Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Wow. I never really liked Claire McCaskill to begin with, but I like her 10 times less after this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSDPPRoHyhM

Why should I take these random youtube nobodies seriously? Just because they claim to cover politics everyday? Just because he has papers spread all over in front of him?

Spoiler

Why would I take Senators or cable news hosts seriously?

 

[KingK]

Bernie sanders is so liberal that in an interview with o reily he was considering a 90 percent top tax rate. Poll americans about whether they think taxes on the wealthy should be higher

I don't know if you're serious but he really didn't say that. All he said was that the tax rate under Eisenhower was as high as 90% and the economy was still pretty good, as a way to illustrate that raising the top marginal tax rate wouldn't destroy the world. Then a bunch of the media ran with the "socialist Bernie Sanders wants to tax you 90%!" story.

 

[benjipwns]

Here's the segment without the eight minutes of worthless heckling from the worst political youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzz0usjCn7Q

Here's Ed Schulz complaining about McCaskill on the same network:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT1t-VlwThs

EDIT: From the related, Ann Coulter says Bernie Sanders would be tougher to beat than Hillary lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em6sVaSSfDI

 

[KingK]

Speaking of the Iranian nuclear deal, it seems that an ultimate agreement is approaching completion. Iran will not receive immediate sanctions relief; that was not a realistic demand. And the IAEA will receive access to examine alleged military dimensions of the program. I think the breakthrough was an assurance from the U.S. that Iran would not be forced to confess to past military dimensions; this would expose Iranian duplicity. Instead, the issue will be ignored permitted that the IAEA receives unfettered access.

That sounds good to me. If this goes through Obama needs to let John Kerry have custody of the Nobel peace prize on weekends and certain holidays.

 

[Retromelon]

I don't know if you're serious but he really didn't say that. All he said was that the tax rate under Eisenhower was as high as 90% and the economy was still pretty good, as a way to illustrate that raising the top marginal tax rate wouldn't destroy the world. Then a bunch of the media ran with the "socialist Bernie Sanders wants to tax you 90%!" story.

If i recall correctly, (and feel free to dispute me but i am decently positive that i am) o reilly prodded him on it and senator sanders refused to rule it out. Now if he is refusing to rule out the option, would you not agree that my choice of the word considering is apt?

 

[benjipwns]

If i recall correctly, (and feel free to dispute me but i am decently positive that i am) o reilly prodded him on it and senator sanders refused to rule it out. Now if he is refusing to rule out the option, would you not agree that my choice of the word considering is apt?

Interview where Sanders mentions the past "90%" rate and Eisenhower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPaLTFF5iLM

Pair of interviews with O'Reilly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO4Ko-v-q0g (they talk about taxes about a minute in and he mentions the same thing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trbcE60JELk

 

[Diablos]

So the whole rope thing with Hillary and the press is kinda weird.

 

[Retromelon]

All right, at around 1:00 in the first video bernie says he does not think 90% is obviously too high. This direct source vindicates my thoughts on the matter, kingk, and thank you for engaging me. I am grateful for our robust exchange of ideas that has produced a beautiful and unarguable truth.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...kseat-to-no-one-on-liberal-record-119723.html

Hanover, N.H. — Hillary Clinton arrived in this liberal New England enclave with a message for anyone thinking about voting for Sen. Bernie Sanders of next-door Vermont: “I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values.”

Sanders, according to the latest New Hampshire polls, is trailing Clinton by just eight points. And at the first stop of her two-day swing through the early-voting state, Clinton highlighted contrasts with her main Democratic rival without mentioning him by name.

“We have to take on the gun lobby one more time,” said Clinton, speaking without notes or a teleprompter in front of a crowd of about 850 Dartmouth students and native Granite Staters. “The majority of gun owners support universal background checks, and we have to work very hard to muster the public opinion to convince Congress that’s what they should vote for.”

She said it was the “height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.” Sanders, who represents a pro-gun constituency, has voted against the Brady Bill, which required federal background checks for gun purchasers, as well as other major bills supported by gun-control advocates.

She also signaled that she would have no problem defending President Barack Obama’s domestic agenda.

“If the country elects a Republican president, then they will repeal the Affordable Care Act,” she warned. “Let’s elect a Democratic president who is committed to quality affordable health care.”

She praised Obama’s moves to help the country recover from the economic crisis and said Republicans who say the recovery is too slow “just don’t know the theory of original sin,” blaming “the kind of poor management and bad economic policies that put us into the ditch in the first place.”

...

“I’m probably leaning more toward Bernie,” admitted Roland Downey, 18, who attended the rally with his father, Glenn King, a nurse. “I like that he’s being more modern,” said Downey of the 73-year-old candidate. “I don’t know enough about Hillary.” King said he was also still undecided.

Dee Roberts, who works in human resources at Dartmouth College, said she came out to see Clinton but that she likes what she’s heard from Sanders. “We’re pretty liberal here,” she said. “He’s very straightforward and doesn’t take PAC money.” She said she was hoping to hear more specifics from Clinton on her economic policy.

That didn’t happen Friday — Clinton said she plans to begin laying out “specific policies” on the economy starting in about 10 days.

...

Clinton supporters also said support for Sanders should not be interpreted as anti-Clinton sentiment — and that polling shows many of his supporters list Clinton as their second choice. “From talking to some,” said Shumaker, “I think that a lot of these folks in the end will vote for her.”

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think "he's too liberal" is just a stock phrase politicians can say about anyone and they're used to getting away with it.

 

[benjipwns]

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.

The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.

Jesse Ellis O’Brien, a health advocate at the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, said: “Rate increases will be bigger in 2016 than they have been for years and years and will have a profound effect on consumers here. Some may start wondering if insurance is affordable or if it’s worth the money.”

...

Some say the marketplaces have not attracted enough healthy young people. “As a result, millions of people will face Obamacare sticker shock,” said Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming.

By contrast, Marinan R. Williams, chief executive of the Scott & White Health Plan in Texas, which is seeking a 32 percent rate increase, said the requests showed that “there was a real need for the Affordable Care Act.”

...

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico has requested rate increases averaging 51 percent for its 33,000 members.

...

In their submissions to federal and state regulators, insurers cite several reasons for big rate increases. These include the needs of consumers, some of whom were previously uninsured; the high cost of specialty drugs; and a policy adopted by the Obama administration in late 2013 that allowed some people to keep insurance that did not meet new federal standards.

“Healthier people chose to keep their plans,” said Amy L. Bowen, a spokeswoman for the Geisinger Health Plan in Pennsylvania, and people buying insurance on the exchange were therefore sicker than expected. Geisinger, often praised as a national model of coordinated care, has requested an increase of 40 percent in rates for its health maintenance organization.

Insurers with decades of experience and brand-new plans underestimated claims costs.

“Our enrollees generated 24 percent more claims than we thought they would when we set our 2014 rates,” said Nathan T. Johns, the chief financial officer of Arches Health Plan, which covers about one-fourth of the people who bought insurance through the federal exchange in Utah. As a result, the company said, it collected premiums of $39.7 million and had claims of $56.3 million in 2014. It has requested rate increases averaging 45 percent for 2016.

The rate requests are the first to reflect a full year of experience with the new insurance exchanges and federal standards that require insurers to accept all applicants, without charging higher prices because of a person’s illness or disability.

...

In financial statements filed with the government in the last two months, some insurers said that their claims payments totaled not just 80 percent, but more than 100 percent of premiums. And that, they said, is unsustainable.

At Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, for example, the ratio of claims paid to premium revenues was more than 115 percent, and the company said it lost more than $135 million on its individual insurance business in 2014. “Based on first-quarter results,” it said, “the year-end deficit for 2015 individual business is expected to be significantly higher.”

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, the largest insurer in the state’s individual market, said its proposed increase of 36 percent could affect more than 209,000 consumers.

“There’s not a lot of mystery to it,” said Roy Vaughn, a vice president of the Tennessee Blue Cross plan. “We lost a significant amount of money in the marketplace, $141 million, because we were not very accurate in predicting the utilization of health care.”

...

After public hearings and a rigorous review, Ms. Cali, the Oregon insurance commissioner, found that the cost of providing coverage to individuals and families in 2014 was $830 million, while premiums were only $703 million. She directed some carriers to raise rates in 2016 even more than they had proposed.

Health Net, for example, requested rate increases averaging 9 percent in Oregon. The state approved increases averaging 34.8 percent. Oregon’s Health Co-op requested a 5.3 percent increase. The state called for a 19.9 percent increase.

...

Coventry Health Care, now owned by Aetna, is seeking rate increases that average 22 percent for 70,000 consumers in Missouri. “The claims experience for these plans has been worse than anticipated,” Coventry reported.

In its proposal to increase rates by an average of 25 percent for more than 397,000 consumers, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina cited “inpatient costs, particularly in treatment of cancer and heart conditions, emergency room utilization, and cost for specialty drug medications” to treat hepatitis C, breast cancer and cystic fibrosis.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas sought increases averaging 37 percent for 2016 and said the increase could affect 28,600 consumers.

“Kansans who purchased these individual plans since 2014 were older, in general, than expected and required more medical services than anticipated,” the company told federal health officials.

EDIT: There's already a thread I see, posted slightly after I read the story and before I posted it: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1075289

 

[Retromelon]

I think "he's too liberal" is just a stock phrase politicians can say about anyone and they're used to getting away with it.

That may be so, and liberal may be a term turned unfairly pejorative by an uncouth opposition, but it is certainly fair a label for some to use when examining the ideas of Bernie Sanders

 

[benjipwns]

The biggest heist of the Progressive Movement wasn't the Fed, it was stealing the meaning of liberal.

And the conservatives not only let them get away with it, they've encouraged it.

Liberal means one man, one woman...er...uh...hold on, I've got my pages all mixed up here.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016


EDIT: There's already a thread I see, posted slightly after I read the story and before I posted it: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1075289

Will reserve judgement until I see Ezra Klein's spin.

 

[Aaron Strife]

That may be so, and liberal may be a term turned unfairly pejorative by an uncouth opposition, but it is certainly fair a label for some to use when examining the ideas of Bernie Sanders

Sure, but they're too used to not being challenged on it that they can't articulate why. It's silly political theatre buzz words.

 

[benjipwns]

Will reserve judgement until I see Ezra Klein's spin.

:dead

 

[gutter_trash]

since when is being a Liberal a bad thing?

why can't Dems just embrace Liberalism the same way Republicans embrace Conservatism?

 

[KingK]

All right, at around 1:00 in the first video bernie says he does not think 90% is obviously too high. This direct source vindicates my thoughts on the matter, kingk, and thank you for engaging me. I am grateful for our robust exchange of ideas that has produced a beautiful and unarguable truth.

The whole point of bringing up the Eisenhower example is to show that a top tax rate up to 90% is not "obviously too high," since that was the case in the fifties and things were fine. It's a pushback of the conventional wisdom that if you tax the rich too much things will go to shit. Responding "no" to the question of "is 90% too high?" especially given the context in which he brought it up, is not the same as "Sanders said in an interview he was considering a 90% top tax rate." You're being misleading.

 

[Retromelon]

I don't think its misleading. Saying it is not too high means that it is possible. Saying it is possible means that it could happen. Saying it could happen means that he is considering it.

 

[benjipwns]

since when is being a Liberal a bad thing?

why can't Dems just embrace Liberalism the same way Republicans embrace Conservatism?

Because the Democrats don't support liberalism for the most part?

The whole point of bringing up the Eisenhower example is to show that a top tax rate up to 90% is not "obviously too high," since that was the case in the fifties and things were fine. It's a pushback of the conventional wisdom that if you tax the rich too much things will go to shit.

It's also a convenient fiction since nobody was paying 90%. But the lower classes were paying a larger share of taxes, which is an ideal "democratic socialist" goal considering the countries they "run" so I can see why 1950's tax rates are beloved.

 

[RustyNails]

He said he would walk away from the table right now if he were negotiating the Iranian nuclear deal because they're untrustworthy. But if a deal is made, he wouldn't scrap it on his first day as president. Instead, he'd consult with his advisers before making that decision.

I had no idea Christie could contour his body that much. Besides, America is the untrustworthy party on the table not Iran.

 

[benjipwns]

I had no idea Christie could contour his body that much. Besides, America is the untrustworthy party on the table not Iran.

Good point, the Iranians might be fearful that he would shut down all their bridges.

 

[Retromelon]

Home run benji home run

 

[NeoXChaos]

They should put one more line under Sanders: will lose national elections

cant stand that 3rd one. They call his "elected public service" while she is " 8 years elected office". How is her time as FLOAR, FLOTUS, Senator & SoS not public service as well? Should also be edited to spell out "can win national election".

 

[KingK]

I don't think its misleading. Saying it is not too high means that it is possible. Saying it is possible means that it could happen. Saying it could happen means that he is considering it.

He was asked "you don't think 90% is obviously too high?" and he said no. If it was so obvious then the sky would have been falling in the fifties. But no, saying something is possible is not necessarily the same as saying you're considering it. It's possible for me to get off my ass and go run five miles in the middle of the night. That doesn't mean I'm considering it. He said he and his team haven't finished working on their tax policy yet so he doesn't want to say anything about rates yet other than "they'll be higher." Watching the interview in context and then just saying "Bernie Sanders is considering a 90% tax rate" is misleading.

It's also a convenient fiction since nobody was paying 90%. But the lower classes were paying a larger share of taxes, which is an ideal "democratic socialist" goal considering the countries they "run" so I can see why 1950's tax rates are beloved.

Well he did say it was the nominal tax rate.

cant stand that 3rd one. They call his "elected public service" while she is " 8 years elected office". How is her time as FLOAR, FLOTUS, Senator & SoS not public service as well? Should also be edited to spell out "can win national election".

I agree, that one's especially dumb. I hate those type of facebook shareable one liner political images in general, regardless of who it's about.

 

[Retromelon]

There is a bit of a diferrence between your proclivities for night time exercise and a presidential candidate discussing his opinions on economic policy bruv.

 

[thepotatoman]

Sure, but they're too used to not being challenged on it that they can't articulate why. It's silly political theatre buzz words.

Particularly when it comes to the primary. Maybe the center won't go for things like medicare for all after the media starts smearing it in every direction they can, but I'm pretty sure like 80%+ of democrats agree with Sanders on it.

 

[benjipwns]

Well he did say it was the nominal tax rate.

I think statutory tax rate would be clearer, but that's me.

Particularly when it comes to the primary. Maybe the center won't go for things like medicare for all after the media starts smearing it in every direction they can, but I'm pretty sure like 80%+ of democrats agree with Sanders on it.

Medicare for All probably wouldn't be smeared by the media, it's pretty popular. Note, I'm talking purely about the phrase "Medicare for All." It adds 10 points to polls compared to merely "single payer" which already gets majorities:

Table 1: Polls indicating majority support for single-payer
……………………………………………………………For single-payer……..Opposed to single-payer
General public: Polls in which support is 60 percent or higher
Harvard University/Harris (1988)(a)……………………61%…………..not asked
LA Times (1990)(b)…………………………………………….66%………….not asked
Wall Street Journal-NBC (1991)(c)……………………….69%…………….20%
Wash Post-ABC News (2003)(d)…………………………..62%………….not asked
Civil Society Institute (2004)(e)……………………………67%……………..27%
AP-Yahoo (2007)(f)……………………………………………..65%…………..not asked
Grove Insight (2009)(g)………………………………………64%……………..28%
Grove Insight (2009)(g)………………………………………60%……………..27%
General public: Polls in which support is below 60 percent
AP-Yahoo (2007)(f)……………………………………………..54%……………….44%
Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)……………………..58%……………….38%
Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)……………………..50%……………….44%
Doctors
New Eng J Med (medical school faculty and students) (1999)
………………………………………………………………………….57%…………….not asked
Arch Int Med (doctors) (2004)………………………………64%…………….not asked
Minnesota Med (doctors) (2007)……………………………64%…………….not asked

First two answers in this chart are from the same poll and shows the ~10 point jump. This has been found in other surveys.

 

[KingK]

There is a bit of a diferrence between your proclivities for night time exercise and a presidential candidate discussing his opinions on economic policy bruv.

Right, but the point I'm making is that he explicitly declined to say what rates he was considering because they haven't finished the policy yet and all he can definitively say is that they'll be "higher." Yes, technically that could include anything between 39.6-infinity. In context, there's no real reason to believe the 90% figure is something his team is actively considering. Which is why saying "Bernie is considering a 90% tax rate," is misleading. We don't know what he's considering, other than something above 39.6%.

It's like if Hillary had an interview that went as follows:

Hillary: I will raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
Reporter: What rates will you have?
Hillary: Well, higher than they are now, but we haven't worked out the specifics...
Reporter: Well just give us an idea. Isn't 50% too high?
Hillary: I don't want to give any numbers before we finalize our plan.

You: I saw in an interview Hillary was considering a 50% tax rate.

 

[Oblivion]

It's also a convenient fiction since nobody was paying 90%. But the lower classes were paying a larger share of taxes, which is an ideal "democratic socialist" goal considering the countries they "run" so I can see why 1950's tax rates are beloved.

benji-kun, I love you, but I can't let you get away with this.

You're correct in that people probably didn't pay anywhere near the 90% number, but the rich and corporations paid a far greater share of taxes than the rest of the country.

 

[Retromelon]

Right, but the point I'm making is that he explicitly declined to say what rates he was considering because they haven't finished the policy yet and all he can definitively say is that they'll be "higher." Yes, technically that could include anything between 39.6-infinity. In context, there's no real reason to believe the 90% figure is something his team is actively considering. Which is why saying "Bernie is considering a 90% tax rate," is misleading. We don't know what he's considering, other than something above 39.6%.

It's like if Hillary had an interview that went as follows:

Hillary: I will raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
Reporter: What rates will you have?
Hillary: Well, higher than they are now, but we haven't worked out the specifics...
Reporter: Well just give us an idea. Isn't 50% too high?
Hillary: I don't want to give any numbers before we finalize our plan.

You: I saw in an interview Hillary was considering a 50% tax rate.

Actually it would be more like
Reporter:Isnt 50% obviously too high?
Hillary: No it is not
I don't believe Mr. Sanders will impose a 90% tax rate or anything similar, but i do believe that if he says that it is obviously not too high, then it is an indication that he is thinking about its possibility, hence considering it. Clearly you disagree and we could argue this a while yet but im getting sleepy, so i am happy to leave things as they are and let others decide who is right assuming there is anyone else besides u or i that has been caring enough to read what u or i have been saying

 

[benjipwns]

benji-kun, I love you, but I can't let you get away with this.

You're correct in that people probably didn't pay anywhere near the 90% number, but the rich and corporations paid a far greater share of taxes than the rest of the country.

I figured this out somewhere, give me time to search through 99 pages. You've got to give me time, the bridge is smashed, computers inoperative.

 

[thepotatoman]

Medicare for All probably wouldn't be smeared by the media, it's pretty popular. Note, I'm talking purely about the phrase "Medicare for All." It adds 10 points to polls compared to merely "single payer" which already gets majorities:

Sure they can smear it.

"Medicare for All - This time it's actually like Canada"

 

[Jackson50]

That sounds good to me. If this goes through Obama needs to let John Kerry have custody of the Nobel peace prize on weekends and certain holidays.

He certainly deserves approbation for his tireless work. He's spent close to half the year engaged in negotiations with Iran. If a deal is finalized, and I think it will, that's a monumental achievement.

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016


EDIT: There's already a thread I see, posted slightly after I read the story and before I posted it: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1075289

Hiccups were inevitable considering the magnitude of Obamacare. The addition of millions of consumer would invariably disrupt the market, so it's not a surprise that some insurers underestimated expenses. Still, the increase in premiums is modest for most plans according to Kaiser. The average is 4% for silver plans. That's higher than last year, but considerably less than the extreme cases highlighted in the article. A couple of factors seem to have contributed to this. First, demand for services was greater than expected; naturally, people who previously lacked healthcare have a greater demand for services. Second, the risk pool still lacks those who opted out of insurance and paid the fine instead. But as the penalty increases annually, more people should purchase insurance. And most of the extreme increases will be reduced.

 

[thepotatoman]

If we can get the always present both sides press to seriously ask "Is a 90% tax rate really too high?" to pundits that support such a high tax, pointing out the history of our tax rate, and the details of how progressive tax systems work, then that'd be about as big of a win as you'd expect coming out of Bernie, even if the public in general doesn't want to go that far.

It'd be one hell of a shift in the overton window when not even a small tax hike on the rich is even being discussed. It'd open the window for Hillary to say "yeah, im for a 5-10% point change on taxes of the rich" and not seem like she's asking to be brought under USSR rule.

 

[benjipwns]

There's a Meta post in the 2014 thread that has 24 instances of the word "tax" in it.

EDIT: Also 64 of the 100 pages were posted AFTER Election Day 2014 since this thread didn't save us until the end of February 2015.

 

[Metaphoreus]

There's a Meta post in the 2014 thread that has 24 instances of the word "tax" in it.

Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax.

Now what?

 

[benjipwns]

Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax.

Now what?

This one's better: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=155060950&postcount=1389

 

[Metaphoreus]

This one's better: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=155060950&postcount=1389

Your interdimensional buddy never did respond, either.

 

[benjipwns]

How the fuck can I find a 2008 post mocking "taxes are voluntary" and a 2011 post about Karl Malone (i have no idea why this turned up) but not a 2014-15 post about 1960s taxes.

 

[FyreWulff]

How the fuck can I find a 2008 post mocking "taxes are voluntary" and a 2011 post about Karl Malone (i have no idea why this turned up) but not a 2014-15 post about 1960s taxes.

Search index needs to be rebuilt.

 

[benjipwns]

Because he always delivers.

Not on Sundays.

 

[FiggyCal]

Is there any reason to believe that Hillary actually supports single payer?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Is there any reason to believe that Hillary actually supports single payer?

well, aside from her literally saying it's inevitable back in the Hillarycare days

 

[benjipwns]

that url is amazing

 

[eBay Huckster]

that url is amazing

i don't even know where to start with it

 

[FiggyCal]

I was only unsure because in an interview with Claire McCaskill, she says that Bernie was unelectable because he was too far left. When pressed as to what issues he was too left on, she answered that he was in favor of a medicare for all system and she said that she doesn't believe that the American people want government guaranteeing them insurance. I assumed then because she was a Clinton supporter that Hillary would not support those things.
Edit: Nvm

 

[Chichikov]

a 2011 post about Karl Malone

 

[eBay Huckster]

I was only unsure because in an interview with Claire McCaskill, she says that Bernie was unelectable because he was too far left. When pressed as to what issues he was too left on, she answered that he was in favor of a medicare for all system and she said that she doesn't believe that the American people want government guaranteeing them insurance. I assumed then because she was a Clinton supporter that Hillary would not support those things.

In that link you posted, I only see her showing support for "healthcare reform". I only quickly skimmed it though, so maybe I'm mistaken.

mainly, this section

Question: This next question… comes from Scott Engstrom (phonetic) of Franklin Templeton Funds. He asks, it seems clear that everyone on Capitol Hill is in favor of “health care reform” and that if the Administration wanted to compromise, some legislation could be passed very quickly. Is the danger of that approach from your perspective that that you may be giving up a mandate at a specific period in history in which you may be able to effectuate radical change? Is it now or never for massive health care reform?

Mrs. Hillary Clinton: No, because what I think would happen if there is not health care reform this year, and if, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn’t pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t even think it’s a close call politically.

I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country. And regardless of the referendum outcome in California, it will be such a huge popular issue in the sense of populist issue that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be. So for those who think that building on the existing public-private system with an employer mandate is radical, I think they are extremely short-sighted, but that is their choice.

There are many ways to compromise health care reform, and I don’t think that the President could have been clearer in every public statement he has made that he has one bottom line. It is universal coverage by a date certain. And he has basically told the Congress, you know, you’ve got different ways of getting there. Come to us, and let’s look at it. There are only three ways to get to universal coverage. You know, a lot of people stand up and applaud universal coverage, and they sit down, and you say, “Well, how are you going to get there?”, and they don’t want to confront that there are only three ways.

You either have a general tax — the single payer approach that replaces existing private investment — or you have an employer mandate, or you have an individual mandate. And there isn’t any other way to get to universal coverage. The market cannot deliver universal coverage in the foreseeable future, and any compromise that people try to suggest that would permit the market to have a few years to try to deliver universal coverage without a mandate that would take effect to actually finish the job will guarantee a single payer heath care system.

 

[benjipwns]

repost from greek thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/europe/greek-crisis-memes/