Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

134,574 posts in this topic

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

Then why did it fail in Colorado and Vermont?  

Because supporters were so focused on the slogan than explaining the substance of the policy to people.  When the rhetoric was on the verge of becoming policy, the public turned against it...dramatically.  That’s my point about M4A polls right now.  You can’t just focus on the rah rah stuff.  It’s going to get demolished when it comes time to enact it as an actual law/policy if you haven’t explained it in a way that will appeal to moderates/non-partisans and even leaning Republicans.

You should probably look into the Vermont plan if that's your view of it.

It passed there. It was very popular with the public which is how the legislature was pressured into passing it. Where it failed was that the state government ****** up the implementation so as they approached the deadline for implementation they declared that it wasn't feasible and canceled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

You should probably look into the Vermont plan if that's your view of it.

It passed there. It was very popular with the public which is how the legislature was pressured into passing it. Where it failed was that the state government ****** up the implementation so as they approached the deadline for implementation they declared that it wasn't feasible and canceled it.

Right...you need pragmatic people who know how to implement policies and otherwise govern effectively.  Otherwise, you get so caught up in the rah rah rhetoric and the policy fails, either at the ballot box or through crappy implementation.  

You don’t transform a huge percent of the national (or state) economy with a slogan.  Even the relatively moderate Obamacare policy ran into problems of implementation during its roll out.  

They haven’t successfully gotten single payer in Vermont or California, let alone Colorado or other less-blue states.  Making it a national slogan and litmus test for the Democratic presidential candidate isn’t a smart move.  It’s not smart because, first, it risks getting crushed at the polls (e.g., Colorado) or, second, you risk having some “inspiring” amateur who doesn’t have the qualifications or experience to actually implement it, in which case it gets crushed before it can go into effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

Right...you need pragmatic people who know how to implement policies and otherwise govern effectively.  Otherwise, you get so caught up in the rah rah rhetoric and the policy fails, either at the ballot box or through crappy implementation.  

You don’t transform a huge percent of the national (or state) economy with a slogan.  Even the relatively moderate Obamacare policy ran into problems of implementation during its roll out.  

They haven’t successfully gotten single payer in Vermont or California, let alone Colorado or other less-blue states.  Making it a national slogan and litmus test for the Democratic presidential candidate isn’t a smart move.  It’s not smart because, first, it risks getting crushed at the polls (e.g., Colorado) or, second, you risk having some “inspiring” amateur who doesn’t have the qualifications or experience to actually implement it, in which case it gets crushed before it can go into effect.

What caused it to bog down was because they kept adding amendments, at the behest of business interests, which added to the costs. At that point they couldn't rely on Medicaid expansion money anymore, as was the plan, and instead needed to add extra taxes to pay for it. Centrist legislators were not willing to do that which meant they couldn't get the votes which caused the implementation problems.

But, yeah, it's because progressives can't govern and why we need those super pragmatic moderates to do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, achilles return said:

good things aren't possible

please vote for us

-democrats, 2020

“We demand kobe steak every night!!”

Um, we can’t afford that and frankly there’s not enough kobe beef in the world for that to happen.  But we COULD have some great local prime steak 2 nights a week!

”Stupid centrist garbage...you don’t want good things.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

What caused it to bog down was because they kept adding amendments, at the behest of business interests, which added to the costs. At that point they couldn't rely on Medicaid expansion money anymore, as was the plan, and instead needed to add extra taxes to pay for it. Centrist legislators were not willing to do that which meant they couldn't get the votes which caused the implementation problems.

But, yeah, it's because progressives can't govern and why we need those super pragmatic moderates to do the job.

The Vermont Democrats are “centrist”???

:lol:

As I’ve pointed out in the past, your notion of “centrist” is anything that is to the right of democratic socialism.  And that’s delusional.

kicker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, achilles return said:

lmao comparing universal health care to demanding a steak dinner every night is hilariously conservative of you

I was making a point about purism that I think was obvious.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

The Vermont Democrats are “centrist”???

:lol:

As I’ve pointed out in the past, your notion of “centrist” is anything that is to the right of democratic socialism.  And that’s delusional.

"Vermont's plan failed because people didn't want it! Progressives don't know how to sell their plans!"

Actually, it passed because the people wanted it. It failed because of implementation problems.

"Ha! Proof that you need pragmatic moderates to govern because progressives don't know how!"

The implementation problems were because of those moderates.

"LOLOLOL Blaming everything on centrists!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flip Flop said:

Twelve year old girl is practicing her “the world will end in eleven years if we don’t address climate change now!” Speech for the 2040 election cycle. 

Oh, I see now why you dropped this here, Bad Faith Barry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AF89 said:

My soul just floated up from my body like Winnie the Pooh...

On so many levels

I feel like this must be the Catholic equivalent of jews for jesus....I mean to not even acknowledge Kennedy exsisted :rolleyes:

Guess they forgot JFK was Catholic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, achilles return said:

lmao comparing universal health care to demanding a steak dinner every night is hilariously conservative of you

Right after he tried to argue that progressives need to argue that M4A is more affordable to win over the center, even though they have been this entire time. Dude can't keep his narratives straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we went with Trout’s plan to eliminate primaries and have our betters anoint their preferred candidate instead then who would they select for us in 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s an idea that I haven’t heard others proposing (apologies if someone has already)...

Employers pay directly to insurance companies for employee health care.  Why not estimate the average company contribution to health care and have a tax equal to that to help pay for M4A?  

Basically, you’re shifting the money that’s already going to health insurance to a government plan.  If M4A cost savings are realized, the government should be able to cover more people, and provide better coverage, than what companies are providing now...with the same money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

If we went with Trout’s plan to eliminate primaries and have our betters anoint their candidate instead then who would they select in 2020?

A drone named Beyonce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"conservative" white women/men are going up against people they cannot handle/beat and I am here for it. 

Stick to the Starbucks assistant manager man. Yall are embarrassing yourselves. 

Your gotchas gonna get you got. 

Statick, lostone and Sn4tteRBoxXeR like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

If we went with Trout’s plan to eliminate primaries and have our betters anoint their candidate instead then who would they select for us in 2020?

Not Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Here’s an idea that I haven’t heard others proposing (apologies if someone has already)...

Employers pay directly to insurance companies for employee health care.  Why not estimate the average company contribution to health care and have a tax equal to that to help pay for M4A?  

Basically, you’re shifting the money that’s already going to health insurance to a government plan.  If M4A cost savings are realized, the government should be able to cover more people, and provide better coverage, than what companies are providing now...with the same money.

That is part of Sanders' plan.

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now