I think you’re too hard on Bernie with the filibuster stuff. I also think your focus on details is a bit misguided. Obama campaigned the same way and then basically passed the HRC bill for Obamacare. Warren is the exception in being this detailed early on. That is not the norm. Don’t let your dislike blind you to basic political history. Bernie Sanders has been in Congress 30 years and remembers how Democrats filibustered a lot of right wing shyt. He doesn’t think he will convince 10 Republicans. He just doesn’t yet know what type of Senate he will be looking at. You’re uniquely attacking him for a stance everyone BUT Warren and Buttgieg have. You guys need to relax. It’s too transparent and Warren has my vote right now but let’s not be disingenuous.
2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races
- Thread starter mc_brew
- Start date
I think you’re too hard on Bernie with the filibuster stuff. I also think your focus on details is a bit misguided. Obama campaigned the same way and then basically passed the HRC bill for Obamacare. Warren is the exception in being this detailed early on. That is not the norm. Don’t let your dislike blind you to basic political history. Bernie Sanders has been in Congress 30 years and remembers how Democrats filibustered a lot of right wing shyt. He doesn’t think he will convince 10 Republicans. He just doesn’t yet know what type of Senate he will be looking at. You’re uniquely attacking him for a stance everyone BUT Warren and Buttgieg have. You guys need to relax. It’s too transparent and Warren has my vote right now but let’s not be disingenuous.
I think it's a fair expectation for Bernie to articulate 'the how' and not just 'the what' of his agenda. Voters are going to want to know how he intends to get his ambitious agenda through congress when the other side is moving further to the right, their constituents will not tolerate any type of compromise with a socialist. The Chris Hayes interview I posted above exposed his unwillingness to put serious thought into how he will govern, he could not even say what policy he would prioritize during his 1s year honeymoon period. I'm relaxed bro just wish more people would realize Warren is the superior candidate. I really hope that Native American stuff isn't what's holding people back from supporting her.
afterlife2009
Superstar
Pfizer executive to host 2020 presidential fundraiser for Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand 
- Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand is to attend a fundraiser at the home of Sally Susman, a top Pfizer executive, on March 31, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
- Tickets cost $1,000 to $2,700, these people added.
- Susman is a major figure in Democratic fundraising circles. She was a lead bundler for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.
JoogJoint
In my own league.
Pfizer executive to host 2020 presidential fundraiser for Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand
- Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand is to attend a fundraiser at the home of Sally Susman, a top Pfizer executive, on March 31, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
- Tickets cost $1,000 to $2,700, these people added.
- Susman is a major figure in Democratic fundraising circles. She was a lead bundler for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.
I guess she's going to use people's criticism of her sell out hard to Wall Street and the wealthy for her campaign as a way to say people don't like her because she's a "Woman" like her idol Hillary did.
Hood Critic
The Power Circle
Pfizer executive to host 2020 presidential fundraiser for Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand
- Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand is to attend a fundraiser at the home of Sally Susman, a top Pfizer executive, on March 31, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
- Tickets cost $1,000 to $2,700, these people added.
- Susman is a major figure in Democratic fundraising circles. She was a lead bundler for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.
Waste of time and money
Why are they making Klobuchar sound like an autistic child eating salad with combs and shyt?
I am terrified of the fukkery these primaries will bring.
I am terrified of the fukkery these primaries will bring.
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Gavin Newsom Orders New DNA Test In Controversial Death Row Case
I won't spam both this and the Kamala thread with the exact same post, but read this, brehs
I won't spam both this and the Kamala thread with the exact same post, but read this, brehs
Health Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill ‘Medicare for All’
Health Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill ‘Medicare for All’
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said there was “a knee-jerk reaction to anything that expands Medicare.”CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
Image
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said there was “a knee-jerk reaction to anything that expands Medicare.”CreditCreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
By Robert Pear
Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item. They have hired a top lieutenant in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to spearhead the effort. And their tactics will show Democrats what they are up against as the party drifts to the left on health care.
They also demonstrate how entrenched the Democrats’ last big health care victory, the Affordable Care Act, has become in the nation’s health care system.
The lobbyists’ message is simple: The Affordable Care Act is working reasonably well and should be improved, not repealed by Republicans or replaced by Democrats with a big new public program. More than 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health coverage. They like it, by and large, and should be allowed to keep it.
Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, says that Medicare for all will require tax increases and give politicians and bureaucrats control of medical decisions now made by doctors and patients — arguments that echo those made to stop Medicare in the 1960s, Mrs. Clinton’s health plan in 1993 and the Affordable Care Act a decade ago.
The coalition will step up the tempo in the coming week as Democrats in the House and the Senate plan to introduce bills to establish a single-payer system.
The name of the coalition is intentionally nondescript, and its executive director, Lauren Crawford Shaver, who led Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in 2016 to put marginal states into play, is cagey when asked for details. She says only that the group is planning “a big nationwide effort” with grass-roots allies.
But its reach is undeniable. The coalition has picked up more than 25 members, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the nation’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans.
And it has already sprung into action.
When Senator Bernie Sanders, the author of the Medicare for All Act, announced on Tuesday that he was again running for president, the coalition immediately attacked him as “a leading advocate for upending our nation’s health care system in favor of starting from scratch with Medicare for all.”
Mr. Sanders, independent of Vermont, fired back at the insurance and drug companies. “They make tens of billions of dollars a year in profits from this dysfunctional health care system and pay their C.E.O.s outrageous compensation packages,” Mr. Sanders said. “We’ve expected their opposition all along.”
When members of Congress unveiled legislation to let people age 50 to 64 buy into Medicare, the coalition conflated it with proposals to put all Americans into Medicare.
“This is a slippery slope to government-run health care for every American,” said David Merritt, an executive vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers.
The buy-in proposal for older Americans dates back to Bill Clinton’s presidency, and many of its advocates have put it forward as a moderate alternative to Medicare for all.
Forbes Tate, a public affairs company that lobbies for many health care and drug companies, coordinates the work of the partnership, but is not registered to lobby on its behalf.
“There are no direct lobbyists for the partnership,” Ms. Shaver said. “We work through all of our different groups. They have their own lobbyists who do obviously lobby on Medicare for all. But there are no registered lobbyists for the partnership because we are not doing that directly at this time.”
The coalition, like President Trump, attacks any proposals that smack of socialized medicine. But it also has a positive agenda. It wants to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in Texas, Florida and other states that have yet to do so. It wants to expand federal subsidies under the health law so insurance will be affordable to more people. And it wants to stabilize premiums by persuading states to set up reinsurance programs, using a combination of federal and state funds to help pay the largest claims.
Beyond their desire to preserve the status quo, coalition members have done well by the Affordable Care Act. Many participants, such as the American Medical Association, the pharmaceuticals lobby and the hospital association, backed the A.C.A. from the start, banking that more insured Americans would mean more customers. The hospitals saw the health law’s Medicaid expansion as a lifeline as they struggled with the uninsured working poor.
Others, like the National Retail Federation, opposed the A.C.A. but have tried to make it work.
The need to bolster the Affordable Care Act will become even more urgent, the coalition says, if Texas and other states succeed in their lawsuit to invalidate the entire law.
Even without legislation to expand Medicare, the program is sure to grow because of the aging of the baby boom generation. The number of Medicare beneficiaries, 60 million today, is expected to top 75 million within a decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare spending will grow under current law to $1.5 trillion in 2029, double the total projected for this year.
E. Neil Trautwein, the vice president for health care policy at the retail federation, which represents companies like Walmart, McDonald’s and Amazon, said his top priority was to protect the stability of the coverage that employers provide to employees.
proposed by Mr. Sanders in 2017 could disrupt that coverage. It would expand the list of items and services covered by Medicare and would prohibit employers from duplicating any of those benefits.
When Mr. Sanders introduced that bill, it was endorsed by several Democratic senators who have since become candidates for the party’s presidential nomination: Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
The more modest Medicare buy-in bill has been endorsed by Mr. Booker, Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Harris, as well as by another Democratic candidate for president, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and a potential candidate, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
Yet another Democratic proposal, allowing states to create a Medicaid buy-in program for all their residents, regardless of income, has won support from 23 senators, including Mr. Booker, Mr. Brown, Ms. Gillibrand, Ms. Harris, Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren.
Members of the coalition had different positions in the struggle to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, but rave about it today. Ten million people have coverage through the exchanges, 14 million have gained Medicaid coverage, and in a strong economy more people have jobs that provide health insurance, they say.
Some members of the coalition have financial as well as philosophical reasons for resisting the push to expand Medicare. Doctors and hospitals say Medicare generally pays less than private insurance, and hospitals say the payments frequently do not cover the costs of providing care to Medicare patients.
“Chronic underpayment to providers creates access issues for seniors, particularly with physicians, who may limit the number of Medicare patients they see,” said Richard J. Pollack, the president of the American Hospital Association. Congress, he said, often makes changes in Medicare for reasons that have nothing to do with sound health policy — to offset the costs of tax cuts, for example.
Moreover, Mr. Pollack said: “The government can be an unreliable business partner. What happens when the government shuts down? What happens if the health care system is even more dependent on Medicare and the government shuts down again?”
But the coalition does not speak for all health care providers.
The American College of Physicians, the largest medical specialty organization in the country, has supported a Medicare buy-in for people 55 to 64.
And “during the whole debate over the Affordable Care Act, we supported having a public option in the individual insurance market in every state,” said Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of the college, which represents 154,000 doctors who specialize in internal medicine.
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said there was “a knee-jerk reaction to anything that expands Medicare.”CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
Image
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said there was “a knee-jerk reaction to anything that expands Medicare.”CreditCreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
By Robert Pear
- Feb. 23, 2019
Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item. They have hired a top lieutenant in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to spearhead the effort. And their tactics will show Democrats what they are up against as the party drifts to the left on health care.
They also demonstrate how entrenched the Democrats’ last big health care victory, the Affordable Care Act, has become in the nation’s health care system.
The lobbyists’ message is simple: The Affordable Care Act is working reasonably well and should be improved, not repealed by Republicans or replaced by Democrats with a big new public program. More than 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health coverage. They like it, by and large, and should be allowed to keep it.
Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, says that Medicare for all will require tax increases and give politicians and bureaucrats control of medical decisions now made by doctors and patients — arguments that echo those made to stop Medicare in the 1960s, Mrs. Clinton’s health plan in 1993 and the Affordable Care Act a decade ago.
The coalition will step up the tempo in the coming week as Democrats in the House and the Senate plan to introduce bills to establish a single-payer system.
The name of the coalition is intentionally nondescript, and its executive director, Lauren Crawford Shaver, who led Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in 2016 to put marginal states into play, is cagey when asked for details. She says only that the group is planning “a big nationwide effort” with grass-roots allies.
But its reach is undeniable. The coalition has picked up more than 25 members, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the nation’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans.
And it has already sprung into action.
When Senator Bernie Sanders, the author of the Medicare for All Act, announced on Tuesday that he was again running for president, the coalition immediately attacked him as “a leading advocate for upending our nation’s health care system in favor of starting from scratch with Medicare for all.”
Mr. Sanders, independent of Vermont, fired back at the insurance and drug companies. “They make tens of billions of dollars a year in profits from this dysfunctional health care system and pay their C.E.O.s outrageous compensation packages,” Mr. Sanders said. “We’ve expected their opposition all along.”
When members of Congress unveiled legislation to let people age 50 to 64 buy into Medicare, the coalition conflated it with proposals to put all Americans into Medicare.
“This is a slippery slope to government-run health care for every American,” said David Merritt, an executive vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers.
The buy-in proposal for older Americans dates back to Bill Clinton’s presidency, and many of its advocates have put it forward as a moderate alternative to Medicare for all.
Forbes Tate, a public affairs company that lobbies for many health care and drug companies, coordinates the work of the partnership, but is not registered to lobby on its behalf.
“There are no direct lobbyists for the partnership,” Ms. Shaver said. “We work through all of our different groups. They have their own lobbyists who do obviously lobby on Medicare for all. But there are no registered lobbyists for the partnership because we are not doing that directly at this time.”
The coalition, like President Trump, attacks any proposals that smack of socialized medicine. But it also has a positive agenda. It wants to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in Texas, Florida and other states that have yet to do so. It wants to expand federal subsidies under the health law so insurance will be affordable to more people. And it wants to stabilize premiums by persuading states to set up reinsurance programs, using a combination of federal and state funds to help pay the largest claims.
Beyond their desire to preserve the status quo, coalition members have done well by the Affordable Care Act. Many participants, such as the American Medical Association, the pharmaceuticals lobby and the hospital association, backed the A.C.A. from the start, banking that more insured Americans would mean more customers. The hospitals saw the health law’s Medicaid expansion as a lifeline as they struggled with the uninsured working poor.
Others, like the National Retail Federation, opposed the A.C.A. but have tried to make it work.
The need to bolster the Affordable Care Act will become even more urgent, the coalition says, if Texas and other states succeed in their lawsuit to invalidate the entire law.
Even without legislation to expand Medicare, the program is sure to grow because of the aging of the baby boom generation. The number of Medicare beneficiaries, 60 million today, is expected to top 75 million within a decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare spending will grow under current law to $1.5 trillion in 2029, double the total projected for this year.
E. Neil Trautwein, the vice president for health care policy at the retail federation, which represents companies like Walmart, McDonald’s and Amazon, said his top priority was to protect the stability of the coverage that employers provide to employees.
proposed by Mr. Sanders in 2017 could disrupt that coverage. It would expand the list of items and services covered by Medicare and would prohibit employers from duplicating any of those benefits.
When Mr. Sanders introduced that bill, it was endorsed by several Democratic senators who have since become candidates for the party’s presidential nomination: Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
The more modest Medicare buy-in bill has been endorsed by Mr. Booker, Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Harris, as well as by another Democratic candidate for president, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and a potential candidate, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
Yet another Democratic proposal, allowing states to create a Medicaid buy-in program for all their residents, regardless of income, has won support from 23 senators, including Mr. Booker, Mr. Brown, Ms. Gillibrand, Ms. Harris, Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren.
Members of the coalition had different positions in the struggle to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, but rave about it today. Ten million people have coverage through the exchanges, 14 million have gained Medicaid coverage, and in a strong economy more people have jobs that provide health insurance, they say.
Some members of the coalition have financial as well as philosophical reasons for resisting the push to expand Medicare. Doctors and hospitals say Medicare generally pays less than private insurance, and hospitals say the payments frequently do not cover the costs of providing care to Medicare patients.
“Chronic underpayment to providers creates access issues for seniors, particularly with physicians, who may limit the number of Medicare patients they see,” said Richard J. Pollack, the president of the American Hospital Association. Congress, he said, often makes changes in Medicare for reasons that have nothing to do with sound health policy — to offset the costs of tax cuts, for example.
Moreover, Mr. Pollack said: “The government can be an unreliable business partner. What happens when the government shuts down? What happens if the health care system is even more dependent on Medicare and the government shuts down again?”
But the coalition does not speak for all health care providers.
The American College of Physicians, the largest medical specialty organization in the country, has supported a Medicare buy-in for people 55 to 64.
And “during the whole debate over the Affordable Care Act, we supported having a public option in the individual insurance market in every state,” said Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of the college, which represents 154,000 doctors who specialize in internal medicine.
Last edited:
intra vires
Glory to Michigan
Here are two good articles detaling the early part of Harris' career. The Politico article is longer and goes into more detail, while the Intercept's is just focused on the DA race. To me, the Politico piece also highlights how good of a campaigner she can be, which makes her hiring former Clinton staffers even more bizarre. It's also a pro-Harris, but not puff, piece despite the title.
‘Ruthless’: How Kamala Harris Won Her First Race
In Her First Race, Kamala Harris Campaigned as Tough on Crime — and Unseated the Country’s Most Progressive Prosecutor
As most of you know the Kamala thread basically a TLR thread.
‘Ruthless’: How Kamala Harris Won Her First Race
In Her First Race, Kamala Harris Campaigned as Tough on Crime — and Unseated the Country’s Most Progressive Prosecutor
As most of you know the Kamala thread basically a TLR thread.
afterlife2009
Superstar
"Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item. They have hired a top lieutenant in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to spearhead the effort."
ghouls get to fail upwards
UPDATE
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
Feel like Warren's stance on eliminating the filibuster and Bernie's Venezuela tweet should close that gap between them. She's outflanking him right now.UPDATE
ill
Superstar
Feel like Warren's stance on eliminating the filibuster and Bernie's Venezuela tweet should close that gap between them. She's outflanking him right now.
They need to run on the same ticket. fukk Liz Warren but a Bernie/Warren or Warren/Bernie ticket would steamroll in the next election.