Warren haters are out in full force, and they are probably the same ones who bitched about people being too mean to Biden or Bernie. They probably complained about a "circular firing squad" but now that Warren is leading they'll say whatever because she is not their choice.
The majority of Americans do not understand how taxes work. Either they don't pay much in taxes or they have someone else tell them what they owe.
This is why Joe the Plumber was such a thorn in Obama's side. Joe is (was) an idiot (willful?) and people bought that crap.
Taxes are not that complicated for the average American. Many middle class Americans understood quite quickly that limiting mortgage interest deductions was going to hurt them. Even those of us that live in fly-over country.
There are many informed people that could help Liz with her plan and explain it to the voters in understandable terms. Heck, I could do it.
I don't think so in this case. Unlike Bernie, she's never admitted that higher taxes are part of the deal, she just dances around the implication without explicitly saying so. And the job of the press is precisely to ferret out inconsistencies like that and ask tough questions. They certainly don't do it often enough with Republicans to be sure, but lately they have been getting better about it. We can't fault them for actually doing their job, only criticise them when they don't. TBF, I also think they were dying to give her a chance to explain herself- that CNN panel all seemed to be trying to coax her into giving the answer that she owes the voters and didn't seem hostile about it. Rather they acted like they wanted to give her an extended chance to explain her position in detail in a rare unhurried setting. But she whiffed on the opportunity. It's certainly not going to make or break her campaign, but it was an unforced error on her part and she better have a decent answer ready next time, because they are not going to quit asking until she does.
One response to that repeated question:"Why are you so determined to hide the lower cost for the working class? And access to health care for the unemployed?"
Americans are whiny, selfish, greedy children when it comes to taxes, and are frankly too stupid to understand that higher taxes might mean *gasp* better quality of life. As much as I hate it, she needs to use tiny words so she can make the 35% of this country too stupid to pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel get anywhere close to comprehension.
She's not shitting on them. She's talking about their ideas not being what we need. Maybe you need to step away for a while, because the hostility is really unwarranted.
"and as single-payer advocates keep pointing out, other industrialized countries manage to pay less for universal coverage, while the US spends the most on healthcare without actually covering every citizen"
In those other countries -- even the ones that don't have single payer -- the government also gets heavily involved in setting prices and operating parameters of medical providers. That's how they do it.
Here's how France manages their health system; notice how much they do that goes beyond single payer:
Not one of these successful countries makes like single payer is all they need. But I guess we're into American exceptionalism because we seem to think we don't have to do what those successful countries do. Nope, we trust that the unfailingly rational Invisible Hand is all we need to keep medical providers in line.
I think that their are a number of ways it could be paid for, most being some aspect of private insurance payments moving to taxes, and getting the health care system off the money pit of corporate profit, corruption, and confusion of multiple companies. Also, too, collective bargaining for the drugs. (Why do we pay more for those than Canada does? It's not because of our military spending.)
I'd rather use half the military budget and personnel to fix the US infrastructure.
No, Tina's right. Warren's point was that everyone on that stage (other than Bernie and herself) was a corrupt tool of the wealthy.
If she wanted to say that her policies were better than the other candidates' then she could have chosen words to those effect. But she didn't. And if she is so bad at making her point that she requires interpreters to make her sound like she's not trashing her allies, that's a pretty big strike against her.
A public option, or 'medicare for all who want it' is the worst idea. See Germany: the state ends up with all the bad risks, the private insurers pick and choose who they insure. You end up with a two-tier system, where, although everyone may be covered, the privately insured get preferential treatment, the publicly insured get less coverage.
Warren haters are out in full force, and they are probably the same ones who bitched about people being too mean to Biden or Bernie. They probably complained about a "circular firing squad" but now that Warren is leading they'll say whatever because she is not their choice.
Hey, smoke ‘em if ya’ got ‘em.
The majority of Americans do not understand how taxes work. Either they don't pay much in taxes or they have someone else tell them what they owe.
This is why Joe the Plumber was such a thorn in Obama's side. Joe is (was) an idiot (willful?) and people bought that crap.
Taxes are not that complicated for the average American. Many middle class Americans understood quite quickly that limiting mortgage interest deductions was going to hurt them. Even those of us that live in fly-over country.
There are many informed people that could help Liz with her plan and explain it to the voters in understandable terms. Heck, I could do it.
I don't think so in this case. Unlike Bernie, she's never admitted that higher taxes are part of the deal, she just dances around the implication without explicitly saying so. And the job of the press is precisely to ferret out inconsistencies like that and ask tough questions. They certainly don't do it often enough with Republicans to be sure, but lately they have been getting better about it. We can't fault them for actually doing their job, only criticise them when they don't. TBF, I also think they were dying to give her a chance to explain herself- that CNN panel all seemed to be trying to coax her into giving the answer that she owes the voters and didn't seem hostile about it. Rather they acted like they wanted to give her an extended chance to explain her position in detail in a rare unhurried setting. But she whiffed on the opportunity. It's certainly not going to make or break her campaign, but it was an unforced error on her part and she better have a decent answer ready next time, because they are not going to quit asking until she does.
One response to that repeated question:"Why are you so determined to hide the lower cost for the working class? And access to health care for the unemployed?"
And so you jump on the dog pile, attacking the front runner.
Guess Vlad has recognized who the real threat is here.
Many of us are tired of halfway measures. Medicare for all would work, but not "for all those who want it".
Why do you hide your previous posts? Do you make different assertions depending on the crowd?
Americans are whiny, selfish, greedy children when it comes to taxes, and are frankly too stupid to understand that higher taxes might mean *gasp* better quality of life. As much as I hate it, she needs to use tiny words so she can make the 35% of this country too stupid to pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel get anywhere close to comprehension.
She's not shitting on them. She's talking about their ideas not being what we need. Maybe you need to step away for a while, because the hostility is really unwarranted.
"and as single-payer advocates keep pointing out, other industrialized countries manage to pay less for universal coverage, while the US spends the most on healthcare without actually covering every citizen"
In those other countries -- even the ones that don't have single payer -- the government also gets heavily involved in setting prices and operating parameters of medical providers. That's how they do it.
Here's how France manages their health system; notice how much they do that goes beyond single payer:
https://international.commo...
Here's Canada:
https://international.commo...
Here's Germany:
https://international.commo...
Not one of these successful countries makes like single payer is all they need. But I guess we're into American exceptionalism because we seem to think we don't have to do what those successful countries do. Nope, we trust that the unfailingly rational Invisible Hand is all we need to keep medical providers in line.
I think that their are a number of ways it could be paid for, most being some aspect of private insurance payments moving to taxes, and getting the health care system off the money pit of corporate profit, corruption, and confusion of multiple companies. Also, too, collective bargaining for the drugs. (Why do we pay more for those than Canada does? It's not because of our military spending.)
I'd rather use half the military budget and personnel to fix the US infrastructure.
Why are you being such a bitch?
No, Tina's right. Warren's point was that everyone on that stage (other than Bernie and herself) was a corrupt tool of the wealthy.
If she wanted to say that her policies were better than the other candidates' then she could have chosen words to those effect. But she didn't. And if she is so bad at making her point that she requires interpreters to make her sound like she's not trashing her allies, that's a pretty big strike against her.
taxes = fundingbeing captive consumers of essential resources* = theft
* Like health care.
who is the "Edith" on that guy's shirt?
A public option, or 'medicare for all who want it' is the worst idea. See Germany: the state ends up with all the bad risks, the private insurers pick and choose who they insure. You end up with a two-tier system, where, although everyone may be covered, the privately insured get preferential treatment, the publicly insured get less coverage.