Your suggesting I instead vote for those who passed a bill they didn't read but knew it would implode healthcare, like it did because they will fix it? Even tho they have yet to acknowledge almost everyone lost their plan, nobody saved $2500 and we lost our Dr.

you realize your party tanked the bill right? are you willfully ignorant of that? or do you not care because it fits your preconceived narrative that dems=bad? if its the latter that's fine, just dont pretend to be some mythical centrist that voted because of healthcare, and just embrace you're inner deplorable.

Um strongly suggest you rewatch the biden palin debate.

"Trump won because 2p2 won't let me drop N-bombs" was a fresh new take.

How much is your share of the war we started in Iraq to find Saddam's WMD's?

I never paid much attention to Obamacare, but is this about right: subsidize health care for people who can't afford it (and are willing to humiliate themselves a little) and instead of distributing that cost widely and progressively among all tax payers (people who have money) you fund it by mandating people buy private insurance and through everyone else's premiums. I guess the theory was that a lot of people who were choosing not to have health insurance were just loaded and spending that money on Gucci Bags and Rolexes?

That does seem awfully bad, but I may be missing something.

The subsidies are funded through taxes so yeah you're missing kind of a key element.

That's kinda shocking for someone who spends a lot of time in a politics forum.

The problem was, insurers were saying to sick people "**** off, you're too expensive, we won't cover you" and that's bad.

You can mandate that insurers cover everyone, but then if only people who were previously denied coverage (because they are legitimately very expensive customers who defeat the purpose of "insurance" as an idea of something you get before disaster strikes) sign up, the cost of insurance explodes for all customers because insurers have to adjust premiums to the point where they can continue to be viable businesses.

So, the Obamacare solution was: if everyone has to have health insurance, then we can force insurers to cover everyone, and it's financially justifiable because we're also sending them new customers who won't be financial drains on the insurers to balance it out. And health insurance is genuinely a good idea because even people who describe themselves as "healthy" can have a health crisis hit them and bankrupt them at any time, and instead of bankrupting them personally while causing hospitals to spread their costs on everyone else (because it's not like they're gonna just eat it), those healthy-until-something-bad-happens people are now in the system too.

Single payer is of course a better idea, but this is the solution that could get 60 votes in the Senate in 2009.

Sounds like what I said.

Single payer is better.

So is expanding Medicare to those uninsurable people.

I'm suggesting that most of these "healthy" people who "chose" not to have insurance probably largely couldn't really afford it. They certainly weren't rich. Rich people just had insurance. So, it's very regressive.

And I think health insurance industry campaign donations have more to do with not being able to get 60 votes on anything that didn't funnel the subsidy through private insurance than people in Congress not being lefty enough.

There are subsidies to help get poor people insurance, though. I'm not super familiar with the subsidy structure but such a system could theoretically still be progressive.

I don't get the support in here for all the really old candidates. Sanders, Warren and Biden.

Its way past time to thank them for their service and pushing the party a more progressive direction but they need to be put out to pasture. Time to let the younger generation lead.

Putting them up against Trump will ensure 4 more years of Trump. This litmus test crap is also getting over the top. Unless you believe all these items, your ineligible for leadership. The Dems have always been the big tent party. If we alienate people who would vote Dem over Trump but are not on board with every single policy, Trump gets 4 more years.

Disagree strongly that it will "ensure 4 more years of Trump", but the rest of this post is right on the money.

That's because goofy's post didn't address subsidies at all. You chose to cherry pick the information from his post that agreed with your misinformed beliefs while ignoring the post above his which correctly pointed out that the subsidies are funded through taxes. Not surprising that the two of you would rather engage in this circle jerk of ignorance rather than figure out how the ACA was designed to work at the most basic level, but if you're ever hit by a spell of intellectual curiosity and decide to Google "how do ACA subsidies work" maybe you'll come across this link and realize it's the exact opposite of what you said:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...-care-act-make

Warren is on her first term of elected office. She's old if you're only looking at her age but typically being old in politics is a knock because it implies someone has been in office forever and either has no new ideas or has failed at implementing those ideas. That doesn't apply to her.

That's cool d10. Thanks

Thinking about it I remember the tax part now. 3.8% on capital gains over $250k. Still, I don't like the idea of funneling money through health insurance companies.

Eric Holder is considering it

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...ing-it-1129460

I'd vote for him but there's no way he'd win the nomination imo

Eric Holder would be almost as bad a nominee as Hillary.

Holder sucks

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/141919

Eff Holder

Representing Death Squads in support of imperialism fails the purity test. (Chiquita should be read as 'United Fruit Company' - same company renamed)

The vast majority of people here would prefer a young candidate.

The problem is the younger candidates... well, first of all, aren't that young... but more importantly, don't seem that great.

Like, we're talking Harris, Gillibrand, and Booker as the only younger candidates with > 5% equity. Most people here think Booker is a stooge for Wall Street. Gillibrand has a variety of problems and is not charismatic at all. Harris is a wildcard.

So, yeah, I'd rather support an old that I actually like than a middle aged person that I don't particularly like. If Harris turns out to be a star or we get a meteoric rise from Beto or something, great. I kinda doubt that will happen, but we'll see.

In a post Citizens United world, I wonder how many of these candidates only throw their hat in for the money.

In a sea of dark money, the angles have exponentially increased. Take Holder for example; the chance of him winning the nomination has to be almost zero. But he would still become a tool of influence that could get paid by anyone from the Koch brothers to foreign agents.

good post.(edit: JoltinJake) if there was a younger candidate with Sanders' politics, positions and record, that person would be the runaway obvious choice. there isn't, so while it's far from idea, an elderly demsoc > crappy "progressives" who are barely any better than the awful Dem status quo.

if people think Bernie leftists are going to come out strong behind someone like Kamala Harris

link

link

they are going to be unpleasantly surprised

FYI the 3.8% net investment income tax applied to all investment income which includes interest, dividends, capital gains, and non-active business interests (i.e. your one rental home, passive partnership interest, etc)

Harris, Gillibrand, and Booker would all be fine candidates.