Attacks on Medicare For All guided by lobbyists

[Morphine Prince 109,981]

36 minutes ago, ChromeAngel said:

I’m not sure what country you’re from, but I feel so lucky to have America’s healthcare system. I have family who live all throughout Europe and the healthcare is abysmal. Not the magical thing Americans think it is. I know people who live in Canada and their healthcare is a joke. The Doctors are incompetent and the hospitals are dirty. Oh and good luck if they go and cancel your surgery! Because that’s a thing that often happens. 

Nothing in this world if free. Nothing. You’re paying for it in some way. 

The US produces the most research and innovation than any other country by far. Nobody comes close. I don’t get why healthcare shouldn’t be a part of that. 

Healthcare coverage and quality of healthcare isn't the same thing. Yes, the US has great quality healthcare... if you're insured or can afford it. Everyone else is screwed. Some people even choose not to treat their conditions to save money. It's absurd. And even then it ranks lower than it should with the great hospitals and doctors we have. Low life expectancy and chronic diseases are rampant. Things that SHOULD be lower to justify how much the current system costs. 

Even then I've noticed doctors here can be pretty mediocre. All they do is treat symptoms a lot of the time and not the cause of the illness. Preventive medicine isn't as good as it should be. Just pump people up with drugs that pharma makes money off and we're done! Mediocre. I've had to visit many doctors this year with no results. Meanwhile I've been to a poor country in Latin America which has abysmal healthcare quality and yet I have yielded better results as a patient in the past. 

Research here is amazing though, I'll give us that. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

56 minutes ago, ChromeAngel said:

I’m not sure what country you’re from, but I feel so lucky to have America’s healthcare system. I have family who live all throughout Europe and the healthcare is abysmal. Not the magical thing Americans think it is. I know people who live in Canada and their healthcare is a joke. The Doctors are incompetent and the hospitals are dirty. Oh and good luck if they go and cancel your surgery! Because that’s a thing that often happens. 

Nothing in this world if free. Nothing. You’re paying for it in some way. 

The US produces the most research and innovation than any other country by far. Nobody comes close. I don’t get why healthcare shouldn’t be a part of that. 

He lives in Canada  A few other points - 1) M4A isn't free, we all pay for it, the rich more than the poor, and 2) It will have no impact on research or its funding, which is already mostly funded by Tax payers... We're already paying for it. If anything, this is more argument as to why we should be able to reap the rewards of the innovation we achieve for more reasonable prices. Instead, things go to other countries where the prices are reasonable compared to the price of production, and here we've got people jacking up prices of Insulin just because they can...

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Medicare currently doesn’t completely cover health costs in the US. Individuals have to purchase a separate policy to cover the “donut hole”. People act like Medicare is complete coverage, and it isn’t even that.

The attitudes and opinions have been consistent towards M4A, if you look at how the questions have been framed. People are in agreement that we need to have insurance coverage for all Americans. They just are apprehensive about giving up their own insurance, especially to the government. People look to examples like the VA or state designated “safety net” hospitals as examples of government run examples of health agencies and they are worried that M4A will end up like those examples.

Medicare currently is only available for citizens who are 65+ and is constantly under attack from Republicans who don't like the idea of any safety net programs, despite their generally high approval ratings. They would gut it if they could, same with Social Security, and they try to almost anytime a budget proposal is necessary along with Medicaid. So, it's not surprising that it currently isn't comprehensive coverage - its literally the same thing they do with everything. The ACA? Decently effective, but ineffective in states where Republican governors and led legislatures have refused to ever fully implement it, literally placing the burden of increased charges and payment onto their constituents so they can turn around and say "look, its more expensive and it doesn't work!"

(A hint: that's what they'll do to a Public Option as well, but something they cannot do to Medicare 4 All...If they want to sell "hey, we're literally taking away the healthcare of every person in America!" then they can be my damn guest. )

No one is "acting like Medicare is complete coverage" - One of the core tenants of Bernie's M4A plan is that it literally expands it massively to BE comprehensive coverage. It will cover:  inpatient and outpatient hospital care, emergency services, primary and preventative care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity and newborn care, pediatrics and home- and community-based long-term services. Dental, hearing and vision care would also be included. Fun fact, it will also cover things like PrEP and transitional treatment required for Trans people  That's Trans people being able to get hormones and even surgery covered by Medicare without having to worry about their parents impeding their lives, having to prove to shitty psychologists that they "really" have gender dysphoria, etc. Medicare For All is the most pro LGBT+ plan out there! (And honestly, this should be a bigger part of Sanders/Warren's campaigns, but they already have the LGBT vote over anyone else, so its whatever)

The idea that individuals are giving up their health insurance to the government is exactly the point of this thread - exposed as a talking point that was created by lobbyists who are employed by the Pharmaceutical industry and private health insurance industry to save their profit margins! 

To clarify a few things: Medicare For All is not Government Health Care, it is Government paid Health Care. We would just pay the government now instead of private insurers; Health care providers (doctors, nurses, physicians, clinicians, etc.) are not becoming Government employees. If your family doctor is Jeffrey and he's really great with your kids, he will still be able to be your doctor AND you'll be able to have other choices as well because more doctors will be in network AND it will cost less.

So, you won't be "giving up your health insurance to the government for government health care." You are giving up having to pay out of pocket expenses for prescription drugs, checkups, procedures, complications, premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. That is the function of our beloved Private Insurers. To be a middle man that exists to make profit for themselves first, doctors/hospitals second, and never about the quality of care or finances of the people they insure. They aren't the doctors giving you your life saving surgery, they're the people deciding if its "medically necessary" and if they will help you pay for it or not. Under M4A, It will just be paid for. If this is really what people love and want to hold on to, show me those people. Keep in mind that thats why this thread was created, to show the intentions of the people who are trying to get people like you to believe it. They want the public to see Private Insurance as their friend, the thing their union worked so hard to get, because getting rid of it costs them money, even if it ensures better care for every single person in America. Yes, even for people who have "good" insurance.

And do you know who is responsible for perpetuating distrust in government social safety nets and public goods? Republicans! Because it costs them money and poor people are exploitable! Trump is literally as we speak about to kick 750,000 people off SNAP (Food stamps) because it saves just a bit of money and helps perpetuates the idea that poor people don't get anything because they don't deserve it (meanwhile, no one questions how we can afford giving a $1.5 trillion dollar tax break to billionaires and the wealthy despite it having very little to no serious upswing for the state of the nation!)

I'm not calling you a republican, I'm explaining why people on the left call these "Republican talking points" and why centrism is really "center-right" these days, yes even when Pete Buttigieg says these things. You're falling for what is essentially propaganda that has very clear explanations based on facts and figures and it helps to fit an agenda that is incredibly damaging to poor people and minorities who benefit the most from these social programs.

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

I’ve often wondered about this. Why doesn’t Vermont have a stellar health care system? They have a constituency willing to try for universal coverage and a state with a healthy tax base and lower risk individuals. It’s a perfect trial state.

For that matter, why haven’t they been one of the states to go to free college for all? Especially under Bernie pushing for it for ages? Other states have free community college, or even free state schools. Vermont’s State tuition is the highest in the US. 

Programs sound like good ideas, until you go to fund them.

I feel like you didn't read the responses in this thread first, these seemingly gotcha questions are asked and answered already. There were even links and images  

I'll say it again for those who are interested, though this sounds like common sense to me... Bernie Sanders is a single senator from Vermont. One Senator does not decide the makeup of a state legislature, which is a separate entity from Congress. He is not even the Governor, so although he has massive support and political power, he does not decide the agenda of his state. 

As for why "Green Mountain Care" (a different single-payer system) was not implemented, I already discussed it in length, but I'll point out again that the reason isn't because it was impossible or not viable, or even because it was *too* expensive. It was fundable and executable, but became less politically feasible in ways that "Medicare For All" (a different, much more progressive and expansive single-payer system proposal) does not have issues with.

[Whispering 18,865]

7 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 

Medicare currently is only available for citizens who are 65+ and is constantly under attack from Republicans who don't like the idea of any safety net programs, despite their generally high approval ratings. They would gut it if they could, same with Social Security, and they try to almost anytime a budget proposal is necessary along with Medicaid. So, it's not surprising that it currently isn't comprehensive coverage - its literally the same thing they do with everything. The ACA? Decently effective, but ineffective in states where Republican governors and led legislatures have refused to ever fully implement it, literally placing the burden of increased charges and payment onto their constituents so they can turn around and say "look, its more expensive and it doesn't work!"

(A hint: that's what they'll do to a Public Option as well, but something they cannot do to Medicare 4 All...If they want to sell "hey, we're literally taking away the healthcare of every person in America!" then they can be my damn guest. )

No one is "acting like Medicare is complete coverage" - One of the core tenants of Bernie's M4A plan is that it literally expands it massively to BE comprehensive coverage. It will cover:  inpatient and outpatient hospital care, emergency services, primary and preventative care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity and newborn care, pediatrics and home- and community-based long-term services. Dental, hearing and vision care would also be included. Fun fact, it will also cover things like PrEP and transitional treatment required for Trans people  That's Trans people being able to get hormones and even surgery covered by Medicare without having to worry about their parents impeding their lives, having to prove to shitty psychologists that they "really" have gender dysphoria, etc. Medicare For All is the most pro LGBT+ plan out there! (And honestly, this should be a bigger part of Sanders/Warren's campaigns, but they already have the LGBT vote over anyone else, so its whatever)

The idea that individuals are giving up their health insurance to the government is exactly the point of this thread - exposed as a talking point that was created by lobbyists who are employed by the Pharmaceutical industry and private health insurance industry to save their profit margins! 

To clarify a few things: Medicare For All is not Government Health Care, it is Government paid Health Care. We would just pay the government now instead of private insurers; Health care providers (doctors, nurses, physicians, clinicians, etc.) are not becoming Government employees. If your family doctor is Jeffrey and he's really great with your kids, he will still be able to be your doctor AND you'll be able to have other choices as well because more doctors will be in network AND it will cost less.

So, you won't be "giving up your health insurance to the government for government health care." You are giving up having to pay out of pocket expenses for prescription drugs, checkups, procedures, complications, premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. That is the function of our beloved Private Insurers. To be a middle man that exists to make profit for themselves first, doctors/hospitals second, and never about the quality of care or finances of the people they insure. They aren't the doctors giving you your life saving surgery, they're the people deciding if its "medically necessary" and if they will help you pay for it or not. Under M4A, It will just be paid for. If this is really what people love and want to hold on to, show me those people. Keep in mind that thats why this thread was created, to show the intentions of the people who are trying to get people like you to believe it. They want the public to see Private Insurance as their friend, the thing their union worked so hard to get, because getting rid of it costs them money, even if it ensures better care for every single person in America. Yes, even for people who have "good" insurance.

And do you know who is responsible for perpetuating distrust in government social safety nets and public goods? Republicans! Because it costs them money and poor people are exploitable! Trump is literally as we speak about to kick 750,000 people off SNAP (Food stamps) because it saves just a bit of money and helps perpetuates the idea that poor people don't get anything because they don't deserve it (meanwhile, no one questions how we can afford giving a $1.5 trillion dollar tax break to billionaires and the wealthy despite it having very little to no serious upswing for the state of the nation!)

I'm not calling you a republican, I'm explaining why people on the left call these "Republican talking points" and why centrism is really "center-right" these days, yes even when Pete Buttigieg says these things. You're falling for what is essentially propaganda that has very clear explanations based on facts and figures and it helps to fit an agenda that is incredibly damaging to poor people and minorities who benefit the most from these social programs.

I feel like you didn't read the responses in this thread first, these seemingly gotcha questions are asked and answered already. There were even links and images  

I'll say it again for those who are interested, though this sounds like common sense to me... Bernie Sanders is a single senator from Vermont. One Senator does not decide the makeup of a state legislature, which is a separate entity from Congress. He is not even the Governor, so although he has massive support and political power, he does not decide the agenda of his state. 

As for why "Green Mountain Care" (a different single-payer system) was not implemented, I already discussed it in length, but I'll point out again that the reason isn't because it was impossible or not viable, or even because it was *too* expensive. It was fundable and executable, but became less politically feasible in ways that "Medicare For All" (a different, much more progressive and expansive single-payer system proposal) does not have issues with.

Yes, I know what Medicare is and who it is available for. I help my grandparents find their supplemental plans every year. The over 55 is the most active and consistent voting base, up and down the ticket. They aren’t getting rid of Medicare. 

 I know what Bernie and Warren are proposing. All I was saying is that “Medicare for All” doesn’t even make sense the way it is now. It really should be titled Super Medicare Platinum Plus for All. Lol

Yes, I know that you can keep your doctor, etc. The issue is when the government is in charge instead of your employer. People understand this, people who have been using their companies or employer’s healthcare systems for decades. Union workers, Teachers, Firemen, Policemen have good private insurance policies. When you have something good and reliable, it’s only natural to be apprehensive about turning it over to the US government...you know, the folks that are currently giving millionaires more money, terminating SNAP (both that you mentioned) separating babies from their parents and denying that climate change exist. It’s not like people don’t have reason to be skeptical of the government taking over something that has to do with life and death for them and their immediate family.

 

Bernie was a Congressman for 16 years though. He’s been a Congressman and Senator in Vermont for decades. He is supposedly one of the most liked Senators from any state. One would think he could get some of his pet projects pushed through in his state, especially since other states have led the way on some of these platforms. It would be good if he could point to his state being progressive in these areas, instead of being one of the most expensive for state tuition. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

3 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

This isn't *actually* true.

Duplicative insurance would be illegal. You won't be able to have Medicare and get another insurance coverer for something that would be covered, like a life saving surgery.

You will however be able to use private insurance to get coverage on things like plastic surgery, etc. - lucrative markets and where the wealthiest doctors and providers work  

I’m aware but lbr, it’s eliminating private insurance. Which is good btw because **** private insurance. But lbr here, what u said is like 1% of the private insurance market, practically speaking private insurance will be illegal. 

[thedirtymonster 791]

13 hours ago, TheQueenEnthusiast said:

You sound so privileged it hurts. Literally every other 'developed' nation has its own national healthcare. Even my poor little home country doesn't have the inflated ass prices for healthcare this country has. This is literally only a US phenomena. It's literally because pharmas, insurance companies, and hospitals (and all their lobbying) have been able to wreck havoc because of some false sense of CAPITALISM. It's so sad that *you* who's probably LGBTQ doesn't support this considering the chaos that was and is the AIDS epidemic and how much it greatly defined and hurt the community. Shame. 

There are many other approaches that could be taken to lower health care costs, and get us to "Universal" healthcare. There are bills RIGHT NOW on Mitch McConnell's desk that would do just that. One, put forth by Amy Klobuchar, would allow us in the United States to purchase pharmaceuticals from other countries for a FRACTION of the cost they're charging in the United States. Another, also put forth by Ms. Klobuchar, would allow Medicare to negotiate prices, a practice that is currently illegal. Further, we need to get the Public Option passed, so people who want to stay on their insurance can stay on their insurance, and those who prefer Medicare, can buy into that.

...And how DARE you throw in supporting LGBT rights as a basis for supporting Medicare for Freaking All?! I want everyone to have healthcare, of course, especially in my own community, but Medicare for All is not the answer for that. As a matter of fact, supporting that idea is counteractive! Our government was designed to work slowly to avoid catastrophic mistakes. Progress is achieved through hard work and determination, reaching across the aisle, having debates, and bringing other people around to a common viewpoint. Electing a left-wing liberal who only demands their way or nothing would not achieve anything. As a matter of fact, it would play into the Republicans' idea that Democrats are all socialists who want to destroy the American dream and the prospect of entrepreneurship. They'd shut down and nothing would get accomplished. The root of "Progressive" is "Progress", and the only people I see actually making progress are those who understand this.
 

[Economy 53,099]

3 minutes ago, thedirtymonster said:

There are many other approaches that could be taken to lower health care costs, and get us to "Universal" healthcare. There are bills RIGHT NOW on Mitch McConnell's desk that would do just that. One, put forth by Amy Klobuchar, would allow us in the United States to purchase pharmaceuticals from other countries for a FRACTION of the cost they're charging in the United States. Another, also put forth by Ms. Klobuchar, would allow Medicare to negotiate prices, a practice that is currently illegal. Further, we need to get the Public Option passed, so people who want to stay on their insurance can stay on their insurance, and those who prefer Medicare, can buy into that.

...And how DARE you throw in supporting LGBT rights as a basis for supporting Medicare for Freaking All?! I want everyone to have healthcare, of course, especially in my own community, but Medicare for All is not the answer for that. As a matter of fact, supporting that idea is counteractive! Our government was designed to work slowly to avoid catastrophic mistakes. Progress is achieved through hard work and determination, reaching across the aisle, having debates, and bringing other people around to a common viewpoint. Electing a left-wing liberal who only demands their way or nothing would not achieve anything. As a matter of fact, it would play into the Republicans' idea that Democrats are all socialists who want to destroy the American dream and the prospect of entrepreneurship. They'd shut down and nothing would get accomplished. The root of "Progressive" is "Progress", and the only people I see actually making progress are those who understand this.
 

Setting aside the rude priveledged comment made by that user (with some far left ppl if u take any stance other than the socialist policies they support you are automatically some "priveledged" idiot that doesn't understand anything and how dare you disagree)

 

But overall I think the idea to shift to more coverage and eventually a single payer system is the right one

 

As much as the private sector tends to be better at running and doing things more efficiently than the government, for reasons I mentioned in my comment (and more) healthcare is one industry that should not remain private. Healthcare doesn't follow the supply and demand and competition rules to the same extent most products do not to mention it's hard to put a price on life. Everyone should have access poor or not

 

The US system is unnecessairy expensive... The money spent on insurance premiums (that has to pay insurance profit margins plus hospital profit margins that are added into cost) could easily fund a Universal health system

 

Some people argue universal health care is slower but

 

#1. It's slower because everyone actually has access to it... A health system being faster by getting less usage because people can't afford it is a terrible reason for a system being faster

 

#2 It's also the money spent in it. For example I'm from Canada and we like keeping our budget in check and not running big deficits... We could make it faster and improve quality with our Universal system simply by increasing funding we just choose not to in order to keep costs in check

 

The US with the amount it already spends per capita on health (way more than other developed Nations) could have a better and faster universal health system than developed places like Canada, Europe or Japan

[Othon 34,299]

6 minutes ago, Economy said:

(with some far left ppl if u take any stance other than the socialist policies they support you are automatically some "priveledged" idiot that doesn't understand anything and how dare you disagree)

Why do you keep using the term "far left" to dismiss people that are advocating for a healthcare system like the one you currently get to take advantage of? 

[Economy 53,099]

24 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Why do you keep using the term "far left" to dismiss people that are advocating for a healthcare system like the one you currently get to take advantage of? 

One I didn't dismiss anyone, what I dismissed was the rude way the opinion was expressed... and also because when I'm talking about far left I'm not talking about the healthcare system itself. U don't have to be far left on the spectrum to support free healthcare. Even some conservatives here in Canada do not like the idea of going private.

 

But the attitude of calling ppl ignorant, going on long rants if they don't agree with you and making assumptions about someone acting privedlged for disagreeing (with absolutely no way of knowing how priveledged they really are)...

 

Let's just say I've seen this attitude mostly from the most left users on this site and people in general tbh

 

I don't disagree with all left policies... In this case I even agree with free healthcare...

 

I just don't like the intolerant attitude that keeps rising on the left. They are convinced they know everything and if u argue against anything for some reason your "ignorant" or "taking the side of Corporations etc" even if u have reasons for thinking a certain policy could backfire and it has nothing to do with taking the sides of the rich

 

The right is guilty of it too but given there's few on this website they haven't managed to piss me off

 

U can blame me for bringing up these comments all u want but I wouldn't have even mentioned that on my last reply if @TheQueenEnthusiast didn't reply rudely like that for disagreeing

 

In fact most of the times I've said anything about left wingers attitudes it's when someone else instigates it first. I don't typically randomly mention it out of the blue unless it's a specific argument about political spectrums, or mostly frequently, when someone else is rude first 

 

And btw I get mad at anyone that is disrespectful. I respond to centrists too like the user that called the users "left clowns"

 

It's just that 75% or more of the time the nastiest comments or rude replies or accusations have legit come from left users and the worst is that the left doesn't acknowledge it has this problem. It wouldn't admit it because it's everyone else that is "ignorant"

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

6 hours ago, Whispering said:

Yes, I know what Medicare is and who it is available for. I help my grandparents find their supplemental plans every year. The over 55 is the most active and consistent voting base, up and down the ticket. They aren’t getting rid of Medicare. 

Yes, I know what Bernie and Warren are proposing. All I was saying is that “Medicare for All” doesn’t even make sense the way it is now. It really should be titled Super Medicare Platinum Plus for All. Lol

Yes, I know that you can keep your doctor, etc. The issue is when the government is in charge instead of your employer. People understand this, people who have been using their companies or employer’s healthcare systems for decades. Union workers, Teachers, Firemen, Policemen have good private insurance policies. When you have something good and reliable, it’s only natural to be apprehensive about turning it over to the US government...you know, the folks that are currently giving millionaires more money, terminating SNAP (both that you mentioned) separating babies from their parents and denying that climate change exist. It’s not like people don’t have reason to be skeptical of the government taking over something that has to do with life and death for them and their immediate family.

 

Bernie was a Congressman for 16 years though. He’s been a Congressman and Senator in Vermont for decades. He is supposedly one of the most liked Senators from any state. One would think he could get some of his pet projects pushed through in his state, especially since other states have led the way on some of these platforms. It would be good if he could point to his state being progressive in these areas, instead of being one of the most expensive for state tuition. 

If your argument is that some people believe the government will somehow be worse, you've misunderstood what the government's role in healthcare will be.  You can't control what every person believes, but you can clarify misconceptions.Thankfully, I've restated it and explained it to you specifically a few times now. I can't make you accept it, but it is still absolutely true. At this point, I'm explaining M4A to people every single day, but to my relief, regular people that are not on the internet do not cling  to talking points to their last breath. They know when a proposal makes sense for them, how it will materially affect them, etc. It is only when we get caught up in the exercise of arguing with people who have ideological stake in refusing to concede points that it becomes contentious. If Bill asks me how much money M4A will cost him as an individual, we can show him. If I tell him he will save money, and he asks how much he will save under M4A, we can look up an estimate. He can see that the money he will save will out weigh the tax required to cover it. If Bill tells me how much money his current cost for prescription drugs tends to be, we can point to the cap on drug prices yearly, if Bill shows me what his current insurance does and does not cover, we can point to the fact that M4A will be comprehensive coverage and not contingent upon his "plan." It's very simple. If people don't believe it, we can show them examples of where and why it will work because it has already worked elsewhere. If they say "but America isn't Germany" I can just explain what is different   If he points to systems like the VA or safety net hospitals and their inefficiency, I can literally juts explain what makes them ineffective, and why it does not apply to M4A. That is the power of having facts and information on your side. It is easy to defend. 

Honestly though, the real tea about this argument you are making ("some people like their existing healthcare and think a government option would be worse")  is that it also at its core suggests that good health care should be a reward for adequate employment, and that people associate government run programs with the poor, and fear being perceived as poor or needy. It suggests that people need to get college degrees or certificates and enter stable, sometimes lucrative and always upwardly mobile career fields with strong unionizing power in order to deserve basic health care, and if they don't have this, their deaths and financial ruin are an acceptable loss in exchange for other people being able to keep predatory health insurers that quite literally take advantage of everyone. If your position is "This system only abuses me a little" over "I want a system that doesn't abuse anyone" well that's on you.  This sounds abhorrent I would assume, maybe you'll accuse me of putting words in your mouth, but that's the reality that this argument has to grapple with. Votes are selfish in nature, I understand this, and everyone can vote with their best interests in mind, but some people vote not only with their best interest at heart, but in perspective and respect of a bigger picture (and those voters tend to be liberals  ) so I think its worth bringing up.
 

~~~

Calling a bill to ensure everyone in America has health care from birth to death and improving the lives of millions of people a "pet project" is really quite telling. You say "One would think..." - Who is "One?" And What would they think? Do most state senators live in states that have a unified world view on their beliefs or policy plans outside of their state? The point of you making this statement is to leave up in the air the assumption that the reason Vermont is not a single-payer, democratic socialist haven of progressiveness is somehow because its not possible, or that the ideas aren't popular, and this would be an intellectually dishonest thing to do. If it raises some questions so to speak, ask those questions and get answers to them and then move on.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

If your argument is that some people believe the government will somehow be worse, you've misunderstood what the government's role in healthcare will be.  You can't control what every person believes, but you can clarify misconceptions.Thankfully, I've restated it and explained it to you specifically a few times now. I can't make you accept it, but it is still absolutely true. At this point, I'm explaining M4A to people every single day, but to my relief, regular people that are not on the internet do not cling  to talking points to their last breath. They know when a proposal makes sense for them, how it will materially affect them, etc. It is only when we get caught up in the exercise of arguing with people who have ideological stake in refusing to concede points that it becomes contentious. If Bill asks me how much money M4A will cost him as an individual, we can show him. If I tell him he will save money, and he asks how much he will save under M4A, we can look up an estimate. He can see that the money he will save will out weigh the tax required to cover it. If Bill tells me how much money his current cost for prescription drugs tends to be, we can point to the cap on drug prices yearly, if Bill shows me what his current insurance does and does not cover, we can point to the fact that M4A will be comprehensive coverage and not contingent upon his "plan." It's very simple. If people don't believe it, we can show them examples of where and why it will work because it has already worked elsewhere. If they say "but America isn't Germany" I can just explain what is different   If he points to systems like the VA or safety net hospitals and their inefficiency, I can literally juts explain what makes them ineffective, and why it does not apply to M4A. That is the power of having facts and information on your side. It is easy to defend. 

Honestly though, the real tea about this argument you are making ("some people like their existing healthcare and think a government option would be worse")  is that it also at its core suggests that good health care should be a reward for adequate employment, and that people associate government run programs with the poor, and fear being perceived as poor or needy. It suggests that people need to get college degrees or certificates and enter stable, sometimes lucrative and always upwardly mobile career fields with strong unionizing power in order to deserve basic health care, and if they don't have this, their deaths and financial ruin are an acceptable loss in exchange for other people being able to keep predatory health insurers that quite literally take advantage of everyone. If your position is "This system only abuses me a little" over "I want a system that doesn't abuse anyone" well that's on you.  This sounds abhorrent I would assume, maybe you'll accuse me of putting words in your mouth, but that's the reality that this argument has to grapple with. Votes are selfish in nature, I understand this, and everyone can vote with their best interests in mind, but some people vote not only with their best interest at heart, but in perspective and respect of a bigger picture (and those voters tend to be liberals  ) so I think its worth bringing up.
 

~~~

Calling a bill to ensure everyone in America has health care from birth to death and improving the lives of millions of people a "pet project" is really quite telling. You say "One would think..." - Who is "One?" And What would they think? Do most state senators live in states that have a unified world view on their beliefs or policy plans outside of their state? The point of you making this statement is to leave up in the air the assumption that the reason Vermont is not a single-payer, democratic socialist haven of progressiveness is somehow because its not possible, or that the ideas aren't popular, and this would be an intellectually dishonest thing to do. If it raises some questions so to speak, ask those questions and get answers to them and then move on.

I get what you are saying. That doesn’t mean that I or that everyone will agree with your take on it. You can explain all you want to, that doesn’t mean that people aren’t going to be apprehensive and mistrustful of the government. Good intentions and “facts” and plans have a lot of room to deviate, change, fall short, collapse, go off course, etc. It’s much easier to give something to people than to take away or replace. Ignoring people’s fears and apprehensions are not going to make them go away.

No, it means that people have seen how those that have government run healthcare are treated and they are not impressed. They compare it to their insurance and facilities and they are genuinely concerned. You don’t have to have a college degree to work in a factory, or Costco, or union jobs, or to be a Firefighter. I’m not referring just to “college educated” or  “wealthy” people. 

Every politician has pet projects. Bernie is a politician, like all the rest of them. Congressmen do have certain proposals and projects that are important to them and important to those in the areas they serve. 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

I get what you are saying. That doesn’t mean that I or that everyone will agree with your take on it. You can explain all you want to, that doesn’t mean that people aren’t going to be apprehensive and mistrustful of the government. Good intentions and “facts” and plans have a lot of room to deviate, change, fall short, collapse, go off course, etc. It’s much easier to give something to people than to take away or replace. Ignoring people’s fears and apprehensions are not going to make them go away.

No, it means that people have seen how those that have government run healthcare are treated and they are not impressed. They compare it to their insurance and facilities and they are genuinely concerned. You don’t have to have a college degree to work in a factory, or Costco, or union jobs, or to be a Firefighter. I’m not referring just to “college educated” or  “wealthy” people. 

Every politician has pet projects. Bernie is a politician, like all the rest of them. Congressmen do have certain proposals and projects that are important to them and important to those in the areas they serve. 

 

You don't get what I'm saying, and I think its clear if you read my posts that I'm not ignoring fears or apprehensions, I'm directly addressing them and discussing where those fears and apprehensions come from. That's what grassroots organization and mobilization is all about - meeting people where they are at, listening, and offering support where they are flexible, because most people who are undecided or who support Pete, Warren, and Biden are flexible. If they have concerns about government "running" Health care, We speak from authority and with facts informing us that Medicare For All is NOT government "run" healthcare. Will some people still oppose it based on a sort of gut feeling? Sure, not everyone is reachable, but there are also many many angles to tackle this issue from.

To be clear, this isn't necessarily my strategy with you or other people on this website because many people make it increasingly clear that their stake in this fight isn't about what's right, or good, or best, its about who they support, who they don't support, and where they fall ideologically. You for instance claim you just want someone to beat trump, and you'll vote for whoever is the nominee, and that there are a lot of good, interesting candidates, but you don't identify as a progressive or a leftist, so when you actively spread untruths about Bernie Sanders and his positions and  excuse away any evidence of bias against him, whether its one comment or entire articles and reports about him multiple sources, it is clear that you are not a good faith actor in this discussion, you seem to have no interest in learning anything at all, and every response is a refutation on every single ground, never any concessions, whether you were wrong or not. 

You don't seem to be discussing this with me to learn about Medicare For All, or to have your concerns about it quelled - you've decided it's not the best against the evidence that it is and its evident from you liking a post on the first page of this thread that was aggressively debunked as misleading and false because it supported what you already believe. Then you fall back on "well, multiple people have concerns, so those concerns must be valid on the basis that multiple people have them" - No one argues they aren't valid, but concerns, especially concerns based on misconceptions or active misinformation campaigns like this can be easily assuaged or alleviated if they are actual concerns.

There are multiple ways to tackle changing people's minds on political topics. (Also, fun fact Obama care polled consistently lower than M4A even at its lowest, it still passed  ) Addressing concerns, attacking the opposition, putting things into perspective, comparing proposals, using fact-based arguments, etc. are just some effective methods. Some people do not want to change their mind regardless of the effort and have decided they have put their foot in the ground. That's cool, we move on to someone else OR just another issue, as candidates have multiple proposals and policy positions. If you want to know why these concerns are unfounded, you should watch some of Bernie and Elizabeth's town halls and interviews and rallies where they take questions  or talk to and listen the members of their campaign staff who help shape their policy and arguments, talk to real progressives 1 on 1, read the perspectives of health care professionals, and the economists who have studied M4A extensively, and finally maybe just literally read their proposals, because sometimes you say or allude to things that suggest you don't *actually* know what they even say. Some people are absolutely fundamentalist libertarians that dislike the idea of having to pay taxes for anything, especially involving other people, Yes, but just as many would rather their taxes go towards paying for public goods like universal healthcare and free college tuition than endless pointless wars and destroying the environment. Let's focus our eyes on the latter group. 
Again, this thread is an expose on the truth which is that political interests are arming the rhetoric that You are using to actively seek to mislead and lie to people and to get them to vote against their own interests and in the favor of private insurance. They are literally directly influencing the writing of journalists and writers who create discussion on the issue on behalf of the rich. Does that not concern you?

~~~

Also... no, yes it does literally mean that about perception. Don't tell me you're completely unaware of the decades long smear campaign and institutionalized stigma against poor people (esp. of color) who receive any sort of government assistance. There is a stigma to being poor, to getting help from the government, that's undeniable. As I've said, there are reasons why the VA's existence in gov't is not representative of how M4A would exist if you are actually interested. Like I've said, general distrust of government effectiveness is warranted, because there are times they have messed up, but the reasons why are not hard to explain in a way that even non politically engaged people can understand. M4A is an expansion of MEDICARE for a very specific political reason - It is hard to attack politically (publicly) and has remained popular for 50+ years. Study after study, and history itself show that despite initial opposition to public goods and services, people tend to overwhelmingly support them regardless of political affiliation because everyone literally benefits. You don't see smear campaigns that attack the necessity of Libraries, Museums, Public Education, The Police, Firefighters, Social Security, Medicare, etc. ever removing those institutions from American society, because those things are things we all kind of agree are necessary.

Also, you've missed my point about employment. It's not that you need to be a certain class to understand how past government programs have failed or suceeded, I'm saying that poor people are the most unhealthy, most uninsured and underinsured, and most vulnerable community in this fight. Some people may have jobs that give them relatively good health care, but not everyone is able to afford that health care, not everyone is able to get that job, and almost no one maintains that one job for life. The idea that some people (the people youre describing are generally middle class as opposed to working class or poor) can decide "I like my current insurance, everyone else be damned" IS a position of privilege, because millions of people in this country, and yes even some middle class people, don't have that luxury. Most people do not have comprehensive coverage that will stay with them in life unless they are wealthy. They will get married, get divorced, move cities or states, quit, get fired, get promoted, change jobs, have children, enter a new job market or industry, retire, go bankrupt, go into debt, etc. All of these are regular life events and moments that create potential gaps in Health Care Coverage and also can lead to extreme anxiety, stress, and insecurity. Not under Medicare For All. People want stability, and that's what this offers. Vote for your own personal success as you want, but I'm just saying we can't ignore that the alternative (yes, even a Public Option) will continue to screw over the most vulnerable people in this country, and it isn't fair to just ignore this. At least say "I prioritize my own income over __" - that is honest, and more respectable.

Finally: Pet Project - "A project, activity or goal pursued as a personal favorite, rather than because it is generally accepted as necessary or important." - That's why I called you out. Calling this that trivializes the issue and gives the perception that this is about a Personal goal of Bernie Sanders or his supporters, as opposed to a massive multiracial movement and coalition of working class people who are fighting for a better health care system and who have been doing it for years. This isn't about him, his ego, or even his presidency, its about literally being a servant of the people, and the people want this. He wouldn't support this if it wasn't the best, most cost effective, and most possible idea. Framing this retrospectively like "Congressmen all have policies they care about" is different than calling it a Pet Project. In fact, we should probably just stray away from calling proposals that are about saving lives pet projects at all, it does them a disservice  

[Whispering 18,865]

10 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

You don't get what I'm saying, and I think its clear if you read my posts that I'm not ignoring fears or apprehensions, I'm directly addressing them and discussing where those fears and apprehensions come from. That's what grassroots organization and mobilization is all about - meeting people where they are at, listening, and offering support where they are flexible, because most people who are undecided or who support Pete, Warren, and Biden are flexible. If they have concerns about government "running" Health care, We speak from authority and with facts informing us that Medicare For All is NOT government "run" healthcare. Will some people still oppose it based on a sort of gut feeling? Sure, not everyone is reachable, but there are also many many angles to tackle this issue from.

To be clear, this isn't necessarily my strategy with you or other people on this website because many people make it increasingly clear that their stake in this fight isn't about what's right, or good, or best, its about who they support, who they don't support, and where they fall ideologically. You for instance claim you just want someone to beat trump, and you'll vote for whoever is the nominee, and that there are a lot of good, interesting candidates, but you don't identify as a progressive or a leftist, so when you actively spread untruths about Bernie Sanders and his positions and  excuse away any evidence of bias against him, whether its one comment or entire articles and reports about him multiple sources, it is clear that you are not a good faith actor in this discussion, you seem to have no interest in learning anything at all, and every response is a refutation on every single ground, never any concessions, whether you were wrong or not. 

You don't seem to be discussing this with me to learn about Medicare For All, or to have your concerns about it quelled - you've decided it's not the best against the evidence that it is and its evident from you liking a post on the first page of this thread that was aggressively debunked as misleading and false because it supported what you already believe. Then you fall back on "well, multiple people have concerns, so those concerns must be valid on the basis that multiple people have them" - No one argues they aren't valid, but concerns, especially concerns based on misconceptions or active misinformation campaigns like this can be easily assuaged or alleviated if they are actual concerns.

There are multiple ways to tackle changing people's minds on political topics. (Also, fun fact Obama care polled consistently lower than M4A even at its lowest, it still passed  ) Addressing concerns, attacking the opposition, putting things into perspective, comparing proposals, using fact-based arguments, etc. are just some effective methods. Some people do not want to change their mind regardless of the effort and have decided they have put their foot in the ground. That's cool, we move on to someone else OR just another issue, as candidates have multiple proposals and policy positions. If you want to know why these concerns are unfounded, you should watch some of Bernie and Elizabeth's town halls and interviews and rallies where they take questions  or talk to and listen the members of their campaign staff who help shape their policy and arguments, talk to real progressives 1 on 1, read the perspectives of health care professionals, and the economists who have studied M4A extensively, and finally maybe just literally read their proposals, because sometimes you say or allude to things that suggest you don't *actually* know what they even say. Some people are absolutely fundamentalist libertarians that dislike the idea of having to pay taxes for anything, especially involving other people, Yes, but just as many would rather their taxes go towards paying for public goods like universal healthcare and free college tuition than endless pointless wars and destroying the environment. Let's focus our eyes on the latter group. 
Again, this thread is an expose on the truth which is that political interests are arming the rhetoric that You are using to actively seek to mislead and lie to people and to get them to vote against their own interests and in the favor of private insurance. They are literally directly influencing the writing of journalists and writers who create discussion on the issue on behalf of the rich. Does that not concern you?

~~~

Also... no, yes it does literally mean that about perception. Don't tell me you're completely unaware of the decades long smear campaign and institutionalized stigma against poor people (esp. of color) who receive any sort of government assistance. There is a stigma to being poor, to getting help from the government, that's undeniable. As I've said, there are reasons why the VA's existence in gov't is not representative of how M4A would exist if you are actually interested. Like I've said, general distrust of government effectiveness is warranted, because there are times they have messed up, but the reasons why are not hard to explain in a way that even non politically engaged people can understand. M4A is an expansion of MEDICARE for a very specific political reason - It is hard to attack politically (publicly) and has remained popular for 50+ years. Study after study, and history itself show that despite initial opposition to public goods and services, people tend to overwhelmingly support them regardless of political affiliation because everyone literally benefits. You don't see smear campaigns that attack the necessity of Libraries, Museums, Public Education, The Police, Firefighters, Social Security, Medicare, etc. ever removing those institutions from American society, because those things are things we all kind of agree are necessary.

Also, you've missed my point about employment. It's not that you need to be a certain class to understand how past government programs have failed or suceeded, I'm saying that poor people are the most unhealthy, most uninsured and underinsured, and most vulnerable community in this fight. Some people may have jobs that give them relatively good health care, but not everyone is able to afford that health care, not everyone is able to get that job, and almost no one maintains that one job for life. The idea that some people (the people youre describing are generally middle class as opposed to working class or poor) can decide "I like my current insurance, everyone else be damned" IS a position of privilege, because millions of people in this country, and yes even some middle class people, don't have that luxury. Most people do not have comprehensive coverage that will stay with them in life unless they are wealthy. They will get married, get divorced, move cities or states, quit, get fired, get promoted, change jobs, have children, enter a new job market or industry, retire, go bankrupt, go into debt, etc. All of these are regular life events and moments that create potential gaps in Health Care Coverage and also can lead to extreme anxiety, stress, and insecurity. Not under Medicare For All. People want stability, and that's what this offers. Vote for your own personal success as you want, but I'm just saying we can't ignore that the alternative (yes, even a Public Option) will continue to screw over the most vulnerable people in this country, and it isn't fair to just ignore this. At least say "I prioritize my own income over __" - that is honest, and more respectable.

Finally: Pet Project - "A project, activity or goal pursued as a personal favorite, rather than because it is generally accepted as necessary or important." - That's why I called you out. Calling this that trivializes the issue and gives the perception that this is about a Personal goal of Bernie Sanders or his supporters, as opposed to a massive multiracial movement and coalition of working class people who are fighting for a better health care system and who have been doing it for years. This isn't about him, his ego, or even his presidency, its about literally being a servant of the people, and the people want this. He wouldn't support this if it wasn't the best, most cost effective, and most possible idea. Framing this retrospectively like "Congressmen all have policies they care about" is different than calling it a Pet Project. In fact, we should probably just stray away from calling proposals that are about saving lives pet projects at all, it does them a disservice  

I have no desire to change their minds, they have concerns. They are valid because they are honest and truthful to them. They are the same concerns they have had for years, not since a couple if weeks or months ago when some random articles came out.

I stated that I would vote for whoever the Democratic Nominee was and that hasn’t changed. I also stated that I thought there were several worthwhile candidates, and that hasn’t changed either. Not everyone is overly invested in a singular candidate. I don’t believe one person has all the answers. There is no all knowing God running for the Democratic nomination. They are all a bunch of politicians, with a couple of businessmen and an new age author sprinkled in. Everyone of them is miles better than Trump, even the crystal lady. 

There are people who want to keep their insurance, but are also for extending the ACA and Medicare, you know. Just because people want to keep their plan, doesn’t mean they are against insurance for those who don’t have it.

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

Let's be very clear here Bernie is not a typical usual run of the mill corporate democratic politician 

He has bipartisan links, has a habit of helping creating/ authoring bills but taking his name out of them so as to make it pass through a right wing senate 

He's has no large super pac associations, isn't influenced by any major conglomerate ie the fossil fuel industry nor the healthcare industry. Has stuck to his guns on most major issues since inception. Been in the forefront fight for lgbt, race relations etc.  

An enemy of the MSM 

If it wasn't for the DNC interference for Hillary, he'd be our president.

 

 

[TheQueenEnthusiast 937]

On 12/4/2019 at 6:45 PM, Economy said:

One I didn't dismiss anyone, what I dismissed was the rude way the opinion was expressed... and also because when I'm talking about far left I'm not talking about the healthcare system itself. U don't have to be far left on the spectrum to support free healthcare. Even some conservatives here in Canada do not like the idea of going private.

 

But the attitude of calling ppl ignorant, going on long rants if they don't agree with you and making assumptions about someone acting privedlged for disagreeing (with absolutely no way of knowing how priveledged they really are)...

 

Let's just say I've seen this attitude mostly from the most left users on this site and people in general tbh

 

I don't disagree with all left policies... In this case I even agree with free healthcare...

 

I just don't like the intolerant attitude that keeps rising on the left. They are convinced they know everything and if u argue against anything for some reason your "ignorant" or "taking the side of Corporations etc" even if u have reasons for thinking a certain policy could backfire and it has nothing to do with taking the sides of the rich

 

The right is guilty of it too but given there's few on this website they haven't managed to piss me off

 

U can blame me for bringing up these comments all u want but I wouldn't have even mentioned that on my last reply if @TheQueenEnthusiast didn't reply rudely like that for disagreeing

 

In fact most of the times I've said anything about left wingers attitudes it's when someone else instigates it first. I don't typically randomly mention it out of the blue unless it's a specific argument about political spectrums, or mostly frequently, when someone else is rude first 

 

And btw I get mad at anyone that is disrespectful. I respond to centrists too like the user that called the users "left clowns"

 

It's just that 75% or more of the time the nastiest comments or rude replies or accusations have legit come from left users and the worst is that the left doesn't acknowledge it has this problem. It wouldn't admit it because it's everyone else that is "ignorant"

Call me whatever you want sis. Black and brown people, MY PEOPLE, are out here catching HIV in our communities. We engage in the same activities white gays do but it doesn't matter cause we're not rich and we don't have access to capital. I AM ANGRY that for white people this is "But our taxes?!?!" While for many in impoverished cities it's "Will I be able to live?" Or we can talk about And how about everyone in between? You people swear this is something that isn't actively killing people day by day. I am so tired of these ass discussions and socioeconomic discourses around black and brown livelihoods. 

Also love how you're calling me privileged. HAHAHA 

- From a Latino gay who has/had a single mother, 3 kids, and lived off of welfare. (I WILL NEVER be against any social net programs because they helped us, and now that we're middle class I advocate for those who cannot) Sit down. 

 

[TheQueenEnthusiast 937]

I am scared for black and brown queer people, sex workers, and all those who face the menace of white gay capitalist rhetoric. It's so freaking tiring. The fact that the people who helped liberate this community, and continuously do so are the ones that are being silenced.