Democrat Senate Coalition

That describes itself as “moderate centrists”....

But ok.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ again, didn’t say he was a Democrat at the time. Just offering proof he is a self described centrist.

[ehrnst]

24. Nice try...

Face it - you use "centrist" as a general perjorative against Democrats you don't like, and not so subtly equated any Democrat that didn't support the public option as a "pragmatic centrist' "like Joe Leiberman" - when you forgot that Obama was also in that group.

Subtle like when someone looks at you and says, "You're wearing that?" and you say, "You don't like it?" And they say, "I didn't say I didn't like it..." in an effort to not seem like they're insulting your judgement, even though you both know that's what they're saying.

But to the point: Democrats don't like Lieberman. He's not a 'centrist,' where Democrats are concerned, and hasn't been for awhile.

It was during the post-9/11 years that Lieberman linked arms with Republicans Graham and McCain, two other hawks who, like their Democratic friend, were known to thwart their party. The trio traveled the world together and became known as the "Three Amigos." So high was their mutual regard that McCain reportedly wanted Lieberman to be his 2008 running mate, though he eventually succumbed to pressure to pick conservative Sarah Palin instead.

Still, Lieberman stood by his friend.

"In the Senate, during the three-and-a-half years that Sen. Barack Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to ... accomplish anything significant, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party to get something done," he said at the 2008 Republican convention.

Democrats viewed that speech as blasphemy.

"He could have given a speech defending John McCain, but instead he went on the offense and blistered Obama over his lack of foreign policy skills, which were a major Republican talking point," said Manley, a long-time senior aide to Harry Reid, the former Democratic Senate leader. "It caused a lot of ill will."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/why-democrats-dont-like-joe-lieberman/index.html

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. TL;DR

I’ve moved on so I’ll leave you to it...

[ehrnst]

26. Because of course you're "moving on." It's embarassing when someone calls you out on something you

thought you were being subtle about.

Subtle like a mom who looks at you and says, "You're wearing that?" and you say, "You don't like it?" And they say, "I didn't say I didn't like it..." in an effort to not seem like they're insulting your judgement, even though you both know that's what they're saying.

She just wants you to go change into something she approves of, without actually having to say that she doesn't like it, because she doesn't want to sound like she's a nag, when you're an adult.

But if you call out the clear implication, then you've taken away the passive from the aggressive part of the statement.

And then they just sigh in frustration and say, "Forget I said anything. I've moved on - why are you on my case? Can't I just ask a simple question without being attacked as a nag who doesn't think you're an adult?"

Then 10 minutes later says, "Were your nice clothes in the wash? Don't roll your eyes at me - I DIDN"T SAY THAT THING YOU'RE WEARING ISN'T NICE! Lets just drop it, OK?"

[PatrickforO]

2. Sadly, that's true.

But this is because we live in a world of the primacy of the shareholder. Since the MI Supreme Court decided Dodge vs Ford in 1919, the primary fiduciary responsibility of C-suite corporate officers in publicly held companies is to keep shareholder earnings up.

This profit over people mentality is carefully forwarded through a certain level of both passive and active obfuscation.

First the active: My favorite this time around is the gotcha question: Won't MFA make people lose their employer provided insurance?

Now, think about that for a minute. How carefully worded, how legitimate sounding! The desired result, of course, is an internal dialog on the part of the lower information voter that goes something like this: "Well, I work hard and I don't want no gummint takin' away my healthcare!"

The truth? Well that will be decided by compromise. Our founders, clever scamps that they were, decided on a bicameral legislature, and executive branch headed by a president and a judicial branch. As one of the MSNBC pundits said is that what Warren and Sanders clearly don't understand is that whatever they might want, they will, should they be the one elected, have to go and talk to the Senate and the House, which will then draft the legislation, and then reconcile it in joint committee, after which the president will sign it into law. That is how our government actually works. Or would work without the Republican cancer and the giant orange tapeworm that is Donald Trump.

The fourth estate, of course, is supposed to be the media, but that was back in the day when newspaper editors had the guts to publish an unpopular opinion and then hold off the townspeople from burning the presses. Now all our media is owned by publicly held corporations who operate for the sole purpose of making profits for shareholders. That is also the truth. So they are in it to generate controversy by promoting gotchas like the one above. That is their active role.

Another active poke at MFA the media takes is that it will cost $40 trillion in public funds over the next ten years. That might be true. Maybe. But what they oh-so-carefully omit is that we would pay that anyway over the next ten years with that same $40 trillion or more in private funds - in the form of premiums and copays.

Thus we see that their passive role is to simply NOT report things their corporate owners don't want them to. For example, in the old days there would be full-page articles in tiny font in newspapers all across the nation, and these articles would cover the substance of the issue proposals, including how it is paid for.

Medicare for all? Yes, it will take a tax increase. I hated how neither Warren nor Bernie would speak of this. Warren confined herself to partially answering the question as posed by Chris Matthews. She said big corporations would pay a bunch, billionaires would pay a bunch, and the middle class would have lower out of pocket costs.

What would it actually look like if our politicians had the guts to eliminate the profit motive from things like healthcare and prisons? Likely the first step would be a repeal of the giant 2017 tax cut for billionaires and corporations. The second step would have to be a broader tax reform, which would eliminate loopholes like a lower capital gains tax rate (Delaney made a great point here), and raise the inheritance tax. Warren wants a 'wealth' tax. Bernie wants a tax on each trade made on Wall Street by arbitrage 'bots. Both good ideas. Others want a value added tax.

Bottom line? With a MFA system, we all will pay more taxes. What Warren and Sanders want to do but did not sufficiently explain in the debate, maybe because they haven't figured out how to frame it successfully just yet, is to do these substantial tax increases for the wealthy so that middle class people would pay more in taxes, but those taxes would not exceed what they pay now in premiums.

Now that is a tall order, and in reality, we likely will have to reform the ACA, which is popular, and simply add a public option (over the massive and high dollar opposition of big pharma, health insurance companies and for-profit providers - they will fight tooth and nail against any public option because to them profits are far more important than our lives). But that will get our foot in the door for what will likely evolve into a national healthcare service.

Make no mistake - that is why we're even having this debate. We live in a society where the government is heavily beholden to corporate interests, and profit over people is the way we roll.

[wasupaloopa]

4. It looks like you said what I said with more words.

One thing left out is a public option would compete with private health insurance.

If government provided care is better than for profit insurance a public option will show that. And without the risk of failure of a one size fits all plan.

Those who want MFA should use the public option as a step in that direction.

It gets to universal coverage faster and adds choice rather than forced change.

[PatrickforO]

5. LOL, I've always been a bit verbose!

And yes, that says it better.

[progressoid]

6. Yeah, pragmatism worked out really well with

Hillary Clinton and Gore and Kerry and

[betsuni]

7. They all spent their careers getting things done that help Americans.

Progressives who get things done. Talk is cheap.

[progressoid]

8. But did it get them elected president?

Although Obama governed as a moderate, he campaigned on change.
A lot of Democrats and independents voted for that change. Not just change from Bush, but change from the status quo.

[betsuni]

9. I don't know what "status quo" means.

When a Democratic president has to deal with Republicans in charge of the House for six years out of their eight (Clinton and Obama), they can't make drastic changes.

[aidbo]

13. You should learn what it means, it gets used a lot around here.

Status Quo:

the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

[SouthernProgressive]

17. Thank you for pointing it out.

Really shows how shallow those who go around using it as a "shot" are.

[betsuni]

19. No.

New stupid meaning of "status quo": money in politics. Everyone is corrupt except one guy. If we just get money out of politics everything will be fine and Republicans will be reasonable. Stupid.

[aidbo]

27. Money in politics is the existing state of affairs. Is it not?

[JI7]

10. exactly, they actually do have a record of progress . not just talk about how nobody else is good

enough while being in office for like 50 years without having done anything .

no wonder he is so stuck on labels thinking his being an independent makes him better somehow. when you don't actually have a record of anything. even those people like hickenlooper and bullock who are seen as moderates are more progressive than he is if we want to actually look at what they have gotten done.

[betsuni]

11. +1

[MineralMan]

12. They did well in the opinions of their supporters.

I personally think that Bernie needs to stop using a pointing finger to make every point and that Warren should smile from time to time.

Otherwise it was the pragmatists arguing with the idealists. Same old story. I doubt any viewers' minds were changed. No net affect on post-debate polls.

Sadly, the 5 front-runners weren't on the stage together. That makes comparisons more difficult, since two nights are involved.

Just my take on it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. I think Warren was pretty effective, Bernie not so much.

His finger-pointing and yelling don't add anything to the points he's trying to make, which are mostly variations on his same old same old diatribe about millionaires and billionaires. Warren does a much better job of explaining the so-called progressive positions. But these debates aren't very effective as debates and I don't think anybody learned anything new, except that Delaney is more annoying than previously believed. I hope eventually the herd is thinned enough that we will be able to compare the top five or six in a meaningful way.

[tkmorris]

28. You think she should smile more?

Should've thought that one through a bit better I think.

[MineralMan]

29. I think all politicians should smile more. Bernie doesn't smile.

There are some others who do not, as well.

I think EW makes excellent points, but her continuously serious demeanor on the stage could use a little work.

It's not that she's a woman. Both of my senators and my house rep are women. I've worked to help them get elected. I've met them. All three are very nice people who smile a lot and are extremely competent.

Politicians need to be able to smile. If they cannot, they will miss connecting with some voters.

[emmaverybo]

30. I would like Warren to seriously entertain questions from within her own party about her

proposed policies without labeling relevant and fair concerns “Republican Talking Points.”

If moderates and left-to-center democrats raise some of the very issues that Republicans will, then
so be it. Pelosi has asked of the progressive agenda how we would pay fo4 it.

I think Warren can only help herself by answering to a variety of legitimate comments concerns that she heard from her more moderate rivals, yes from moderators, as there is only so long
that she can deflect on the taxes issue and many other doubts that Dems have,much less independents who will be listening to Republicans.

I believe Warren can answer and do a good job of it.