Support NeoGAF

[dehydratedbabies]

Bernie's grassroots network being bigger than Obama's is unlikely. He doesn't have the money Obama did, and he also lacks the Democratic party support Obama had. He has less resources.

Moreover, that's not a long term plan, that's just a vague idea of how to change the government. Bernie has not given details on how much an operation to sustain participation in democracy would cost, who would run it, how long it would run, where it would be, and so on. You act like nobody but Bernie has thought of this before.

My argument isn't that nobody's thought of this before Bernie, it's that unlike Hillary, Bernie is going to try to pull it off.

Sanders reached one million donations four months faster than Obama did, and I think that's largely thanks to the maturation of the Internet. I think that's also why he'll be able to achieve this overall goal. We'll see. I'm doing what I can in my state.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Just goes to show that there is little actual knowledge of Sander's platform when people describe it as vague. The debates should be the first time he receives major prime TV coverage. People who haven't been following the Democratic side of the contest to actually see where he stands and what the actual plan is. You could also go on his website and read up but I guess a lot of people don't have the time to do that. I can assure you they are as concrete as Hillary's plans

Except it doesn't go to show the lack of actual knowledge of his platform, he doesn't actually have a specific plan to break up the big banks. Its an actual impossibility to begin with.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Clinton is putting out actual plans though. Sanders is just making vague unworkable promises like "I'm gonna break up the banks" or "I'm going to put everyone through college."

You don't know Sanders platform then. "Vague and unworkable"?

Its like you just heard one or two things about what he wants to do and then didn't bother to look at anything else. Go read his actual website for those proposals.

A tax on Wall Street derivatives speculation,a tax on Corporate tax evasion.

A shift to a progressive tax system where people are taxed more heavily according to their income bracket.

A ban on private prisons

Moving away from private health insurance, putting in place a system of medicare for all.

Paid family and medical leave as well as raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour and a 1 trillion dollar jobs and infrastructure plan.

All of these far more reaching in scope and direct impact on the people compared to Clinton's "Give students more loans" college plan.

 

[KHarvey16]

I didn't say he had to arrest anyone. I said he was the one frequently giving excuses for having to loan out all that money with the Fed having no real oversight AFTER the crash.

It took an audit just to see how much they basically threw out there under the guise of 'keeping them solvent'.

It was imperative that money was released. The reasons for the bailouts are not "excuses," it's the field of macroeconomics.

 

[B-Dubs]

We already have a progressive tax system. Different levels of income are already taxed at different rates, that's nothing new.

 

[Angry Grimace]

You don't know Sanders platform then. "Vague and unworkable"?

Its like you just heard one or two things about what he wants to do and then didn't bother to look at anything else. Go read his actual website for those proposals.

A tax on Wall Street derivatives speculation,a tax on Corporate tax evasion.

A shift to a progressive tax system where people are taxed more heavily according to their income bracket.

A ban on private prisons

Moving away from private health insurance, putting in place a system of medicare for all.

Paid family and medical leave as well as raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour and a 1 trillion dollar jobs and infrastructure plan.

All of these far more reaching in scope and direct impact on the people compared to Clinton's "Give students more loans" college plan.

I have looked at his website. He still isn't capable of elucidating a legit manner in which he is going to break up the banks. Writing a bill that says "Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo are hereby disbanded" isn't a tenable solution. It's pandering just like the three times Sanders did it to begin with.

We already have progressive taxation and most of those plans are things the Democrats already agree with and can't get passed. Those aren't the policy aims I as a democratic voter care am looking for a candidate to stand firm on.

 

[ivysaur12]

A shift to a progressive tax system where people are taxed more heavily according to their income bracket.

We have this.

Moving away from private health insurance, putting in place a system of medicare for all.

This will never happen, at least not in the next 20 years, and certainly not during a Bernie presidency.

Paid family and medical leave as well as raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour and a 1 trillion dollar jobs and infrastructure plan.

How is this going to pass a Republican House that can't agree on a Speaker?

All of these far more reaching in scope and direct impact on the people compared to Clinton's "Give students more loans" college plan.

Oh jesus fucking christ

 

[noshten]

Except it doesn't go to show the lack of actual knowledge of his platform, he doesn't actually have a specific plan to break up the big banks. Its an actual impossibility to begin with.

Maybe you can check up on the bill he sponsored this year.

 

[ivysaur12]

Maybe you can check up on the bill he sponsored this year.

How would such a bill pass a Republican congress, or at least a Republican House?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Maybe you can check up on the bill he sponsored this year.

Yes, I have, he's put it in three times. That doesn't make it feasible; do you know how Congress works?

How would such a bill pass a Republican congress, or at least a Republican House?

It's not even just that it couldn't pass: its the fact that the criteria for choosing which banks get broken up is basically arbitrary, there's no actual consideration for the public and private costs breaking said banks up, no way to ensure that it doesn't disrupt the ability of American businesses and individuals to borrow money at competitive rates, no way to ensure that financial transactions can actually go through without the banks that operate the clearinghouses and, yes, finally no actual way to get it through Congress. Sanders literally cannot answer either whether we should or we even can break up the banks. He's just capitalizing on populist rhetoric against rich people.

 

[Fenderputty]

How would such a bill pass a Republican congress, or at least a Republican House?

MILLIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE PROTESTING!

 

[B-Dubs]

MILLIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE PROTESTING!

None of whom live in the districts of any of the GOP members, which means there's no leverage to speak of. That plan was always the purest form of pandering.

EDIT: I feel like this came out mean, but that plan always came off to me as either pandering or ignorance as to how negotiations in Congress actually work.

 

[ivysaur12]

MILLIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE PROTESTING!

How would such a bill pass even the most bullish outcomes for a Democratic Senate majority or slim House majority?

 

[Fenderputty]

How would such a bill pass even the most bullish outcomes for a Democratic Senate majority or slim House majority?

I don't want to repeat myself Ivy

 

[Cagey]

Do you think the CEO of HSBC wants to spend 5 years in jail? Wouldn't you think the CEO of HSBC 2.0 would think about that before he puts his stamp of approval on laundering ISIS human trafficking money?

You can liquidate HSBC, they don't care. These guys have no shame. They'd be on the next scam, like Dick Fuld, Angelo Mozilo, etc.

We disagree on who the "they" is that's important.

The individuals don't matter. The institutions do. HSBC didn't start money laundering Sinaloa cartel money because of one or two or even an entire board room of nefarious cartoon villains signed off on the idea and then twirled their mustaches. It's a institution with thousands of actors, all collectively backed with the moral hazards that accompany the Too Big To Fail concept, with each actor and their superior and superior's superior backstopped by the safety net that the government won't mortally wound the corporation for fear of what it may do to the world economy.

What HSBC did evidences a deep, corrosive institutional rot that doesn't change because a couple CEOs serve a white-collar prison sentence.

The DOJ didn't seek revocation of their bank charter and effectively kill HSBC because of the impact such a move would have, instead opting for a seemingly large fine as a means of signalling deterrence (and raising some funds and setting precedent for future fund-raising settlements, too).

I'm all for pursuing criminal charges against individuals, but it won't mean much of anything beyond fantastic headlines and a symbolic gesture that no individual is above the law. That's fine, but the damage isn't done by individuals, it's done by institutions.

NDA settlement fines in the billions and jail time for individuals would just become the cost of doing business. Revoke a company's charter and strip them of the ability to conduct business in the world's most important market? There's deterrence for you.

Bury these fucking institutions.

 

[ivysaur12]

None of whom live in the districts of any of the GOP members, which means there's no leverage to speak of. That plan was always the purest form of pandering.

EDIT: I feel like this came out mean, but that plan always came off to me as either pandering or ignorance as to how negotiations in Congress actually work.

Wait, you mean that there was a presidential candidate who......... knowing how Congress works, introduced legislation that he or she knew would have no chance of passing, but did it in a way to appease their base? Wow. That would be someone very untrustworthy tbh

 

[noshten]

How would such a bill pass a Republican congress, or at least a Republican House?

How would any bill pass through if thats your main concern, we are simply talking about the policy that Clinton has outlined as opposed to Sanders. Both plans don't have much of a chance at being passed despite both being popular nationally. Reviving Glass-Steagall is of just one part of any meaningful change but it is also one of the most important steps which must be undertaken.

 

[ivysaur12]

How would any bill pass through if thats your main concern, we are simply talking about the policy that Clinton has outlined as opposed to Sanders. Both plans don't have much of a chance at being passed despite both being popular nationally. Reviving Glass-Steagall is of just one part of any meaningful change but it is also one of the most important steps which must be undertaken.

So, no answer. Cool.

 

[User 73706]

Name some people who should be in jail. Fuck your "regulations" you won't push once elected. Put the people from the past in their place, who are likely funding your campaign. Earn some respect from the people voting Bernie over you.

 

[LCGeek]

ok ok ok

Issue: Hillary isn't left enough for some people

Solution: Hillary unveil Wall Street regulations that will be of greater significance than the repealed Glass-Steagall so that encompasses more organizations and institutions that effect our economy.

Result: People who said Hillary isn't left enough say Hillary is faking it and don't believe her because of reasons.

Can someone who things Hillary is a complete fake and isn't liberal enough explain what she would have to do, outside of bowing down to Sanders and proclaiming he is the one true god, to win over and gain trust that she's actually a liberal?

That's the problem she isn't trustworthy and certainly not to be on these subjects. Short of real action she will not convince me or plenty of others who remember history and her own or her husband's history. Hilary isn't fake to me either she is a snake through and through which is far more dangerous.

 

[uncelestial]

 

[And_Gignac]

How would such a bill pass a Republican congress, or at least a Republican House?

Hillary has the same issue. And with her views changing to the left as a reaction to Sanders, I dont know why are you implying she wouldnt face exactly the same problem. Specially when she is a historical figure that the right has been hating hard since almost 25 years ago.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hillary has the same issue. And with her views changing to the left as a reaction to Sanders, I dont know why are you implying she wouldnt face exactly the same problem. Specially when she is a historical figure that the right has been hating hard since almost 25 years ago.

Yes, but her proposals are also easier to stomach to the more moderate right, and I trust her ability to navigate the political waters with more finesse than Bernie and not be an ideologue.

"Young people protesting" is like, the dumbest response when asked about facing a Republican congress and it scares me.

 

[Dogtooth]

Crucial point. Here's some more food for thought:

Clinton's Wall Street backers: We get it (4/2015)

The only surprise, even to those who are apparently the targets of the remarks, was that Clinton’s denunciation on the trail in Iowa and in a fundraising email — widely read as a nod to the wing of the Democratic Party that prefers Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Clinton — came so soon. Far from creating genuine waves on Wall Street, Clinton’s comments were met with a resounding “meh.”

“As a CEO and former Wall Street executive, I applaud Secretary Clinton’s remarks, and I do not view them as populist nor far left,” said Robert Wolf, former CEO of UBS Americas and a major Democratic fundraiser who now runs his own firm.

They take refuge in the idea that Clinton’s rhetoric is more reflective of political necessity than some deep-seated animosity toward the wealthy. “Basically this is a Rorschach test for how politically sophisticated people are,” said one Democrat at a top Wall Street firm. “If someone is upset by this it’s because they have no idea how populist the mood of the country still is. And what she said is just demonstrably true. People at the top have done well and those at the bottom not so well.”
“The fact is,” the Democrat added, “if she didn’t say this stuff now she would be open to massive attacks from the left, and would have to say even more dramatic stuff later.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-wall-street-backers-we-get-it-117017

 

[blackw0lf]

I'm skeptical.



NeoGaf is the most pro-Hillary website I frequent, actually. Many on the American left are dissatisfied with Hillary Clinton's generally pro-Wall Street attitudes and frequently shifting political positions. She represents the centrist streak of the Democratic party that would be considered right-wing in many European countries. Hillary Clinton doesn't promise any substantial change, and is mostly popular due to her name recognition and impressive tenure in Washington.

Actually her senate record is slightly to the left of the majority of democrats in the senate. So that would put her center left

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

Obama and Hillary are probably pretty similar policy wise. Obama actually may be slightly right of Hillary.

Except foreign policy where she's more hawkish

 

[kame-sennin]

ok ok ok

Issue: Hillary isn't left enough for some people

Solution: Hillary unveil Wall Street regulations that will be of greater significance than the repealed Glass-Steagall so that encompasses more organizations and institutions that effect our economy.

Result: People who said Hillary isn't left enough say Hillary is faking it and don't believe her because of reasons.

Can someone who things Hillary is a complete fake and isn't liberal enough explain what she would have to do, outside of bowing down to Sanders and proclaiming he is the one true god, to win over and gain trust that she's actually a liberal?

Stop taking Wall Street money?

Winning counts. Being able to pass legislation counts. They count a hell of a more than brownie points for being "right" all your life. How would Bernie's presidency be anything other than "painfully slow, incremental" change with a constitution designed for painfully slow, incremental change and a congress that is painfully slow and comically ineffective?

This strategy brought us the New Democrats. The legislation these assholes passed caused a surge in mass incarceration and untold human suffering.

 

[Dogtooth]

Actually her senate record is slightly to the left of the majority of democrats in the senate. So that would put her center left

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

Obama and Hillary are probably pretty similar policy wise. Obama actually may be slightly right of Hillary.

EDIT: obama to the *right* of clinton on his presidential record.

Now that Obama has 8 years as president, you can probably put him to the right of Clinton based on the public record. But it should be remembered that Obama ran to Clinton's left in 07/08. Obama supported the healthcare public option and opposed the personal mandate. Clinton supported the mandate. Obama ran against the Iraq war. Clinton supported the war. Obama

Obama turned out to be disingenuous, but there's no reason to think Clinton would've governed to the left.

Washington Post did a rundown of more recent issues where Obama and Clinton have disagreed. See if you can tell who's to the left of who:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...re-hillary-clinton-and-barack-oabma-disagree/

 

[blackw0lf]

Now that Obama has 8 years as president, you can probably put him to the left of Clinton based on the public record. But it should be remembered that Obama ran to Clinton's left in 07/08. Obama supported the healthcare public option and opposed the personal mandate. Clinton supported the mandate. Obama ran against the Iraq war. Clinton supported the war. Obama

Obama turned out to be disingenuous, but there's no reason to think Clinton would've governed to the left.

Washington Post did a rundown of more recent issues where Obama and Clinton have disagreed. See if you can tell who's to the left of who:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...re-hillary-clinton-and-barack-oabma-disagree/

As I said on foreign policy she's more hawkish. On economic issues I see little daylight between them though. If I remember Obamas record as senator was actually slightly to the right of Hillary

 

[blackw0lf]

Here's Hillary's finance reform plan

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/

 

[cDNA]

EDIT: obama to the *right* of clinton on his presidential record.

Now that Obama has 8 years as president, you can probably put him to the right of Clinton based on the public record. But it should be remembered that Obama ran to Clinton's left in 07/08. Obama supported the healthcare public option and opposed the personal mandate. Clinton supported the mandate. Obama ran against the Iraq war. Clinton supported the war. Obama

Obama turned out to be disingenuous, but there's no reason to think Clinton would've governed to the left.

Washington Post did a rundown of more recent issues where Obama and Clinton have disagreed. See if you can tell who's to the left of who:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...re-hillary-clinton-and-barack-oabma-disagree/

Opposing the mandate(tax penalty) is not a left position, most of the left agree that is was necessary part of the plan on that before Obama opposed it, that is the reason Paul Krugman was attacking Obama during the primaries.

 

[Dogtooth]

Opposing the mandate(tax penalty) is not a left position, most of the left agree that is was necessary part of the plan on that before Obama opposed it, that is the reason Paul Krugman was attacking Obama during the primaries.

The left is for single-payer.

 

[B-Dubs]

The left is for single-payer.

While this is true, we're at least 20 years away from this being at all possible. Once people see that the ACA is helping, they'll open up to a public option at some point. From there we'll be able to work toward single payer. Big political changes like this require playing the long game at times.

 

[cDNA]

The left is for single-payer.

Neither Obama or Hillary were proposing single payer, I am comparing what they proposed in 2007.

 

[Dartastic]

Name some people who should be in jail. Fuck your "regulations" you won't push once elected. Put the people from the past in their place, who are likely funding your campaign. Earn some respect from the people voting Bernie over you.

She was part of my man Obama's administration when it happened. Step your game up and do something important to earn my vote.

Pretty much this. You have to be pretty naive to think she will do anything that will really shake up Wall Street. Her funding comes from big business.

Yep. Sums up my thought process on this perfectly.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Neither Obama or Hillary were proposing single payer, I am comparing what they proposed in 2007.

Obama and Hillary are not The Left.

 

[Dogtooth]

While this is true, we're at least 20 years away from this being at all possible. Once people see that the ACA is helping, they'll open up to a public option at some point. From there we'll be able to work toward single payer. Big political changes like this require playing the long game at times.

The impediments to single player are primarily the insurance companies, and the politicians whose campaigns are funded by insurance companies. The ACA further entrenches the position of the insurance industry, (in my opinion) making it harder to press for single-payer or expanding access to medicare. Both parties are still working on a "grand bargain" which would make permanent cuts to medicare. Shockingly, only the unhinged right was able to block these efforts in 2013 with their government shutdown.

I don't want to say the ACA is all bad. Maybe you can make a case that it's a net positive over where we were in 2006. But the plan was designed pretty carefully to exclude any room for significant non-profit, public heathcare. An expansion of medicaid, which covers the poor and handicapped is the best we got. Nothing in the ACA creates a pathway to truly universal healthcare.

 

[cDNA]

Obama and Hillary are not The Left.

I was responding to the comment Dogtooth made about Obama running to the left of Hillary in 2007.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Introduce sweeping legislation that will never get passed in Congress, okay...

 

[LegendofJoe]

Does anyone else get incredibly giddy imagining what an executive branch led by Hillary Clinton and a legislative branch led by Nancy Pelosi would do to the collective psyche of American conservatives? I don't know if I'm lucky enough to see that happen.

 

[Crisco]

The impediments to single player are primarily the insurance companies, and the politicians whose campaigns are funded by insurance companies. The ACA further entrenches the position of the insurance industry, (in my opinion) making it harder to press for single-payer or expanding access to medicare. Both parties are still working on a "grand bargain" which would make permanent cuts to medicare. Shockingly, only the unhinged right was able to block these efforts in 2013 with their government shutdown.

I don't want to say the ACA is all bad. Maybe you can make a case that it's a net positive over where we were in 2006. But the plan was designed pretty carefully to exclude any room for significant non-profit, public heathcare. An expansion of medicaid, which covers the poor and handicapped is the best we got. Nothing in the ACA creates a pathway to truly universal healthcare.

Except for the fact that it is universal healthcare. Assuming the Medicaid expansion eventually is adopted by all 50 States, the only barrier to getting healthcare is simply being aware of the law. I will never understand liberals being against the ACA, it's the single greatest achievement of liberal/progressive politics in the last half century. Nothing else even comes close. Between Medicaid, subsidies, and Medicare, we're closer to single payer then ever before. The only function of insurance companies today is to act as middlemen between federal dollars and their recipients, with a pretty draconian cap on non-medical expenses.

 

[B-Dubs]

The impediments to single player are primarily the insurance companies, and the politicians whose campaigns are funded by insurance companies. The ACA further entrenches the position of the insurance industry, (in my opinion) making it harder to press for single-payer or expanding access to medicare. Both parties are still working on a "grand bargain" which would make permanent cuts to medicare. Shockingly, only the unhinged right was able to block these efforts in 2013 with their government shutdown.

I don't want to say the ACA is all bad. Maybe you can make a case that it's a net positive over where we were in 2006. But the plan was designed pretty carefully to exclude any room for significant non-profit, public heathcare. An expansion of medicaid, which covers the poor and handicapped is the best we got. Nothing in the ACA creates a pathway to truly universal healthcare.

The idea is that the ACA gets Americans used to the idea that everyone can and should have health insurance, which is a fucking big step in the process due to American attitudes on the subject. From there you add on a public option to get the general public used to the idea of being covered by the government. If you can't see that as a step toward an eventual single payer system then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Dogtooth]

I was responding to the comment Dogtooth made about Obama running to the left of Hillary in 2007.

You said that opposing the mandate is not a "left" position. It's debateable whether the mandate is good policy as part of the ACA framework, but I can't accept that legally coercing individuals to purchase a product could be a left position. I think the whole ACA is a right-wing set of reforms (note: most of it was originally proposed by Newt Gingrich). The mandate inarguably benefits industry, making it further right by my lights.

 

[Trojita]

How does her Hedgefund Manager Son in-law feel about this?

 

[vainglorious]

ok ok ok

Issue: Hillary isn't left enough for some people

Solution: Hillary unveil Wall Street regulations that will be of greater significance than the repealed Glass-Steagall so that encompasses more organizations and institutions that effect our economy.

Result: People who said Hillary isn't left enough say Hillary is faking it and don't believe her because of reasons.

Can someone who things Hillary is a complete fake and isn't liberal enough explain what she would have to do, outside of bowing down to Sanders and proclaiming he is the one true god, to win over and gain trust that she's actually a liberal?

It was the same experience in 2008 as a Hillary supporter. I'm getting ironic flash backs.

 

[diffusionx]

We disagree on who the "they" is that's important.

The individuals don't matter. The institutions do. HSBC didn't start money laundering Sinaloa cartel money because of one or two or even an entire board room of nefarious cartoon villains signed off on the idea and then twirled their mustaches. It's a institution with thousands of actors, all collectively backed with the moral hazards that accompany the Too Big To Fail concept, with each actor and their superior and superior's superior backstopped by the safety net that the government won't mortally wound the corporation for fear of what it may do to the world economy.

What HSBC did evidences a deep, corrosive institutional rot that doesn't change because a couple CEOs serve a white-collar prison sentence.

The DOJ didn't seek revocation of their bank charter and effectively kill HSBC because of the impact such a move would have, instead opting for a seemingly large fine as a means of signalling deterrence (and raising some funds and setting precedent for future fund-raising settlements, too).

I'm all for pursuing criminal charges against individuals, but it won't mean much of anything beyond fantastic headlines and a symbolic gesture that no individual is above the law. That's fine, but the damage isn't done by individuals, it's done by institutions.

NDA settlement fines in the billions and jail time for individuals would just become the cost of doing business. Revoke a company's charter and strip them of the ability to conduct business in the world's most important market? There's deterrence for you.

Bury these fucking institutions.

The problem with revoking a charter is that it has ripple effects that spread out across the economy and hurt people who had nothing to do with it. Which is fine, I guess, if you're willing to take the hit on it - the Bush administration thought they were, then Lehman went under, and realized that, well, no they were not.

Do you want to pay more for your mortgage or lose your job because HSBC laundered money? You may say you are, but I doubt it's true in practice. Do you really think any of the individuals at those companies care if HSBC becomes a smoldering wreck, at least enough to think twice about obviously illegal behavior? I'm not seeing it.

Meanwhile investigating and prosecuting people who commit crimes is certainly something that the Justice Department knows how to do and could do more of. I just think that those individual actors would think twice about laundering cartel money if they thought there was a jail term on the other end of it. A jail term will absolutely, 100%, positively ruin Mr. Salaryman's life in a way that losing their job because HSBC can't bank in the US anymore would not.

 

[Dogtooth]

Except for the fact that it is universal healthcare. Assuming the Medicaid expansion eventually is adopted by all 50 States, the only barrier to getting healthcare is simply being aware of the law. I will never understand liberals being against the ACA, it's the single greatest achievement of liberal/progressive politics in the last half century. Nothing else even comes close. Between Medicaid, subsidies, and Medicare, we're closer to single payer then ever before. The only function of insurance companies today is to act as middlemen between federal dollars and their recipients, with a pretty draconian cap on non-medical expenses.

Do a little reading into the so-called "consumer driven" plans in the ACA's marketplace. These plans have very low premiums, but extremely high deductibles, and spending limits. They exacerbate one of the biggest problems with the US healthcare system, which is personal bankruptcy. Calling it "universal healthcare" because more people can afford these cheap, lousy plans really undermines the whole mission. And as I'm sure you know just under 10% of Americans remain uninsured. I'll credit the ACA for driving that rate down significantly, but it's far from "universal".

 

[Geist-]

Until people start going to jail over these things, more fines won't stop them.

They should use those taxes to beef up the teams that will prosecute the people that perpetrate the crimes they are talking about.

Eh, to be fair, fines could stop them, but not until the fines are more costly than the profits. Right now that's just not happening, so they keep doing the same shit.

 

[Krauser Kat]

Do a little reading into the so-called "consumer driven" plans in the ACA's marketplace. These plans have very low premiums, but extremely high deductibles, and spending limits. They exacerbate one of the biggest problems with the US healthcare system, which is personal bankruptcy. Calling it "universal healthcare" because more people can afford these cheap, lousy plans really undermines the whole mission. And as I'm sure you know just under 10% of Americans remain uninsured. I'll credit the ACA for driving that rate down significantly, but it's far from "universal".

the max out of pocket of any plan the exchange is under 6k. While its high 6k is much better than 100k for getting thrown into a hospital bed for awhile. They should get rid of coinsurance and make everything 100% after deductible.

 

[Crisco]

Do a little reading into the so-called "consumer driven" plans in the ACA's marketplace. These plans have very low premiums, but extremely high deductibles, and spending limits. They exacerbate one of the biggest problems with the US healthcare system, which is personal bankruptcy. Calling it "universal healthcare" because more people can afford these cheap, lousy plans really undermines the whole mission. And as I'm sure you know just under 10% of Americans remain uninsured. I'll credit the ACA for driving that rate down significantly, but it's far from "universal".

Uh, "Consumer Driven" plans are those high deductible healthcare plans combined with a health savings account that employers have been trying to peddle to workers for a few years now. The vast majority of people who shop on the Marketplace end up getting Silver Tier plans or better. There are also additional subsidies available to help with deductibles and copays.

Most of those uninsured reside in large red states like Texas and Florida, which have continued to reject the Medicaid expansion. Remember, as written, the Medicaid expansion was supposed to be universal so blame the SCOTUS for that, not the law itself.

 

[NeoXChaos]

ok ok ok

Issue: Hillary isn't left enough for some people

Solution: Hillary unveil Wall Street regulations that will be of greater significance than the repealed Glass-Steagall so that encompasses more organizations and institutions that effect our economy.

Result: People who said Hillary isn't left enough say Hillary is faking it and don't believe her because of reasons.

Can someone who things Hillary is a complete fake and isn't liberal enough explain what she would have to do, outside of bowing down to Sanders and proclaiming he is the one true god, to win over and gain trust that she's actually a liberal?

As been seen in countless OT Hillary & Bernie threads over the last 5 months nothing.

Spoiler

They will be bowing down to Queen Hillary in 6 months.