Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Pete Buttigieg candidacy....

Recommended Posts

Re:

RQDr70dZ2RhkfoaC?format=jpg&name=small

 

Didn't see that coming 24 hours ago!  :blink:

Are the other candidates being sent a message?

Biden is much lower than I expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete Buttigieg... I swear to god, all of his lines are from those motivational posters on the wall in your high school guidance counselor’s office.
 
You know, the one with soaring eagles, and waterfalls, and ****.
 
They sound great, but really they’re vague and have no substance.
 
:unsure:
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 7:15 PM, hamradio said:

Re:

RQDr70dZ2RhkfoaC?format=jpg&name=small

 

Didn't see that coming 24 hours ago!  :blink:

Are the other candidates being sent a message?

Biden is much lower than I expected.

Last I heard there are 50 states.

And Iowa isn't really representative of a lot of demographics we've got in this country. 

What is it  Burl Ives said it's a big country. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

Last I heard there are 50 states.

And Iowa isn't really representative of a lot of demographics we've got in this country. 

What is it  Burl Ives said it's a big country. LOL

Last I heard,  you don't believe demographics impact voting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Just learned he won't be getting the male pole dancers vote. :lol:

And trump won't be getting the female pole dancers vote if Stormy Daniels has anything to say about it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 7:39 PM, mr6666 said:

guess he deserves his own thread now................. :unsure:

Pete Buttigieg is more electable than Bernie Sanders — and more progressive than you think

The fourth in a Vox series making the best case for each of the top Democratic contenders.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/21121636/pete-buttigieg-beat-trump-win-2020-election-primaries

I read all of it and found a lot of reasons why Republican moderates and independents will NOT vote for him and even some Dems.   I realize that all politicians float BS proposals, but some of Buttigieg's died long  ago.  Such as reforming the US Supreme Court into an actually more partisan branch, permitting unions at some plants to control entire industries nationwide, eventual Medicare-For-All, Cap & forgive student loans, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, eliminating gerrymandering,the Electoral College and the filibuster (used by both parties) and so forth.

While he appears more moderate than Sanders or Warren and younger than Biden or Sanders, in a contest with Trump his inexperience, immaturity in national politics and platform will not win the election.

South Bend is not representative of the general voting population of Indiana, much less America.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
A solid split on the left between supporters for Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders
may be creating an opening for Pete Buttigieg to do well in New Hampshire, and perhaps build on the momentum from Iowa.
 
<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
Buttigieg campaign’s “national policy director” has headlined at least 23 fundraisers this fall and winter,
 
wiping out the line between soliciting contributions and making policy

Pete Buttigieg’s Policy Director Has Been Traveling the Country for Months to Meet With “Investors” in His Campaign

.......The news of Shah’s intimate involvement in Buttigieg’s fundraising comes as his campaign is under fire from both Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for his reliance on wealthy donors to power his campaign (see, especially, the wine cave). Buttigieg has argued that Democrats would be fighting with one hand tied behind their backs if they refused the support of the superrich. But Buttigieg is not just a passive recipient of big money; he devotes a significant amount of time and energy to soliciting it — in part by putting his chief policy adviser in the room with high-dollar donors. 

Sanders and Warren have argued that relying on wealthy donors blunts the ability of Democrats to go directly after President Donald Trump’s corruption ..............

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/10/pete-buttigieg-fundraisers-sonal-shah/

<_<

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
We can't risk going into the most important election of our lives with a divisive approach that would eliminate private health care plans and health care choices for Americans......
===============================================
 
 
 

CEOs for Bernie

@LiberalCEO

·

Feb 13

Replying to

@PeteButtigieg

"Oh my god, don't take my Anthem insurance plan!!

I need to keep my $10,000 out-of-pocket max!!" - No American ever   <_<

===========================================

 
 
We can't risk allowing private health insurance companies, whose primary goal is to make as much profit as possible,
 
continue to rip off the American people and deny coverage to those who need it.
 
We need Medicare for All.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete Buttigieg Says He Wants to Repeal Trump’s Tax Law, but He’s Heaped Praise on a Controversial Aspect of It

........His statements on the repeal did not specifically address the opportunity zone program — which he heaped praise on as mayor and helped bring to South Bend, where he served as mayor until the beginning of this year.........

Though many Democratic lawmakers have been supportive of opportunity zones including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who added the program to the 2017 tax bill with Republican Sen. Tim Scott — Buttigieg’s position is in stark contrast with progressives in the party, who unequivocally condemn it as a scam. ...

revealed the money was going into luxury projects in affluent neighborhoods instead of poor ones. Their reporting also found that many of the developers benefitting from the program had ties to the Trump administration. 

“It was not the intent of Congress for this tax incentive to be used to enrich political supporters or personal friends of senior administration officials, as recent reports indicate,” ...........

Sen. Bernie Sanders has said that, if elected, he will end “this tax scheme and instead redirect public money into affordable housing, infrastructure, schools and other programs that directly invest in communities that have been destroyed by billionaires and the corporate elite.” ............

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/14/pete-buttigieg-trump-tax-policy-opportunity-zones/

:huh:

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mr6666 said:
·
21h
 
We can't risk allowing private health insurance companies, whose primary goal is to make as much profit as possible,
 
continue to rip off the American people and deny coverage to those who need it.
 
We need Medicare for All.

Every business in the world is based on the profit motive.  Every business and business owner wants to make a profit.  Every worker in the world wants to earn as much money as possible.

What Bernie and the other Socialist ignore for America is that millions of working and middle class people have their primary (other than SSA) retirement invested in funds that are heavily invested in health insurance companies.

MFA is NOT the solution to health care costs.  Destroying the health insurance companies is NOT the solution.

Does Bernie use the health care provided to him as a US Senator?  Damn straight he does.  Generously funded by taxpayers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Every business in the world is based on the profit motive.  Every business and business owner wants to make a profit.  Every worker in the world wants to earn as much money as possible.

What Bernie and the other Socialist ignore for America is that millions of working and middle class people have their primary (other than SSA) retirement invested in funds that are heavily invested in health insurance companies.

MFA is NOT the solution to health care costs.  Destroying the health insurance companies is NOT the solution.

Does Bernie use the health care provided to him as a US Senator?  Damn straight he does.  Generously funded by taxpayers.

Does your health care come from the tax payer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheCid said:

Every business in the world is based on the profit motive.  Every business and business owner wants to make a profit.  Every worker in the world wants to earn as much money as possible.

What Bernie and the other Socialist ignore for America is that millions of working and middle class people have their primary (other than SSA) retirement invested in funds that are heavily invested in health insurance companies.

MFA is NOT the solution to health care costs.  Destroying the health insurance companies is NOT the solution.

Does Bernie use the health care provided to him as a US Senator?  Damn straight he does.  Generously funded by taxpayers.

I have tried to explain how a not-for-profit group-health system could be set up like the Workers Comp one is,  but it appears you just don't wish to get it.

Maybe it comes down to how one defines "profit";  E.g.  the administration functions performed by the WC company I work for:    of course workers are paid salaries,  but our budget is based on a percentage of underwritten premium,   determined and allocated on an annual basis and at the end of the year the unused portion of the budget is returned.      I view this as the company making NO profit.     

Something similar could be done with the private company administrators in group-health.        

The fact that middle class people have investments in health insurance companies is proof these companies are making highly excessive profits from the group health care system for only performing administrative services.      I.e.  they are NOT providing medical services.        

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I have tried to explain how a not-for-profit group-health system could be set up like the Workers Comp one is,  but it appears you just don't wish to get it.

Maybe it comes down to how one defines "profit";  E.g.  the administration functions performed by the WC company I work for:    of course workers are paid salaries,  but our budget is based on a percentage of underwritten premium,   determined and allocated on an annual basis and at the end of the year the unused portion of the budget is returned.      I view this as the company making NO profit.     

Something similar could be done with the private company administrators in group-health.        

The fact that middle class people have investments in health insurance companies is proof these companies are making highly excessive profits from the group health care system for only performing administrative services.      I.e.  they are NOT providing medical services.        

 

No, I get your point.  To clarify, I was commenting on Sanders wild accusations about health insurance companies.  Basically they are all money grubbers out to gouge the public out of as much money as possible.  Also, that they are "denying coverage to those who need it."

I don't disagree that they probably could make a little less profit and do better by the insured, but his attitude is just going to rile up people who will then vote for Trump.

Going by what you are saying ALL insurance companies are a rip-off because they do not provide an actual service and have to make a profit or investors will not invest in them?

You are also saying that middle class people only invest in companies that make excessive profits?

I thought the biggest problem was not the medical providers nor the insurance companies, but the middle organizations that process the bills.

As for your position in Workers Comp., that is one side of the health care provision system but one that is created by and heavily regulated by the government.  It also is a small portion of health care coverage.   It only covers conditions that are the result of a work related situation.  In S.C. the amounts of payments and time limitations are fairly limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

No, I get your point.  To clarify, I was commenting on Sanders wild accusations about health insurance companies.  Basically they are all money grubbers out to gouge the public out of as much money as possible.  Also, that they are "denying coverage to those who need it."

I don't disagree that they probably could make a little less profit and do better by the insured, but his attitude is just going to rile up people who will then vote for Trump.

Going by what you are saying ALL insurance companies are a rip-off because they do not provide an actual service and have to make a profit or investors will not invest in them?

You are also saying that middle class people only invest in companies that make excessive profits?

I thought the biggest problem was not the medical providers nor the insurance companies, but the middle organizations that process the bills.

As for your position in Workers Comp., that is one side of the health care provision system but one that is created by and heavily regulated by the government.  It also is a small portion of health care coverage.   It only covers conditions that are the result of a work related situation.  In S.C. the amounts of payments and time limitations are fairly limited.

 There would be NO insurance companies in the type of health CARE system I'm proposing.     NONE.    Insurance companies underwrite risk.      That concept does NOT apply to the type of health care system I'm proposing.    The Feds  (or state governments) collect revenue ,  via taxes,  and using not-for-profit health care administration companies,  pay for all "necessary" medical services (the admin companies pre-authorize treatments,   pay medical provider according to a fee-schedule,  spot fraud etc...).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

 There would be NO insurance companies in the type of health CARE system I'm proposing.     NONE.    Insurance companies underwrite risk.      That concept does NOT apply to the type of health care system I'm proposing.    The Feds  (or state governments) collect revenue ,  via taxes,  and using not-for-profit health care administration companies,  pay for all "necessary" medical services (the admin companies pre-authorize treatments,   pay medical provider according to a fee-schedule,  spot fraud etc...).

 

Sorry, but I don't think the average American voter is ready for MFA or your proposal either.

Regardless my post was in protest to Sanders' irrational rant to destroy all health insurance companies because they are evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not evil.  Just liberally irresponsible( not "liberal" in a political sense,as the word originally has NO political connection) by not employing any staff to provide oversight, allowing too many doctors and health care facilities to file egregious claims, which do cause the insurance companies to charge higher premiums in order to recover the expense.  I'm not going to repeat the whole story again, but there IS no intelligent reason for a hospital to charge a health insurance company $400 for dispensing ONE Motrin 800  tab and a small plastic shotglass full of Maalox.  But all BC/BS knew is that the charge was for "Dispensing of medicine". 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

They're not evil.  Just liberally irresponsible( not "liberal" in a political sense,as the word originally has NO political connection) by not employing any staff to provide oversight, allowing too many doctors and health care facilities to file egregious claims, which do cause the insurance companies to charge higher premiums in order to recover the expense.  I'm not going to repeat the whole story again, but there IS no intelligent reason for a hospital to charge a health insurance company $400 for dispensing ONE Motrin 800  tab and a small plastic shotglass full of Maalox.  But all BC/BS knew is that the charge was for "Dispensing of medicine". 

Sepiatone

But the hospitals charge outrageous amounts to cover the unreimbursed costs of operating emergency rooms and unpaid hospitalizations for others.   Also, a pharmacist had to provide the medication, someone had to deliver it to the nurses' station and then a nurse had to bring it to you and watch you take it. Then add in, they may charge $800, but they might only receive 15% of that.  I look at my Medicare and Supplemental payments and it is amazing what was billed and how very little was actually paid.

Yes, there are problems and hospitals and medical professionals are hugely overcharging for their services.  So, we do need a new system and oversight.  But MFA ain't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Sorry, but I don't think the average American voter is ready for MFA or your proposal either.

Regardless my post was in protest to Sanders' irrational rant to destroy all health insurance companies because they are evil.

I agree that Sanders' rant was irrational but to me your counter rant implying that the US health care "system" must have for-profit health insurance companies was just as irrational.  

I do agree that Americans from your generation are NOT ready for the type of system I'm proposing.     Those under 50?   I don't know how they feel but if many support Sanders and MFA,   they might support it.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree that Sanders' rant was irrational but to me your counter rant implying that the US health care "system" must have for-profit health insurance companies was just as irrational.  

I do agree that Americans from your generation are NOT ready for the type of system I'm proposing.     Those under 50?   I don't know how they feel but if many support Sanders and MFA,   they might support it.

 

Perhaps I was not clear, I merely stated that in today's environment health insurance companies are the major player in the system and they have to make a profit or go bankrupt leaving covered millions with no coverage.   Perhaps we can change that eventually, but not the way Warren and Sanders want to.  Heck, even Warren is backing off.

Found the below in a quick search:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428332-poll-most-americans-say-theyd-be-more-likely-to-support

medicare_for_all_support.png

Below is a different perspective, but in more narrative form.  Support was 56% until they threw in tax increases, losing current private insurance and longer wait times for treatment.  Then it got messy.  And that is the problem with MFA.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-finds-medicare-for-all-support-drops-when-details-are-included-2019-01-23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...