factfinder_77
factfinder_77's JournalAP Poll: Americans Don't Know What ‘Single Payer’ Means. And when they find out, they don’t like it
When asked their view of “single-payer” health care—what such a system is often called—the respondents seemed to like it. “A slim plurality of 39 percent supports replacing the private health insurance system with a single government-run, taxpayer-funded plan that would cover medical, dental, vision and long-term care, with 33 percent opposed,” the AP’s Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Emily Swanson write. Just 26 percent, meanwhile, support the existing Obamacare law.
But when asked whether they’d be willing to either pay higher taxes for such a plan or give up their own, employer-sponsored plans for a government-run insurance plan, they were decidedly less bullish. Thirty-nine percent said they would oppose a plan that meant either of those steps. Support thinned further as the pollsters brought up the other potential pitfalls of single-payer systems.
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll, also from Thursday, found that people feel similarly thrown by the phrase “Medicare for All.” Thirty-six percent of respondents viewed that “very positively,” but only 15 percent felt that way about “single payer.”
“Overall it sounds terrific,” she said. “Yeah! Let's go for it! But Europe and Canada have their problems with the single-payer system ... it’s subpar.”
There are two common points of confusion about single payer. The first is about the definition of “single,” which, as you might know, is “one.” And the “one” in this case almost always means “the government.” It means everyone gives up their Platinum Elite Status Cigna Extra Miles plan that they get at a steep discount from their work. Instead, they go on the same plan everyone else has. This is a key element of Sanders’s proposal, as described on his site: “Under Bernie’s plan, Americans will benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment.”
The thing is, half of Americans get their insurance through work, and they don't all hate it. A government plan might not be any worse, but it will require a leap into the unknown.
The AP says that higher taxes are also a “given” under single-payer, and that’s probably true, but it’s hard to tell how much people will spend on taxes versus how much they spend now on insurance premiums and surprise ER bills. And it’s worth noting that the AP didn’t bring up any of the positives typically associated with single-payer, like the potential for significant administrative cost savings.
The other point of confusion is that “Europe” has single-payer health care, and America should be more like Europe. European countries’ medical systems are all pretty different. Some of them, like the U.K., have single-payer health care. Germany has a system much like ours, except the insurers aren’t for-profit companies and it’s cheaper for the patients. Other countries have mixed public-private systems that guarantee a basic level of health care but allow the rich to buy supplemental private insurance.
It sounds like Sanders’s idea could resemble any one of these. In his description, he says, “all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card.” If everyone were covered by the same plan, it’s not clear why you’d need an insurance card. If there is a card, it’s not clear whether it would be issued by a German-style sickness fund or function more like an NHS medical card.
It’s true, however, that Europe has its own problems, some of them related to single-payer health-care systems. America’s existing medical system is no picnic either. But when they’re shown the downsides of single-payer, Americans seem to prefer the devil they know.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/people-have-no-idea-what-single-payer-means/471045/
DU Anti Hillary posts: I don't get how such factually incorrect nonsense gets spouted day after day
Feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I see people calling Hillary "center right" and "conservative" and other types of nonsense. HOW CAN THEY EVEN SAY THIS?! I mean if you just read her website for 10 minutes she is a progressive on every single issue!! I just don't get how such factually incorrect nonsense gets spouted day after day; it truly boggles my mind
She was the 11th most Liberal Senator while she was in the Senate. ( more liberal than Obama)When you see Hillary supporters complain about 'Purity Tests' this is the attitude we're speaking about, btw.
Her voting record in the Senate is nearly identical to Sanders. They agree on 93% of the issues. I don't have any issues with people disagreeing with each other, but what is wearying to a lot of Hillary supporters are those Sanders supporters (not all of them! not even most of them!) who insist on doing so in a fact-free environment based on propaganda and Weaver-generated talking points.
This is what really kills me, I don't understand how a politician evolving on their views is a bad thing. She went in the right direction. Change is GOOD. Who the hell wants a leader so steeped in their beliefs they can't listen to other viewpoints? (Rhetorical question, lol.)
Basically, the people that say these things don't believe that she's actually changed her viewpoints (or at least that some of them may not have changed), but that she's just saying what people want to hear.
Or put another way, they know what her stances are on the website, they just don't believe she'll fight very hard for those things, especially campaign finance reform.
Personally, I feel her generals performance and whether or not she pivots will determine if those people come around or not. Checking google for recent stuff, it appears she's looking for a progressive VP and isn't planning on pivoting to center, so if that's true, a lot will eventually come around.
Maybe it It goes all the way back to Goldwater Girl.
Not once have they recognized the problem with attacking a woman who was raised as a good little Republican girl by her father, in a very different generation for gender roles, for not changing her party before she could legally drink?
We should embrace anyone who switches from Republican to Democrat in COLLEGE, especially if they were raised Republican, especially if they were female and had extra social pressure, and most especially if they did it after volunteering for campaigns and coming to an educated decision on a mismatch in values
Personally I feel this is a distant second to knowledge about Hillary's basic history. All they seem to know is Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs speeches. If they all just read a biography on her, even a very critical one, they would have to take their mental gymnastics to an Olympic level to still make the statements they do about her character.
Honestly, I think it is in Hillary's best interest to have a scathing film played on TV, so long as it is a complete history from like age 13 on. Let them repeat the insinuations with Vince Foster, etc. I think Hillary will gain more votes from bernie supporters than lose if they actually see her entire life evolve in primarily public interest roles instead of ONLY hearing the same 10 attacks every day for 6 months.
Ironically, I think a similar film about Bernie, done neutrally or slightly positive, would make many in his base disillusioned and asking for their donation back (assuming the objectivity was accepted, something I admit is unlikely considering how everything is a conspiracy these days)
Actually she is more transparent than Bernie. She's released 30 full years of tax returns. That's how we even know she gave private speeches to various groups. It's all itemized.
Her campaign funds are public record, just like Bernie's. That is the law. And, she happens to have only had one FEC letter two pages long concerning a few procedural errors which were queried in Feb. Bernie on the other hand has had 4 FEC campaign finance violation notifications, the last being 650 pages or so long detailing illegal acceptance of foreign donations, donations over the campaign limit and refunded donations to individuals which exceed the donated amount.
He still refuses to release his tax returns, even though it's been common practice since the 1930's for presidential candidates to do so. The one 2014 return he finally released is not even complete, there is no breakdown of his deductions.
Then there's the question of whether he flew his family to Rome on a personal trip (so he claims) using campaign funds (which there are strict rules about) in excess of $500,000.
When are people going to start holding Bernie to a similar standard of scrutiny
Hillary Clinton has been more honest and transparent about her sources of income than literally any other candidate this cycle. The reason people tout Sanders's honesty is because he continually tells his followers that everyone else is corrupt, not because he's some epitome of honesty and plain dealing.
Also, the cliche of women as the gender that lies and cheats and schemes is as old as the written word, so believing that the dichotomy between Sanders and Clinton in terms of honesty and transparency has nothing to do with sexism is naive at best.
Top GOP Benghazi Investigator Debunks Conservative Myths: Nothing ‘Could Have Been Done Differently’
These statements undermine one of the GOP’s most heavily recycled — and completely unfounded — talking points about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans. Republicans have repeatedly and baselessly claimed that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered the military to "stand down" and not respond to the attacks.
A former three-star general who served as the Republicans’ chief counsel on the Benghazi Select Committee repeatedly acknowledged as he interviewed witnesses during the committee’s investigation that nothing “could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi.”
The quotes, which came from multiple interviews conducted by the committee, were revealed publicly for the first time in a letter to Benghazi Select Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., from ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash.
Although he is not identified by name in the letter, it has been publicly reported that Gowdy had hired Lt. Gen. Dana K. Chipman “to lead the panel's legal team.” Chipman left the committee earlier this year.
While interviewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in January, the then-chief counsel acknowledged, “I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.” (Emphasis added)
Later in the interview he told Panetta, “And again, sir, I don’t mean to suggest that anything could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi, and I think you would agree with that.”
These statements undermine one of the GOP’s most heavily recycled — and completely unfounded — talking points about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans. Republicans have repeatedly and baselessly claimed that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered the military to "stand down" and not respond to the attacks.
Gowdy praised Chipman when he brought him onto the committee’s legal team, remarking, “If you are serious about conducting a fair, thorough, fact-centric investigation devoid of gratuitous partisanship, it stands to reason you would select someone with those same characteristics to lead the investigation."
In the committee’s “Interim Progress Update,” released in May 2015, Gowdy boasted of the “highly-qualified staff” he had gathered to aid the investigation, specifically mentioning Chipman.
In an interview with Defense Department Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash, the form chief council made similar comments to those he had made to Panetta. “I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September in Benghazi, Libya,” he said. “So let me start with that positing or that stipulation.”
During the same interview, he also noted, “I don’t see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is we’re caught by surprise on 9/11, we’ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner — and you can debate what’s timely, what’s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi.”
These statements are all in line with the conclusions of previous investigations, including those conducted by the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. They also match statements by military leaders including Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey.
Yet Gowdy continues to claim that his committee is uncovering ground-breaking new information, saying in a statement last week that “the committee has identified new facts that significantly impact our understanding of what happened before, during, and after Benghazi.”
Gowdy, in an apparently desperate attempt to find damning information about the administration’s response to the attack, has sought to call as witnesses a man who anonymously called in to a right-wing radio show claiming to have previously undisclosed knowledge of the events and a purported whistleblower who recently spoke with Fox News.
Despite Gowdy’s desperate attempts to salvage the image of his committee, Chipman’s statements raise serious questions about what the Benghazi Select Committee has accomplished in the course of its two-year, $6.9 million investigation
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/top-gop-benghazi-investigator-debunks-conservative-myths-nothing-could-have-been-done-differ
For everybody who is concerned by the recent Quinnipiac polls, look at poll averages
A lot of Sanders and Trump supporters are saying that these recent Quinnipiac swing state polls prove that Secretary Clinton will lose in November because she's a 'weak candidate'. We know that that's not true, but take a look at some polling data. The media generally emphasize polls wherein Trump is winning, for some reason. Let's take a look at a lot of polls in battleground states.
This is Florida (Clinton +4.3): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
This is Ohio (Clinton +3.0): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html
This is Pennsylvania (Clinton +7.0): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html
This is Michigan (Clinton +10.5): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html
This is North Carolina (Clinton +3.3): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html
This is Wisconsin (Clinton +11.5): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html
This is Georgia (Trump +4.7): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton-5741.html
This is Indiana (Trump +7.5): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/in/indiana_trump_vs_clinton-5878.html
This is Missouri (Trump +7.0): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mo/missouri_trump_vs_clinton-5609.html
And here's some national polling (Clinton +5.7): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
What we see is that Clinton leads in all of these excepting three red states. The hope is that she can turn them blue. We can expect a post-presumptive nominee boost in polling come June 7, too. This election won't be easy for either side, but Clinton is certainly not a weak candidate and she is the most qualified presidential candidate of the 21st century.
Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina (R) ran for office after hearing Hillary Clinton speak
Everybody was telling me why I shouldn’t run: I was too young, I had small children, I should start at the school board level.
I went to Birmingham University, and Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker on a leadership institute, and she said that when it comes to women running for office,there will be everybody that tells you why you shouldn’t but that’s all the reasons why we need you to do it, and I walked out of there thinking “That’s it. I’m running for office.
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/a-conversation-with-nikki-haley/?_r=0
Trend: latest opinion poll - Clinton 53,5 %, Sanders only 39,9 %
Ipsos/Reuters 5/7 - 5/11 819 RV
Clinton 56 Sanders 41
Morning Consult 5/5 - 5/9 2,728 RV
Clinton 49 Sanders 40
NBC/SurveyMonkey 5/2 - 5/8 3,905 RV
Clinton 53 Sanders 41
Ipsos/Reuters 4/30 - 5/4 467 RV
Clinton 56 Sanders 41
Morning Consult 4/29 - 5/2 948 RV
Clinton 51 Sanders 38
CNN 4/28 - 5/1 405 RV
Clinton 51 Sanders 43
NBC/SurveyMonkey 4/25 - 5/1 4,418 RV
Clinton 54 Sanders 40
Morning Consult 4/26 - 4/29 906 RV
Clinton 49 Sanders 40
IBD/TIPP 4/22 - 4/28 355 RV
Clinton 49 Sanders 43
Ipsos/Reuters 4/23 - 4/27 796 RV
Clinton 53 Sanders 43
Oregon: Clinton leading Sanders + 15 - Clinton 48, Sanders 33. Ballots due at 8 p.m on May 17
DHM Research surveyed 901 likely Oregon voters between May 6 and May 9 for OPB and Fox 12. Among Democrats, Clinton led U.S. Sen. Sanders 48 percent to 33 percent. Sanders has attracted adoring crowds at campaign appearances in Portland and Eugene — he’ll speak again Tuesday night in Salem — but the Democratic primary is a closed election. That means only registered Democrats can vote, and may help explain why Clinton leads in the poll.
There was a stark age gap: Among those younger than 45, 64 percent supported Sanders, compared to 20 percent for Clinton. Among those 45 and older, the numbers flip: Clinton has the support from 56 percent of older voters, and Sanders had 25 percent.
Researchers tested two potential turnout scenarios, to see if the race might change if turnout is higher than expected. But even in a higher turnout race, Clinton led Sanders, this time 45 percent to 38 percent.
On the Republican side, 45 percent of likely voters surveyed said they have voted or plan to vote for Trump. Ted Cruz and John Kasich, who both suspended their campaigns last week, had 14 percent each among poll respondents.
But Trump’s fortunes in Oregon may change after the primary: If the general election were held today, 43 percent of poll respondents said they’d vote for Clinton, and 32 percent said they would support Trump.
Those numbers shouldn’t be seen as a ringing endorsement for either candidate, however. Among potential Trump voters, 52 percent said their vote was based more on their dislike of Clinton than Trump’s appeal. Among Clinton supporters, 43 percent said they were supporting her because they dislike him.
Ballots in the Oregon primary due at 8 p.m. on May 17. The margin of error in the DHM Research survey ranged from 5.6 percent in the Democratic primary survey results to 3.3 percent for the general election questions.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-2016/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-oregon-poll/
Registered voters receive a ballot two to three weeks before an election, giving time to research issues or candidates.
Voters also receive an official ballot to complete and insert into the security envelope which is placed in the ballot return envelope and signed by the voter. The ballot return envelope can be stamped and mailed or dropped off at any official drop box across the state. If a voter casts their ballot after the Wednesday before an election, the ballot should be left at a drop box site to ensure it's counted.
Ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day.
http://sos.oregon.gov/voting/Pages/voteinor.aspx
This law was created by House Bill 2177, passed by the Legislature in the 2015 Session and signed into law by Governor Kate Brown.
The program modernizes voter registration in Oregon and provides a secure, simple, and convenient way for more Oregonians to become registered voters.
How it Works
Automatic voter registration is available if you are eligible* to register to vote and you apply for your original, renewal, or replacement license, permit, or ID card at the DMV.
Once you engage the Oregon Motor Voter process by visiting the DMV, you will receive a card and a pre-paid postage return envelope from the Oregon State Elections Office.
With this card, you have three options:
Do nothing. You will be registered to vote as a nonaffiliated voter (not a member of a political party).
Choose a political party by returning the card. Joining a political party will allow you to vote in its primary elections.
Use the card to opt-out and decline to register to vote.
Once registered, you will automatically receive a ballot and instructions in the mail about two weeks before an election. When you vote, your ballot is secret and your choices cannot be matched up with your name.
http://sos.oregon.gov/voting/Pages/motor-voter.aspx
Bernie folks rushed stage, yelling obscenities, throwing chairs and bottles
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/731892274464841729Convention ended w/security shutting it down, Bernie folks rushed stage, yelling obscenities, throwing chairs. Unity Now! On to Philly 2/2
@atdleft @RalstonReports bottles were also thrown at the stage. Had to escort women out fearing 4 their life. This has no place in politics.
Sanders supporters rampage. NV Democrats Kicked Out of Hotel That Held Convention.
DNC Leaders Flee Building As Sanders Supporters Demand Recount
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/731848230187606017
I watched it on live feed and the woman had to actually run for her life, protected by the police. Sanders supporters then published her private phone number in /s4p.... Shell likely get harassed to hell by them for standing up to bullies. That campaign has become a fucking joke.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Apr 5, 2016, 04:54 PMNumber of posts: 841
