All Things "AOC" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & the Squad.

[Going Commando]

Yeah people move away from NY and California because of differences in property values, not as a rejection of progressive policy.  Progressive policy and the migration cheaper and less economically developed sun belt states are both responses to the same stimulus: late stage capitalism in the most developed economies of America killing the middle class.

[Mr. Sinister]

5 hours ago, Burgold said:

On the other hand, you also don't get things by being meek and waiting your turn. There is a degree you do have to push and fight.

 

Agree. I just think they have t ok best figure out how to meet in the middle. This all seems ill timed, with the Senate run-off in sight.

 

I did see her posting about how "If they stop criticizing us, we'll help them," but she seems to not realize that they both need each other. It's gotta be a two way street

[Going Commando]

She's going to have to be a team player to make it in the party long term.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

I think she and the left wing of the Democratic Party need to be a little more self aware and situationally aware. The green new deal is wholly unrealistic as written.

Go back into it and make it more palatable and reasonable.  Medicare for all has support from mostly everyone when and after they see it enacted but not in the lead up to it. MFA will work when they control the house and senate, not before. Defund the police is a term that should not be coming out of anyone’s mouth on the left. Like ever. Get everyone in the same page and lose the phrase, or you are gonna lose elections, it shouldn’t be said by anyone ever on the left. Police reform. It’s not that tough. 
 

She’s being defensive about being the reason some of these candidates lost. She isn’t wrong in saying there is more to it than that. But she needs to acknowledge it doesn’t help. Be a little more reasonable with the realities around you, and adjust where necessary. 
 

I give her tons of credit for carving out a space that was not being utilized on the left, but take a deep breath and work within the system to get as much of what you can done for your constituents. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by COWBOY-KILLA-

[DoneMessedUp]

Support for M4A drops hard when you explain to people it means abolishing private insurance, something that's way to the left of basically the entire rest of the developed world.

 

[mammajamma]

39 minutes ago, DoneMessedUp said:

Support for M4A drops hard when you explain to people it means abolishing private insurance, something that's way to the left of basically the entire rest of the developed world.

 

huh? everything dems have proposed so far for M4A is the same, if not more conservative, than what's in europe/canada

[mammajamma]

1 hour ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

The green new deal is wholly unrealistic as written.

i think its more the messaging of the green new deal that makes it unrealistic to pass. if anyone actually took the time to understand it (net job increase, updating infrastructure, boost to gdp, necessity for climate issues), i can't understand why most people would be against it (unless you have a large stake in the oil industry). but instead of working with AOC and team to adjust the messaging/marketing of it, moderate dems like to listen to republicans instead, pulling the dem party further and further to the right.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, mammajamma said:

huh? everything dems have proposed so far for M4A is the same, if not more conservative, than what's in europe/canada

 

Sander's plan is not conservative of most of the western democracies or Canada.  The idea of no co-pays and deductibles and covering dental is an extreme position.

 

https://www.axios.com/how-bernies-single-payer-plan-stacks-up-against-canadas-1513305530-47509e37-0b29-404c-8f3e-2198d2d1de99.html

[mammajamma]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

The idea of no co-pays and deductibles is an extreme position.

no it is not. this is exactly how health care works in major European countries like the UK. no copays and deductibles is what makes it so attractive. worthless without that

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

You don’t have to abolish private insurance by having M4A. There is a system already in place where Medicare and Medicaid is utilized through the insurance company’s networks. They basically manage the care. Today if you have Medicare you have the choice to utilize it through say United. Same with Medicaid. You can have a hybrid model of M4A and still cut in Insurance companies and encourage incentivize them financially for better outcomes for their patients. 

[mammajamma]

1 minute ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

You don’t have to abolish private insurance by having M4A. There is a system already in place where Medicare and Medicaid is utilized through the insurance company’s networks. They basically manage the care. Today if you have Medicare you have the choice to utilize it through say United. Same with Medicaid. You can have a hybrid model of M4A and still cut in Insurance companies and encourage incentivize them financially for better outcomes for their patients. 

ya, i think expanding medicare/medicaid to everyone is probably the next realistic step

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

no it is not. this is exactly how health care works in major European countries like the UK. no copays and deductibles is what makes it so attractive. worthless without that

 

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/england#:~:text=Outpatient prescription drugs are subject,365.00) per course of treatment.&text=These charges are set nationally by the Department of Health.

 

No, it isn't.

 

It isn't for Canada as the post I linked above explains, and it isn't in the UK.

 

"Outpatient prescription drugs are subject to a copayment of GBP 8.80 (USD 12.50) per prescription. Drugs prescribed in NHS hospitals are free.

 

NHS dentistry services are subject to copayments of up to GBP 256.50 (USD 365.00) per course of treatment.¹² These charges are set nationally by the Department of Health.

 

Out-of-pocket health expenditures by households accounted for 15 percent of total expenditures in the U.K. in 2016. Also in 2016, the largest portion of out-of-pocket spending (37%) was on long-term care services, including residential care, followed by 35 percent for medical goods (including pharmaceuticals).^13"

 

Based on western style democracies what Sanders has proposed is extreme.

Edited November 8, 2020 by PeterMP

[mammajamma]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/england#:~:text=Outpatient prescription drugs are subject,365.00) per course of treatment.&text=These charges are set nationally by the Department of Health.

 

No, it isn't.

 

It isn't for Canada as the post I linked above explains, it isn't in the UK.

 

"Outpatient prescription drugs are subject to a copayment of GBP 8.80 (USD 12.50) per prescription. Drugs prescribed in NHS hospitals are free.

 

NHS dentistry services are subject to copayments of up to GBP 256.50 (USD 365.00) per course of treatment.¹² These charges are set nationally by the Department of Health.

 

Out-of-pocket health expenditures by households accounted for 15 percent of total expenditures in the U.K. in 2016. Also in 2016, the largest portion of out-of-pocket spending (37%) was on long-term care services, including residential care, followed by 35 percent for medical goods (including pharmaceuticals).^13"

Yes, the UK has a private system as well, but a very small amount of people use it. I was matching apples to apples and only comparing it to their universal healthcare system (NHS), that most people use. NHS has no copay, deductible, drug cost, etc

 

the entire desire for it is, ya your taxes may go up, but you won't have copay, premiums, or deductibles to pay, so net yearly cost will go down for most people

[Fergasun]

I haven't dug unto this thread, but I will put this here.  

 

The loss of House seats for the Dems should be troubling, as well as the inabilty to pick up gains in the Senate.  Even as voters repudiated Trump, his messaging on:

 

Trump economy

Civil Unrest (Antifa / Defund / BLM)

Green New Deal

Socialism 

 

netted gains in the House.  

 

Democrats need to heed and figure out how to fight against that messaging in the next election.

 

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

4 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

i think its more the messaging of the green new deal that makes it unrealistic to pass. if anyone actually took the time to understand it (net job increase, updating infrastructure, boost to gdp, necessity for climate issues), i can't understand why most people would be against it (unless you have a large stake in the oil industry). but instead of working with AOC and team to adjust the messaging/marketing of it, moderate dems like to listen to republicans instead, pulling the dem party further and further to the right.

The ideas are all great and make sense. But we gotta remember. 1. Someone has to pay for 2. Getting To the goals is completely different story. Given the current political climate, it is unrealistic. The suggestion that higher earners are going to have to pay 60-70% in taxes is unrealistic, as was suggested in her 60 min interview. 
 

All I’m saying is that, it’s not the type of policy that you can just ram through, if you really want it to succeed. You gonna need buy in from the other side on lots and lots of issues. Too many people and industries are affected for it not to be throughly fleshed out and negotiated by both sides. Imo.

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

Yes, the UK has a private system as well, but a very small amount of people use it. I was matching apples to apples and only comparing it to their universal healthcare system (NHS), that most people use. NHS has no copay, deductible, drug cost, etc

 

the entire desire for it is, ya your taxes may go up, but you won't have copay, premiums, or deductibles to pay, so net yearly cost will go down for most people

 

The link isn't talking about the private system in the UK.  Outpatient does not mean private.

Edited November 8, 2020 by PeterMP

[mammajamma]

1 minute ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

The ideas are all great and make sense. But we gotta remember. 1. Someone has to pay for 2. Getting To the goals is completely different story. Given the current political climate, it is unrealistic. The suggestion that higher earners are going to have to pay 60-70% in taxes is unrealistic, as was suggested in her 60 min interview. 
 

All I’m saying is that, it’s not the type of policy that you can just ram through, if you really want it to succeed. You gonna need buy in from the other side on lots and lots of issues. Too many people and industries are affected for it not to be throughly fleshed out and negotiated by both sides. Imo.

it'll be a beast to pass, absolutely. concessions will need to be made, and then we can build on it from there. but, a VERY small % of people in the US would pay the 60% tax rate, so voter-wise, it SHOULD be a very easy sell. dems just have such a hard time getting that across for some reason

 

and we're going to have to pay for it regardless (whether we change our infrastructure to adapt to the climate, or we'll be paying for the destruction later down the road). but politics is never long-term

[DCranon21]

I read the NY Times interview with AOC had. I like her ideas, but she seems on the defense for some reason. I know she is a staunch Bernie supporter, but they did lose some seats because of some of the rhetoric coming from some on the far left and the unrest over George Floyd and other events. Max Rose lost his seat in Staten Island to a Republican. I think Staten Island is Trump central now. They used that against some sitting congressmen and women as they did march, but used how others felt about the police. Trump weaponized the police, social issues, and other things that would work in his favor. She has to read to room a little bit better as she is still a junior congresswoman. Here is an example of what happened with some in the House losing their seat

 

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/11/06/rep-max-rose-trails-in-race-where-police-protests-took-center-stage-1334844

[mammajamma]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The link isn't talking about the private system in the UK.  Outpatient does not mean private.

your own link says drugs are free in NHS hospitals. i have friends in the UK, and there are many other articles that cover this (i'll link a couple below). if you use NHS hospitals, there are no copay, deductibles, or drug cost

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/comparison-uk-nhs-v-us-private-heathcare-2015-1

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/how-can-us-health-care-system-be-more-like-uk/592321/

2 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

I read the NY Times interview with AOC had. I like her ideas, but she seems on the defense for some reason. I know she is a staunch Bernie supporter, but they did lose some seats because of some of the rhetoric coming from some on the far left and the unrest over George Floyd and other events. Max Rose lost his seat in Staten Island to a Republican. I think Staten Island is Trump central now. They used that against some sitting congressmen and women as they did march, but used how others felt about the police. Trump weaponized the police, social issues, and other things that would work in his favor. She has to read to room a little bit better as she is still a junior congresswoman. Here is an example of what happened with some in the House losing their seat

 

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/11/06/rep-max-rose-trails-in-race-where-police-protests-took-center-stage-1334844

there's some conflicting evidence on this that definitely needs to be studied after all the votes are finally counted. there was a new progressive candidate in NY that also won over a moderate this year

 

every candidate that ran on M4A in swing races won. every candidate endorsed by democratic socialists won. and you can say progressive policy may have driven voter turnout for younger voters in urban areas that carried the election overall (no evidence either way on that yet).

[goskins10]

I read all of what was available of the interview and they of course took the more caustic excerpts and with them a bit out of context. And as usual she makes a lot of sense. 

 

She is highlighting the old standard of the democratic party that does not seem to want to grow or improve any way. Her primary point wasn't even as much about the party moving left. It was more about how they run campaigns an then what the party does when they win or how they responded to loses. The party leadership is placing losses on the progressives saying they are alienating voters when she has proof it's not progressive ideas it's the type of campaigns those dems are running. 

 

And  she is being a team player!  She offered every campaign to help them, work with them, providing whatever help they need. All that accepted her help won their reelection. All but one who turned her down lost. And as soon as they lost the democrat leadership started blaming progressives. So if you want to blame timing blame dem leadership. And if read the entire interview, left or right is not even the primary focus of her point. It's reaching people and getting them to feel part of the process - that you are listening to them. Yet leadership instantly blame progressives for the losses. 

 

As for health care -  most countries have some type of private insurance. But for example in Costa Rico, you get government sponsored health care basically free. But you can elect to pay for what amounts to luxury health care when you get sick to get seen earlier, have been accommodations and other things.  But the actual health care is still government driven. 

 

I used the health care in Italy. I was seen reasonably quickly. I paid no copay, no deductible nothing. All I paid for was outpatient medicine. It was the equivalent of $26. Despite over 50 trips to Asia I never had to use their health care but my understanding from expats living there and locals whom I am very good friends,  it's the same in most countries. I spent most of my time in China, Thailand, India, Korea and Taiwan. 

 

So I can see a place where expansion of Medicare/Medicaid is the immediate answer and long term you still have a private insurance option. It's role will be and should be greatly reduced. We waste way too much money on Insurance premiums and for not much in return. But hey as long as the insurance execs are getting rich way make any changes at all. 

 

The Green New Deal was meant to be a shock to the system. A this is really where we should be headed. No one really expects it to happen over night and many things may not happen at all. But it's meant to get people understanding this is real and something needs to done. Again, I favored Warrens proposal to tie Infrastructure to drive climate change practices with infrastructure. It doesn't get us all the way there but it's huge start and infrastructure is at a critical point in this country. More so than i think people realize. 

 

Not sure the dems are capable of getting out of their own way. Need to focus on a few things and get them right. They want to be everything to everyone. That's the only real complaint I have about AOC - she wants to fight every cause. But at least she has passion and vision.  But the entire party seems that way sometimes. We need new blood. We need people looking forward, way forward not just barely in front of them. 

[DCranon21]

5 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

your own link says drugs are free in NHS hospitals. i have friends in the UK, and there are many other articles that cover this (i'll link a couple below). if you use NHS hospitals, there are no copay, deductibles, or drug cost

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/comparison-uk-nhs-v-us-private-heathcare-2015-1

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/how-can-us-health-care-system-be-more-like-uk/592321/

there's some conflicting evidence on this that definitely needs to be studied after all the votes are finally counted. there was a new progressive candidate in NY that also won over a moderate this year

 

every candidate that ran on M4A in swing races won. every candidate endorsed by democratic socialists won. and you can say progressive policy may have driven voter turnout for younger voters in urban areas that carried the election overall (no evidence either way on that yet).

 

Oh I know that they won by running off of M4A, but some in the house lost because of the movement(Black Lives Matter), defund the police, the folks who decided to riot and cause unrest vs those who did a peaceful protest. I am anxious to see the numbers and the studies about how the votes were tabulated and what their reason was for a higher voter turnout for Trump and other congressmen. But in 2022, the Dems have to get unified and run on one message or they will lose the House and Senate and it's 2012 all over again. Also the DCCC needs to figure out who their main voter base is and brought the White House home and maybe the Georgia senate (hint: it's not the white voters). They have to get a better message and make them feel better to vote for them and keep the enthusiasm up. 

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, mammajamma said:

your own link says drugs are free in NHS hospitals. i have friends in the UK, and there are many other articles that cover this (i'll link a couple below). if you use NHS hospitals, there are no copay, deductibles, or drug cost

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/comparison-uk-nhs-v-us-private-heathcare-2015-1

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/how-can-us-health-care-system-be-more-like-uk/592321/

 

Yes, they are free if you are IN the hospital, but people don't go to the hospital every day to take their medicines.  Most people don't take their prescription drugs in the hospital.

 

You do understand the difference between outpatient and being in the hospital, don't you?

[goskins10]

16 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

The ideas are all great and make sense. But we gotta remember. 1. Someone has to pay for 2. Getting To the goals is completely different story. Given the current political climate, it is unrealistic. The suggestion that higher earners are going to have to pay 60-70% in taxes is unrealistic, as was suggested in her 60 min interview. 
 

All I’m saying is that, it’s not the type of policy that you can just ram through, if you really want it to succeed. You gonna need buy in from the other side on lots and lots of issues. Too many people and industries are affected for it not to be throughly fleshed out and negotiated by both sides. Imo.

 

That's not what she said, at least not that % for all their income. She specifically said progressive rates with the highest tax rate only applying to earnings over $10M. Up to that they pay the same rates as everyone else. 

 

Of course there needs to be more detail and planning. And the timing they suggest is very aggressive. So put it all on the table and create a plan and WORK to THAT PLAN!

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

That's not what she said, at least not that % for all their income. She specifically said progressive rates with the highest tax rate only applying to earnings over $10M. Up to that they pay the same rates as everyone else. 

 

Of course there needs to be more detail and planning. And the timing they suggest is very aggressive. So put it all on the table and create a plan and WORK to THAT PLAN!

I’m not against that idea, but imo it needs to be a balanced approach. You can’t just have the ultra wealthy pay for it all. And there are lots of people that don’t make as much as the wealthy who are also against that idea. It’s both a perception and practicality problem, it terms of paying for it all. And really that’s just one piece that’s an issue, big piece, but only 1. 
 

Imo within the party they need to keep working the plan, make it more reasonable and palatable for everyone affected, which is everyone. Then present it. As constituted it’s DOA, both with the public and the party.

 

My problem is the hardliner approach and tone. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Be more malleable.

[mammajamma]

20 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Yes, they are free if you are IN the hospital, but people don't go to the hospital every day to take their medicines.  Most people don't take their prescription drugs in the hospital.

 

You do understand the difference between outpatient and being in the hospital, don't you?

You do realize you can buy drugs at pharmacies in hospitals and take them home right?

 

Ok, even IF those aren't covered (most are), they're at a SUBSTANTIALLY lower rate than the US prices. And you still don't have to pay premiums, copay, or deductibles