2019 dem primary debates

[dank69]

Remember saying that also. I don't think either Trump or a Dem president would make me "suffer" in any way but than you for thinking about my welfare.

I know you don't think that but that's mostly because you don't know how to think.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Sorry, but this is the 'my sh*t don't stink' attitude about many on the left that drive me nuts.

Let's go back to 2009 for a moment, shall we? The dems owned both houses of Congress and Obama was pushing hard to get health insurance redone. The dems had their chance to prove that they weren't elitists and they blew it. They made effing sure that they didn't have to get stuck with peasant-class heath insurance. They were the same way in the '93 when Hillary was pushing for nationalized healthcare.

Take a look at the list of the richest Americans. A sizable number are progressives. I guaran-effing- tee you that they won't allow their puppets in DC to force them to get the same level of coverage that the hoi polloi will get.

The only way any of this changes is red states sending some intellectually honest senators to Washington.

 

[FerrelGeek]

My sister-in-law had to buy into one of the bronze level healthcare.gov plans. Between the premiums and deductibles, she had to pay ~$13k/yr before the plan covered anything. The plan I have at work didn't cost anywhere near that including my company's contribution.

But I'll give you props as your response was better than others. Good reply. Much appreciated.

The problem with that argument is that what's good enough for the masses - in this case, Medicare - is better than private insurance. Not just cheaper. Better. In private insurance, the most expensive plans - called platinum plans - are the most expensive mainly because they have no yearly deductibles, meaning they cover everything without you having to pay for any of it yourself. That's also what Medicare does. It's equivalent to those plans, and better than the gold, silver and bronze plans the rest of us have.

There may be some bells and whistles - like health club memberships - that some cadillac plans pay for that Medicare does not. If that is the concern of the elites, they can buy supplemental private insurance which would give them those bells and whistles. Nothing stops us from making that part of the system.

 

[vi edit]

My sister-in-law had to buy into one of the bronze level healthcare.gov plans. Between the premiums and deductibles, she had to pay ~$13k/yr before the plan covered anything. The plan I have at work didn't cost anywhere near that including my company's contribution.

But I'll give you props as your response was better than others. Good reply. Much appreciated.

And what state does she live in? States that didn't expand medicaid ended up with higher premiums.

https://familiesusa.org/product/50-state-look-medicaid-expansion

The health exchanges were localized and subject to overall health, wellness and risk pools of the base they covered. If her exchange was poorly funded and had high risks buying in, the premiums are going to be awful. Again, this is one of the arguments for a national payer. You flatten risk by bringing in young and healthy people to balance out the older/unhealthy.

 

[ivwshane]

Who wants to tell this guy he's a fucking idiot?

Sorry, but this is the 'my sh*t don't stink' attitude about many on the left that drive me nuts.

Let's go back to 2009 for a moment, shall we? The dems owned both houses of Congress and Obama was pushing hard to get health insurance redone. The dems had their chance to prove that they weren't elitists and they blew it. They made effing sure that they didn't have to get stuck with peasant-class heath insurance. They were the same way in the '93 when Hillary was pushing for nationalized healthcare.

Take a look at the list of the richest Americans. A sizable number are progressives. I guaran-effing- tee you that they won't allow their puppets in DC to force them to get the same level of coverage that the hoi polloi will get.

Anyone?

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

Several readers have asked us about Congress attempting to exempt itself from the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. A few said that a Facebook post claimed that President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Democrats in Congress were trying to “get themselves exempted from Obamacare,” in the words of one reader.

But there is no bill in Congress calling for an exemption from the health care law. In fact, members of Congress and their staffs face additional requirements that most Americans don’t have to meet.

Under the health care law, their insurance coverage will have to switch from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the group of private insurance plans that cover 8 million federal employees and retirees, to the exchanges created by the law. Those exchanges are meant for those who buy coverage on their own, the currently uninsured and small businesses. Members of Congress and their staffs would be the only employees of a large employer in the exchanges, which are set to begin offering insurance in January.

So, why is the false “exempt” claim making the Facebook rounds? There is reportedly concern on Capitol Hill that the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, won’t be able to smoothly transition members and their staffs into an exchange. The concern, as a Roll Call story explained, was that the government wouldn’t be able to make contributions toward the federal employees’ premiums, at least at the beginning of 2014. That would mean employees would pick up the whole tab for their insurance policies. Right now, the government pays 72 percent of premiums on average.

The “exempt” claims were sparked by a Politico report on April 24 that said secret talks were being held by lawmakers to change the requirement to get insurance through the exchanges because of this concern. The headline on the story said “Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption.”

After the story was published, a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid said there hadn’t been any discussions to exempt Congress from “provisions that apply to any employees of any other public or private employer offering health care.” And Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California told Politico that lawmakers and their staffs will indeed get insurance through the exchanges. “[T]he federal government will offer them health insurance coverage that they obtained through the exchanges because we want to get the same health care coverage everybody else has available to them,” he said.

We contacted the Office of Personnel Management and received this statement from an administration official: “Members of Congress will not receive anything that is not available to the public. The law doesn’t allow them to get insurance from FEHB, they are going to get insurance on the market place, just like uninsured individuals and small businesses.”

We can’t say what did or didn’t happen in any secret meetings. But we can say that no bill has been introduced to exempt members of Congress from the Affordable Care Act — and they were never exempt in the first place. Even if, hypothetically, Congress were to nullify the provision requiring members and their staffs to get insurance on the exchanges, it still wouldn’t amount to an exemption from the law. Lawmakers and staffers would be subject to the mandate to have health insurance or pay a fine, just as everyone else is.

The law provides a few exemptions from the requirement to have insurance, but only for those who earn too little to file taxes, those with financial hardships, those who can’t find affordable coverage, and some religious groups that qualify for Social Security exemptions, mainly Mennonite or Amish.

An Old Falsehood

Bogus claims about Congress being “exempt” date back to early 2010, when different health care bills were still being debated. Some Republicans claimed that Americans, except for members of Congress, would be forced into the government-run “public option” (which wasn’t part of the final bill that became law) or state-based exchanges (which are part of the law).

As we said previously, members of Congress get private health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which actually served as a model for the exchanges. Federal workers pick from among many health plans. The exchanges would operate in the same way — like a marketplace for those shopping for private insurance.

But some Republicans pushed the idea that if the exchanges were good enough for other Americans, they should be good enough for Congress. So, an amendment by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa was added to the Senate bill requiring that the federal government offer only health plans that were part of an exchange to members of Congress and their staffs. The law’s final language on this, written by Sen. Tom Coburn, says that: “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act.”

Congressional “staff” is defined as “all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.” As we reported before, Coburn said the provision wouldn’t apply to those working for committees or leadership staff, and a Congressional Research Service report agreed that could be the case.

In other words, the Affordable Care Act places on lawmakers and their staffs additional requirements that don’t pertain to other Americans with work-based insurance.

I remember when this happened too. Republicans thought they were forcing dems into a tough spot by making them give up access to their government provided health care, of course dems called their bluff and kept the amendment.

Apparently debunked lies are hard to ignore as gullible people still believe this shit.

 

[brycejones]

Sorry, but this is the 'my sh*t don't stink' attitude about many on the left that drive me nuts.

Let's go back to 2009 for a moment, shall we? The dems owned both houses of Congress and Obama was pushing hard to get health insurance redone. The dems had their chance to prove that they weren't elitists and they blew it. They made effing sure that they didn't have to get stuck with peasant-class heath insurance. They were the same way in the '93 when Hillary was pushing for nationalized healthcare.

Take a look at the list of the richest Americans. A sizable number are progressives. I guaran-effing- tee you that they won't allow their puppets in DC to force them to get the same level of coverage that the hoi polloi will get.

10 years later and you still believe bullshit.

 

[dank69]

10 years later and you still believe bullshit.

10 fucking years. And conservatives wonder why we call them stupid. You don;t want to be called stupid, stop being stupid.

 

[vi edit]

I was expecting a 5 point drop, but man Biden is getting PASTED in the polls. Down 10 points in some of the stuff that came in overnight. Harris is up 9 and Warren up 8. Pete down a point. This was a CNN poll I think. Biden still has a higher "Vs Trump" rating than all of them combined though.

We're still six months from Iowa, so plenty of time. But this was a much due correction and really put my thoughts onto a public stage. Even before his announcement Biden just looked and sounded tired and sloppy. Harris needs to be careful though, she is painting herself into some corners I'm not sure she wants to be standing in.

 

[dank69]

I was expecting a 5 point drop, but man Biden is getting PASTED in the polls. Down 10 points in some of the stuff that came in overnight. Harris is up 9 and Warren up 8. Pete down a point. This was a CNN poll I think. Biden still has a higher "Vs Trump" rating than all of them combined though.

We're still six months from Iowa, so plenty of time. But this was a much due correction and really put my thoughts onto a public stage. Even before his announcement Biden just looked and sounded tired and sloppy. Harris needs to be careful though, she is painting herself into some corners I'm not sure she wants to be standing in.

Yeah Biden's only advantage was name recognition but we see how much of an advantage that was, for anyone still not convinced that money in politics matters. Someone that just spends money drilling their name into people's heads will have a huge advantage over those that don't have money. That will always be the case with a society full of people that are apathetic or even hostile toward politics.

As soon as the others start gaining the name recognition, his lead evaporates. On top of that, his sloppy performance and wishy-washy fence dancing is killing him.

When you get to the vs. Trump polls, you now add non-Democrats to the mix and they don't know anything except what Fox News tells them. So again, Biden has the name recognition there that none of the other candidates have yet.

 

[glenn1]

We need an ATPN poll for whether Biden or Sanders did a better job at playing the "Grumpy Old White Guy" role in the debates.

 

[vi edit]

We need an ATPN poll for whether Biden or Sanders did a better job at playing the "Grumpy Old White Guy" role in the debates.

Sanders definitely has more of the Grandpa Simpson "OLD MAN SCREAMS AT CLOUD!" feel. At this point you could swap him out with an animatronic robot that just randomly yells about Big Pharma and Health Care is a basic human right and we must take it to wall street. Everything just feels like a programmed reaction coming from him since it's been his shtick for so long.

Biden is trying to channel some 1960's cool guy astronaut/fighter pilot and POINTS AND YELLS WORDS TO MAKE YOU THINK HE KNOWS THEM WELL.

 

[soundforbjt]

Biden's still ahead by double digits with the 45+ crowd, you know the ones that actually vote, while dropping bad with the young crowd (the ones who don't vote). Right now, I don't have a favorite yet. If Mayor Pete had more experience, but he's trending terribly with minority voters.

 

[glenn1]

Biden's still ahead by double digits with the 45+ crowd, you know the ones that actually vote, while dropping bad with the young crowd (the ones who don't vote). Right now, I don't have a favorite yet. If Mayor Pete had more experience, but he's trending terribly with minority voters.

Unfortunately isolating african-americans in polling data does show their support for typical LGBTQ issues is lower than the population at large (and not by a small amount) and this could translate to lower support for Mayor Pete the candidate. For example, AA support for same-sex marriage just recently broke above 50% whereas it's been at that level since 2012-2013 for whites and hispanics. I don't think that's an insurmountable hill to climb, but it should likewise be acknowledged as a headwind.

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

 

[SMOGZINN]

Unfortunately isolating african-americans in polling data does show their support for typical LGBTQ issues is lower than the population at large (and not by a small amount) and this could translate to lower support for Mayor Pete the candidate. For example, AA support for same-sex marriage just recently broke above 50% whereas it's been at that level since 2012-2013 for whites and hispanics. I don't think that's an insurmountable hill to climb, but it should likewise be acknowledged as a headwind.

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Perhaps an issue, but Democrats in general tend to be a lot less single issue voters, and do vote for the candidate that falls more in line with their stance. Mayor Pete will definitely fall more in line with their general political stance then Trump. The only real problem may be that it could act to suppress excitement to go out and vote in general, but I think Trump will take care of that for Democrats. He is such a polarizing personality that a lot of people that would not normally care to vote for a candidate that is not exciting for them will care to go out and vote against one that is disgusting to them.

 

[soulcougher73]

Perhaps an issue, but Democrats in general tend to be a lot less single issue voters, and do vote for the candidate that falls more in line with their stance. Mayor Pete will definitely fall more in line with their general political stance then Trump. The only real problem may be that it could act to suppress excitement to go out and vote in general, but I think Trump will take care of that for Democrats. He is such a polarizing personality that a lot of people that would not normally care to vote for a candidate that is not exciting for them will care to go out and vote against one that is disgusting to them.

I want to believe we will see a record turn out in the next election of voters. As you said Trump is so polarizing and many view him and the party as trying to instill a dictatorship, i hope that alone would bring people out to stop him. I guess we shall see. Every time i put my faith in humanity they let me down, so i wont be holding my breath.

 

[glenn1]

Perhaps an issue, but Democrats in general tend to be a lot less single issue voters, and do vote for the candidate that falls more in line with their stance. Mayor Pete will definitely fall more in line with their general political stance then Trump. The only real problem may be that it could act to suppress excitement to go out and vote in general, but I think Trump will take care of that for Democrats. He is such a polarizing personality that a lot of people that would not normally care to vote for a candidate that is not exciting for them will care to go out and vote against one that is disgusting to them.

I was speaking more of it impacting his polling among AA voters in the primaries versus other Dem candidates, especially in the early states where more candidates provide a plausible reason to vote against him other than "he's gay." I agree that if he's the pick (either as POTUS or VP) that AA voters will lose any reticence they may have felt before he won the Dem nomination and was actually on the ballot vs. Trump.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I was speaking more of it impacting his polling among AA voters in the primaries versus other Dem candidates, especially in the early states where more candidates provide a plausible reason to vote against him other than "he's gay." I agree that if he's the pick (either as POTUS or VP) that AA voters will lose any reticence they may have felt before he won the Dem nomination and was actually on the ballot vs. Trump.

Oh, yea when talking about the primaries I agree with you. But I think just about every candidate on stage has something that you can point at and call a negative. It will be an interesting primary season to see how the DNC handles it, and which ones primary voters prioritize. Each candidate has a long path ahead, and I think there are going to be a lot of other factors that will weigh heavier on them than their starting positions.

Specifically, I think Mayor Pete has a bigger problem with his perceived inaction on the police problem, especially among black voters, than his sexuality.

 

[FerrelGeek]

My error was in my haste to send a reply. I actually have a life outside of this forum. That haste has bitten me before, so I'll apologize for my rushing and not being complete.

Correct that the final version of the ACA did what you indicated. Congress did include themselves. However, what you failed to indicate is that in the earlier version of the bill, they did indeed exclude themselves. They were called out on it and knew they'd have to change that. That's the thing that set me off.

The elitist pigs running our government will continue to try sh*t like that. I don't worship our government like some on here do. But I'll stand behind anyone on here that wants to call them out on any attempt to set themselves up to not be subject to the laws that they pass.

Who wants to tell this guy he's a fucking idiot?
Anyone?
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/



I remember when this happened too. Republicans thought they were forcing dems into a tough spot by making them give up access to their government provided health care, of course dems called their bluff and kept the amendment.

Apparently debunked lies are hard to ignore as gullible people still believe this shit.

 

[hal2kilo]

We need an ATPN poll for whether Biden or Sanders did a better job at playing the "Grumpy Old White Guy" role in the debates.

That's a tough one.

 

[thilanliyan]

But I'll stand behind anyone on here that wants to call them out on any attempt to set themselves up to not be subject to the laws that they pass.

Errr...so should Trump not be above the law either (ie. obstruction, campaign finance, etc)?

 

[hal2kilo]

Sanders definitely has more of the Grandpa Simpson "OLD MAN SCREAMS AT CLOUD!" feel. At this point you could swap him out with an animatronic robot that just randomly yells about Big Pharma and Health Care is a basic human right and we must take it to wall street. Everything just feels like a programmed reaction coming from him since it's been his shtick for so long.

Biden is trying to channel some 1960's cool guy astronaut/fighter pilot and POINTS AND YELLS WORDS TO MAKE YOU THINK HE KNOWS THEM WELL.

Yea, Biden needs to stop making us take his bad nostalgia trips.

 

[glenn1]

Sanders definitely has more of the Grandpa Simpson "OLD MAN SCREAMS AT CLOUD!" feel. At this point you could swap him out with an animatronic robot that just randomly yells about Big Pharma and Health Care is a basic human right and we must take it to wall street. Everything just feels like a programmed reaction coming from him since it's been his shtick for so long.

Biden is trying to channel some 1960's cool guy astronaut/fighter pilot and POINTS AND YELLS WORDS TO MAKE YOU THINK HE KNOWS THEM WELL.

I'm imagining which of them I'd choose if I was forced to have one of them drive me to across town to the airport and feeling like I'd make it there alive. Then jumping to think of what kind of "old Florida man who can't see over steering wheel" car they'd drive. I'm guessing Biden would have the midlife crisis car, something he'd cruise around in with the top down trying to impress girls that are AOC's age. Bernie the socialist would stick with socialist products and drive a Trabant.

OK, nailed both. Biden drives a convertible 'vette and appears he's trying to look like Fonzie from Happy Days but just looks like an old white version of Urkle.

Bernie drives a Yugo and looks - exactly what you'd imagine Bernie driving a Yugo looks like.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cu...-julia-louis-dreyfus-in-c7-corvette-stingray/

https://freebeacon.com/blog/bernie-sanders-campaigned-yugo-incredibly-weird/

 

[dank69]

I'm imagining which of them I'd choose if I was forced to have one of them drive me to across town to the airport and feeling like I'd make it there alive.

I also think that is the best way to decide who is best for President. That aside, if that is your measuring stick, how comfortable do you feel about Trump driving you to the airport in his golf cart? I doubt he's driven anything else in the past 40 years.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I want to believe we will see a record turn out in the next election of voters. As you said Trump is so polarizing and many view him and the party as trying to instill a dictatorship, i hope that alone would bring people out to stop him. I guess we shall see. Every time i put my faith in humanity they let me down, so i wont be holding my breath.

If you're the average dumb american that doesn't watch the news, and doesn't watch late night TV (e.g. Colbert, etc..) then do you honestly think average people hear that much about it? We're talking people that are Netflix and chill - not people that watch news media.

I know you and I do - but I also watch news daily, and watch political based comedy (Maher, Oliver, etc.)

 

[Jaskalas]

We need an ATPN poll for whether Biden or Sanders did a better job at playing the "Grumpy Old White Guy" role in the debates.

Sanders is much more "frail" than Biden.