My biggest problem with Hillary from last night. HILLARY'S LYING.

[retrowire]

The lying. The dishonesty.

Plain and simple.

Is there any truth to the following statements?

"We finally have a path to universal health care. We have accomplished so much already. I do not to want see the Republicans repeal it, and I don't to want see us start over again with a contentious debate. I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act and improve it."

"Now, there are things we can do to improve it, but to tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate, I think is the wrong direction."

There will be no starting over again. The ACA is, as she stated the PATH to universal healthcare. With 29 MILLION Americans STILL going without healthcare, I can hardly agree that we have truly ACHIEVED universal healthcare. She is claiming that Bernie wants to rip up and undo Obama's namesake, and start us all over again. How the FUCK is that true? In ANY sense of the statement, how is that true?

Bernie's plan is the next step from Obamacare, there will be no resetting. No undoing. This is a blatant lie.

Is there any credibility for Hillary, when she says this...

"One out of three African American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "So, we have a very serious problem that we can no longer ignore."

And she wants to leave marijuana as it is? The biggest reason that AA youth end up in the school to prison pipeline? Hillary, you'd be apart of the problem.

Is there any credibility for Hillary, when she says this...

And I can tell you that the hedge fund billionaires who are running ads against me right now, and Karl Rove, who started running an ad against me right now, funded by money from the financial services sector, sure thing, I'm the one they don't want to be up against.

When her very own daughter is in the hedge fund game? When she is as cozy with Wall St as she's always been? When she denounces CU but doesn't practice what she preaches?

Hillary can tell the truth, but she can't help but twist it into a lie. It's that bad. Sure Bernie said he thought Obama wasn't strong enough. About what? Oh, Hillary won't tell you that. She'll leave that to your imagination.


Let's also look at what the Hillary camp is trying to push...

Bernie doesn't care about Flint, Michigan.

Okay...

SANDERS: Well, Secretary Clinton was right and what I did which I think is also right, is demanded the resignation of governor. A man who acts that irresponsibly should not stay in power.

Bernie wants to tear up Obamacare.

SEE MY ABOVE STATEMENTS

---

Other than that, the debate format sucked ass. I think everyone should be able to agree with that qualm.

Hillary was given a free shot at Bernie on guns, and Bernie was not allowed a rebuttal, they went straight to O'Malley about guns.

And Hillary supporters, before you get all mad at me for pointing that out, did you even notice that of the 3 candidates, they didn't allow your Hillary to even speak about the Climate Change and fossil fuels issue?

Bernie won in my opinion (and many others opinions.) but the debate sucked. Hillary lied and slung as much mud as she could and O'Malley had a great last night in the race.

[Hoyt]

1. As far as healthcare, Krugman seems to agree with her. So, it's time to throw him under the bus.

[Kalidurga]

2. Sure he started it.

[retrowire]

3. I read Bernie's plan myself, so whoeever Krugman is... He can have his opinion that's just fine.

Bernie, if he wins, will prove any of the doubters wrong anyway. So no harm done

[Agschmid]

6. I am curious to how we get there.

I've read Bernie's plan and don't have any major issues with it, I'm not entirely clear on the taxes and it does actually look like I would pay more... But I'm in an odd situation.

But I am curious as to how we get there? What steps will need to happen, what will congress look like and how will they handle it.

There are a lot of "ifs" but that's true of every campaign.

[retrowire]

9. It really really really comes down to what Bernie's said from the beginning

And Bernie has admittedly dressed it up with glamour of revolution.

But it's the word before "Revolution" that means the most. "Political"

Bernie doesn't mean, "Hey, it's an uphill battle getting me into the white house, but if we do that, we win!"

He's said it from the beginning and he's been right, he wants voter turnout to ALWAYS BE HIGH. He wants voter apathy, dead.

If we all keep voting, in local elections and everything else, then we will truly achieve the political revolution he has been talking about. You'll have a senate that isn't one sided, you'll have a fair government and everything, if you just VOTE.

That's the political revolution Bernie's talking about. So even if he doesn't win,he still wants that revolution to continue. JUST VOTE.

That's how we'll get there.

[Agschmid]

11. I plan on voting but I'm not sure it's enough to get us there.

I need to read up on Obama's first term but he came in with great coat tails and it didn't pay off.

We did vote... It didn't work.

[retrowire]

16. no no no, we didn't vote

Here's what happened there.

He motivated the biggest movement in youth votes the nation had ever seen.

Most youth then, and believe me, MOST PEOPLE don't understand politics completely. He had a great message, the people were carried by "hope and change" and they got him there.

THEN, we saw the biggest turn out for an inauguration in American history. Why? Couple of reasons to want to be there that day. It was the first president after the abysmal Bush. It was the first black president. It really felt like change could happen.

Everything was there. But then... What happened next?

The majority of America most likely felt, "We elected the right president, now everything is fine." It was mostly the youth vote that went missing all over again. Why? Because they didn't understand that, the President doesn't just wave a wand. He's got congress to deal with. The senate. Etc...

So they sat out on the mid term and BOOM, super republican congress, AWAYYYY.

The generation that put Obama in the White House got to see and learn first hand what happens when all you do is elect the president, but no one else. Government shutdowns. Nothing gets done.

So this is why Bernie's revolution can and will happen. That generation that wanted change is still here. They've grown up after seeing what happens when all you do is elect the president and nothing else.

They've learned the mistake. And I have faith it won't happen again.

[notadmblnd]

100. You are right, lots of Dems didn't vote

But not because they felt that everything was fine. It was because Obama promised change and when he actually took office, he settled and went along with the status quo. He disappointed a lot of progressive Democrats that believed him when he said real change would occur and all that happened was more of the same.
,
Lots of people were pissed about who he appointed. People like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Next, he gave into republicans and effectively cut Social Security by eliminating COLA raises. He bailed out the banks and did nothing to help homeowners. He refused to prosecute those who robbed the people blind. He also failed to close Gitmo.Then he rolled over on health care and implemented what was pretty much the republican plan. Many people felt hoodwinked and and sat out the midterms. Now they're setting us up to be hoodwinked again if HRC is the nominee.

[retrowire]

103. Too true.

But we shouldn't sit out the midterms, even if we don't get Bernie this time.

[notadmblnd]

105. I had hoped people would learn something from it. Specifically- the 3rd way Democrats.

In my opinion, if we're going to vote in 3rd wayers- then we might as well vote republican, because I don't see them as being any different.

[KingCharlemagne]

138. In 2010 and 2014, progressive Dems largely held their own. The Blue Dogs got

shellacked. Thanks a lot Rahm, DWS, et. al.

[KingCharlemagne]

135. He fucking kept Bob Eichmann Gates as his Defense Sec. I was still

reeling from his throwing Rev Wright under the bus and then to have that colossal act of betrayal. wow, just wow. But at least I knew where I stood thenceforth.

[randys1]

202. Settled, status quo? Wow, I dont know where to start.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Besides these 321 accomplishments, how is ACA status quo?

Even with the friendliness to the capitalists profiting off of our health, it was still anything but status quo.

The rewriting of history around here is annoying

[notadmblnd]

204. I rewrote nothing. You mis-remember

I explained to the poster what disappointed progressive Democrats and why many stayed home in 2010.

However you did not address the facts I posted, Summers, Geithner, Gitmo. And yes the ACA is what he and his fellow 3rd way-ers rolled over and gave in to republican on. Or don't you recall that Democrats were the majority during that time?

So go ahead, figure out where to start and please don't leave out picking apart the rest of the points in my post. Including his appointments- failure to prosecute those who lied us into war (what were his words? Something to the effect that we must look forward and not back.), and those who caused the economy to fail. Also, please don't forget the denial of COLA raises that effectively cut Social Security for millions of seniors.

IOW- Show me where I lied.

You know what else is annoying here? The damn condescending attitude some people adopt when the read something they don't like.

[bvar22]

193. Your narrative is flawed.

We didn't turn our backs on Obama, he turned his back on us, retreated to the Oval Office,
and left the movement standing in the streets. He let the Republicans control the narrative with their Teabagger Summer "Town Hall Meetings" without any response from the Party Leadership.

Chill Out. I've got this

All we got was a handful of empty promises he never tried to fulfill, and ridicule from White House "spokespersons" for voicing our needs.

[font color=white]......[/font][font size=3]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

After being abandoned, the movement for CHANGE re-emerged as the leaderless OWS
which later ballooned into the Bernie Campaign.

[retrowire]

194. When the midterms came up, and it was time to vote for congress

did the youth vote remain?

No?

My narrative is fine. In fact, BOTH narratives are correct and coexist so... whats the problem?

[Ed Suspicious]

19. Max Baucus. Third Way Corpo-dem stood in the way of single payer.

[jeff47]

25. IMO, Lieberman was a larger barrier

After all, Lieberman killed his own public option proposal.

[merrily]

39. The bill ultimately passed by reconciliation. That's 50 plus Biden.

[merrily]

40. Rahm Emanuel. There were all those White House meetings before Baucus even got his mitts on it.

Remember the FOIA requests from the American Civil Liberties Union for the White House logs that the "White House" tried to dodge? Then the ACLU filed suit and the "White House" tried to blame the Secret Service.

Good times.

[bvar22]

195. And, Max Baucus was later hugely rewarded for his obstructionism.

Obama gave him the appointment as Ambassador to China!!!
Old Max will be able to fill his off shore accounts with MILLIONS from this plum of an appointment for his "obstructionism".

Personally, I would have kicked Max Baucus to the curb quickly, and abandoned HIM instead of the American people. That goes for Blanche Lincoln too.

Senator Blanche Lincoln was another key player who was also rewarded for HER obstruction of the Public Option.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024586209


Look beyond the Kabuki Theater.
Peek behind the curtains, if you dare.

[Ed Suspicious]

197. Thank you! That op was incredibly enlightening and deserves another run

around the track here.

[valerief]

24. Don't you remember what happened in 2010? You know if America had a real education

system for all, people would understand how important Congress is to our lives.

[Agschmid]

69. No I don't remember every detail of 2010.

And I'm not uneducated if that's what you were getting at?

That's why I said I'd have to Google it to refresh my memory.

But we agree on the point that we need to control the houses on congress but I'm not sure we can get there?

[valerief]

72. 2010. Teabaggers glorified by media. We lost the House.

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about all of us. Hell, it wasn't until I got older (and got the internet with it, too) that I became more aware politically. I blame our educational system and media for that. And I blame Congress for fucking with both.

[Marty McGraw]

125. ( '-') + 10k

I believe net neutrality would slip by the wayside quietly on some Friday if the anointed one gets the position losing the chance to ever receive contrasting view to any corporate interest.

The (somewhat) free and open internet landscape will more than likely look very dismal after the corporate appeasement process has been exercised and another plebe basic right has been compromised away by our favored queen.

good luck ever hearing word of any decent candidate to select by after that happens. We'd be put back to the 1800's way of ever being able to communicate that around the country.

[tblue37]

203. AND state and local elections! nt

[Plucketeer]

78. Dear doubters

What Bernie is proposing is NEW to all of us. We've never had a foot on the threshold of "revolution" before - and I'm speaking of us, the modern-day Americans. Just as our forefathers FOUGHT to free us from the royal oppression of the 18th century, WE are on the cusp of throwing off the oligarchy we've allowed to overtake us thru apathy and ignorance. It's a dark and scary void on the other side. But we either take that bold first step or resign ourselves to the status quo that a Clinton presidency will give us.

Last night's debate offered us a CLEAR VIEW of where a Clinton presidency would steer us. Her STEADFAST defense of the ACA is the very thinnest of frostings that covers the asses of the health insurance industry we all kow-tow to. The HII has PAID Hillary to run interference for them in the hopes of keeping them viable. After all, making money is the only reason they exist - it's certainly not a matter of their compassion for the sick. Clinton, Obama and the rest of the Sellout-o-crats have all told us that the ACA was/is just a stepping stone to single payer. But it was patently clear that HRC was defending her team when she tried her best to shoot down Medicare-for-all last night. Her forked tongue was perfectly visible almost every time she spoke.

[roguevalley]

94. ``this!`` Plucketeer!

[retrowire]

115. Righteous words. Wow, great post. nt

[monicaangela]

137. We may have voted, but that's all we did, we didn't continue to

demand that the President stick to his campaign promises. Also too, how do you think life would have been under a President McCain along with Vice President Palin or for that matter even a President Romney with a Vice President Ryan the second time around? Do you really think you would have it better under either of those scenarios?

[Agschmid]

145. Huh... what?

Some of us voted and some of us kept up the battle, here in Mass. we worked to elect Elizabeth Warren. Some of us have been paying attention and trying to make a change the whole time.

[monicaangela]

190. I'm happy to hear that,

problem is, most people either don't vote, or vote and then forget about politics until the next election comes up. I live in Ohio, and it is very hard to look away from politics in this state. We are mostly republican controlled, and believe me everyday I try to do something to change that. I had hoped that Nina Turner would win her bid to become Ohio Secretary of State. We worked hard to try to get her into that office, because we in Ohio realize how important that position is when it comes to the funny business that has taken place over the past years, especially with Ken Blackwell. The State is so gerrymandered, it's hard to get anything done, but I will continue to do my part whenever possible. President Obama got a lot done, but he did drop the ball on several occasions trying to reach across the aisle. I believe his dream was to do something that has never been done in this country and that is to change the mind of people who are still living in what is tantamount to the post Civil War era. I'm not disappointed in what his has been able to accomplish under those circumstance, but I do believe he would have been able to accomplish a lot more if democrats would have gotten out to vote during the election of House and Senate candidates.

[AlbertCat]

183. how do you think life would have been under a President McCain

Oh... go write your own scifi....

[monicaangela]

191. Scifi?

Oh go write my own? Care to elaborate?

[Duval]

90. Exactly, retrowire! That's his message.

[sulphurdunn]

63. The organizational structure for universal healthcare

is already in place. The government already provides healthcare for almost half the population. Implementing it for everyone would be no more complicated than placing those not already there into the medicare/medicaid system and applying the medicare tax to unearned income.

[JonLeibowitz]

66. Thank you for having an open mind. I myself am not sold on the plan, & as you know I support Sanders

I too would like to know how we get there. Sadly, I think the approach must be, at a minimum:

1) Nominate justices to SCOTUS to overturn Citizens United.
2) Allow the FEC to actually regulate elections rather than stifling it with a 3-3 split board.
3) Elect, in 2018 or 2020 many more Democrats. Ditto in 2022 after redistricting due to census and gerrymandering reform
4) Pass universal healthcare.

I just don't see another path. And unfortunately due to the present state of our democracy, it is a long one.

Again though, thanks for not jumping to attack the plan. I myself am not jumping to defend the plan because I have not heard enough.

[Armstead]

110. Step 1 - The Democratic Party start to actually support the concept

It would be a big help if institutionally the Democratic Party actually came together and supported the concept. And stop inadvertently echoing the GOP lies and scare tactics about public insurance coverage. Instead explain to the public the benefits, and actually fight for it.

That also means stop coddling the private insurance industry and coming up with ridiculous overly complicated schemes that are designed to perpetuate the system and keep them in the game.

Bernie is going broad brush, but it is also possible to do it gradually by increments. That would mean a public option, to show that it can work. There are also alternatives to single payer that would still allow private plans.

But regardless of the ultimate form, the bottom line is to champion the basic concept that everyone sholod have acess to affordable public health coverage.

IMO that would be a huge step to creating political conditions to make it possible.

[bvar22]

122. How do we proceed?

Simple.
Lower the minimum age for MediCare from 65 to 0.
There is a one page bill that does exactly that....HR 676.

[Agschmid]

123. Think it will pass?

[bvar22]

127. Not this year,

..but eventually we will be forced to join the rest of the civilized WORLD.
The movement is growing as more downward pressure is continually put on the Working Class by Repubs and ConservoDems.

It is like when Bernie first entered the Democratic Presidential race, and was polling at 4%, and people (especially in the Hillary camp) were laughing and saying he didn't have a chance.
Remember that?

You can stick with the "No we can't" crowd if you wish.
We are moving on and improving the ACA Act.
Remember, it was sold to us as "The First Step".

If it was "only the first step", why was Hillary arguing that we can't change it now?
I know the answer, but I'll let you think about that for a while.

The Movement IS growing.
Bernie is just the latest facet of the movement.

[monicaangela]

143. The movement is growing

and I am so happy to see people finally realize that there is a better way and we can have what every other industrialized nation has. I find it hard to believe that the citizens of this country, yes, even the elected officials would rather continue paying pencil pushers billions of dollars when so many other nations have proven already it isn't necessary. I sure wish I could get someone to pay me for standing in the way of someone's ability to deal directly with whichever entity they choose, just because I want to handle the administrative portion of it. Oh, you want to buy a hammer? Sure, no problem, pay me a gazillion dollars to set that up for you and the hammer is yours.

[bvar22]

150. That was my Dad's advice to me if I ever wantd to get RICH

...without having to WORK.
Find a place where lots of money is changing hands, and get in the middle. Every time the money passes through my hands, rake off 15 % for myself, then pass the remainder on to where it belongs. He also said that , like him, I would have trouble sleeping at night knowing I provided NOTHING of value in return for the money.

[restorefreedom]

171. there was a guest on ed shultz the other day

maybe the steelworker union guy, i can't remember. he said that there are only three true ways to make money

create/make something and sell it
mine something and sell it
grow something and sell it

makes sense to me. everything else is paper rustling bullshit. i do wonder why he left out the service industry...if you cut someone's hair, you should get paid for it in a service economy. but i think he was trying to distinguish the difference between truly making something and just rustling papers around, moving money and claiming one is "making" money.

like the hedgefund people and their ilk.

[bvar22]

189. Thank You.

"he said that there are only three true ways to make money

create/make something and sell it
mine something and sell it
grow something and sell it "

I agree with your friend
That is Creating Value Added Wealth
Conversely, the Health Insurance Industry:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Maintains NO inventory

*Provides NO useful service

*Creates NO Value Added Wealth

Why are the American Citizens FORCED to subsidize this completely worthless Industry that only diverts our money from Actual Health Care to the pockets of the worthless, completely parasitic Industry?

The ACA was SOLD to us as the "First Step".
But if you listened to Hillary at the debates,
the ACA is Locked In As Is,
and talk of changes are sacrilege.

She told the truth....the 1% has been gifted with MORE BILLIONS in subsidies,
and nobody on HER end of the Democratic Party is going to change that now.

[restorefreedom]

196. he was a great guest. exactly true about health care. the insurance scam

is one of the worst scourges unleashed on the people of this country. and i don't believe for a second anyone in the establishment intended aca as a first step. like you said about Hillary in the debate, thats how they sold it to us.and now they don't want to give up the perverted incest between health care "insurance', big pharma, and wall street.

thankfully it will all change under president sanders. the corporate gravy train is going to come to a screeching halt.

[restorefreedom]

198. it was lansing mayor virg bernero

http://wegoted.com/2016/01/ed-schultz-news-and-commentary-tuesday-the-12th-of-january/

the conversation starts at about 17 min. they were talking about the rescue of the auto industry and the financial manipulation related to tpp and he said "there are only three ways to create wealth: make it, mine it, or grow it. finance is not an industry!"

bam!

its a great listen if you have the time.

[monicaangela]

192. You might have trouble sleeping,

but I'll bet you that gazillion dollars the CEO's of United Health, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and all of the others who are standing in the way of Single Payer healthcare aren't losing any sleep even though they are doing exactly what your dad described as getting rich without having to work.

[tblue37]

205. More like, "Pay me ongoing and expensive protection money to keep the route to the

hardware store open for the future possibility that you might need to buy a hammer (the price of which is about 500 times higher than it should be because hammer lobbyists have bribed legislators to make sure that no entity willing to offer cheaper hammers is allowed to compete at all).

Then, when you do need to buy that hammer, we will have anti-hammer panels blocking your route to the store, and you will need to *prove* to them, with endless documentation, in triplicate, over months or years, not only that you really, really need that hammer, that your hammer purchase did not fall onto one of the many excluded days or within the many excluded hours detailed in microscopic print in your policy, that you bought your hammer at one of the few stores approved by the anti-hammer panel, and that you didn't have any pre-existing need whatsoever for a hammer before purchasing the policy for allowing you to get to the store to buy a hammer.

Then, if you actually are allowed to purchase that hammer at 500× the reasonable cost, you will be allowed only to take it 80% of the way home, until you cough up another 20% of the jacked-up (by 500%) price of the hammer. (We can call that extra 20% a copay.)

By the time you get that hammer home, your house and all your worldly goods will have been sold out from under you, anyway (bankruptcy), which is why so many people either don't purchase the route protection policy in the first place (which will cost them, but not as much), or can't afford to use it even if they have it.

[monicaangela]

206. Very well said!

That is exactly what is happening to the citizens of this country, and I can't understand why there hasn't been a deafening cry against these practices. I guess when the MSM, as ridiculous at they have become talks about dumbed down Americans, they aren't far from the truth.

[MADem]

32. Whoever Krugman is....???????

smh.

[retrowire]

34. Oh geez, should I be respecting or kissing this persons feet?

Are we all beholden to their word? I'm sorry.

[MADem]

45. I am simply a bit shocked that someone who reads DU regularly should refer to him as

an unknown. He won the darn Nobel Prize!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

This is not the resume of an insignificant "some guy."

[retrowire]

48. Who called him some guy?

I've read his name around here.

Didn't know I was supposed to pay such respect to his word. Still don't.

[MADem]

61. "This person," then. "Whoever Krugman is...."

He's not just a rube off the bus. He's got some chops.

[eppur_se_muova]

107. "Some random Laureate ... " nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

139. Come on ... DU Rule #365: In the event that anyone, no matter how accomplished ...

in a particular field of study, holds a differing opinion; one must immediately dismiss that person as irrelevant and/or unwise.

[MADem]

147. Yeah--you're right about that!

If Einstein were living, and not feeling the Bern, his E wouldn't be equaling MC² around here!!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

156. And if The Rev. Dr. Martin L. King were alive today ...

his Civil Rights efforts, would been about race; but rather, economics.

Wait ... that has already been played around here!!!

[Kentonio]

167. No it hasn't.

People have discussed the way that at the end of his life he looked to build a movement that went beyond civil rights and into economic equality. I've read the numerous posts in the AA forum where you see that as an attempt by white people to reduce his work on civil rights and his importance to the black community, but basically you're wrong. It's possible to have limitless amounts of respect for more than one aspect of a persons achievements, and that is very much the case here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

170. Well ..You have declared me wrong. That settles it ...

Oh yeah, Dr. King, Jr., was always about economic equality ... for Black workers. That was the reason he was in Memphis.

[Kentonio]

175. Why do you have this determination that King couldn't possibly have expanded his mission?

No-one (except a small group of racist assholes) even tries to suggest that his primary focus for most of his career wasn't to bring equality to the black community, but towards the end of his life he did look to build a movement to make all people wake up and realize that there was no equality for America as long as the poor of all colors were kept divided.

When he said to those very black sanitation workers:

"Do you know that most of the poor people in our country are working every day? And they are making wages so low that they cannot begin to function in the mainstream of the economic life of our nation. These are facts which must be seen, and it is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis and a full-time job getting part-time income.”

How was that anything other than a call to economic equality? What else was the Poor People's Campaign supposed to represent? Yes that campaign would have helped black people especially, but he was quite clear that poor people of all colors were being oppressed by a deeply corrupt system.

When Rev Abernathy said during the Poor People's March:

"We come with an appeal to open the doors of America to the almost 50 million Americans who have not been given a fair share of America's wealth and opportunity, and we will stay until we get it"

Was he only talking about the black community? Because last I checked, there were only around 22m African Americans in America in 1968, but the Federal Reserve had estimated there were between 40m and 60m people of all colors living in poverty.

[GeorgeGist]

164. Also, ...

it's called it the dismal science for a reason.

[Squinch]

60. Right?

[MADem]

68. I know!!!!

Off ya go, Paul K!!!

[Squinch]

102. I guess Paul never realized that he needs to prove himself to some of our DU friends.

Especially those who don't care about his credentials, only what kind of a man he is.

[retrowire]

117. Are you guys still giggling in a corner about how I'm not openly respecting

a nobel laureate? Are you done?

[Squinch]

121. Are you still in a corner saying that Paul Krugman is insignificant because you haven't

heard of him? Are you done?

[retrowire]

126. What do you think? nt

[pnwmom]

41. Krugman is the liberal economist who won the Nobel prize. He has a column

in the NY Times.

[retrowire]

43. Is that supposed to earn my respect?

Positions and titles mean nothing. What kind of a man is he?

[pnwmom]

57. He's a liberal. A progressive. To the point where he

chose to leave a tenured position as a full professor at Princeton University to go teach at City University -- a 4 year state university that charges fees at the community college level.

[retrowire]

74. Neat. nt

[bvar22]

199. Krugman also helped Bill Clinton sell NAFTA and "Free Trade" to the American people.

It was only years later the this "Nobel Laureate" changed his mind and admitted what most of us in the Working Class had known for years,
that NAFTA was a DISASTER for America's Working Class.

Remember also that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize BEFORE he was in office as President.
Over the next few years, Obama "surged" in Afghanistan for no apparent reason,
expanded the Drone killings to more countries that pose NO threat to the USA,
bombed Libya, the most advance country in North Africa, back to the stone age to be taken over by fundamentalists who have imposed Sharia Law.

At one time, I respected these "awards", but over the last 20 years or so, the Nobel Committee seems to have been corrupted.

[hfojvt]

81. he's more of a centrist

He left Princeton? Whoop de do. He still makes lots of money at CUNY. He has a net worth of $2.5 million. He's not above specious reasoning when it comes to trickle down lite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2225110

[retrowire]

118. And this is why titles mean nothing to me. nt

[Squinch]

64. For one thing he is not ignorant. For another, he is not arrogant.

[Armstead]

112. And he's very good but like all humans, he is not necessarily correct 100 percent of the time

[retrowire]

119. exactly.

So I'm still a bit confused as to why some DUers are appalled that I'm not hanging onto his every word.

[eridani]

172. An economist not saying SHIT about the economics of the plan is unacceptable

He talked about nothing but the politics of single payer. I'm really glad that marriage equality advocates never bothered listening to politcal advice like that.

[jeff47]

5. Krugman's analysis leaves out profit.

There's a giant hole in Krugman's article: profit. While he mentions "administrative costs", he leaves out profit as part of claiming there isn't enough space for government insurance to be cheaper.

[Ed Suspicious]

21. Capitalist economists believe profits make the world go 'round. He can't account for removal

of profits. Where would the incentive be to stop your mother from dying from cancer without profits?

[Hoyt]

36. How much do you think profit is out of the 15/20% cap on admin and profit imposed by ACA?

Administrative costs -- claims adjudication, developing costly computer systems, network admin, negotiating rates, maintaining call centers for insured and providers, meeting government regulations, utilization review, fraud investigation, training, hiring staff, etc. -- eat up a big chunk of that.

When all is said and done, you are lucky to be left with 6% for "profit" and the risk of investing money in all that stuff. Let's say we can eliminate that profit, even though insurance companies will continue to administer Medicare-for-all, just like that administer Medicare now, you'll at best save $300 - $800 off the typical insurance policy. That is not what I hear Sanders' supporters getting all excited about. They seem to think they'll get full coverage for $2250 a year.

Anyway, that $300 - 800 is not enough to make things so much cheaper that we can also pick up uninsured, underinsured, deductibles, coinsurance, dental, hearing aids, and all the other stuff Sanders supporters think will be covered by his plan.

Again, we have to get insurance to everyone. But Sanders ought to be honest about the cost and I don't believe it is 2.2% on individuals and 6.2% on employers. If, after analysis it turns out it is, Sanders' plan is a miracle that only needs to be enacted by Congress. If it is that much of savings to people, even our obstructionist Congress will have trouble stopping it. I just don't believe it until some more economic analysis comes out.

[retrowire]

46. How about Gerald Friedman?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/16/1421895/-Hey-WSJ-Bernie-s-Plan-SAVES-the-US-5-081-Trillion-on-Health-Care

[Hoyt]

52. That is one economist who did his rough calculations in September, before Sanders released his plan

yesterday. I'd like to see analysis of his actual plan. Again, if creditable economists substantiate it, he's got a winner that will be hard to stop.

[retrowire]

53. Well, the plan is still fresh. We'll see what comes out then. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

70. Friedman actually prepared new calculations that anyone who wishes to can read.

Somehow I suspect that few here will do so.

[retrowire]

76. Where are they? I'd like to see myself ya know. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

77. Ask and ye shall receive..

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf

[retrowire]

82. Awesome! It looks great! nt

[jeff47]

73. Much of the administrative costs you cite are not actually subject to the MLR limit.

They actually count as "medical losses". Like staffing the call center.

But hey, who needs reality when there's profit to protect!!!

[Hoyt]

84. Calls to a nurse, probably. Calls about my claims, my reimbursement, my policy, doctors in network,

and the like -- don't think so.

[jeff47]

87. You think wrong. (nt)

[Hoyt]

92. Then, you should be able to produce the regulations.

[jeff47]

99. Why should I bother?

We both know that the actual regulations will not sway your opinion. After all, you couldn't even bother to google it. You'd find things like this at healthcare.gov

Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)

A basic financial measurement used in the Affordable Care Act to encourage health plans to provide value to enrollees. If an insurer uses 80 cents out of every premium dollar to pay its customers' medical claims and activities that improve the quality of care

Guess what staffing a phone center does? Improves the quality of care. Guess what the people who actually pay claims do?

Broadly speaking, Sales, HR, the corporate side of Finance, the Executives and profit are on the "bad" side of the MLR.

[Hoyt]

114. Adjudicating of provider claims is an administrative cost.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) has caused healthcare payor organizations to focus additional scrutiny on administrative costs (claims adjudication, operating costs and salaries, commissions, marketing, call centers, and more), known in the industry as “SG&A” (selling, general and administrative) expenses.

http://info.medinsight.milliman.com/category/administrative-expenses/page/2/

Also read, Medical Loss Ratio Requirements Under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA): Issues for Congress

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42735.pdf


Premiums
must cover administrative costs, including those
related to product development, enrollment,
claims adjudication, and regulatory compliance.
They also must cover taxes, assessments, and
fees, as well as profit.

https://www.actuary.org/files/Premium_Change_ACA_IB_FINAL_050813.pdf

[jeff47]

133. Claims adjudication != paying claims.

It means dealing with a conflict regarding a claim.

Call center costs depend on what the call center does. If they're dealing with adjudicating a claim, they're on the "bad" side. Not every call center activity is adjudicating a claim.

[Hoyt]

142. Like I said, Nurse calls that save a doctor visit, not administration. Calls for claims,

Network providers, the policy, where to send premiums, etc. are admin. Try to read. Sadly, Medicare doesn't cover eyeglasses except one pair after cataract surgery.

[kenfrequed]

79. Uh...

You realize that both before and after the ACA profits of health insurance companies have still been ever increasing. Krugman happens to be wrong about this. It really is as simple as that.

Our entire healthcare model needs to be reformed and anyone that works with patients directly can tell you that.

Insurances still deny care, require prohibitively lenghtly prior authorizations, and create artifical delays to care and access to medication in order to make it too expensive in terms of man hours for clinicians to manage the care of patients. It is absurd that any solution that is so reliant on private insurance is the only path to healthcare and Krugman IS leaving a hell of a lot out of his number crunching in order to come up with a solution that is Hillary-friendly.

[Hoyt]

89. Increasing because more people are insured. I agree the system needs reform. You gonna give up

some of your salary, or accept lower fees to help cut costs?

[kenfrequed]

116. *sigh*

I work in a clinic. The largest waste is the fight with insurance companies that smaller clinics simply give up on and swallow the loss. The increases in costs over the last 20 years or more have had more to do with fighting insurance companies than anything else.

Most providers make lower upper income salaries (somewhat north of 120 K depending on if they are primary or specialty and where they work)but work long hours in and out of their clinic time. Providers in a lot of Western European countries make comparable pay with more reasonable hours. The profit motive of private insurers is the great difference and anyone that tells you otherwise is selling something (usually something out of network).

[Rilgin]

157. You are asking a question without facts.

Medicare’s administrative costs were $8 billion in 2011, or 1.4 percent of total Medicare spending of $549 billion that year. Those figures come from the latest annual report of the Medicare trustees, prepared by OACT (Office of the Actuary within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). There are higher estimates from critics including up to 6% of spending but that includes inclusion of private sector administration for Parts C and D.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/02/19/important-what-are-medicares-true-administrative-costs/

So administrative costs of our medicaire system including parts c and d go somewhere between 1.4 and 6 percent which leaves a lot of room for profit. Unlike your post which is totally made up and based purely on your wishful speculation. 1.4% administration leaves 18.6% for profit not 6% if you are lucky. Your 6% if you are lucky figure is totally made up. Maybe you should actually look at the facts before presenting an argument with a question.

Your post is totally wrong. Single payer's reduction of profit and administrative costs is substantial which is why every other industrialized nation is cheaper than our system of purely private profit driven insurance companies.

[Hoyt]

159. It's more than 3% because it does include Part B premium collection by Treasury Department,

investment in systems by administrative contractors, budgeting, OIG, Department of Justice, etc. Medicare makes almost no effort to audit claims before payment, doesn't maintain drug formulates, hardly any utilization review, and other things that even Ezra Klein says will be necessary to handle a large program. Klein will now be thrown under the bus.

[Rilgin]

160. medicaire is already a "large program" a single payer one

But in any event, you are acknowledging your earlier post was a flat out LIE since you now have reduced from saying that profit could only be 6% of a 20% administrative and profit cap. You now are up to 3% administration which is a far cry from your earlier claim.

My post pointed out that Medicare says its 1.4% administration although critics peg it all the way up to 6%. The article I cited thinks the 6% claim is inflated and wrong but regardless, anywhere from 1.4% (the low end) to 3% (your claim) to 6% (the high end) seems a lot less than 15% to 20% overall costs and profit (your numbers) which leaves a lot of money available for health care for the uninsured and eliminating other costs.

Remember that was your claim that at most in a system that allows 20% for administration and profit at most 6% would be left for profit after administration. By simple math that means you think administration should require up to 14% of the health care dollar. It seems like you are down to 3% now in about 25 minutes. If this is the case, why did you post the earlier post which was based on totally made up figures.

[Hoyt]

161. First off, big health plans have a cap of 15%. Out of that would come the 6% or so,

plus things Medicare currently doesn't do and would need to be handled, plus lots of bucks for new systems, etc. So you are well below 10%. That theoretical reduction in per person cost through premiums or taxes, won't be seen as a big benefit of a single payer system by most folks. It should be, but it won't.

[Rilgin]

163. So back tracking but not far enough.

You now seem to refer to 6% as the amount Insurance companies administrative cost is. Before you claimed that 6% was the amount of profit that could be squeezed out by changing to a single payer.

As my earlier link made clear, Medicare a single payer large system declares it has a 1.4 percent administrative cost. A higher end estimate is 6% but that is not profit but administration of a large single payer system. Even assuming 6% administrative costs (extreme high end estimate) and a 15% existing high end cap on the existing large insurers, that leaves 9% of health care expenditures unnecessarily going to profit for the private big insurers rather than health care. If its 3% your number (below 6%) there is even more savings from getting private competing insurance (marketing, pr costs etc) out of the picture. If you go with Medicares statement of the costs of administration (1.4) the savings are even more.

Regardless, why don't you just admit your first post was just pure propaganda and a bad argument based on numbers you pulled out of the air. You tried to say that necessary administrative costs take up between 9% and 14% of an insurance company leaving only 6% to be squeezed out by replacing the system. You now have tried to increase it to under 10% of the current amount going to insurance company unnecessary profit and administration which is still an underestimate and just state that no one cares about that.

[Hoyt]

165. Nope still saying profit us in 6% or so range, and that eliminating that makes a

relatively small difference that won't stop most people from griping.

[Orangepeel]

80. You know, a lot of private insurance companies are technically non-profit

I don't know what % are, although it includes some big ones, like Kaiser Permanente and a lot of Blue Crosses. I think some states (Minnesota?) require them to be nonprofit (although I'm not sure about that)

So, with those, which probably aren't much cheaper, it is administrative costs that are driving the premium costs.

[jeff47]

83. Yeah...like that's not trivial to get around.

"Hrm....we made $1 billion too much this year to be considered non-profit.....Executive bonus time!!!"

There's a reason the ACA excludes executive bonuses from the "medical" side of the medial loss ratio. Because of this exploit.

[leftofcool]

50. Even Democrats won't vote for Bernie's plan

[dorkzilla]

67. And your proof for this is---??

[Duval]

98. There are Bernie signs all over my neighborhood, which is predominately Democrats.

Oh, you were just kidding, I'll bet.

[ChiciB1]

144. YOU, Defending & Brought Up Krugman's Name At Another Thread...

And I commented that if you want to understand and learn much more about the economy and austerity... Read Thomas Piketty's book. CAPITAL in the Twenty-First Century. Financial Times and Business Book of the Year.

A complete comprehensive look at what has happened not only here but everywhere. Krugman has credentials, but Piketty hasn't been touched yet! Maybe not a book everyone will pick up and read, a little hard at first... but I guarantee you WILL be able to understand how much Krugman didn't say or perhaps never thought of.

I'll take Piketty thank you.

[Hoyt]

148. So Piketty says Sanders' plan will do all things he promised by lowering everyone's outlay with

income less than $250,000 or something?

[retrowire]

149. https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf nt

[Hoyt]

151. I appreciate Sanders' economist's projections. There are bunch of assumptions.Better wait for CBO.

And we have to believe all those tax increases will be approved by Congress.

But, I still think we have to do something to insure everyone. So I'm listening.

[tazkcmo]

177. To disagree with someone

Does not equate with throwing them under the bus. I disagree with Krugman without losing any respect for him and I'll continue to read his articles. My view on his position in this particular context is not one of economics but of fortitude and courage. He, in my opinion, is part of the "It's too hard!" crowd while I believe in shooting for the stars because even in failing to reach them we'll be further than where we started or to put it an Old School Way, "Shit or get off the pot.".

[Hoyt]

201. Sanders did that in 2009, his legislation died without much consideration from anyone.

I guess he, and the right wingers trying to repeal the ACA, can just keep coming back with the same old junk and go home and celebrate their bravado while nothing gets done.

[AlbertCat]

182. As far as healthcare, Krugman seems to agree with her.

Why would I go to Krugman for advice on healthcare?????

[Hoyt]

200. Simple, we are talking about how to finance a health care for everyone. Believe it or

not, economics is a big part of that especially with the right wingers. Except for abortions and Terri Schiavo, Congress doesn't have much interest in clinical aspects of healthcare.

Economics caused Sanders' home state to drop single payer legislation.

[CountAllVotes]

4. A thought occurred to me last night

O'Malley was good, very good in fact!

How about a Sanders/O'Malley ticket?

[retrowire]

7. oh yes.

That's been on my mind for a while. It's become very apparent to most that the dream team of Sanders/Warren isn't as likely as we thought.

But O'Malley is the young energetic face to the older wiser curmudgeon that Bernie is. I think they'd level each other out very well.

I really liked O'Malley. I did not support him for the following reasons.

1. He took big money.
2. He slung mud very early in the race.
3. He was not the first to inspire me.

But he's an excellent speaker, and actually has great synergy on stage with Bernie. I think it was the last debate where Bernie and O'Malley each attacked Hillary with 1-2-1-2 efficiency.

[libdem4life]

20. He has many pluses. I wonder what keeps him in the race? I'd love him as VP,

but I think that would not work for him. He looks, acts and talks presidential. I'd say perhaps a Cabinet position and then the next Dem to run for President.

I still haven't found an "aha" for Bernie's VP pick. I think it's Julian Castro for Hillary...and I really like him, but not enough to vote for her.

[notadmblnd]

120. I think he complimented Senator Sanders very well

especially when it came to calling HRC a liar. Sanders was much more polite but I actually thought that O'malley was going to come straight out with the L word a couple of times.

[pnwmom]

62. Two white men from northeastern states with few electoral votes?

[Hiraeth]

86. It will not fly. I agree

[Le Taz Hot]

179. Nope.

1) Two candidates from the same general geographical location is not maximizing your ticket. 2) Two white men? Again? Maybe a little diversity wouldn't be such a bad idea. Make the ticket look more like the rest of the country maybe?

Personally, I vote for Barbara Lee, smart as hell, certified progressive, West Coast, African-American, female. All bases covered.

[SmittynMo]

8. She's putting her money on the ACA?

It's not health insurance. It's catastrophic insurance. I know. I'm on it.

When are people going to start realizing this? And then yes, another 29M still not covered? Do you think they want to pay for catastrophic insurance, when they can't afford it now? It should be a right of everyone in this country.

I like Bernie's world. I'm sick, I go to a hospital and never have to worry about the bill. Period!!!!!

[retrowire]

10. And it's POSSIBLE

Because many other countries have done it, why is it WE, the wealthiest nation in the world, somehow can't?

We won't settle for less.

[merrily]

12. The moderation stunk too. Moderators are not supposed to smile while candidates are being

dishonest. But, how are you going to have Mitchell moderating when Hillary brings up financial stuff from her husband's administration? The Clinton White House and Greenspan worked hand in hand on pushing those bills through Congress.

This, btw, is the same network that fired Maria Shriver when her husband won the election for Governor of California because of conflict of interest--and Shriver was doing only special reports for them, many of which were human interest stories. Yet, they have Andrea Mitchell Greenspan on daily--and moderating a Presidential debate involving Hillary Clinton?

[retrowire]

13. We see through the bullshit. Fuck it all. nt

[CountAllVotes]

93. No kidding! Enough already!!

[Duval]

101. And she was so obvious in her questions, etc, that she supports Hillary.

I thought it was sickening.

[dlwickham]

14. liar liar pants on fire

[Gman]

15. That's a pretty distorted view of things

It's hard to know where to start.

Suffice to say the Sanders sub-reality is t always valid and what you are perceiving.

[retrowire]

18. Wow, excellent well thought out response.

I've learned the error of my ways.

Oh wait, you just called my view distorted, damn!

BTW, Make HL3 release.

[Vinca]

17. Hillary is also confusing "universal" healthcare and "single-payer."

The ACA was supposed to accomplish "universal" healthcare via private insurance companies and from what I can gather there are still millions of people uncovered and premiums are beginning to rise (surprise, surprise). Single-payer is automatic universal coverage, no cracks to slip through and not be covered, if you are a citizen of the country.

[retrowire]

22. One of those disingenuous things about her.

She says it, hopes no one notices.

[libdem4life]

23. That really ruffled my feathers. Subterfuge, shifty, shady...yep, that's our Hill. And if anyone

knows the difference it's her. She has decades of experience on it and it was massively disingenuous.

[merrily]

35. I think "Medicare for All" is more easily understood by more people than single payer.

It also avoids the nitpicking over the term single payer; e.g;, single payer is not really single payer because the government pays and the patient also pays (premiums, deductibles and co-pays). (If you think I haven't seen exactly that kind of nitpicking on this board, you would be mistaken.)

[Vinca]

104. Good point.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread retrowire.

[retrowire]

27. Thanks for the KnR Uncle Joe. :) n/t

[INdemo]

28. Yes she lied and her supporters and the Media knew she lied but praised her as if she was Royalty.

The way everyone just gives Hillary a free pass remembering how George W had some sort of bulge in on back what appeared to be some sort of monitoring device she had a well rehearsed script HMMMMMMM wonder if David Brock drafted that script? Karl Rove maybe? Perhaps on Feb1 one these guys can draft her "scream speech"
She attacked Bernie Sanders for a bill he voted on 10 years ago?
Hillary can we go back 10 years ago and talk about your public service?
One thing we know for sure 10 years ago 20 years ago she has always been on the payroll of Big Banks,Insurance Companies,Wall St and oh yes especially Goldman Sachs.

[Geronimoe]

29. Deferring to the late Senator Ted Kennedy

He did not believe Hillary would or could get healthcare reform passed through Congress.

[merrily]

37. He watched her not get it through a Democratic Congress.

[Hoyt]

71. Kennedy couldn't do it either. I think Congress is even more obstructionist now.

[Marty McGraw]

136. but the constituency

even more *not* ever-more-so than ever. The breaking point has truly arrived.

[appalachiablue]

30. The many dishonest and hypcritical remarks I noted: 29 million in the US

still without healthcare, bringing up bad boy hedge fund mangers with one in the family, comments about prisons- hello 1990s Omnibus Crime Act passed under Bill, flag wrapping with Obama to try to get AA votes when her campaign disgustingly bashed him in 2008.
Mod Lester Holt was rude and biased in cutting off Sanders, the others some. The Debate format was uneven and unfair with questions asked of one candidate but not the others. And obnoxious cut aways to disruptive commercials esp. when candidates tried to counter claims. Losers M$M.

[Fuddnik]

31. The only reason a hedge fund is running ads against her is they think Marco Rubio is a bigger Stooge

[jwirr]

33. She wants to start over again? With another trade agreement?

With a for-profit health program that was supposed to make health care affordable but that keeps raising the price while a lot of people are still not covered? With a bunch of banks that are still too big to fail?

There is nothing about her plan that changes anything from what it is now. Hillary's new logo is correct "No we Can't".

[Orangepeel]

38. Yes, there is truth to the statement that Bernie's plan would scrap the ACA and start over

It doesn't, for example, call for adding a Medicare buy-in as an option to the exchanges. That would be building on the ACA.

If I am not mistaken, and please correct me if I am, it calls for doing away with the exchanges and subsidy system that are characteristics of the ACA, and enrolling everyone in Medicare, financed by a 2.1% income tax (offset by not having to pay premiums) and a 6.1% tax on employers (who would then no longer pay to sponser insurance for employees).

One can certainly argue that that would be a better system. But I don't see how it is dishonest to point out that it is a completely different system.

I'm not supporting Clinton (I'm supporting O'Malley, futile as that may be), and I understand the reaction of Bernie supporters to think that something she says has to be dishonest just because she says it.

But it is not dishonest for her to point out that Bernie's health care plan calls for scrapping the ACA and starting over.

[retrowire]

42. It is the weight with which she made that claim.

It would replace Obamacare.

Would it reset us by years? No.

Would it be undoing everything overnight? Nope.

It is the statement of saying that "Bernie wants to tear it up and start all over" that is a lie.

He wants to simply replace it. It'd be an easy transition for the people. And not a reset in time as she made it out to be. That was disingenuous.

[Fast Walker 52]

54. exactly-- HIGHLY disingenuous. And linking it to Obama, acting as if

Sanders was going to undo the work of the black president the audience loves.

[Orangepeel]

55. Well, that's an opinion, not a lie

Whether it is more correct to say "simply replace" or "tear it up and start over" remains to be seen.

Personally, I don't think it would be an easy transition for most people who work for a large company with employer sponsored insurance or many union members with benefits that were negotiated as part of their compensation. I think that the same "taking my current plan away" arguments that came up before will come up again and that many people will be against it because it is different.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, and it will be an easy transition. But if so, I'm wrong, not lying.

[retrowire]

58. Dishonest implications exist. nt

[mikehiggins]

178. There are no "opinions" in politics

If a candidate makes a claim that X is planning to bomb Y that is not an opinion. It is a weapon deployed to hurt the opposition. When HRC claims Sanders wants to destroy ACA it is not her opinion, it is a carefully worked out attack designed to attack Sanders.

When HRC complains about a vote ten years earlier it is because she thinks it will make it look as if Sanders is just another politician. Trust is a weapon threatening to the Clinton campaign. Sanders is seen as more trustworthy than she is so whatever attack can be raised to undermine that is good in her view. It does NOT have to be true and HRC's views are not "honest opinions". They are politics as usual in a time when many are seeking something better.

Even so, no one in their right mind will claim that HRC is anything like those other people. She is heads & shoulders better than any of the GOPukes. It is a shame that she is "the lesser of two evils" in this campaign. Sanders is the real deal.

Oh, and THAT was an opinion.

[pnwmom]

65. It is NOT a lie that it would replace Obamacare, even if you think that's a good thing.

[retrowire]

75. I said it would replace it. nt

[zentrum]

44. And the program

…..closed out with an interview of Alan Greenspan's wife, Toad and DWS spreading vaseline over the whole problem with the debate format, the number of debates, their timing——etc. They try so hard to tip the scale. But even with that—Bernie won and it was his best debate yet.

[retrowire]

47. Yeah, I always leave as soon as the debate finishes because of that. nt

[Fast Walker 52]

49. Totally. She totally turned me off with that crap.

My wife was leaning towards Hillary before this but really got put off by Hillary last night.

[Doctor_J]

51. she seldom speaks the truth any more.

The truth is that she is practically a republican. She is a lying corporate conservative who doesn't deserve to be on the same stage with Sanders.

[CountAllVotes]

91. +1,000 !!!

Absolutely correct!!

[Auggie]

124. +1,000,000

[LondonReign2]

187. And her supporters simply do not care.

Strange, isn't it, that self-proclaimed Dems would be so on board with outright lies?

[AzDar]

56. Lying is a Clinton Family trait. Good thing they have enough accumulated wealth to just fucking ...

RETIRE, already.

[Martin Eden]

59. Single Payer would replace the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare")

The ACA facilitates obtaining coverage from private insurance corporations, whereas Single Payer would be Medicare for all (cutting out the for-profit insurance corporations).

Single Payer is much better IMO, but technically Obamare would no longer be in effect.

Hillary's deception is the insinuation that Bernie's plan would result in people losing their coverage.

Also, er argument about re-opening a contentious debate flies in the face of her own "plan" to build on Obamacare -- which would require legislation and debate. If changes are going to be made, why not make an effort to go with the best solution?

[retrowire]

95. Well said. nt

[mdbl]

168. If changes are going to be made, why not make an effort to go with the best solution?

That makes just too damn much sense. But the right wing will find many answers which are all nonsense.

[Duval]

85. She attacked Bernie again about "wanting to primary Obama". She has to know the context,

yet deliberately left it out! I could have jumped into that TV and set her straight. That was when Obama was thinking about fiddling with Social Security and everyone was pretty upset. And it was a suggestion by Bernie!

UGH! Bernie tells the truth, and Hillary doesn't.

[retrowire]

96. I myself actually didn't know that

So thank for letting me know why Bernie did that. Awesome.

[Duval]

109. Anytime, retrowire.

[Still In Wisconsin]

113. Of course she knows the context. So do many of the Hillbots on DU. But that doesn't

stop them from continuing with this pathetic attack, because some strategist at Camp Weathervane has calculated that it will work.

[Indepatriot]

97. To paraphrase a popular Clintonism: "IT'S THE DISHONESTY, STUPID"

[DirkGently]

106. Clinton has no interest past the ACA.

The meaning I take from Clinton's argument that reaching for single-payer would be destructive to the ACA is not that she wants to proceed incrementally as a practical matter, and worries Sanders would recklessly damage the ACA by moving too quickly.

What I'm hearing is that Clinton *absolutely* plans on stopping with tweaks to the ACA, which will not be enough going forward.

Pushing the argument to the point of putting Chelsea out there to claim Sanders' plans would strip away the current healthcare of "millions and millions and millions" (wow -- way to commit to an overstatement by the way) is just bad faith.

I worry about Clinton being one-term if elected. The way her people turn her strengths into weakness trying to be crafty is strange and embarrassing. She's still ahead, but her campaign is prone to these little cheap shots that destroy goodwill and make things needlessly harder.

[Still In Wisconsin]

108. What else does Hillary have to run on? Lying and innuendo attacks are what she does best.

That and scooping up corporate cash.

[CharlotteVale]

152. +1

[dragonfly301]

111. Last night her twitter page

had a pic of the three candidates with the line"only one has plans to raise taxes on the middle class". The tweets in response to this were overwhelmingly calling Hillary out for being a liar. I'm glad people see through her bs.

[Cheap_Trick]

128. From Goldwater Girl to Goldman Sachs

is not that far of a trip.

[ozone_man]

162. Still a Republican.

After all these years.

[Beacool]

129. Hillary wasn't lying, you just don't want to hear what she has to say.

Going by your criteria, then I would say that Sanders is lying too. His proposed health care plan will never pass through Congress. I'm sure that, with all his years in the House and now the Senate, he's fully aware of that fact. Still, he proposed it anyway. That's what politicians do.

[retrowire]

130. His plan will never pass?

That's clearly an opinion, just like the opinion that Bernie would never beat Hillary.

Camp Defeatist. No need for that.

[Beacool]

140. Yeah, let's bring camp pie in the sky for all.

That's just so realistic............

[retrowire]

141. Your faith in the American promise is showing.

None.

Pie in the sky? Really? It's been done in so many other countries. Why can't America the beautiful do the same?

Because of defeatist mentalities reinforced by the status quo.

Sorry, but if we're going to make this work, you'll just have to accept that it's possible or come along kicking and screaming.

And if we don't win for the betterment of us all. Then feel free to laugh and say told you so. But with that victory.. No one really wins anything.

[wendylaroux]

146. sounds good to me

from Reddit:

Under Bernie's healthcare plan, an estimated 27% of households will pay $0 in healthcare premiums,
68% pay less than $100/month, and 91% pay less than $250/month.
Plus, if you get sick or injured, NO copayment at the doctor, NO deductibles for treatments.

[KingCharlemagne]

131. She could give Lady Macbeth a lesson or three about the lust for power- nt

[monicaangela]

132. Hillary Clinton is

showing disrespect for democratic voters. She in effect, is acting as though the voters some of whom will be voting for her are so stupid they will be led down the road of inconsistencies and out and out lies she continues to place before them. She is promoting President Obama and the affordable care act because it allows her to continue to discuss her affiliation with his administration. I think she believes African Americans will vote for her because she is constantly referring to the President NOW, however, in 2007 and 2008 she had an altogether different view of him. Is she really saying in effect that the AA voters in South Carolina are stupid and will believe the lies she is telling? Not just South Carolina, but throughout the country. I wonder....

[silenttigersong]

134. MoM

Should have been placed in the middle,between Sen.Sanders,and former Sec.Clinton,he seemed to have the calming affect upon both.I really think he detests Hillary Clintons lies.

[billhicks76]

153. Ban The Liar

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Shit, Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants MORE marijuana users in prison, not less.

It's pretty clear that the powers-that-be have decided to derail all conversations about marijuana legalization with "don't look at that, look over here! The Heroin Problem! Drug Addiction!"

[retrowire]

155. YEPPPPPP nt

[salib]

158. No, I think it is worse than that.

She is not "lying" as much as she is AFRAID.

Afraid of hands that feeds her, that pull the strings of nearly all here colleagues, the PTB. She believes that is the way things are. "It is what it is".

And what it is is FEAR: "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Yes, a little quote from FDR. It is EXACTLY what she is showing. FEAR. The "lies" are just window dressing.

Here is a little more from FDR:
"In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

[Bernblu]

166. She's running a campaign that would make Karl Rove proud

Attacking Bernie for wanting to take people healthcare away is about as low as you can go.

[Enthusiast]

169. Kicked and recommended! Recommend this fucker!

[raouldukelives]

173. Programmed to defend Wall St. at all costs.

It was why they didn't need an answer from her about climate change. They already knew exactly where her donors stand.

[HelenWheels]

174. What are you Hillary haters going to do

When she wins the Democratic bid for president? Are you going to stay home and not vote, are you going to vote for a Repuklican or are you going to vote Democratic for Hillary? All this hatred spewed out for a Democrat really ticks me off. Stop it.

[retrowire]

180. I'll vote for her to avoid trump

what are you going to do when she lies? call people Hillary haters for pointing it out?

[AlbertCat]

184. There's that "haters" fundigelical nomenclature again!

This is not a revival church.... try to talk like a normal person.

It's none of your business what we do.

[randome]

176. If you don't understand at this late date that politicians parse the language...

...then you haven't been paying attention. There is no 'lie' in what you quoted, it's simply a different view of the proposal from one political opponent to another. Big deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[retrowire]

181. rationalization. and

I don't see Bernie parsing. hmmm.

[randome]

185. Different viewpoints, different approaches. I have no problem with that.

But I won't fault any politician for being a politician.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[retrowire]

188. So you accept that behavior because it's normal. hmmm.. nt

[Nitram]

186. Accusing Clinton of lying is petty and childish unless...

...you have some evidence. Maintaining that the ACA is a legitimate path towards universal health care is not a lie. It is a campaign promise. Sit down and breathe a little dude. You're rhetoric is getting overheated.