HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Des Moines Register: Clin...

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:14 PM

Des Moines Register: Clinton puts Sanders on defensive

Last edited Mon Jan 18, 2016, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Since Iowa is the first contest where voters will get to vote, I found this editorial interesting http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/kathie-obradovich/caucus/2016/01/18/obradovich-democrat-debate-clinton-puts-sanders-defensive/78910602/

“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,” Clinton said.

Sanders objected to Clinton’s characterization, emphasizing his past support for the existing health care law. “We're not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it. But we are going to move on top of that to a Medicaid-for-all system,” Sanders said.

Clinton, however, emphasized the political difficulty of approving a single-payer system. She noted that a Democrat-controlled Congress was unable to even approve a public option allowing Americans to buy into Medicare. And Sanders had no good answer when asked why the state of Vermont couldn’t pass an expensive single-payer plan, saying that was for the governor of Vermont to answer.....

Whichever Democrat wins the nomination will have to overcome the opposition that independent voters in Iowa and elsewhere have for Obamacare. Cozying up to Obama also could have consequences after the primary season.

Clinton mostly succeeded Sunday in keeping Sanders off balance, pressing her attacks and distracting him from areas where she is weakest. That’s enough to give her the win for this debate – if Iowa Democrats don’t choke at the negative attacks.

I am glad that Sec. Clinton is supporting President Obama and the fact that Sanders did not answer the question about Vermont's inability to adopt a single payer plan was telling

21 replies, 1773 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Des Moines Register: Clinton puts Sanders on defensive (Original post)
Gothmog Jan 2016 OP
DURHAM D Jan 2016 #1
JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #2
99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #3
Gothmog Jan 2016 #4
99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #6
catnhatnh Jan 2016 #10
99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #11
Gothmog Jan 2016 #13
Gothmog Jan 2016 #12
99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #15
Gothmog Jan 2016 #17
99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #20
Gothmog Jan 2016 #21
Gothmog Jan 2016 #19
George II Jan 2016 #5
99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #7
George II Jan 2016 #8
99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #9
Gothmog Jan 2016 #18
hrmjustin Jan 2016 #14
mcar Jan 2016 #16

Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:18 PM

1. Did he actually say "MEDICAID-for-all"? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:29 PM

2. The debate transcript says yes, but it was most certainly a misstatement

SANDERS: No one is tearing this up, we're going to go forward. But with the secretary neglected to mention, not just the 29 million still have no health insurance, that even more are underinsured with huge copayments and deductibles.

Tell me why we are spending almost three times more than the British, who guarantee health care to all of their people? Fifty percent more than the French, more than the Canadians. The vision from FDR and Harry Truman was health care for all people as a right in a cost-effective way.

We're not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it. But we are going to move on top of that to a Medicaid-for- all system.


Sanders is virtually certain to have meant to say Medicare-for-all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:43 PM

3. Bernie DID too answer the snark about Vermont not implementing Single-Payer

 

He pointed out that as a US Senator, he was not the Governor of Vermont, who's responsibility
it was to make it happen, to find a way. It was an answer. maybe not one you agree with or
buy but stop saying he "didn't answer" that snark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:46 PM

4. That was not an answer

There are major issues with the transition of the US economy to a single payer system and Vermont was unable to accomplish this transition. It is indeed relevant to discuss this failure when looking at Sanders' rather sketchy attempt of a plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:49 PM

6. OK you don't like the answer, but stop saying he didn't answer because he DID

 

additionally, it's a whole different proposition to attempt to implement singe-payer at
the STATE level, as an island in an sea of resistance, than it is at the NATIONAL level.
Apples & Oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 02:01 PM

10. Exactly

they might as well ask why he didn't overturn Citizens United...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 02:03 PM

11. Yes. or like blaming Sanders for not closing Gitmo yet, instead of Obama. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 04:27 PM

13. The only way to overturn Citizens United involves winning the 2016 race

The only practical way of overturning Citizens United is to win the White House in 2016 and to appoint SCOTUS justices to vote to overturn Citizens United. Clinton has committed to use this as litmus test President Obama was against Citizens United but had to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the contest close. Hillary Clinton is against Citizens United and has committed to only appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn this decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

This is the only practical way to undo the damage done by Citizen United in that it will be impossible to get a constitutional amendment through congress and the states to undo this decision. That means that if you want to get rid of Citizens United, then one must support a candidate who can win in 2016 and support the most viable general election candidate.

I really do not believe that Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the GOP candidate may spend another billion dollars. I am not willing to give up on the only real chance of getting rid of Citizens United by supporting a candidate who I think can not win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 04:22 PM

12. Why single payer died in Vermont

If single payer can not work in Vermont, then there is no chance that it will be adopted in the entire country http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xciq2Nj5

So single-payer advocates looked instead to make a breakthrough in the states. Bills have been introduced from Hawaii to New York; former Medicare chief Don Berwick made it a key plank of his unsuccessful primary race for Massachusetts governor.

Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.

“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”

Vermont’s outcome is a “small speed bump,” said New York Assembly member Richard Gottfried, who’s been pushing single-payer bills for more than 20 years. But opponents says it’s the end of the road.

“If cobalt blue Vermont couldn’t find a way to make single-payer happen, then it’s very unlikely that any other state will,” said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business.

“There will never be a good time for a massive tax increase on employers and consumers in Vermont, so they should abandon that silly idea now and get serious,” Mozloom added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xdKH1mGn

Sanders is proposing a skeleton of a plan (not a real plan at all) that has no chance of passage. The refusal of Sanders to answer the question was an admission that even Sanders knows that this plan is not real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 04:31 PM

15. This article doesn't say "there is no chance" single-payer can be adopted NATIONALLY

 

it just doesn't say that.

What is says is:
“If cobalt blue Vermont couldn’t find a way to make single-payer happen, then it’s very unlikely that any other STATE will,” said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 04:34 PM

17. When is it a good time to adopt massive tax increases?

Sanders refused to answer the question about Vermont because there is not practical way to adopt single payer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 21, 2016, 02:42 PM

20. "Massive tax increase" <-- BIG LIE

 

Bernie's national single-payer plan includes very modest PR tax increases, increases on middle
class that are more than off-set by HUGE savings in health care costs paid by middle class; such that the
average savings amount to about $5000 a year. So at least tell the whole story, rather than perpetuating
the lies being spewed out of desperation by Camp Weathervane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 21, 2016, 03:24 PM

21. Krugman-Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan

I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 21, 2016, 02:36 PM

19. Here’s One Big Problem With The Bernie Sanders Plan For Health Care Utopia

This plan will not be adopted nationally http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health-plan_us_569ff110e4b076aadcc50807

The Bernie Sanders health care plan, which the Vermont senator released this week, sounds pretty spectacular at first blush. It’s a proposal to create a single-payer system, which means that Sanders would wipe away existing insurance arrangements and replace them with a single government program. Everybody would get insurance, free of co-pays or deductibles.

That’d be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldn’t be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 trillion over the next decade.

To help pay for his plan’s unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.

That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, he’d have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacare’s architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.

Two lessons from Obamacare

The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the “public option” -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.

Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didn’t want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenues....

Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's

No, this grim political reality doesn’t mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.

But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isn’t a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. It’s a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:49 PM

5. So you're saying as a Senator from Vermont he has very little influence on Vermont politics....

....and policy?

Yes, he "answered" but in reality he really didn't answer. He did that all night, in fact Lester Holt called him out a couple of times, saying he didn't answer some questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:53 PM

7. Sure, he had some influence, but he wasn't in a position totally OVER-RIDE the Governor.

 

Some "gotcha" questions do not deserve to be dignified with an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:58 PM

8. Interesting. He has little or no political influence in his own state but he expects to help get...

....Democrats around the country elected as our presidential candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 02:00 PM

9. Yes. As President, he has the bully pulpit and full Executive Powers, as you well know.

 

blaming Sanders for Vermont singe-payer not getting fully implemented is like blaming
Sanders for not closing Gitmo yet, instead of Obama.

It's completely disingenuous and deliberately misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:02 PM

18. There is never a good time to adopt massive tax increases

If single payer does not work in Vermont, then it will not work nationwide. Sanders refused to answer the question because he knew why Vermont's proposal failed and knew that his plan had the same flaw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 04:27 PM

14. DU Rec.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 04:32 PM

16. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread