If they were talking about it. It seems to be a non-issue, just voicing my opinion in reference to your comment. I haven't seen anyone comment on this aside from this article.
Nobody is suggesting we lie. But it isn't hard to state that any taxes will be offset by savings on premiums and co-pays or other out of pocket expenses. It isn't difficult to show why with a couple of examples.
"Yes your taxes will go up. But at the end of the day you'll come out ahead and have more money in your pocket". Short and simple... Just like "It's the economy stupid" or "Yes we can". Or even "the GOP plan for healthcare is 'don't get sick, but if you do die quickly'. None of those are lies, but they're all short, pithy and make their point in a devastating fashion.
maybe warren should say "if we had canada's healthcare system and it was implemented tomorrow, we wouldn't have to raise taxes on anyone. we already spend as much on our "socialized" medicine as most other countries, we just have a system that's so overrun with corporate greed and corrupt politics that we have to pay twice as much for everything we do. that's why we need MfA, so that the motivation for health care is politicians being beholden to the interests of their constituents instead of being beholden to their corporate masters"
"yes your taxes will go up, but your premiums will go down by more than that, so you'll come out ahead"
That will get truncated to just the part before the comma. It really should just be "Individual costs will go down". That should be a little harder to twist or take out of context.
That being said, as someone who hasn't had insurance since 2003 and only had it then for about 5 yrs, I get really tired of this particular fear/worry/argument. People are literally dying because they can't afford care. Who cares if your costs go up a bit if it saves millions of lives and boosts the economy with all the new doctors and nurses it sounds like we'll need. Well off white people need to stop being selfish shits.
That will get truncated to just the part before the comma
No it won't. Not if you are the one saying it and you repeat it every chance you get. Make it your talking point. Put it in your ads. We can't control what the GOP says, but be honest- they'll lie regardless, so why make it easier for them by appearing to be evasive?
Who cares if your costs go up a bit if it saves millions of lives
You answered your own question- selfish people. And there are millions of them out there and they all tend to vote. So you can either be angry about their existence or you can plan your strategy with them in mind and formulate your argument in a way that wins them over. Yes, I wish that making sure everyone gets coverage and that no one dies for lack of care was a winning argument in and of itself, but it's not or we would have fixed this problem 50 years ago. I'm just not foolish enough to believe that it's enough to win this time either and if framing the argument as a win to some selfish person's pocketbook gets us across the finish line then it would be criminal not to use that.
Disagree. Her tactic is correct, IMO. As soon as you admit their talking point, you are done. What she is doing is destroying that talking point, and rightfully so, because it is meaningless as a policy issue.
Pete needs to stop sucking up the oxygen of candidates who can actually win. He's not qualified - period. Being the mayor of fucking nowhere Indiana (pop 103k) does not mean you can be POTUS. Have we learned not a fucking thing from the Trump era?
Part of the problem is, the debate stage expanded and we got Steyer and Tulsi 2.0. You have never gonna be's arguing with really, really wanna be's and then you have the cream-o-the-crop.The curds and whey don't mix with the cream and it will give you indigestion like a sumbitch.
And speaking of Curds, Tulsi isn't there to promote us or Liz or I doubt even herself, she is doing free commercials for Donnie's Dictators. That set off Butti and consequently Beto into a tag team of B's that attacked our Liz. Its just guys being guys I reckon and I also reckon that its not becoming or fucking cool.
There is no Whey that we have these tag teams and Kamikazes after they are separated from the gluten free debates and its just two badass women and a few VP hopefuls.
Desperate candidates gonna attack and that is proof of their desperation.
Yeah I am all over making this argument. Tell me why this is wrong?
I propose Clinton Era tax rates for better, cheaper health care and a balanced budget.
Because he balanced the fucking budget so well that we were going to pay off the debt.
Fear of praising Bill Clinton, Carter, and LBJ is just batshit crazy. R's praise the treason-weasel AIDS-loving genocide-support full on racist Reagan.
White Christian Nationalism is why. Sweet Daddy Vlad gonna save the wypipo.
If they were talking about it. It seems to be a non-issue, just voicing my opinion in reference to your comment. I haven't seen anyone comment on this aside from this article.
Thank you so much for explaining to me how that works. I feel so enlightened now.
oh fuck off
Nobody is suggesting we lie. But it isn't hard to state that any taxes will be offset by savings on premiums and co-pays or other out of pocket expenses. It isn't difficult to show why with a couple of examples.
"Yes your taxes will go up. But at the end of the day you'll come out ahead and have more money in your pocket". Short and simple... Just like "It's the economy stupid" or "Yes we can". Or even "the GOP plan for healthcare is 'don't get sick, but if you do die quickly'. None of those are lies, but they're all short, pithy and make their point in a devastating fashion.
maybe warren should say "if we had canada's healthcare system and it was implemented tomorrow, we wouldn't have to raise taxes on anyone. we already spend as much on our "socialized" medicine as most other countries, we just have a system that's so overrun with corporate greed and corrupt politics that we have to pay twice as much for everything we do. that's why we need MfA, so that the motivation for health care is politicians being beholden to the interests of their constituents instead of being beholden to their corporate masters"
"yes your taxes will go up, but your premiums will go down by more than that, so you'll come out ahead"
That will get truncated to just the part before the comma. It really should just be "Individual costs will go down". That should be a little harder to twist or take out of context.
That being said, as someone who hasn't had insurance since 2003 and only had it then for about 5 yrs, I get really tired of this particular fear/worry/argument. People are literally dying because they can't afford care. Who cares if your costs go up a bit if it saves millions of lives and boosts the economy with all the new doctors and nurses it sounds like we'll need. Well off white people need to stop being selfish shits.
That will get truncated to just the part before the comma
No it won't. Not if you are the one saying it and you repeat it every chance you get. Make it your talking point. Put it in your ads. We can't control what the GOP says, but be honest- they'll lie regardless, so why make it easier for them by appearing to be evasive?
Who cares if your costs go up a bit if it saves millions of lives
You answered your own question- selfish people. And there are millions of them out there and they all tend to vote. So you can either be angry about their existence or you can plan your strategy with them in mind and formulate your argument in a way that wins them over. Yes, I wish that making sure everyone gets coverage and that no one dies for lack of care was a winning argument in and of itself, but it's not or we would have fixed this problem 50 years ago. I'm just not foolish enough to believe that it's enough to win this time either and if framing the argument as a win to some selfish person's pocketbook gets us across the finish line then it would be criminal not to use that.
Disagree. Her tactic is correct, IMO. As soon as you admit their talking point, you are done. What she is doing is destroying that talking point, and rightfully so, because it is meaningless as a policy issue.
He's gay and right of center, what else would you call him?
Pete needs to stop sucking up the oxygen of candidates who can actually win. He's not qualified - period. Being the mayor of fucking nowhere Indiana (pop 103k) does not mean you can be POTUS. Have we learned not a fucking thing from the Trump era?
Sing it, Brother Robinson!
Part of the problem is, the debate stage expanded and we got Steyer and Tulsi 2.0. You have never gonna be's arguing with really, really wanna be's and then you have the cream-o-the-crop.The curds and whey don't mix with the cream and it will give you indigestion like a sumbitch.
And speaking of Curds, Tulsi isn't there to promote us or Liz or I doubt even herself, she is doing free commercials for Donnie's Dictators. That set off Butti and consequently Beto into a tag team of B's that attacked our Liz. Its just guys being guys I reckon and I also reckon that its not becoming or fucking cool.
There is no Whey that we have these tag teams and Kamikazes after they are separated from the gluten free debates and its just two badass women and a few VP hopefuls.
Desperate candidates gonna attack and that is proof of their desperation.
Well said. There are other reasons, but most boil down to aspects of this.
Tulsi is there because R's donate money to keep her in the race. She is also there to ensure Russia has access to Dem candidate resources.
She, also, has got to go.
WTF Hawaii?
Yeah I am all over making this argument. Tell me why this is wrong?
I propose Clinton Era tax rates for better, cheaper health care and a balanced budget.
Because he balanced the fucking budget so well that we were going to pay off the debt.
Fear of praising Bill Clinton, Carter, and LBJ is just batshit crazy. R's praise the treason-weasel AIDS-loving genocide-support full on racist Reagan.