Chelsea Clinton: Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:15:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Chelsea Clinton: Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Chelsea Clinton: Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare  (Read 2636 times)
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2016, 10:12:04 AM »

Ah yeah, Bernie is allowed to spend MONTHS calling Hillary Clinton corrupt, owned by Wall Street, etc. but the minute Clinton criticizes one of Sanders' policies suddenly she's NASTY and a LIAR. Come on dude. Sanders' has been running a "mean and nasty" campaign for months now.

That sketchy bitch!
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,964
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2016, 10:41:12 AM »

I don't mean this in a rude or crass way, but good lord she is not exactly a looker. Not that she had the best genetics to work with but.....yikes.
Making negative comments about people's looks, something they have limited control over, isn't nice. If she were to see your comment (and the chances are not 0, despite what you may think) it would hurt her feelings.

One might say "well she's putting herself out there, she's fair game." Not that I think that makes it ok to disparage someone's looks, but ok yes she is putting herself out there. But keep in mind she grew up with this life and did not exactly choose it organically. Her mom is running for President and she may feel a sense of obligation to be helpful.

Qualifying with "I'm not saying this, even though I'm saying it" doesn't obviate any of that.

Furthermore she is pretty. That's something women do like to hear, as long as it is done tastefully.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2016, 11:21:05 AM »

She's not wrong - Bernie doesn't seem to want to build on any of the accomplishments of the last 8 years, and seems content on conceding the idea that Obamacare is a failure.

Uh, it is. Assuming you ignore the fact ...

I've lived in such a liberal bubble that I've never heard such a cogent attack on Obamacare till now. Thanks for giving me one, Adam Griffin! (?!?!)
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2016, 11:27:24 AM »

Even the liberal New Republic is asking why Clinton and Sanders aren't campaigning on a public option.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2016, 11:37:13 AM »

The New Republic is a trash magazine gliding on prestige it no longer deserves. Hughes has turned it into a massive dumpster fire and is walking away with his millions, uncaring about the institution he destroyed.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2016, 11:47:21 AM »

Campaigning on a public option would be a brilliant play from Clinton though. It would let her triangulate against Sanders, while still championing a long-standing progressive proposal. It would let her campaign on defending Obamacare from Sanders' desire to repeal it while still signaling to the base that she would go further left than Obama.

She should also continue to call out Sanders for supporting a massive regressive tax increase on the poor to fund his schemes though.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2016, 11:47:52 AM »

Huh? She's not attacking Sanders on universal healthcare. She just disagrees with him on how to achieve universal healthcare.
By implying Sanders wants to "dismantle Obamacare" without saying that he wants to work toward a single-payer system in which more people rather than fewer people have access to healthcare, she implies (no doubt for political reasons) that Sanders wants to go back to a system in which more people are uninsured. In fact, the opposite is the case. That's disingenuous.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2016, 12:12:12 PM »

The New Republic is a trash magazine gliding on prestige it no longer deserves. Hughes has turned it into a massive dumpster fire and is walking away with his millions, uncaring about the institution he destroyed.

Can't disagree with you there, but the piece raises an interesting point. Many of us were expecting that this would be a highly salient issue for Democrats in 2016, yet no candidate is talking about it. It certainly seems like it would be a great tack for Clinton (and one that I'd take some comfort in) unless she's too concerned about how private insurers would react.
Logged
Zache
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 641


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2016, 12:23:32 PM »

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2016, 12:29:48 PM »

Well, yeah, in 1993 Bernie wasn't pushing a plan that would undo President Obama's signature achievement and take hundreds or thousands of dollars out of the pockets of working class families.
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2016, 12:45:07 PM »

Well, yeah, in 1993 Bernie wasn't pushing a plan that would undo President Obama's signature achievement and take hundreds or thousands of dollars out of the pockets of working class families.

Lief, I'm afraid that your level of trolling is so good that you may accidentally persuade the less informed posters here that you are actually making valid arguments.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 13, 2016, 01:01:02 PM »

Well thank you, but I'm being very sincere here. Bernie doesn't have a monopoly on universal healthcare, and his plan to achieve it is not very good, for a number of reasons. Clinton is raising valid, if clumsy, critiques.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 13, 2016, 05:10:30 PM »

A lot of things have changed since 2000, particularly the cost of delivering healthcare. It's much more expensive now than it was then, and as we saw in Vermont, not even the most liberal states are willing to take on the burden of single payer.

Which is why it's more important than ever that it be implemented: the primary justification for doing so is a reduction in cost. It was 13% in 2000; it's 17.5% today.

Furthermore, individual states can't reasonably implement affordable universal health care for the same reason that individual states can't reasonably implement effective gun control measures. Only when it's the law of the land within 100% of our sovereign borders can you forcibly restrict access (in the case of guns) or forcibly lower costs (in the case of healthcare) and make it feasible.

I don't disagree with the general long term goal Griffin, but given the electoral response to Obamacare, would you not agree that pushing for single payer or something similar right now would be a poor use of political capital? Personally I'd try to change Obamacare at the margins while focusing my efforts elsewhere if I was a Dem pol.
Logged
Trapsy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 899


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 13, 2016, 05:34:10 PM »

A lot of things have changed since 2000, particularly the cost of delivering healthcare. It's much more expensive now than it was then, and as we saw in Vermont, not even the most liberal states are willing to take on the burden of single payer.

Which is why it's more important than ever that it be implemented: the primary justification for doing so is a reduction in cost. It was 13% in 2000; it's 17.5% today.

Furthermore, individual states can't reasonably implement affordable universal health care for the same reason that individual states can't reasonably implement effective gun control measures. Only when it's the law of the land within 100% of our sovereign borders can you forcibly restrict access (in the case of guns) or forcibly lower costs (in the case of healthcare) and make it feasible.

I don't disagree with the general long term goal Griffin, but given the electoral response to Obamacare, would you not agree that pushing for single payer or something similar right now would be a poor use of political capital? Personally I'd try to change Obamacare at the margins while focusing my efforts elsewhere if I was a Dem pol.

Republicans will eat him for lunch.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2016, 06:32:10 PM »

Huh? She's not attacking Sanders on universal healthcare. She just disagrees with him on how to achieve universal healthcare.
By implying Sanders wants to "dismantle Obamacare" without saying that he wants to work toward a single-payer system in which more people rather than fewer people have access to healthcare, she implies (no doubt for political reasons) that Sanders wants to go back to a system in which more people are uninsured. In fact, the opposite is the case. That's disingenuous.

If we had a Canadian style system with all its long waiting lists and overcrowding, the people who are newly insured thanks to Obamacare  would be worse off, not better.

Single payer can be done right, but Canada is not the model to base it on.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 13, 2016, 09:41:52 PM »

A lot of things have changed since 2000, particularly the cost of delivering healthcare. It's much more expensive now than it was then, and as we saw in Vermont, not even the most liberal states are willing to take on the burden of single payer.

Which is why it's more important than ever that it be implemented: the primary justification for doing so is a reduction in cost. It was 13% in 2000; it's 17.5% today.

Furthermore, individual states can't reasonably implement affordable universal health care for the same reason that individual states can't reasonably implement effective gun control measures. Only when it's the law of the land within 100% of our sovereign borders can you forcibly restrict access (in the case of guns) or forcibly lower costs (in the case of healthcare) and make it feasible.

I don't disagree with the general long term goal Griffin, but given the electoral response to Obamacare, would you not agree that pushing for single payer or something similar right now would be a poor use of political capital? Personally I'd try to change Obamacare at the margins while focusing my efforts elsewhere if I was a Dem pol.

Well yes, at this point (as I outlined in my tl;dr earlier), Democrats have not only exhausted the political capital surrounding healthcare and insurance for a generation, but they have also lost the ability to govern for a generation because of it. It's all rather hypothetical at this point.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 13, 2016, 10:24:02 PM »

A lot of things have changed since 2000, particularly the cost of delivering healthcare. It's much more expensive now than it was then, and as we saw in Vermont, not even the most liberal states are willing to take on the burden of single payer.

Which is why it's more important than ever that it be implemented: the primary justification for doing so is a reduction in cost. It was 13% in 2000; it's 17.5% today.

Furthermore, individual states can't reasonably implement affordable universal health care for the same reason that individual states can't reasonably implement effective gun control measures. Only when it's the law of the land within 100% of our sovereign borders can you forcibly restrict access (in the case of guns) or forcibly lower costs (in the case of healthcare) and make it feasible.

I don't disagree with the general long term goal Griffin, but given the electoral response to Obamacare, would you not agree that pushing for single payer or something similar right now would be a poor use of political capital? Personally I'd try to change Obamacare at the margins while focusing my efforts elsewhere if I was a Dem pol.

Well yes, at this point (as I outlined in my tl;dr earlier), Democrats have not only exhausted the political capital surrounding healthcare and insurance for a generation, but they have also lost the ability to govern for a generation because of it. It's all rather hypothetical at this point.

I think Senator Dorgan warned of this. He said that Democrats should focus more on the economy, and presumably that would have included things like reinstating the Glass Steagall Act that he warned about repealing.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 13, 2016, 10:36:52 PM »

How many Democratic seat losses in 2010 are left unexplained once you account for the slow recovery, backlash against the stimulus and bank bailouts, abandonment of the 50 state strategy, the ongoing realignment in the South, racist and xenophobic sentiment toward Obama, and retirements and poor recruitment among Democratic candidates (owing largely to the aforementioned factors)?

I agree with some of Griffin's policy-based critique of the ACA, although calling it a "failure" is extremely overblown given the effect on insurance rates and cost growth, which are definitely worth something. (For one, I'd have been uninsured during grad school if not for the law - and just about everyone I know in their early twenties would have gone uninsured at some point, even if only for a few months.) But the supposed political cost of the bill, I've never been able to see. I just wish that the Obama administration had been as ambitious about pushing a larger stimulus.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: January 13, 2016, 11:00:11 PM »

Obamacare is flawed, but it's here to stay.  Obama expended a sh**t ton of political capital just getting it passed, and he very nearly failed, and that was with a filibuster proof Democrat majority!  Even with a Democrat Congress, Sanders (or Clinton, for that matter) would not be able to get anything more passed.  There's no political will for it.  What people who want UHC should be doing is campaigning to get it passed at the state level, especially in states with initiative processes.  If single-payer is as popular as the Sandernistas claim it is, it shouldn't be too much of a challenge to get the people to vote for it either.
Logged
This account no longer in use.
cxs018
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,282


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: January 13, 2016, 11:17:18 PM »

I wonder who felt like attacking Sanders from the left would be a good idea...
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 13, 2016, 11:18:06 PM »

I wonder who felt like attacking Sanders from the left would be a good idea...

Attacking Sanders for wanting to impose regressive taxes on the poor and middle class is not attacking him from the left.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: January 13, 2016, 11:20:20 PM »

I wonder who felt like attacking Sanders from the left would be a good idea...

Attacking Sanders for wanting to impose regressive taxes on the poor and middle class is not attacking him from the left.

Do you supporting repealing Social Security and Medicare?
Logged
ProgressiveCanadian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,690
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2016, 12:44:31 AM »

I wonder who felt like attacking Sanders from the left would be a good idea...

Attacking Sanders for wanting to impose regressive taxes on the poor and middle class is not attacking him from the left.

Clinton has attacked Sanders on being too soft on wallstreet. They are obviously attacking him from the left and it's a stupid idea. The only issue she can win on is the gun issue but she has not chosen to stick to that and instead is attacking Sanders on Healthcare.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2016, 12:58:43 AM »

I wonder who felt like attacking Sanders from the left would be a good idea...

Attacking Sanders for wanting to impose regressive taxes on the poor and middle class is not attacking him from the left.

You keep repeating this allegation, but have yet to substantiate it, as far as I have seen. Link please.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2016, 01:05:55 AM »

I wonder who felt like attacking Sanders from the left would be a good idea...

Attacking Sanders for wanting to impose regressive taxes on the poor and middle class is not attacking him from the left.

You keep repeating this allegation, but have yet to substantiate it, as far as I have seen. Link please.
He is citing Bernie Sanders' own filed legislation to establish a single payer system, which would replace medicaid and private insurance with a single payer system funded by a 6.7% increase in the payroll tax(regressive) and a modest 2.2% increase in the income tax, with higher taxes for those making more.

It is laid out very clearly in this article in the Washington Post.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.