HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Democrats 2020 » Buttigieg 2020 (Group) » Sorta Bad News for the Bu...

Sat Nov 2, 2019, 02:36 PM

Sorta Bad News for the Buttigieg 2020 Group [View all]

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2019, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is going to win the Iowa primary and we are going to need a much bigger room for the Buttigieg 2020 Group.

Those walls in the back are going to have to go, we will need to add wings on both the left and the right side and we will need everybody to help repaint the room

He could well take first place but even if he places second he will be declared the "winner".

I like a lot of the candidates that are running. There are three that anger me but Pete is the one who resonates every time he talks.

He is guiding the party's discussion into a more logical and thoughtful and less jingoistic path, and that is what we need. The "Medicare for All" jingoism has driven me mad from the first time it was said and when it looke like the party was going to embrace it I could see Trump surviving and winning a second term. Mayor Pete stood up and took the rational path.

Let me make 3 observations about "Medicare for All":

1) Medicare, as it is now constituted is in fact 100% inclusive and designed "for all". I have been several discussions with people who were beet red in the face and demanding "Medicare for all" and have asked, "So if you are arguing for Medicare for All then you must think that the current Medicare system is only for some. Please tell me who in the US, having met the time requirements doesn't get Medicare? Left handed people? Minorities? and so on. Please tell me who doesn't get Medicare?

Medicare as it is now constituted is in fact "for all".

In the end the answer is always silence with an open mouth expression as they realize that their is tag line is beyond absurd and that Medicare is in fact for all. I respond that as clever as people think "Medicare for All" is the Republicans cannot wait until there is a debate when they make the same point. If the rallying cry is not accurate how can you trust what follows?

2) By stating that "Medicare for all" you are hiding the real objective. The real objective of Sanders proposal is to completely redefine Medicare. Medicare is currently not health insurance that you pay a premium and get a policy, it is a long term benefit with a mandatory tax that requires everyone contributes for decades in order to pay for health coverage when you hit 65.

I can tell you who doesn't get Medicare coverage. Guys like my dad that contributed for 3 decades and die before they are 65. They don't get their contributions sent back to their beneficiaries. They contributed to the trust fund but didn't get the benefit, and I am fine with that, that is what a social benefit looks like. You spread the risk. I should note that my mother lived until 97 and benefited greatly from it.

3) What Sanders and Warren (who I respect and love many of her proposals) are really saying is that we are going to make a radical redefinition of what Medicare is. People who have contributed patiently for 40 years will be in the same program as people who have contributed for 1 year. Obviously that raises a million questions.

Mayor Pete's "Medicare for all who want it, take the ACA and add the public option" is the winning formula.

In 2008 I looked at the 36 advanced democracies who all have universal health coverage and how they implemented it. The basic conclusion is that only one country flipped from a mainly private to a mainly public system all at one time and that was the UK after WWII where a high percentage of the doctors were already working for the government in the military and the existent private networks were non existent. There also was the feeling among all the classes that the "shared sacrifice" of all the country demanded that everyone should benefit from medical care.

It took Canada 19 years from the initial minimal public coverage in one province (1947) to a universal health care scheme for all (1966). It started with a plan for hospital coverage only in Saskatchewan (because of an acute doctor shortage) that grew slowly in coverage and was also adopted by other provinces, and eventually the whole country.

Currently private health insurance still provides services for about 27% of the Canadian Market.

The best way to expand health care coverage is to take the existing ACA and improve and expand it. This is easily done by simply adding the public option to states that want it.

This year premiums are down 4% and more providers are entering the market. The way to expand social entitlements in the US is create an initial benefit and build confidence year by year. Sanders/Warren proposal to wipe out all private health care and replace it with a 100% mandated public system with trillions in new debt is absurd. It also has zero chance of making it through the Senate.

Mayor Pete is the most progressive candidate, IMO, because he is proposing changes that can actually be implemented and build a foundation for the next level of changes which are made possible because the country gains confidence each step of the way.

Could not be prouder of the Mayor from South Bend.

Can we coalesce a strong coalition founded with the Obama/Pelosi wings of the party and mount a landslide victory in 2020?

Why . . .

Yes We Can.

6 replies, 1597 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 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sorta Bad News for the Buttigieg 2020 Group [View all]
grantcart Nov 2019 OP
defacto7 Nov 2019 #1
madaboutharry Nov 2019 #2
CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2019 #3
grantcart Nov 2019 #4
CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2019 #5
IndyOp Nov 2019 #6