2016 Democratic Thread

[caulfield12]

In one of the debates, someone claimed 27 million uninsured.

 

That's down from the low to mid 40's, not counting illegal immigrants.

[bmags]

The problems with Hillary...

 

1) Likelihood of her being the one to break gridlock and bridge partisan rancor are about zero. As she claimed, Citizens Unired was aimed at her and her family...this whole right wing conspiracy plot, while partially true, is also quite tiresome.

 

2) She has an inspirational factor of zero. Speeches and debates, just not her strength. Very few actually like her...I'd even argue more voters passionately like Trump than Hillary, although she's not nearly as universally hated, either.

 

3) It's very telling that a woman is losing the 18-29 demographic by margins 20-25 points higher than Obama, who was a much more compelling candidate than Sanders. With all the challenges we face, the country needs a younger and more energetic president who is future rather than past-oriented.

 

4) When the only way to beat Sanders is hitting him over the head with her newfound Obama admiration, it might be enough to hold the African American vote in the South but it's a disaster for the general...then again, so is defending Bush family foreign policy, so both sides are equally lost.

 

5) No more excuses. She will win SC, but if she loses NV despite large numbers of Hispanic voters, all bets are off. That means there's a war of attrition all the way until the convention.

 

 

What has she actually accomplished in all of her time as a public servant? Her resume is Rubio-esque as a senator.

 

My biggest concern is that it feels like the Clintons have learned nothing at all from 2008...clearly misreading the electorate both times, and by a wide margin. It feels their time has come and gone.

 

1) OK. As opposed to Sanders, whose plan, again, is to just to give a john galt speech over the radio where everyone suddenly learns the virtue of socialism and forces the Republicans to acquiesce to his demands. Gridlock isn't going away. If you hate Gridlock, vote republican and get a unified house, senate, executive. If you care about liberal policies, vote for Sanders/Clinton, knowing that they will be extremely limited until we can deliver them the house/senate. C

 

2) Clearly many passionately like Hillary. In 2008 she had a whole contingent of voters we were told would stay home rather than vote for Obama. Now we have older feminists waging war on younger feminists.

 

Here's what will happen: Clinton, who saw favorability drop in primary losing Dem support, will see it rise again if she wins nomination, after all of the Sanders supporters suddenly remember how much better any dem president is when the republican candidates start attacking liberal priorities, and then find common ground as she defends them, and then they realize they like her and vote for her. How do I know this? Because I have watched an election before, and every time we hear "brokered convention!" "I'll never vote for them!" and then they do.

 

3) Your second part of this paragraph clearly is not related, because you are implying that 18-29 year old women are not voting for Hillary because she's old, and instead are voting for a 75 year old man (OBVIOUSLY women are low-energy and would be so tired). It could be that 18-29 year old women are a more liberal bloc, and are voting for the more liberal candidate. The country doesn't "need" a younger more energetic candidate, that's just politico nonsense. "Well I was going to vote for sanders cause of energy, but without him I guess I'll go with Rubio because of youth, even though he supports nothing I do".

 

4) Yes, supporting a popular outgoing president will be a "disaster" in the general, this is a great article for Politico.

 

5) This is a primary, she'll win and do how she does. The states she was strong in last time she's weak in this time, but the early states were not good for her.

 

"What has she actually accomplished in all of her time as a public servant? Her resume is Rubio-esque as a senator." - This is ridiculous and very easy to Google.

 

"My biggest concern is that it feels like the Clintons have learned nothing at all from 2008...clearly misreading the electorate both times, and by a wide margin. It feels their time has come and gone."

 

She did not lost 2008 by a wide margin and is in a tight race now. Wide margin means something different than you think. Also if she was so unprincipled why wouldn't she just start screaming millionaires and billionaires? It's like she actually does believe in things.

[caulfield12]

1) OK. As opposed to Sanders, whose plan, again, is to just to give a john galt speech over the radio where everyone suddenly learns the virtue of socialism and forces the Republicans to acquiesce to his demands. Gridlock isn't going away. If you hate Gridlock, vote republican and get a unified house, senate, executive. If you care about liberal policies, vote for Sanders/Clinton, knowing that they will be extremely limited until we can deliver them the house/senate. C

 

2) Clearly many passionately like Hillary. In 2008 she had a whole contingent of voters we were told would stay home rather than vote for Obama. Now we have older feminists waging war on younger feminists.

 

Here's what will happen: Clinton, who saw favorability drop in primary losing Dem support, will see it rise again if she wins nomination, after all of the Sanders supporters suddenly remember how much better any dem president is when the republican candidates start attacking liberal priorities, and then find common ground as she defends them, and then they realize they like her and vote for her. How do I know this? Because I have watched an election before, and every time we hear "brokered convention!" "I'll never vote for them!" and then they do.

 

3) Your second part of this paragraph clearly is not related, because you are implying that 18-29 year old women are not voting for Hillary because she's old, and instead are voting for a 75 year old man (OBVIOUSLY women are low-energy and would be so tired). It could be that 18-29 year old women are a more liberal bloc, and are voting for the more liberal candidate. The country doesn't "need" a younger more energetic candidate, that's just politico nonsense. "Well I was going to vote for sanders cause of energy, but without him I guess I'll go with Rubio because of youth, even though he supports nothing I do".

 

4) Yes, supporting a popular outgoing president will be a "disaster" in the general, this is a great article for Politico.

 

5) This is a primary, she'll win and do how she does. The states she was strong in last time she's weak in this time, but the early states were not good for her.

 

"What has she actually accomplished in all of her time as a public servant? Her resume is Rubio-esque as a senator." - This is ridiculous and very easy to Google.

 

"My biggest concern is that it feels like the Clintons have learned nothing at all from 2008...clearly misreading the electorate both times, and by a wide margin. It feels their time has come and gone."

 

She did not lost 2008 by a wide margin and is in a tight race now. Wide margin means something different than you think. Also if she was so unprincipled why wouldn't she just start screaming millionaires and billionaires? It's like she actually does believe in things.

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-c...-peoples-votes/

 

This article is going to be hard for her to counter...and while it happened under Bill's watch, they were essentially a co-presidency in many respects.

 

 

She can't start screaming billionaires because if you add up the Clinton Foundation coffers, that's what she will be labelled as well...and there's not many in the charity field who can identify clearly any of their accomplishments since that Harlem office was opened.

 

 

If she loses Nevada, it's going to be hard to convince Democratic leadership she's not seriously wounded as a viable candidate. All the union and Hispanic votes were supposedly in her pocket.

 

She was for the crime bill her husband signed, now against.

For DOMA, then against.

For a plethora of trade pacts, then against.

For bank deregulation, now against.

No decision for the longest time on Keystone until oil prices cratered.

No record of her actually doing anything substantive about the mortgage crisis.

For the Iraq War, now against.

 

Notice a pattern? After 24 years, the one overriding principle is trying to hold onto power by whatever means are at her disposal.

 

The way things are right now, candidates wrapping themselves around either Obama or GW Bush (outside of SC and Texas) should rethink that position quickly.

Edited February 15, 2016 by caulfield12

[iamshack]

I worked at a corporate restaurant when Obamacare went into effect and the restaurant would offer insurance/benefits to anyone who averaged over 30 hours per week. We had a strong base of servers/bartenders who worked in the service industry as a career or were single moms. When Obamacare went in effect, corporate's new policy was that only five employees (other than management) in front of house and back of house could receive benefits. Most of our best servers left. We went from having a group of people who worked at the restaurant for multiple years and called the place home to having our staff become a revolving door of college students, temporary jobs and a lesser quality of service industry lifers. I went from being the young kid and who would be one of the weaker links on a Saturday night to being a certified trainer in a matter of months. It's really never been the same.

Not saying it doesn't suck, but don't you think this is part of the transition period for the price we have to pay to insure many who were uninsurable before? Is there really any way around this?

[bmags]

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-c...-peoples-votes/

 

This article is going to be hard for her to counter...and while it happened under Bill's watch, they were essentially a co-presidency in many respects.

 

 

She can't start screaming billionaires because if you add up the Clinton Foundation coffers, that's what she will be labelled as well...and there's not many in the charity field who can identify clearly any of their accomplishments since that Harlem office was opened.

 

 

If she loses Nevada, it's going to be hard to convince Democratic leadership she's not seriously wounded as a viable candidate. All the union and Hispanic votes were supposedly in her pocket.

 

This is just complete nonsense.

 

[bmags]

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-c...-peoples-votes/

 

This article is going to be hard for her to counter...and while it happened under Bill's watch, they were essentially a co-presidency in many respects.

 

 

She can't start screaming billionaires because if you add up the Clinton Foundation coffers, that's what she will be labelled as well...and there's not many in the charity field who can identify clearly any of their accomplishments since that Harlem office was opened.

 

 

If she loses Nevada, it's going to be hard to convince Democratic leadership she's not seriously wounded as a viable candidate. All the union and Hispanic votes were supposedly in her pocket.

 

She was for the crime bill her husband signed, now against.

For DOMA, then against.

For a plethora of trade pacts, then against.

For bank deregulation, now against.

No decision for the longest time on Keystone until oil prices cratered.

 

Notice a pattern?

 

Is the pattern that she's actually been in public policy for 30 years, while Sanders was in the corner, holding hands with a bunch of coffee shops in burlington?

[Jenksismyhero]

Is the pattern that she's actually been in public policy for 30 years, while Sanders was in the corner, holding hands with a bunch of coffee shops in burlington?

 

Sort of ignores the entire Clinton-ethos, which is to ride the wave of public opinion. Bill did it, Hillary did it in Congress, and she did it/does it as a Presidential candidate. You may take that as a sign of someone who's been in the game for a while, or someone who has righted their wrongs, others, including undecided voters, may view it as a flip-flopper who really has no base principles that guide her beliefs/actions.

[bmags]

Don't see it as a downside that you can flank her with activism to positions you want. Liberal activism in 90s was not very developed, it had been decimated in late 70s-80s. Much stronger groups now.

[lasttriptotulsa]

you have a point. this is not exactly in the uninsurable, but i busted my tooth around xmas in order to get a root canal and tooth, my bill was 9,000 dollars.

 

insurance really screwed me on that. that was my out of pocket, and i have blue cross and blue shield.

 

What? Where do you go to the dentist? A root canal is usually about $900 and a crown $1500 or so. Even if you had it pulled and put in an implant it should have only cost $2500 to $3000. I think you got taken.

[bmags]

Yeah, you really should check on that LDF. That is outrageous. Without insurance, it should not cost that much.

[Chisoxfn]

In what currency LDF? You are getting screwed. It should at most be 2-3K and more likely less than that.

[LDF]

What? Where do you go to the dentist? A root canal is usually about $900 and a crown $1500 or so. Even if you had it pulled and put in an implant it should have only cost $2500 to $3000. I think you got taken.

 

in LA, if i now need to get my teeth fix, i need to drive to Houston.

 

in LA the dentist are really jacking the people around. no lie.

 

also, LA has at one time the highest medical cost... outside the pocket money for what is not covered by the insurance.

 

so yeah, we all know we are taken. when i was working and not retired, i used to send my family to chi for medical care. this is the truth.

[LDF]

In what currency LDF? You are getting screwed. It should at most be 2-3K and more likely less than that.

 

yeah i know. 3500 just to get the root canal and the rest is the so-called cosmetic cost.

[Brian]

Definitely fight in LDF. File as manager appeals as it takes. I fought a medical bill tha was outrageous for a year and finally won. Just have to be consistent.

[greg775]

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-c...-peoples-votes/

 

This article is going to be hard for her to counter...and while it happened under Bill's watch, they were essentially a co-presidency in many respects.

 

 

She can't start screaming billionaires because if you add up the Clinton Foundation coffers, that's what she will be labelled as well...and there's not many in the charity field who can identify clearly any of their accomplishments since that Harlem office was opened.

 

 

If she loses Nevada, it's going to be hard to convince Democratic leadership she's not seriously wounded as a viable candidate. All the union and Hispanic votes were supposedly in her pocket.

 

She was for the crime bill her husband signed, now against.

For DOMA, then against.

For a plethora of trade pacts, then against.

For bank deregulation, now against.

No decision for the longest time on Keystone until oil prices cratered.

No record of her actually doing anything substantive about the mortgage crisis.

For the Iraq War, now against.

 

Notice a pattern? After 24 years, the one overriding principle is trying to hold onto power by whatever means are at her disposal.

 

The way things are right now, candidates wrapping themselves around either Obama or GW Bush (outside of SC and Texas) should rethink that position quickly.

 

Caulfield writes all the reasons Hillary is a lousy choice and still crickets from "most" Hillary supporters. That long post that defended Hillary was nice to read and educational and I respect that post too.

 

As far as that article ... I wish people would take the time to read it. Evidence is out there that she is a sham regarding her helping African Americans. Will anybody read it in African American communities? Does anybody care to end the perception Hillary is best friend to African Americans' prosperity?

Edited February 15, 2016 by greg775

[pettie4sox]

Caulfield writes all the reasons Hillary is a lousy choice and still crickets from "most" Hillary supporters. That long post that defended Hillary was nice to read and educational and I respect that post too.

 

As far as that article ... I wish people would take the time to read it. Evidence is out there that she is a sham regarding her helping African Americans. Will anybody read it in African American communities? Does anybody care to end the perception Hillary is best friend to African Americans' prosperity?

 

greg... chill bro. Caulfield is one man with his opinion. It's your right to dislike Hillary as much as you do just like it's the right of others to believe she is the right person for the job as President. That's what makes America great.

 

You should volunteer at a campaign of the candidate you like and try to influence people that way if you are really passionate about it.

 

[shysocks]

I honestly havent met a single person who says Obamacare has helped them. Mostly you hear people complaining that their job cut their hours or that peoples premiums have went up.

People's premiums were going up anyway.

 

My mother-in-law is a diabetic who deals with many of the complications that come from that, and when she got laid off around 2009 she lost her insurance. She went into serious debt from having to pay for her medicine herself and could not pay many of her bills. There is still debt now, but at least she is insured.

 

On the flip side, when I worked for a health insurance company when the Affordable Care Act passed, some of my coworkers were let go to cut expenses because of the minimum loss ratio portion of the law. I do know that company touted itself as one of the "more prepared" for the new law, so this may have been reactionary. I left that company shortly thereafter so I don't know if they ever beefed up the payroll again.

 

So I'd say I have more anecdotal experience with the ACA than many others. I had friends who got fired because of the law, as well as a family member who was able to get insurance and, it is not a stretch to say, may actually be alive today because of the law. I have to call that a net positive.

[CrimsonWeltall]

People's premiums were going up anyway.

 

They weren't doubling or tripling. Prior to the ACA, I (healthy young person) was paying $130/month for health and dental through Blue Cross Blue Shield, with a plan roughly equivalent to a "silver". When the ACA went into effect, that plan became $390. So I went to the health market, where the cheapest option was $200/month for a "bronze" plan far worse than what I had before. Luckily, I got a job status change around this time and picked up coverage through my employer, so I didn't have to take any of those options.

 

One of my in-laws (a fairly healthy young person with low-moderate income) has been on an ACA plan, but this year her rate doubled. She makes slightly too much (by working 3 low-wage jobs) to get enough subsidies to make the plans affordable, so she's going without coverage and paying the $695 penalty. Awesome. Her boyfriend is in the same boat.

 

I'm glad the ACA has been good for people with really low incomes and the sick, but as far as I can tell, it's been complete ass for everyone else.

[DrunkBomber]

They weren't doubling or tripling. Prior to the ACA, I (healthy young person) was paying $130/month for health and dental through Blue Cross Blue Shield, with a plan roughly equivalent to a "silver". When the ACA went into effect, that plan became $390. So I went to the health market, where the cheapest option was $200/month for a "bronze" plan far worse than what I had before. Luckily, I got a job status change around this time and picked up coverage through my employer, so I didn't have to take any of those options.

 

One of my in-laws (a fairly healthy young person with low-moderate income) has been on an ACA plan, but this year her rate doubled. She makes slightly too much (by working 3 low-wage jobs) to get enough subsidies to make the plans affordable, so she's going without coverage and paying the $695 penalty. Awesome. Her boyfriend is in the same boat.

 

I'm glad the ACA has been good for people with really low incomes and the sick, but as far as I can tell, it's been complete ass for everyone else.

Both my brother and roommate are opting to pay the fine because its cheaper than the insurance and they cant afford it. My brother has been a waiter in California for over 10 years and now he says its nearly impossible to find a full time waiting job because of it. Its good to hear that it allowed some people to get help who otherwise wouldnt have been insurable but I just dont get the praise Obamacare gets from some people when there are so many people who are being punished with a fine because they cant afford health care, especially considering they could afford it before.

[LDF]

Yeah, you really should check on that LDF. That is outrageous. Without insurance, it should not cost that much.

 

if you don't mind, i will use your post.

 

i did again, this morning. calling at 8:00 am cst.

 

i got in and talked to the rep.... they said quote "it is not their fault that the st of LA charges more for their medical. they the ins companies the nat'l avg and it is my responsibility to pay the difference, even if i was retired". i have been retired since 99.

 

yous guys who tried to help, many thanks. this is why i keep saying sox talk is the best......

 

 

[bmags]

That's insane. That should be their responsibility to negotiate the rate, and if they can't negotiate a lower rate they should not allow you to use that dentist. Was that dentist in your network?

[LDF]

That's insane. That should be their responsibility to negotiate the rate, and if they can't negotiate a lower rate they should not allow you to use that dentist. Was that dentist in your network?

 

yes, the person i talked to stated the whole st of LA has one of the highest priced dentist billing and are taking away most of the coverage of basic things in their pricing. that is why i have to go to Hou.

 

my sister had to travel to Hou too. b/c of the same reason. she too is retired.

 

that is why on major medical, i send them up to chi, where we have cuz for family to stay at.

[greg775]

if you don't mind, i will use your post.

 

i did again, this morning. calling at 8:00 am cst.

 

i got in and talked to the rep.... they said quote "it is not their fault that the st of LA charges more for their medical. they the ins companies the nat'l avg and it is my responsibility to pay the difference, even if i was retired". i have been retired since 99.

 

yous guys who tried to help, many thanks. this is why i keep saying sox talk is the best......

Insurance reps piss me off. They do. I think it's the job that was described as tax collector in the Bible. Tax collectors were the dregs of society. How can these insurance representatives live with themselves. You just know they are told to never accept a claim without trying to stick it to the consumer. Pisses me off that I always get something rejected especially with dental insurance when I have work done.

[Chisoxfn]

if you don't mind, i will use your post.

 

i did again, this morning. calling at 8:00 am cst.

 

i got in and talked to the rep.... they said quote "it is not their fault that the st of LA charges more for their medical. they the ins companies the nat'l avg and it is my responsibility to pay the difference, even if i was retired". i have been retired since 99.

 

yous guys who tried to help, many thanks. this is why i keep saying sox talk is the best......

I agree the insurance company pays a set amount. It seems like your actual issue might be with your dentist totally screwing you over. Not sure what leverage you have at this point and whether you can have the insurance company stiff the dentist and thus the difference is something you owe to the dentist (thus you have leverage...i.e., dentist needs your payment to make them whole and you could hold that over there head for some form of negotiation). I sure as hell wouldn't ever go to that dentist again. You were quite frankly, robbed. They very well might be taking advantage of you presuming you are older and retired and feel you are an easy target.

[LDF]

I agree the insurance company pays a set amount. It seems like your actual issue might be with your dentist totally screwing you over. Not sure what leverage you have at this point and whether you can have the insurance company stiff the dentist and thus the difference is something you owe to the dentist (thus you have leverage...i.e., dentist needs your payment to make them whole and you could hold that over there head for some form of negotiation). I sure as hell wouldn't ever go to that dentist again. You were quite frankly, robbed. They very well might be taking advantage of you presuming you are older and retired and feel you are an easy target.

 

thanks for the reply,

 

the point is, it is not my dentist it is the entire medical / dental in ins plans and how they take advantage of the people. thru maybe a set program things like this can be change. my problem is the entire st of LA is like this. the 3rd highest in the country, next to Hawaii, Alaska and then LA. modern day pirates.

 

but in ref to the last sentence, the elder retired people get screwed in the medical and government cut backs.

 

well so much for my biitche.

 

btw, for those who posted on this..... many thanks and very classy

Edited February 16, 2016 by LDF