"We should not be afraid of big ideas". Sen Warren. Let's talk about this.

[Ninga]

I just learned that one of the big compromises undertook by FDR was eliminating national health care from his Social Security bill.

President Truman worked and worked to get health care for all. He handed it off to Pres Eisenhower
but of course Eisenhower was a Republican and he had other goals such as the national highway program.

Then there was the much maligned LBJ, who fought and fought and fought the mainstream and naysayers and GOP to get his Medicare/Medicaid bill passed. He was a hero. He fought and made it work.

It is critically important to know our history in order to go forward. The Democrats were dragged to the middle by Pres Clinton, and have languished in the middle of the road for 25 years.

As author George Lakoff wrote about liberals is that we have accepted conservative terminology framed in a way to promote strict Republican hierarchy. Lakoff wrote that Liberals must cease using GOP terms such as “partial birth abortion” and “tax relief” because such phrases are manufactured specifically to allow for them to frame the debate. Liberals help them when we use their words.

When Elizabeth Warren says not to be afraid of big ideas, she is saying that we must not let Republicans tell us what to think by attaching scary labels.
Health care for all is not scary, don’t buy into it.

We must do all we can to stop using GOP frames. Be not afraid. Be LBJ be FDR. Fight.

Go big, or go home. Go Liz!

[oldsoftie]

2. Nothing wrong with big ideas. But they cost big money & no one wants to talk about THAT

Twice last night Sen Warren was asked about having to increase taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. Both times she did not answer the question and pivoted to another point. Of course she's not the only one who avoided answering direct questions either.

[Ninga]

4. Sen Warren is savvy, knowing 2 minute response is subject to major criticism. Somewhere on this

board is posted a CNN Interview of her last night. She talks exactly about how numbers make people’s eyes glaze over. She knows the devil is in the details. I will expect she will become more detailed when the field gets smaller. If she makes it.

[oldsoftie]

7. But when you dont answer a direct question, THAT makes people roll their eyes.

My 92 yr old mother did it! "She didnt answer the question".
But like i said, they all do it. Its just aggravating as hell to me, but maybe its not a big deal to others.

[Ninga]

9. Everyone has their reasons. The corporate media format wins. Nt.

[woundedkarma]

27. I noticed it too

She did answer it but not in a direct way.

She said that we are all paying for health care now. But overall we will be paying less with the plan.

What I get from that is yes, there will be higher taxes but that compared to what we're paying now for health insurance, it will be much lower.

But if she'd said yes, you'll be paying higher taxes then that would be the sound bite and it would be plastered all over the universe.

That's why she couldn't answer the question.

It was a trap.

And she didn't fall into it. I'm betting she wanted to. I'm betting she wanted to say it outright yes, your taxes will go up but your healthcare costs will go down.

She just couldn't.

I don't make these assumptions lightly (usually I do haha) I have heard her say these things in other ways in other arenas when there is not so much national attention.

[oldsoftie]

47. Thats one thing about Sanders, he's admitted that everyone must pay. Not just the "rich"

Because we cant get all the money we need from only the rich. There arent enough of them. We always point to Europe and what they have, but we refuse to fund as they do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. I liked Bernie's answer - Status Quo/ACA will cost $50 trillion, M4A $30 trillion

Warren will have to find a way (social media? Tv ads? Something using graphs or other visual depictions) to concretely answer the gotcha question on raising taxes to pay for M4A. She must find a way to answer this beyond the "lower overall out of pocket costs" answer she has been giving. If she makes it to the general, you know she will be attacked by Trump and Russian bot ads showing nothing but a big stack of cash growing to the sky representing M4A "tax increases".

[dansolo]

69. Did Bernie just pull that number out of his ass?

I've never heard that 50 trillion number before. How did 2 trillion in savings suddenly become 20 trillion?

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

[oldsoftie]

77. I thought the same thing when i heard him say that.

But hey, you throw out anything that sticks in a 60 second comment!

[blm]

12. If your cost for health insurance each year is $8-10,000, and your taxes for

Med for All come to additional $1000 per year, did your costs go down or up?

[TCJ70]

28. Even those numbers are low. My employer based plan is $12,000/year...

...and I can't see a way that it ends up costing me that much with M4A.

[oldsoftie]

49. Costs are always underestimated. Savings & revenue are always overestimated.

Always.
My insurance has never cost anywhere near those numbers. Thats just me, and i'm sure plenty do have high prices. But telling people who are happy with their coverages "Too bad. Its gone" is a LOSING proposition. Sen Warren says shes NEVER met anyone who was happy with their coverage? Really? A lot of unions have negotiated quite good deals for their members.

And even if her numbers WERE realistic, the revenue generation is not what it needs to be. Way too low

[blm]

50. Mine, alone, is $7200 a year. And I still have a hefty deductible and $95 copays.

We are a family of 3.

[Bettie]

55. So, what currently covered medical care

do you expect not to be covered under a single-payer plan?

Or is it simply that the idea of a system where everyone is treated the same is not OK in your mind?

Single payer includes all doctors, unless your doctor decides to operate outside the system.

[ArcticFox]

67. We're over $12,000 per year

Family of three. Good plan, but many doctors don't take it, even many on the company's list.

And what a pain trying to find someone in network, getting referrals.

[Bettie]

56. They are human dragons

sitting atop their piles of gold, raiding the metaphorical countryside for more, always demanding more in tribute.

[stuffmatters]

61. Perfect descriptio,Cm:"if your answer to global warming is move to Mars, you have too much money."

[oldsoftie]

70. Soak the rich all you want, you STILL wont raise enough money.

There arent enough of them. And if you go REALLY big, they'll just hide or mover their money. Its really not hard to avoid taxes. I live in this world and i can tell you exactly how its done. I see it every day.
The ONLY way to actually get a ton of money from the rich is with a sale/VAT tax, like the Europeans use.
But we wont

As for the SS cap, i think the cap should be done away with totally.

[ArcticFox]

66. "But it will increase taxes"

Is a Republican talking point. It's a false framing. Ignores the fact that we'd not need to pay insurance premiums anymore.

There are other savings too: no more need for workers comp insurance, less litigation costs when those injured don't need to sue to pay for their medical care . . . .

But I'm pretty sure you know all that. Why do you pretend to not understand?

[oldsoftie]

71. Bernie Sanders admits that EVERYONE will have to pay more taxes. Why cant others admit it?

I do understand. No one shows a plan where enough money for all their plans is anywhere near paid for. The GOP loves to run up the debt, but the Dems have the same problem. And neither wants to do what it takes to pay for everything.
Why do you pretend to not understand that?

[ArcticFox]

75. From what I can tell

Only Sanders and Warren are putting forth honest proposals to raise enough taxes to pay for what we need. Most others can't fathom taxing the rich or wealthy because they've bought the lie about job creators. Most ignore how much more difficult life is becoming despite 40 years of "tax cuts" and the technology revolution. The problem is clearly that the rich keep getting richer and richer at the expense of all of us. Warren's wealth tax and Sanders' stock market transaction tax, plus a graduated tax rate, can turn the problem around. Problem is, when just a few people control almost all our wealth as a nation, they have virtually unlimited ability to brainwash the people.

[redstateblues]

3. Medicare for All is political suicide. If Warren wins the nomination

And runs in the General on taking private insurance away from millions of American including union members she will lose as many states as Dukakis

[Ninga]

5. I am not afraid. I think of the hero LBJ every time I go to the doctor. He risked his entire

presidency on exactly the same political suicide you speak of.

Thank goodness he fought. And then of course his Civil Rights Act. Courage at work.

[cate94]

13. Medicare

Currently allows people to subsidize their policy with private insurers. What makes you think that wouldn’t happen if it we had Medicare for all?

[mwooldri]

26. I disagree.

It depends on how the argument is framed. If Medicare for All is given a cost structure similar to the UK's NHS (premiums directly related to income, no copays or deductibles) then lots of people will save a ton of money. And seniors can rejoice as they wouldn't have to worry about Medicare supplements and prescription copays as this would be eliminated.

The big loser here are the private insurance companies.

Personally I think an American solution would be Medicare for All in a form very similar to Medicare as it is now. People can still buy private Medicare supplement insurance, and there would be a government option which everyone would be opted into automatically (would have to opt out to a private plan if so desired and supplement insurance would be required). Medicaid would turn into a subsidized Medicare supplement insurance (as everyone would have Medicare). This gives everyone coverage, introduces a single payer system and achieves Bernie's and Elizabeth's goals while compromising with the role of private insurance.

[gulliver]

46. And the loss will take Obamacare with it.

The Republicans will claim a mandate. Trump will be in utter triumph. Heaven help us.

[druidity33]

48. Unless you work for

a municipal Union, town, state or federal... the chances that you have Union healthcare is pretty slim. It's still Employer healthcare, it's just negotiated into the contract. And you still pay for it, though it may be a better deal. Most Union members would get better health care with M4A.

[oldsoftie]

76. Apparently many here dont think there are really people who like their current plans.

A lot of those union negotiated plans are top notch. As are plans for those with government jobs.

[Bradshaw3]

78. And most of those people vote republican

These often-touted wonderful private plans for unions are a small minority of healthcare plans; the really good ones are for higher income people. Of those left who supposedly really like their plans are usually people who have not had to USE their plans to a great degree. Once they do and find things are not covered, or how much they owe after the bills start coming in.

I had a government job and good healthcare for 10 years - I like my Medicare and supplemental plan much better, especially if I have a catastrophic condition come along.

[Hoyt]

6. Big ideas are great, if they don't cost us the General Election.

[Ninga]

8. We don't know what we don't know. Do you not think Sen Warren is not fully prepared to

take the case to the voters.

Who is telling you big ideas will lose the General Election? Media? Mika and Joe? The GOP?

I say we reframe the debate and say big ideas will win the election.

[Hoyt]

11. Nope, the GOP is not telling me that, nor the media, etc. Who is telling you her "big ideas" will

will carry the GE?

[Ninga]

32. History paves the way. My OP shows examples of political big ideas winning. Nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Agree. Have never understood why we shouldn't just

espouse a concept like "I believe every human being should be able to see a doctor and get the treatment and medicine they need. And I will work to that end." Period. Paragraph.

Who would object to that?

[progressoid]

17. "And I will work to that end"

Anybody can say that. Hell, even DonnyT said a version of that. It's a hollow promise.

The issue is how they'll do it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Disagree. Zero chance anyone's plan will become law exactly as they are describing today.

[Ninga]

34. Medicare was passed, then changed. I don't think Sen Warren is under any illusion or is not

savvy enough to know the many courses such an effort might take. If ideas take big work.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Sure. But do all the potential voters? They take whats

said as sacrosanct and repeat and repeat as if what one person says will actually happen. Like the government will be banging down your door to get a hidden gun.

[KPN]

18. Nobody. Instead they just ask how would you

do that? And regardless of the answer, follow it up with “how are you going to pay for it?” GOP stratagem 101! And then people object: “The federal deficit!”; “Why should I pay for someone else’s health care, especially those lazy people’s?”; “Government death panels?!!”; “Socialized medicine doesn’t work!” GOP stratagem 201.

And so on. You get how it works. And it works — so long as there is no clear example to show how it won’t financially harm those who have good employer paid health care now with low out of pocket costs for the insured. What percent of our population has that? My guess, not enough that Medicare for All Who Want It wouldn’t be achievable so long as the GOP can’t weigh it down with the same high out of pocket costs they already pay now.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. I guess its where I diverge into pragmatism. People get scared by big plans - just a fact.

I think it's best to use the Republican tactic. We all know they support anything that helps the wealthy make more money. But they don't announce it. They just all know and bit by bit install policies into laws that achieve this objective. I personally feel that we should do the same with healthcare. Incrementally improve toward an ultimate goal of achieving coverage for all. And, with each increment cost justify it.

I know, I am in the minority. Nothing new there.

[KPN]

30. I'm almost 69. Voted D every election up and

down the ticket without exception. Every policy increment that in any way has affected the pocket books of average working Americans in my lifetime has been negative with a number of short term or generally insignificant exceptions. Increments have got us nowhere good — the radical activist GOP won’t let them. I’m 100% done with incrementalism as a strategy — on health care in particular.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. I hear ya. But couldn't one think of ACA as the first increment toward

something better?

[KPN]

42. It has been and continues to be plundered and undermined by the GOP; out of pocket costs continue

to go up at rates that far exceed inflation; it wasn't supported by most Americans as the best solution in the first place and still is not now. Every time we think incremental, the GOP rubs its palms together knowing they can blame Ds for something that doesn't provide enough benefit to enough voters to insulate them from that criticism and rejection in the polls next time around.

It's a game they've played us with time and again. Enough. Elizabeth Warren is a great teacher, great explainer and great sales person -- she sold the Obama Admin and the party on the CFPB despite many internal naysayers. She's selling the public on MOA now. I'm in her camp 100%. Start with the right goal, don't start with an increment of that goal if you want to get anywhere near what that goal is ... which is exactly what happened with the ACA. We proposed a plan that the GOP had formerly proposed -- look what happened!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. GOP can dismantle fully realized goal just as

easy as any incremental achievement toward a goal. If they are in power. Any huge plan should be coupled with a condition that it will only happen if and when Dems have control back in Senate too.

[Thekaspervote]

52. The gop will dismantle M4A just the same as they did the ACA..no doubt

If we dismantle the ACA and go for broke with a new system and it doesn’t pass then we’re really screwed.

So many here seem to have a short memory regarding just how difficult it was to pass the ACA and that’s when we held all three branches.

Seriously, how does anyone think the Dems will be able to push thru this bill while the gop holds the senate?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

65. Only if we have 2/3 of House and Senate. But minus those with an upcoming election

in a swing district.

[Thekaspervote]

51. Right there with ya. The American voting public does not want a crash and burn.

That’s what we have now. Small steps work better.

LBJ did not run on the idea of Medicare. Passed it after he was elected. With the death of JFK he had a mandate to push thru legislation. These are different times and the comparison isn’t a good fit

[Ninga]

57. Kennedy didn't run on Medicare, LBJ had no mandate for it, it was the sheer strength of his

will and he fought for every precious step.

Speaking of times.....we have NEVER had the times we are dealing with now....NEVER.

As for good fit....if not now, when?

[Amimnoch]

10. I'm not afraid of big ideas.

I am afraid of big ideas getting reframed, propagandized, turned into scare tactics and used to get Cheetolini a second term.

Why the fuck are our candidates and most so damn focused on the positions, the vast majority of which there won't be a senate, even with the best potential projections, that will pass the required legislation?? The congress we provide will write the laws, we just need someone who will sign the damn things that we do get passed into law!!

I swear it feels like we are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. So many of the wonderful things we heard promised last night WILL be reframed used as effective scare tactic fodder in the key swing states needed to hit 270.

I just want Trump out of there!!! I want his circus of a cabinet replaced!! I want further judicial appointments done by OUR candidate!! I want dignity restored to the office, and someone who will start repairing the horrendous damage done to our national image in the international community!! All that matters position wise is that, whatever the Democratic Party in the House passes, and manages to get through whatever Senate we end up with that has Democratic support.. Our candidate will sign off on the fucking thing and give us whatever progress we CAN actually get.

We get ANY of our candidates: We will have a productive and empathic cabinet.
We get ANY of our candidates: We will have better judicial appointments.
We get ANY of our candidates: We will have better executive orders.

We want ANY of those proposals done? WE'VE got to get OUR candidate the CONGRESS that will pass it!!!

[certainot]

15. they will continue to dominate framing as long as democrats ignore their talk radio monopoly

and it looks more and more to me that putin has been influencing rw radio for at least a decade

the GOP think tanks PR pros sit around watching for dem framing progress, yawn, and come up with aa counter campaign and send it to limbaugh and sons. pretty soon it's reaching 50 mil a week and fox starts repeating it too. or they see another molehill to make into a mountain.

dems need offense or we're stuck with getting lucky.. destroy the RW talk radio monopoly w/market demand - it's not enough to vote, GOTV, donate, and discuss messaging and framing woes.

artificial intelligence makes it easy, cheap to digitize talk radio - the ad industry will do the work once they become aware of how easy it is for activists to record, transcribe, and list advertisers with hardly any listening required.

talk radio is the only unique advantage they have and at $1000/hr 1200 stations x 15 hrs/day is worth about $5BIL/year FREE to them - and the kremlin trolls piggybacking it.. they know how important it is and democratic and media leadership clearly think it's irrelevant. and it should not be considered part of the free speech spectrum as long as it is a well protected and coordinated monopoly. destroying the talk radio propaganda operation will help on every level, every issue, every election.

it wouldn't take much activism for the ad industry to get the message it has to start asking radio ad clients if they REALLY want to support the global warming denial, racism, hate, and ignorance. RW has perpetuated the myth that the monopoly is a reflection of the market demand for hate and lies ---advertisers will head for the hills and many stations will have to change programming to stay alive

and it wouldn't hurt for students and communities to start protesting anything trump at the 88+ universities that broadcast sports on 260 limbaugh stations

[betsuni]

16. Republicans controlled the House during much of Clinton's presidency.

Why do people not know this? Even with a Democratic majority the first two years it was impossible to get universal health care legislation passed. Clinton did not drag anything anywhere. All he could do was try to prevent Republicans from wrecking the country as much as they wanted to. REPUBLICANS DRAG THE U.S. TO THE RIGHT NOT DEMOCRATS.

1994 election, "Republicans swept both houses of Congress in what one political historian called 'the most impressive off-year comeback in modern times.' Talk filled the press and the airwaves of an impending 'Republican Revolution' to complete what Ronald Reagan had begun. ... In the end, as their representatives in Washington should have known all along, even those voters who revered Ronald Reagan and cheered on the contract signing candidates in principle were not ready when they learned that freed markets would leave them with sole responsibility for their own fates, to give up their Social Security and Medicare, their public schools, and their government-backed air, water, and earth protections. As important, Bill Clinton's legendary ability to 'triangulate' -- taking on as his own some of the goals they proposed while drawing the line against such extreme measures as a balanced budget amendment -- took the steam out of the House GOP's sails. To be repeatedly outwitted by Clinton, a president the radical right had spent much effort and untold treasure trying to undermine, made the sting of defeat all the more sharp."

Nancy MacLean, "Democracy in Chains."

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. That is why the next Dem president needs to be bold, even radical

The next Dem president will only be gauranteed 2 years at most of unimpeded action, if Dems also take the senate.

Rather than simply breathing a sigh of relief at a return to "normalcy", the next Dem president must hit the ground running, pack the courts, including ramming through at least half a dozen SCOTUS justices. Beyond this, getting M4A in place, living minimum wage, student loan forgiveness, and all the other essential legislation that "safe centrists" say can't be done, must be done in those first two years, knowing that the midterms could bring loss of control of one or both houses of congress (although if enough essential legislation is passed, it could ensure Dem control of all branches of govt for a generation).

[Ninga]

35. I apologize. My reference was clumsy. Please see my clarification below per Wikipedia

Bill Clinton presented himself as a centrist candidate to draw white, middle-class voters who had left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. In 1990, Bill Clinton became the DLC chair. Under his leadership, the DLC founded two-dozen DLC chapters and created a base of support. In 1989, there were 219 DLC members. By the spring of 1992, there were 700.[8]

During the 1992 and 1996 Presidential elections, Clinton ran as a "New Democrat." However, based on voters' perception of Clinton's positions on an ideological scale, he was perceived to be just as liberal as 1988 Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was in 1988. Thus, the Democratic Party's success based on the New Democratic moniker is inconclusive.[15]

Legislation signed into law with bipartisan support under President Clinton includes:

The multi-lateral free trade deal NAFTA with Canada and Mexico
The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on openly gay people serving in the Armed Forces (repealed in 2010)
The "Defense of Marriage Act" that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages (ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015)
The "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" federal religious discrimination statute
Major reforms to the American welfare system
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, sometimes referred to as the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill[16] (many provisions are still in effect)
New Democrats were also more open to deregulation than the previous Democratic leadership had been. This was especially evident in the large scale deregulation of agriculture and the telecommunications industries. The New Democrats and allies on the DLC were responsible for the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

An important part of New Democrat ideas is focused on improving the economy. During the administration of Bill Clinton, New Democrats were responsible for passing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers,[17] while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses.[18] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints. Overall, the top marginal tax rate was raised from 31% to 40% under the Clinton administration.

[NRaleighLiberal]

20. Big ideas are absolutely vital to effect necessary change.

When you aim really big, you can achieve something substantial.

Being cautious...aiming small...gets incremental or no change.

But it isn't easy, isn't popular, takes courage and is risky.

[treestar]

23. No one is afraid of big ideas

We aren't afraid of her ideas. We like them. But we know we can't get them passed without the Senate. She has to address that rather than accusing others of fear. It's not fear. It's that we need Senators from red states. How do we get those? Surely not by telling the voters of those states they are afraid of ideas.

[TCJ70]

33. I don't think anyone is debating that the Senate needs to be flipped...

...but that needs to happen regardless of candidate. So if you like her ideas, and are committed to flipping the Senate anyway, why wouldn't you support her over someone else?

I don't mean this as an attack, but do you honestly believe that Republicans are going to be more amenable to someone like Biden than Warren? Which of them is going to help him pass his public option?

[LeftTurn3623]

25. I do wish Warren would

say that I believe in big ideas - we should shoot for medicare for all. But at the same time if we could add a public option to start with that would be good.

Single payer - medicare for all might happen someday but we might need to take steps to get there

Obamacare was the start
Public Option might be the next step

I think it was John Edwards that said they way to get to single payer is to get a public option. The American people will move to the public option and it will eventually kill off private insurance - it will take care of itself over time

[Progressive dog]

31. Social Security has a tax on income to pay for it

Health care was never in the original social security proposal.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125007071l.

The president brought a midwestern progressive, University of Wisconsin economist Edwin Witte, to Washington to develop the plan. By January 1935, Witte had a comprehensive plan for old-age insurance, services to people with disabilities, and help for homeless and neglected children.

[Ninga]

45. FDR absolutely wanted health care in his Social Security proposal.

With the Great Depression, more and more people could not afford medical services. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Isidore Falk and Edgar Sydenstricter to help draft provisions to Roosevelt's pending Social Security legislation to include publicly funded health care programs. These reforms were attacked by the American Medical Association as well as state and local affiliates of the AMA as "compulsory health insurance." Roosevelt ended up removing the health care provisions from the bill in 1935. Fear of organized medicine's opposition to universal health care became standard for decades after the 1930s.[13]

[Progressive dog]

58. FDR did not try to put health care into social security

You can easily go to the social security website and look for the history of social security. Isidore Falk did no work for FDR until 1936, not 1933, when social security had already become law.

[Ninga]

59. Social Security passed April 19, 1935. Most absolutely FDR explored and wanted health care

included. After FDR signed the SS bill in August 1935 later into the year he continued to work on universal health insurance. It’s all in the history books.

Falk and Sydenstricter were enlisted in 1933 by FDR to draft provisions to FDR’s pending SS legislation to include publicly funded health care programs.

[Progressive dog]

81. The truth is that FDR did not begin to explore health care

until after social security had passed. All reliable sources verify this. If you actually have any evidence that makes this claim, you should provide it. This is a part of the message that FDR gave to congress in Jan. of 1939

Health needs were studied by the Committee on Economic Security which I appointed in 1934 and certain basic steps were taken by the Congress in the Social Security Act. It was recognized at that time that a comprehensive health program was required as an essential link in our national defenses against individual and social insecurity. Further study, however, seemed necessary at that time to determine ways and means of providing this protection most effectively.

This is a link to the complete message. https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#12

[DIVINEprividence]

41. Everyone knows single payer as no chance

I just do not see a policy like this getting through congress. I think it is more pragmatic to strengthen the ACA since this was actually passed at the cost of a lot of political capital. "Big ideas" are a problem if they alienate independent voters especially if you alienate them with something that has no chance at passing. How about inserting a public option in the ACA. Seems to be much more political doable. My two cents.

[Ninga]

43. So said the anti Social Security and Medicare/Medicare voices. Take comfort in our

history. Big ideas came to be and benefit every American. Be a believer!

[Thekaspervote]

54. I don think anyone is questioning the need for change. It's how do we get there with the

Obstructionist gop.

[Thekaspervote]

53. This!!

[ArcticFox]

68. Let's all give up before we try then

Hell, maybe we should just ask Republicans what they will pass, and make that our platform

[pansypoo53219]

60. i get FDR tingles w/ warren. wall street should be afraid.

[stuffmatters]

62. Love that:"FDR tingles" And Warren'll be her own Frances Perkins too!

[bloom]

64. Frances Perkins - yes - I was noticing she was absent from the discussion.

Maybe Wall Street could come around. Maybe some would like business to be divorced from the health insurance business.

What the wealthy would try to do is to try to make M4A like Social Security and Medicare - where only so much of ones income is taxed - instead of all of it.

[ecstatic]

63. I agree. Same with the gun debate. All the pundits

are asking if Beto screwed the democrats by talking about gun buybacks... So are they suggesting that most Americans and most republicans are OK with schools, churches, malls, and parks being a war zone? WHY do we keep accepting that as reality? It makes no sense!!

[brooklynite]

73. If she loses she goes home.

[vlyons]

79. Gov regulations is another one

Rather than say "government regulations," we should talk about "protections." Yes, regulating industrial waste into the environment is expensive to corporations, but it also protects people from dangerous air, water, and soil. Ditto workplace "protections" to prevent on the job worker injuries.

[elocs]

80. If Trump is reelected, those big ideas will be going nowhere.

In fact, they will be further behind than ever.