Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders hit back at Joe Biden for questioning progressive agenda

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thanked Sen. Bernie Sanders for coming to her defense on Friday after former Vice President Joe Biden told CNN that she did not represent Democrats who could win competitive general elections.

Sanders took a swipe at Biden, after the former vice president defended his commitment to moderation in a crowded Democratic field during an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Friday morning.

Sanders pointed to "Medicare for All" and Ocasio-Cortez's trademark Green New Deal environmental protection plan as "the agenda America needs" that would also unite voters against President Donald Trump.

"I'm proud to be working with @AOC and so many other Democrats to pass Medicare for All, debt free college and a Green New Deal," Sanders tweeted later Friday in response to Biden's comments. "This is the agenda America needs — and that will energize voters to defeat Donald Trump."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bernie-sanders-hit-back-at-joe-biden-for-questioning-progressive-agenda/ar-AADUwFJ?li=BBnb7Kz

Sounds good but what's all this going to cost?

[stonecutter357]

1. let's go Joe !

[LincolnRossiter]

22. In for Joe!

Nothing further.

[Kurt V.]

2. the F-35 program has already passed 1 trillion. lets start there

[TexasTowelie]

100. That program is untouchable in Bernie's view.

One of the bases for the F-35s is in Burlington, Vermont so it is providing an economic stimulus for that area. Bernie does not want to tip that golden cow.

[Kurt V.]

131. o'rourke has called for more oversight of the program. a brave position. bravo to him.

[PETRUS]

3. "...what's all this going to cost?" It will cost less than not doing it. nt

[George II]

9. Doing what? The "green new deal" hasn't even been written yet. We know NOTHING about it....

....except for a few bullet points, talking points, and buzz words.

[PETRUS]

10. Hi!

[KPN]

106. Right. So why the fuss. What's the argument

about? I’m tired of people in my party shooting down aspirations before they even reach the starting line of draft legislative proposals. We did it with health care in 2009-10 and here we are doing it again. Let’s concede the playing field and then start negotiations with the other side. Apparently, some of our elected are as well. I’m glad for that. May the force be with them.

[KPN]

103. Exactly. I'm tired of listening to Democrat's

voice an argumentative question that Rs have historically posed whenever anything involving the realm of welfare economics is suggested or proposed. Let’s just go ahead and pop our own balloon before it even reaches the starting line. It’s old and I’m getting very tired of it.

[KPN]

4. What's the cost if we don't make higher ed and health care readily accessible

for all; if we don’t tackle global warming via renewable, sustainable energy supported by federal policy and incentives?

And how about we cut all the right wing diversionary crapola about “what’s all this going to cost.”

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. Don't call me a right winger

I asked a valid question. Last primary Bernie admitted his proposed healthcare plan would raise everyone's taxes.

Furthermore look who my primary preference is. Inslee has made climate change his center issue.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. I pay 400 dollars a month for health insurance, if Medicare for all increases my taxes by 300...

dollars a month, that's a hundred dollar savings overall in premiums alone. Nevermind any possible savings with possible elimination of my large deductibles, coinsurance and copays.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. I pay $100 a month so I don't think I could afford that increase.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. And I can't afford 400 dollars a month, so what are we supposed to do?

Your interests are diametrically opposed to mine. Whose should take precedence?

[quakerboy]

67. If your only paying $100...

Id be willing to bet a fair sum that you wouldnt be paying an increase. Taxes working on percentages and all.

[George II]

19. Based on the few details we have, it's going to cost a lot more than just $300 a month.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. From what I've heard, its going to be funded based on a progressive tax of some sort...

so those more able to pay will pay more into the Medicare fund than those who can't.

I share the frustration at the lack of detail, but not going to disregard the idea altogether if a workable goal can be made.

Frankly I don't care how we get to some type of UHC system, but we need to get there somehow, it could be multi-payer with strict regulations of the private insurance market like Germany or France, or a Single Payer system like Canada, whatever can be adapted to work here.

[George II]

26. The private healthcare insurance industry is already under strict regulations (in most states)...

...to increase rates an insurance company must submit the reason for it and justify the rate increase. They must be licensed, and follow strict laws.

I think it would surprise many people if they knew what the profit margin is of health insurance companies. Most businesses would go belly up if they had to operate on a similar profit margin.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. Oh please, don't feed me that line of bull, my rates increased last year because...

if I didn't, I wouldn't have had in-network access to the largest health care provider in my metro area, that's also the one that I already have my doctors through. And that's just the latest in a long line of bullshit.

They are "regulated" yes, but not nearly enough.

[George II]

58. As I said, in MOST states.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. Really? Which states forbid insurance companies from raising rates or changing coverage...

at all?

[George II]

61. You really should read my previous posts, that would answer your question.

[melman]

63. I read them

They don't answer that question.

[George II]

64. Hey mel, I missed you. Yes they do. Try again, 'kay?

[Humanist_Activist]

68. So I did, and you and your wife were extremely lucky with your insurance premiums....

provided by your two employers, that you no longer have to worry about, I might add. You appear to have completely unrealistic expectations as to how insurance companies currently operate in this country.

I mean, seriously, 250 dollars flat for you as an individual and 80 dollars for you and your wife under her employer's plan? Not all of us, or even most of us, are that lucky. Who are you to try to kick the ladder out after you climbed to the next level?

[George II]

69. I don't know what my wife has to do with this, have I mentioned her in this thread?

Or are you trying to dox me?

I'm talking about my posts IN THIS THREAD! Sheesh, you missed the point. Try again, and leave my wife out of it. Thanks.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. You told me to search your posts, so I searched your username and the word "insurance" in the...

Google field above. Its not hard, you are the one who mentioned your wife's employer in the past. Do you not know that all your posts are saved on this website by default and they are all indexed through Google?

Also, do you understand what doxxing actually is?

Like I said, you were extremely lucky, and as such have unrealistic expectations revolving around the health insurance industry. Your luck wouldn't translate well into policy.

[melman]

88. "Or are you trying to dox me? "

[George II]

129. I don't know of any states that "forbid" insurance companies from raising rates, this is what I said

The private healthcare insurance industry is already under strict regulations (in most states)...

...to increase rates an insurance company must submit the reason for it and justify the rate increase. They must be licensed, and follow strict laws.

I think it would surprise many people if they knew what the profit margin is of health insurance companies. Most businesses would go belly up if they had to operate on a similar profit margin.

The profit margin of the healthcare insurance industry is 3-5%, lower than most industries in the country, lower even than the corner grocery store.

[AlexSFCA]

57. really, let's looks at CEO's compensations of health insurance companies

[TexasTowelie]

102. I have to agree.

With Bernie's cradle to grave proposals, including paying for dental, vision, and hearing coverage it will be far more expensive than $300 a month. Bernie also modified his plan for this election to include long term care which will be far more expensive than the dental, vision, and hearing coverage since those expenses will recur every month while the other provisions are typically one-time expenses.

I post a number of threads on DU about fraud occurring within government medical programs. I'm certain that there will be plenty of opportunists that will take advantage of expanding coverage into new programs and there will be minimal deterrence towards controlling those expenses because individuals won't have the incentive to control the costs because they will have the mindset that the government will pay for everything.

[emmaverybo]

44. I pay zero for Medicare plus United Health Care. With UHC, I am covered for urgent care and

emergency all over the world while traveling and if I retired to another country. Why not help select groups afford better coverage and supplemental plans and cover uninsured without tearing up what is working and starting over with a huge bureaucracy and the possibility it will work as inefficiently as VA health care?

[Humanist_Activist]

45. Why are you using a Republican talking point about VA health care...

it would operate just fine if Republicans didn't constantly fuck with it.

Also, I don't see how your plan would change, why do you want it to only cover you?

[emmaverybo]

49. Because that is the only federal system we have experience with in America and others we point

to are having lots of problems. Don’t throw the Republican thing at me because I think there are many other ways to get to universal healthcare than M4ALL.

It is not only Republicans who have pointed out our lack of success with the VA system or used it as an example of anticipated problems with M4All.

Why give the Republicans fodder for their arguments by tying the party to M4All?

[Humanist_Activist]

52. I find this amusing, you claim that VA is the only experience Americans have with...

federally managed health insurance, while being on Medicare. VA gets fucked with because it only affects a minority of Americans, namely veterans and their families. If you notice, the Republicans talk a big talk but have generally left Medicare and Social Security alone, and attempted privatization attempts have so far been largely unsuccessful.

This is why I'm of the "Go big or go home" mentality when it comes to covering everyone in this country, the Republicans are finding similar problems with the ACA, so we need to make sure its as invulnerable as Social Security. Same for any UHC scheme.

[emmaverybo]

55. Right. Medicare. And it is imperfect because as a stand alone it does not give complete coverage,

while it is meant to cover seniors only, not other demographic groups.

I would rather improve programs that work, like Medicaid, ACA, and Medicare than fold every one into Medicare and force people to get rid of plans they like.

I don’t know what the UHC “scheme” is, but for me it has been great, offering everything but long
term care.

I think we can provide universal and more affordable coverage without going to M4All.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Why not institute Medicare buy in while expanding Medicare to cover all gaps it currently has?

A gradual buy in, let's say, every year, allow those a decade younger to enroll, so 55 one year, 45 the next, and so on. give it 5-6 years and you have "medicare for all" by default. That's literally improving a program that works already, after all, and one that everyone is already familiar with.

I don't care if "Medicare for all" is marketed as such, I'm not married to the term, just the results.

I would argue against attempting to universalize Medicaid, that program is state run and Republicans make it damn near impossible to enroll in many states, hell, if I have 1000 dollars in a bank account in Missouri, I can't qualify, and that's being a single woman with child, much less a single, childless man, who can't hardly qualify at all.

[emmaverybo]

70. Medicaid eligibility could easily be changed so that a wider number can qualify. The program

could be both extended and expanded through federal mandate, Agree that the income set for
eligibility is too low and of course not all doctors accept it.

Republican opposition will make any real change impossible until we have a majority in the senate.
I don’t want to see non-Republican opposition to single payer and getting rid of plans people lik3 sink our candidate.

True what you say about states and Medicaid. Also, the Republican run states tried to thwart ACA.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. Until you have the courts rescind some previous decisions you won't get far...

even with a majority in the Senate.

[emmaverybo]

83. So much work to do, both to undo and to move forward! And the courts...NT

[quakerboy]

84. WOWZA

I am literally agog at your post. For lack of a better approach, lets start at the end and work backwards..

"as inefficiently as VA health care". Where you getting your propaganda? The rest of the nation should be so lucky as to have access to a system as good as VA health care. As someone who interacts regularly with the VA medical system but doesnt have personal access... I'd literally give my left testicle to have access to that good of health care (as compared to my current ACA coverage, my childhood private coverage, or any of the other programs I regularly help others interact with). Worth mentioning its at a lower cost per patient for a group of patients with more needs than most, with a better user rating than the others. It ain't perfect, but its head and shoulders over the rest of the US system (outside of TV dramas and Shock TV expose's, that is).

Moving up.. "what is working".. the problem that you seem to be missing is that it is NOT working for most. IT costs us a lot, but over and over people who need care dont get it, cant afford it, even with upgrade of the ACA.

And further up "select groups"... Which select groups should we help, and which aren't worthy of our assistance? And how do you sell that to all the people you propose to abandon on the wayside?

[emmaverybo]

105. I mean groups not covered. And I don't mean very wealthy people. Bring down ACA premiums,

make income requirement for Medicaid less stringently low, mandate that all states participate in its expansion, provide through fed subsidy lower income seniors full Medicare coverage at 100 percent hospitalization or let them buy in at affordable cost to supplemental,
cover self-employed based on income. Some self-employed make a great deal of money and work on a cash basis so pay less taxes. Do not let huge corporations get away with no benefits for gig workers or exploit independent contractors.

Select groups falling through cracks, unable to afford private, rather than reinventing the wheel. Leave what is working, but improve on it.

Leave no one by the wayside. Provide universal coverage.

[TexasTowelie]

107. My brother receives health care through the VA system

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2019, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)

and it is not Cadillac health care. He has diabetes and his A1C at his last appointment was running at 12.3 (5.0 to 7.0 is considered controlled). He received no diabetes education and the doctors have not spoken with him about increasing his insulin dosages which I know are far too low since I've been insulin dependent for 17 years. For his neuropathy, he is taking gabapentin instead of other medications like Lyrica. The reason why all of this is occurring is because the VA is trying to control their costs. Taking more insulin or receiving more effective medications costs money. I've provided more education about diabetes to my brother than the VA has. They didn't even tell him to skip his insulin injections when he goes in for his blood workups and he could have had a hypoglycemic reaction while driving which could cause him to pass out and get into a wreck.

Then there is the issue that doctors are constantly quitting the VA because of low compensation. He has had three different primary care physicians and two different psychiatrists within the past three years. There are also significant waiting lists for most types of non-emergency procedures. When he does go to his primary care physician his visits are only 15 minutes. The physicians and the psychiatrists do not coordinate with each other even though they share the same office space (although I also know that HIPAA may be involved). I had to instruct my brother that he has to communicate what each of the two providers was prescribing to avoid medication conflicts.

My brother also has sleeping problems. I told him that he needs to speak with the doctors to see if he can get prescribed a light sedative such as trazadone. He is also taking Effexor which has substantial side effects--I was on it for about five days after I attempted suicide five years ago and the side effects from that brief exposure affected me for the next six months. I would lay in bed unable to sleep for hours and I had auditory hallucinations such as hearing a radio playing in the background. Effexor is also addictive and I wouldn't recommend that it be prescribed to anyone.

While having care through the VA is better than no health care, it certainly does not measure up to the quality of care when I had insurance provided through my employer. While I sometimes had to fight with my insurance company a few times to get the care that I needed, I was able to get things approved within a few days. I doubt that the VA could ever be as responsive based upon what I've seen occur with my brother.

[quakerboy]

111. Im gonna have to disagree with you entirely

I base my assessment on two things. first, the Non anecdotal. Multiple studies over time have shown that VA care compares positively with other health systems in the USA. Second, my anecdotal personal experience, which involves interacting with multiple private health systems as well as the VA on a weekly basis. And my experience is that the VA does better.

First, my repeated experience is that VA dr's are far less concerned with "price" than other health systems. I've never once heard a VA dr say "Well, X could help you, but Thats too expensive, so lets try Y". Not once in 14 years working with them. I HAVE heard that repeatedly in multiple private systems. I have heard the VA say "X and Y both might help you. Here are the potential side effects of each, which would you prefer to try". I have heard Dr's check someones private insurance status and then tell them that the only cancer treatment with a high chance of working is not covered. And Ive heard the VA drs tell people that their cancer diagnosis is most likely terminal, that treatment will almost certainly not work, and have miserable side effects, but that it is their choice.

Per integration.. Ive seen VA Drs have excellent coordination on med and treatment management. Ive also seen them be uncoordinated. Coordination is a growing trend in all health systems, but my observation is that specialists rarely coordinate well. Especially mental health departments.

If your argument is that the VA is underfunded given the increased number of veterans who have joined the system over the years.. Im with you. I'm sure the VA loses some dr's due to compensation. So do Private insurers. Ive had to change my designated PCP 3 times in 3 years as my Dr's quit (They didnt tell me, but Im assuming its in connection to their compensation). In my experience the VA mainly loses interns, who sign on for training, then leave once they have put in their time.

One thing I will say, EVERY health system, VA and Private, provides a level of care based on what you are able to advocate for yourself on. That is a universal truth, in my experience. If you can teach and advocate for your brother, he can get Excelent care from the VA, the match of anything anywhere in this country. But If he goes into appointments and says everything is ok (something I see WAY too many patients, especially men of a certain age, do) or minimizes symptoms, they will treat based on the information they have. I really think that the main thing we could do to improve quality of care in the US is to have assigned (and not completely overloaded) client advocates assigned to everyone.

[Demsrule86]

54. There will be deductibles and co-insurance will be needed. Medicare for all is not cheaper.

And mostly employer based insurance is subsidized....where as we have to pay 100%. It won't happen. The voters will kick us out as they did after Clinon care was tried.

[Humanist_Activist]

62. Its cheaper in Canada, hell, UHC schema, Multi-payer, Government-Run...

and otherwise is loads cheaper in every other industrialized nation on the planet. Because they institute price controls or can leverage their federal governments to negotiate prices, and if need be, play hardball(rescind and redistribute patents, etc.). We do very little of that here. We still have millions that are uninsured in this country, let me ask you, what would you do to solve this problem?

[Demsrule86]

114. This isn't Canada. And it took years to get the system up and running.

The ACA with a public option will work best and if we get even a small majority, we can do it. MFA won't happen. There are better and less disruptive ways to get to universal healthcare.

[LibFarmer]

72. Medicare is NOT FREE

Part B premiums are about 120 dollars a month, medigap premiums are about 140 dollars a month and a prescription plan costs about $25 a month. So even if one got Medicare, one still has to fork out $285 a month.

Medicare for all is suicidal.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. Didn't claim it was free? Still sounds like a deal versus my employer provided coverage. n/t

[LibFarmer]

76. Some employer provided coverage costs nothing

and some costs a nominal negligible amount.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. That certainly doesn't represent the vast majority of workers though.

Should the luck of a small minority dictate what coverage is available for the majority?

[LibFarmer]

85. Almost all union coverage and most MNC coverage cosstsvery little. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

124. I worked nearly a decade for a PBM that dealt with the prescription coverage for...

hundreds of different Union locals from around the country. "Cost very little" is very relative, for example, we had a union that didn't cover any drug cost at all, its processed through the system, the patient pays 100%, and at the end of the year, receipt in hand, they are reimbursed. But boy were new members surprised that that was how it worked, and not too happy about it either.

Most worked through a typical copay structure and while on balance it was slightly better and cheaper than many employer provided plans, assuming you were given the hours, Metalworkers, Electricians, Pipe fitters, Roofers, etc. may get coverage cut from one month to the next if hours worked don't reach certain thresholds.

And again, Union workers, sadly, only represent a small minority of workers in this country, this isn't Europe where unions are strong, after all.

[redstateblues]

99. +10000

[redstateblues]

98. Medicare only pays 80%. I had sinus surgery and got a bill for $3000

It only covered $17000

[Lordquinton]

34. They didn't call you a right winger

they pointed out that the whole "How much will it cost" question is a right wing meme designed to defuse any kind of democratic advancement. The question is only ever raised in these situations, never in areas where money is being poured down a hole like our never-ending war.

If you're not right wing, and don't want to appear that way, don't use their talking points.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

35. Oh please

I explained why I asked the question. Read please.

[redstateblues]

5. Bernie's is the agenda to re-elect Trump

For starters, outlawing private insurance, repealing the ACA when 180,000,000 like their insurance is political suicide. It’s almost like some are sabotaging the election so they can continue to have Trump to rail against.

[demosincebirth]

23. Before we can accomplish anything we need to win the election.

Lefties seem to forget that. Right wingers are very good at putting names on some of our progressive agendas - like “socialism.” They can pound that into voters head until they breathe it. Some voters aren’t too smart, especially if you have Faux News blaring at you 24/7.

[quakerboy]

90. Howd that work out last time?

If you always do what you’ve always done, you always get what you’ve always gotten.

[redstateblues]

92. We won the House back leaning liberal but not too far

[quakerboy]

112. Interesting take

I mean, I'm cool with the idea that AOC is liberal, but not too far.

[redstateblues]

122. AOC's district is lots further left than most of America

Bernie’s time has come and gone

[empedocles]

39. Amen

[lunamagica]

42. Right, it's either him or trump, just like in '16

[LibFarmer]

73. +1,000,000 nt

[George II]

6. The "green new deal" hasn't even been written! The people responsible for the "plan"....

....say it'll be at least a year, maybe longer before it's ready. That's "progressive"?

Even "Medicare for All" is just an outline with very little substance, and it'll NEVER pass.

Biden is correct. Just look at all the candidates those two endorsed during the Midwestern primaries last year. Most lost because Tammy Duckworth was right, so-called "progressive" policies won't win in the middle of the country, the people just don't want them!!

Those two should tend to their own "plans", "deals", and policies and put some meat on them before they criticize Joe Biden.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. No, that's acknowledging is complicated and need to be detailed...

Policy projects of that sort aren't unusual.

[George II]

17. Some are demanding that we adopt the "green new deal", so we should adopt something...

....that doesn't really exist yet. Shouldn't it be created before insisting people adopt it? That's the way it works in most aspects of life/business/politics.

It's not "support my plan and then in about a year I'll tell you what it is."

[Humanist_Activist]

20. They are asking that we sign on to the overall goals which largely amount to...

Zero carbon emissions in about a decade and willing to pass policies to aid the transition for workers.

The people at Vox explain it much better than I can.

https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/6/12/18653754/green-new-deal-video

[Humanist_Activist]

7. I don't understand the opposition to the Green New Deal...

its not even a set of policy proposals yet, but a set of goals and acknowledgement that shifting the economy to as close to zero carbon emissions as possible will hurt jobs, so it acknowledges that and the goal is to come up with workable solutions to both.

Seriously, we are in a global climate crisis fucking NOW. This isn't a joke, this isn't something that's happening sometime in the future, people are dying now, people are being displaced now. I honestly don't get those who want to play politics with this shit, do you not want your grandkids and great-grandkids to grow up?

[Skya Rhen]

8. I am thrilled that Joe clearly separated himself from the likes of them - no ambiguity there....

[RelativelyJones]

110. Same here

[comradebillyboy]

13. I'll almost always support Joe over AOC and BS.

[LibFarmer]

75. AOC and Bernie are lightweights as compared to Joe. nt

[comradebillyboy]

101. Indeed.

[demosincebirth]

14. I'm for Joe!

[Tarc]

24. Biden is trying to hold back the tide

Good luck with that.

[WA-03 Democrat]

27. Biden is the BLUE tidal wave

Go Joe!

[Tarc]

89. 187

[YOHABLO]

25. How much did it cost to bail out the banks?

Seems like when it's time to bail out the banks no one is asking ''what's all this going to cost" Oh no, we can't ask that question. Why that would be un-American. And the banks are just ''too big to fail". Of course we couldn't allow the world to go into mass depression.

So in answer to the question: Medicare for All, debt free college and a Green New Deal will cost far less than the bank bailout of 2008, which of course we'll be paying for for decades to come, and it was of their own malfeasance, but we're not suppose to bring that up either.

Here's a little tidbit from the Forbes article:

The Special Inspector General for TARP (The Troubled Asset Relief Program) summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out.

If you can stomach reading the article here's the link:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#548104902d83

[Skya Rhen]

33. Financial Crisis Bailouts Have Earned Taxpayers Billions

Snip...

The idea of spending billions of dollars on corporate bailouts is enough to get any American's blood boiling. The good news is the bailouts actually weren't bad investments in the long term.

Snip...

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing.


https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2017-01-19/financial-crisis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Correction, it earned the government billions, who then redistributed it, through tax breaks...

to the rich.

We only have one form of wealth redistribution in this country and its not to the majority, at least half of the people have NO assets and are a paycheck or two from homelessness. The bailout ultimately did jack squat for us.

[Skya Rhen]

46. The money was paid back. Period.

[Humanist_Activist]

53. And the American people haven't recovered financially, which is the more important point...

seriously the accumulated wealth of millions was wiped out, and you are harping about irrelevant crap, if that money was paid back to those it was actually owed to, you would have a point, but it wasn't so you don't.

[Skya Rhen]

65. I can't wait for Biden - hurry 2020!

[emmaverybo]

47. Thanks for the facts. Always better than opinions lacking any. NT

[YOHABLO]

127. Just what part of the article I linked in did you not READ ?!! Trillions still paying out !

Not Billions, trillions.

[Demsrule86]

56. How much does it cost if an economy fails...

[billpolonsky]

29. I think it's better to...

ask for the whole damn loaf and work toward a more perfect union.

or

go the middle ground.

Ask for crumbs and hope for dust.

Remember $12/hr vs $15???

[murielm99]

30. Good for Joe!

Tammy Duckworth has pointed out already that AOC does not represent Democrats who can win in the middle of the country. Most of the candidates backed by the the so-called Justice Democrats and Our Revolution have lost and will continue to lose all over the country. Immature calls to primary sitting Democrats who do the actual work will destroy our blue wave and get trump re-elected.

Like Bernie, AOC is taking other people's ideas and claiming the as her own. Thomas Friedman, a journalist, was the first person to name the Green New Deal. And where was AOC in 2006, when a Green New Deal task force was named? In college?

I would rather build on the ACA. I would like to see concrete proposals for a Green New Deal, a way to work toward universal insurance, such as Canada has. They are the best model for a large, diverse North American country.

Debt-free college is an idea that needs to be refined and fleshed out. So do all the other things Bernie and AOC like to rant on about. And they could, at the very least, give credit to the people who came up with those ideas in the first place. Maybe they could try working with them.

Indeed, what is it going to cost? Give us some workable ideas. And learn to work with all types of Democrats. We are still a big tent party. Those two are going to sink us yet.

Elizabeth Warren has a plan for everything. Where are the plans for the things these two propose?

I am very tired of those who would divide us.

[PatrickforO]

50. Yeah, but you know what this argument sounds like?

It sounds like those who are telling us we can't raise taxes and use public monies to pay for healthcare for all because that 'divides us.'

I just don't buy that. Healthcare is THE kitchen table issue. What if I lose my job? How will I pay for healthcare then? And you have guys like George Will going around saying that a single payer system would 'take away insurance from people who like their employer-provided plans.'

Pardon me if I doubt that people like their employer-supplied plans. I don't. And I know a heck of a bunch of people who also don't. Most of us have crappy, rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays.

Why, I ask you, do we have to labor along under that barbarity just so some insurance companies can keep profiting? When are we going to stand up and say, no, we want our government to use our tax dollars to pay for programs, like healthcare, that actually make our lives better?

Why do we always acquiesce when we are told, no, you cannot have that! It will cost too much!

[Thekaspervote]

97. Excellent points! Thx

[RHMerriman]

31. Nobody knows ... not to be blunt, but even the Sierra Club sums it up as close to

Nobody knows ... not to be blunt, but even the Sierra Club sums it up as close to "mom and apple pie" in terms of anything approaching actual legislation.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/what-green-new-deal-anyway-alexandria-ocasio-cortez]

The New Deal (the original one) included a wide range of legislative and regulatory changes, which were thrashed out in FDR's 1932 campaign.

The GND is basically a slogan, at this point, used to sum up a non-binding House resolution, HR 109.

See:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html]

and

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text]

[guillaumeb]

32. What will it cost if it is not done?

That is the real question.

[still_one]

36. Should I question one who hires people to high positions in their campaign who voted Jill Stein,

and those people not only voted for Jill Stein, encouraged others to do likewise, but expressed no regret doing so?

[Perseus]

40. "Sounds good but what's all this going to cost?"

It will cost cutting corrupt spending on the military, corrupt spending by politicians (July 4th 'parade'?), better transparency of how the money is spent, etc., etc.

When the country becomes educated, when citizens are provided by their right of health services, then we pay with taxes, in the long run the citizens will do better by paying higher taxes and saving on health care and education costs.

I was in Canada many years ago, a friend of mine (a banker) and I went to dinner, I paid and as I was looking at the check I noticed the taxes, so I made a "joke" to the waitress about paying so much, she responded (didn't like my bad joke) that she was happy to pay it because the government did well by her. My friend then offered to explain how much more we pay for health care and education than Canadians do, even with those taxes. He pull out the numbers and I was horrified to see how stupid we are.

That is how you pay for it. Our military budget is insane, immoral, we can cut on that, and we need a better tax system to make sure it is fair by eliminating loopholes by the super rich. "what's all this going to cost?"...we all know we can afford it.

[Autumn]

41. Didn't matter what the tax breaks for the wealthy cost. Fuck it, this shouldn't matter either.

The Republicans are always happy to go in the red for their tax breaks for the most wealthy and they will rob from the poor and elderly to pay for it but anything for the people then it's... Ohhhh nooo!!!! we can't do that IT COST TOO MUCH!!!! DEFICIT!!!!

Fuck that republican bullshit.

[jalan48]

43. Yep, everyone wants to go back to the good ole days of working with Republicans to get things done!

[PatrickforO]

48. Well, what did the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations cost?

That needs to be repealed.

We spent almost a 3/4 trillion last year on 'defense' and have boots on the ground in 147 countries.

I don't know where you got your $400, or $100 in what you spend on healthcare. I have a rationed HMO plan with financially crippling copays and together my employer and I pay a bit over $1,400 a month. The plan is not portable and it is what my insurance and my wife's would cost if I went out on the open market and got something that wouldn't bankrupt us if we have to go to hospital.

I am sorry. I want my tax dollars to pay for programs, like Medicare, that would make my life and my family's lives better. We don't need to spend as much as we do on 'defense,' we don't need a DHS, which is redundant with the FBI. We don't need a massive war on drugs. And we don't need a space force.

We also don't need to gut the EPA like Trump is doing, and it doesn't help me or my family one bit to have this country be the number one oil producer on earth.

I want healthcare that I don't have to stress about, and isn't tied to my employment. Like the rest of the world has.
I want a strong, well-funded Social Security system.
I want my kids and grandkids to have debt-free college.
I want my kids and grandkids to be able to breathe the air, drink the water, and enjoy the earth like I have.

So...how much, you ask? How much was the old New Deal? How much was the second world war?

Why, when I pay in as much as I do in taxes, does my government NOT do things that make my life and my family's lives better? Why do the spend our money to line the pockets of parasites instead?

No, I don't buy the 'how much will it cost' argument. We're going to have to raise taxes to pay for these things. Yes. They will cost money. But I'll tell you, I'd be willing to pay a lot more in taxes to get the stress level of, say, a Dane. Or a Hollander. Or a Swede. Or a Brit.

There is plenty of money to pay for everything we need. It is just in too few hands.

Why is this radical? Why is this ultra-left-wing? Why is wanting my government that I help pay for to have programs that make my life better somehow wrong.

As to dotting all the i-s and crossing all the t-s, I want politicians in there who are committed to keeping the earth habitable, getting to universal healthcare and generally elevating our standard of living. Why is that somehow radical?

Oh, I forgot. The primacy of the shareholder doctrine. Our interests in this capitalist utopia are necessarily subordinate to those of shareholders. This is why unions have been busted almost to non-existence in the private sector and are under constant, unrelenting attack in the public sector, why pensions are a thing of the past, and why companies are constantly giving us less and less and charging more and more. It is also why they are polluting the earth - if the shareholders don't have to pay, then it is considered an 'externality.'

That has to stop. And it will stop in healthcare only when we realize that our interests as patients - to get the healthcare we actually need - are diametrically opposed to those of insurance companies - to collect as much in premiums as possible while paying as little as possible in claims.

There is a moral imperative here, folks. We must ultimately change things so the interests of workers, consumers and the environment are held to be at least equal to those of shareholders. I know some of you who are arguing against Bernie and AOC know this. It isn't 'socialism.' It is an equitable government. A government 'of, by and for' the people.

[liberal N proud]

51. Democrats? attacking Democrats

[jromans]

66. Why is Biden attacking Bernie in the first place?

What does he gain from this? Bernie fans aren't gonna swap to Biden because he attacked Bernie. If anything it makes avid supports dislike him more.

So if Biden did win the primary it would make Bernie or Progressive supporters less likely to vote for him in the general election.

As for the GND its just a commitment like the Paris Accords was, there's no substance to it. Its basically the progressive play bill and look how quickly we threw that out the door. As far as im concerned let it be on the record and change things as we need to.

[emmaverybo]

82. Oddly, Bernie supporters name Biden as their most likely second choice. Maybe that will change, if

it hasn’t already, but I personally want Biden to challenge rivals and draw contrasts with his own positions.

If Bernie’s supporters are going to get nose out of joint again, ok.

Winning this election is about who has the best path to the electoral college win.

If that’s Bernie, he can make that case.

[Drunken Irishman]

109. He didn't.

[Blue_true]

71. Neither person dies a good job of explaining how we will pay for their ideas.

I made a post of Bernie's medical care plan yesterday. Once the yearly cost was stated, the whole thing was a non starter. We simply hurt ourselves if we nominate a person with blue sky ideas that don't stand up to an accounting examination.

[NBachers]

78. joe

joe

[thesquanderer]

81. re: "Sounds good but what's all this going to cost?"

Reasonable question, but as I think Harris basically said at the debate, why do only Dems have to answer this question? Trump put through a huge tax cut, and nobody seemed to care what it would cost.

Anyway, the MFA proposals do include how they would be paid for. GND is still more of a concept than a specific plan, afaik.

[redstateblues]

87. Repealing the ACA and taking employer based insurance away from 180 million is

Political Suicide

[5starlib]

86. AOC has been taking pot shots at Biden and he has never responded

It's about time he clapped back at her. And he is right too. She has thrown shade at Biden for months now.

[Vegas Roller]

91. Doing Putin's and in turn Trump's work

Deja vu all over again

[ucrdem]

93. . . . and as MAD magazine fades away, the vacuum is filled . . .

And the sun also rises.

[pansypoo53219]

94. forget 2018. hillary was a middlecrat now wasn't she.

[W_HAMILTON]

96. Hillary ran on what Sanders called "the most progressive platform" in party history.

[Demsrule86]

115. No she wasn't. And consider more recently, the house was won by moderates.

AOC types did not give us the house...they won safe Democratic seats.

[betsuni]

117. "middlecrat"

Most progressive Democratic Party platform in history. Spent her life trying to help people live better lives by getting things done, not just talking about it.

[shanny]

95. It's going to cost a whole lot less

than doing nothing--which will cost us everything.

Might as well ask how much WWII would cost...before committing to fight it. This is more important than that.

[betsuni]

104. Conversations I keep seeing:

A: What are the details of Medicare for All? How will that be funded? Many people don't want to give up their insurance. Why not add a public option to the ACA, it's so much easier.
B: You're a Republican.

A: What is the Green New Deal, what's the plan?
B: You're a Republican.

A: Why should college be free for those who can pay?
B: You're a Republican.

A: AOC didn't come up with the concept of a Green New Deal.
B: You're a Republican.

A: Bernie Sanders didn't come up with the idea of Medicare for All or free college or 15 bucks an hour minimum wage.
B: You're a Republican.

Repeat the slogans, you're a progressive. Have another plan, not a progressive. This will not work again.

[rusty quoin]

108. Ugh, progressives have been right all the time.

I cannot read all these Biden is right stuff.

AOC is right and Bernie is right.

I’m sick and tired of what cannot be done over what must be done.

It’s about our children’s future.

[Demsrule86]

116. Ohr childrens future will be very bleak if Trump uses MFA to win another term.

People like the ACA...Add a Public option and cost controls...it will lead to universal healthcare like France or Germany.

[betsuni]

119. So you think Biden isn't progressive?

[DeminPennswoods]

113. When I heard about this

comment, my very first thought was that Biden was being condescending. It struck me as kind of a "tut, tut, little girl, what do you know?". I understand Biden's strategy is to act like he's already the nominee, but I found his casual dismissal of progressive ideas - and ones Americans generally like - offensive.

[Demsrule86]

118. See this where we make mistakes. Americans don't support MFA if

It means getting rid of private insurance.

[DeminPennswoods]

123. Sorry, but Americans with private insurance

have absolutely no idea of everything that medicare covers. Switched my mom from the private insurance medicare advantage to medicare first, medicare supplement secondary. The supplement has yet to pick up a co-pay because medicare is covering everything.

[betsuni]

120. LOL anointed.

Won't work this time.

[beachbum bob]

121. middle america is NOT a left-center area and what sounds so great for coastal liberals, falls flat

hard working middleclass people don't want free give aways. period as the money has to come from somewhere

[Alex4Martinez]

125. "Sounds good but what's all this going to cost?" is an odd postscript

Let me first say that AOC and Sanders may seem fringe but that's because we've moved so far right.
Their values are more reflective of traditional Democratic values than those of mainstream Dems like Biden, IMHO.

But with respect to cost, I ask, what is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of continuing business as usual?

The answer is furtherance of the divide in wealth versus poverty and despair, further annihilation of the middle class.

And the end of hope for most working Americans.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

128. You're making a false argument

No one outside of the most conservative Republican is suggesting doing nothing. But with any plan the devil is in the details.

We need to be able to debate those details like adults. That is all.

[Midwestocrat]

126. I loved it when Joe Biden stood up for himself.

And defended HIS liberal agenda. Sanders doesn't speak for all liberals/progressives. I don't even think he speaks for a majority of us. There's not "one liberal path." We have lots of ideas.

[brooklynite]

130. As AOC goes...so goes AOC

Not many others.