I’m honestly surprised she doesn’t just sign on for Sanders’s plan like she did Inslee’s climate plan
I guess the thought is health care needs to be a differentiator so you can’t do this...and others already beat her to where she likely would have gone, so we’re left with all the “backlog” ideas?
I’m honestly surprised she doesn’t just sign on for Sanders’s plan like she did Inslee’s climate plan
I guess the thought is health care needs to be a differentiator so you can’t do this...and others already beat her to where she likely would have gone, so we’re left with all the “backlog” ideas?
I mean she straight up says "Supports and wants to implement the Medicare for All Act" which is Bernie's bill and the centerpiece of his plan.
I’m honestly surprised she doesn’t just sign on for Sanders’s plan like she did Inslee’s climate plan
I guess the thought is health care needs to be a differentiator so you can’t do this...and others already beat her to where she likely would have gone, so we’re left with all the “backlog” ideas?
I mean she straight up says "Supports and wants to implement the Medicare for All Act" which is Bernie's bill and the centerpiece of his plan.
There are a lot of plans floating around that use that term and fall far short of the mark.
A problem with the US political system is that the candidates do need to have any big changes to the law ironed out to hit the ground running, because they have 2 years until the disgruntled voters signal their displeasure by giving the House to the other guys.
Unfortunately in this case the more likely scenario is that the first 2 years are gridlocked because of an uncooperative Senate. There's a chance that's not the case, but to my understanding it's not a large chance.
Well then, she might as well promise rainbows, unicorns and a cure for cancer if that's to be the case.
All these folks vying to be the MOST SOCIALIST might look a little like idiots if a Republican Senate refuses to hear any healthcare reform stuff, however mild, and spends the whole 4 years impeaching President Warren for Being Annoying.
A problem with the US political system is that the candidates do need to have any big changes to the law ironed out to hit the ground running, because they have 2 years until the disgruntled voters signal their displeasure by giving the House to the other guys.
Unfortunately in this case the more likely scenario is that the first 2 years are gridlocked because of an uncooperative Senate. There's a chance that's not the case, but to my understanding it's not a large chance.
Well then, she might as well promise rainbows, unicorns and a cure for cancer if that's to be the case.
All these folks vying to be the MOST SOCIALIST might look a little like idiots if a Republican Senate refuses to hear any healthcare reform stuff, however mild, and spends the whole 4 years impeaching President Warren for Being Annoying.
Luckily the Senate can't impeach.
Also this is why its important for the primary winner also be good at helping run for other candidates for the Senate. The chance the senate goes Dem is not low but its not like 5% low. And it change a lot and very quickly. There are a lot Republican seats up and at least 3 are in danger (Colorado with Gardner, Collins in Maine, and McSally in Arizona who lost once already). In the end it just requires 50 senators+the VP to get a majority.
A problem with the US political system is that the candidates do need to have any big changes to the law ironed out to hit the ground running, because they have 2 years until the disgruntled voters signal their displeasure by giving the House to the other guys.
Unfortunately in this case the more likely scenario is that the first 2 years are gridlocked because of an uncooperative Senate. There's a chance that's not the case, but to my understanding it's not a large chance.
Well then, she might as well promise rainbows, unicorns and a cure for cancer if that's to be the case.
All these folks vying to be the MOST SOCIALIST might look a little like idiots if a Republican Senate refuses to hear any healthcare reform stuff, however mild, and spends the whole 4 years impeaching President Warren for Being Annoying.
A Republican controlled Senate is going to refuse to pass any Democratic healthcare reform.
A Democratic controlled Senate is going to refuse to pass some of the proposed reforms.
A problem with the US political system is that the candidates do need to have any big changes to the law ironed out to hit the ground running, because they have 2 years until the disgruntled voters signal their displeasure by giving the House to the other guys.
Unfortunately in this case the more likely scenario is that the first 2 years are gridlocked because of an uncooperative Senate. There's a chance that's not the case, but to my understanding it's not a large chance.
Well then, she might as well promise rainbows, unicorns and a cure for cancer if that's to be the case.
All these folks vying to be the MOST SOCIALIST might look a little like idiots if a Republican Senate refuses to hear any healthcare reform stuff, however mild, and spends the whole 4 years impeaching President Warren for Being Annoying.
Luckily the Senate can't impeach.
Scenario: Democrats get the Presidency and the House but not the Senate. All their campaign promises turn to mud in the face of Republican stalling, and they catch the blame for the inevitable recession. Result: they lose the house and the President gets impeached for whatever the fuck the Republicans feel like impeaching them for.
I’m not sure what use there is in thinking up our best future nightmare scenario 2 years into a candidates’ presidency before a single primary vote has been cast
We’ve just gotta take our best shot, stay true to our values, and expect Republican recalcitrance
Literally none of the candidates can do anything about a hypothetical future Republican-majority Senate that is more interested in owning the libs than doing their jobs
A problem with the US political system is that the candidates do need to have any big changes to the law ironed out to hit the ground running, because they have 2 years until the disgruntled voters signal their displeasure by giving the House to the other guys.
Unfortunately in this case the more likely scenario is that the first 2 years are gridlocked because of an uncooperative Senate. There's a chance that's not the case, but to my understanding it's not a large chance.
Even if the Democrats win the Senate, it's Congress that is ultimately gonna write the bill. And they aren't really signing on for M4A from anything I've heard.
The basics are that, at least from my reading of what is going on there, the Democrats in charge of this shit in the Senate's opinion is:
- Fuck working with the Republican party.
- Push something much closer to what Obamacare was supposed to be then something like M4A, primarily anchored in expanding government-run programs. Basically, expanding medicare to some degree and some sort of public-option or buy-in idea.
That, for the moment, seems like what any of these candidates is gonna be dealing with.
I’m honestly surprised she doesn’t just sign on for Sanders’s plan like she did Inslee’s climate plan
I guess the thought is health care needs to be a differentiator so you can’t do this...and others already beat her to where she likely would have gone, so we’re left with all the “backlog” ideas?
I mean she straight up says "Supports and wants to implement the Medicare for All Act" which is Bernie's bill and the centerpiece of his plan.
She's literally a cosponsor of that bill.
Her support for m4a is almost blatantly, "yeah let's start with Bernie's plan".
The article essentially says, okay get to this m4a bill we've co sponsored, then here's a few more things I wanna do, with at least one of those being unfortunately vague and ill fitting with the rest of the proposals.
Literally none of the candidates can do anything about a hypothetical future Republican-majority Senate that is more interested in owning the libs than doing their jobs
Then that seems like a big problem that we should be discussing. If we are discussing solutions that only work if North Dakota goes Democrat, are we wasting our time? It just gives us a rep for pie-in-the-sky thinking. If electoral reform is the #1 issue, maybe we should be discussing that rather than impossible-to-implement healthcare reform.
This health care plan is basically "abortions for some, tiny american flags for others". Its just trying to hit all the big points for as many camps as possible and is left a vague mess. Health care is too important for this.
As a person from Britain, I can assure you that even the best social healthcare system is a bit of a mess.
This comaprison makes no sense and I wish Warren was half as ambitious as the NIH
It makes sense if you are actually from Britain, because the failings, inconsistency and underfunding of the NHS is a perennial topic in the media there.
Note that I'm not saying that the NHS is bad - people in the UK love it to bits - but it's laughable to not understand that a UHC system is not a one-and-done-now-its-perfect deal. It is a topic of continual negotiation.
Also the NHS doesn't include dental or vision for the most part (except in the most basic form.)
The NHS makes things hell for trans people in ways that are not as big an issue in other countries partly because of how their single payer set up works.
Literally none of the candidates can do anything about a hypothetical future Republican-majority Senate that is more interested in owning the libs than doing their jobs
Then that seems like a big problem that we should be discussing. If we are discussing solutions that only work if North Dakota goes Democrat, are we wasting our time? It just gives us a rep for pie-in-the-sky thinking. If electoral reform is the #1 issue, maybe we should be discussing that rather than impossible-to-implement healthcare reform.
Part of the problem besides electoral reform not being seen as exciting is that most of it comes down to a combination of winning state legislatures and just appointing friendly judges to federal courts if a Dem wins the presidency.
The bigger things like changing from FPTP elections are not going to get through Congress.
Despite being huge, both the left and center left did not focus on the SCOTUS in 2016 as a major issue for a similar reason.
Im not sure how wise it is to put much weight behind someone cosponsoring m4a on its own.
Cosponsoring isn't a sign of support? Is the fact it is not called out not a sign of support either? Or when she has been on stage backing it? Or speeches?
I am confused here. You say putting your name on a bill trying to bring it to the floor to be passed as legislation in a way that is beyond just saying you back it isn't backing a bill?
Im not sure how wise it is to put much weight behind someone cosponsoring m4a on its own.
Cosponsoring isn't a sign of support? Is the fact it is not called out not a sign of support either? Or when she has been on stage backing it? Or speeches?
I am confused here. You say putting your name on a bill trying to bring it to the floor to be passed as legislation in a way that is beyond just saying you back it isn't backing a bill?
Does one have to sign a contract in blood now?
Cosponsoring is a sign of support. Having unambiguous single payer m4a in your platform is a bigger one. Warren has kind of hemmed and hawed for a while now on her language regarding health care policy and I see this news today as a continuation of it.
She says "yes medicare for all" but doesnt talk about single payer and has this nonsense about pruvate insurance for mental care in there too which undercuts how seriously we should take the parts about medicare paying you costs etc.
Single payer advocates have been burned before. We have every reason in the world to be suspicious.
*shrug* she didnt put it in her platform because she's not as left wing. Its not a big mystery.
Except this assumes that this is the test for whether someone is left-wing or not. Which it isn't.
I mean her student loan program is less generous too. Its all part of a pretty clear division between progressive politics and social democracy.
Is it? Based on what?
Like, you like this policy better then that, ok. But I'm not seeing what makes one policy the real left-wing one and the other not here. That's just your own personal metric you've attached to the debate. As if all healthcare reform proposals fit on some nice number line.
*shrug* she didnt put it in her platform because she's not as left wing. Its not a big mystery.
Except this assumes that this is the test for whether someone is left-wing or not. Which it isn't.
I mean her student loan program is less generous too. Its all part of a pretty clear division between progressive politics and social democracy.
Is it? Based on what?
Like, you like this policy better then that, ok. But I'm not seeing what makes one policy the real left-wing one and the other not here. That's just your own personal metric you've attached to the debate. As if all healthcare reform proposals fit on some nice number line.
Her program, last I heard, forgave 50k and Sanders was a blanket cancellation.
I think there's a serious degree of...idk Schrodinger's Leftism? in people deciding how left wing Warren really is. Say shes not as far left as Sanders and people obviously disagree but then when she puts out a plan of some kind one of the most common praises it will recieve is that its so much more managable and realistic etc. It seems like try to have it both ways, wanting to be the left wing candidate but not the left wing policy. I dont think it really matters but its certainly reflected in her campaign and its interesting to watch.
Still the most interesting analysis of Bernie vs. Warren's plans outside one is built around currently owned by the government debt and one kind of handwaving how they disperse the private debt is that Warren's plan has a greater positive effect on wealth inequality between different ethnic groups where Bernie's makes it worse just because of how the overall allocation of debt is. Aka a lot of the really heavy debt is held by people who are white non-hispanic and discharging all of that gives more money to that group than Warrens that focuses on those with the lower incomes and lower amounts of debt which includes more PoC.
Urban Institute has a very good write up on Warrens plan. I recommend reading it.
I am trying to find the good one that dug through comparing full forgiveness verse Warren's. But in the end Warren's and Sanders for folks and the lower end of the economic spectrum come out relatively equal.
Also both are tied to free college plans which is important.
Still the most interesting analysis of Bernie vs. Warren's plans outside one is built around currently owned by the government debt and one kind of handwaving how they disperse the private debt is that Warren's plan has a greater positive effect on wealth inequality between different ethnic groups where Bernie's makes it worse just because of how the overall allocation of debt is. Aka a lot of the really heavy debt is held by people who are white non-hispanic and discharging all of that gives more money to that group than Warrens that focuses on those with the lower incomes and lower amounts of debt which includes more PoC.
Honestly I think this is kind of a silly way to approach the thing. It ignores debt to income ratios and even then it would leave alotnof PoC with unjust debt just to avoid making sure not too many white people get help or something.
Student debt is bad, and should not exist. The right thing to do is get rid of it.
I'm wondering why the distinction between physical and mental in regards to private insurance existing, other than a distinction for distinction's sake, so she can try to please both sides
Still the most interesting analysis of Bernie vs. Warren's plans outside one is built around currently owned by the government debt and one kind of handwaving how they disperse the private debt is that Warren's plan has a greater positive effect on wealth inequality between different ethnic groups where Bernie's makes it worse just because of how the overall allocation of debt is. Aka a lot of the really heavy debt is held by people who are white non-hispanic and discharging all of that gives more money to that group than Warrens that focuses on those with the lower incomes and lower amounts of debt which includes more PoC.
Honestly I think this is kind of a silly way to approach the thing. It ignores debt to income ratios and even then it would leave alotnof PoC with unjust debt just to avoid making sure not too many white people get help or something.
Student debt is bad, and should not exist. The right thing to do is get rid of it.
It explicitly doesn't ignore debt to income ratios. It does the exact opposite of that. Plans that ignore income ignore debt to income ratios!
I'm wondering why the distinction between physical and mental in regards to private insurance existing, other than a distinction for distinction's sake, so she can try to please both sides
It’s a bad position, but unfortunately one that’s all too naked into our system. Mental health is somehow different from physical health, one’s teeth are covered under different insurance than the rest of your body, and eyesight is in a third insurance policy because reasons.
Like with all means testing, the practical concern is that having a break point invites degredation in quality. Warren might start with 50k but what are the odds it stays there through passage and implementation?
Starting from a universalist standpoint at least sets that bar higher.
*shrug* she didnt put it in her platform because she's not as left wing. Its not a big mystery.
Except this assumes that this is the test for whether someone is left-wing or not. Which it isn't.
I mean her student loan program is less generous too. Its all part of a pretty clear division between progressive politics and social democracy.
Is it? Based on what?
Like, you like this policy better then that, ok. But I'm not seeing what makes one policy the real left-wing one and the other not here. That's just your own personal metric you've attached to the debate. As if all healthcare reform proposals fit on some nice number line.
Her program, last I heard, forgave 50k and Sanders was a blanket cancellation.
I think there's a serious degree of...idk Schrodinger's Leftism? in people deciding how left wing Warren really is. Say shes not as far left as Sanders and people obviously disagree but then when she puts out a plan of some kind one of the most common praises it will recieve is that its so much more managable and realistic etc. It seems like try to have it both ways, wanting to be the left wing candidate but not the left wing policy. I dont think it really matters but its certainly reflected in her campaign and its interesting to watch.
Again, this is all just based in your assumption of this policy being more left then that policy. This is all just a reflection of your own idea of what is the "true left".
To get back to the first point in this tree, you can see the problem right there. Because your assumption is that she's proposing a different idea because she's "not as left wing". Which only makes sense in the context of your own assumptions about what is left wing. And yet your post right here highlights other perfectly reasonable reasons why it might be. eg - "more manageable", "realistic" or a host of other possibilities. These factors become even more pronounced when you consider what the Senate democrats are talking about re: healthcare reform.
*shrug* she didnt put it in her platform because she's not as left wing. Its not a big mystery.
Except this assumes that this is the test for whether someone is left-wing or not. Which it isn't.
I mean her student loan program is less generous too. Its all part of a pretty clear division between progressive politics and social democracy.
Is it? Based on what?
Like, you like this policy better then that, ok. But I'm not seeing what makes one policy the real left-wing one and the other not here. That's just your own personal metric you've attached to the debate. As if all healthcare reform proposals fit on some nice number line.
Her program, last I heard, forgave 50k and Sanders was a blanket cancellation.
I think there's a serious degree of...idk Schrodinger's Leftism? in people deciding how left wing Warren really is. Say shes not as far left as Sanders and people obviously disagree but then when she puts out a plan of some kind one of the most common praises it will recieve is that its so much more managable and realistic etc. It seems like try to have it both ways, wanting to be the left wing candidate but not the left wing policy. I dont think it really matters but its certainly reflected in her campaign and its interesting to watch.
Again, this is all just based in your assumption of this policy being more left then that policy. This is all just a reflection of your own idea of what is the "true left".
To get back to the first point in this tree, you can see the problem right there. Because your assumption is that she's proposing a different idea because she's "not as left wing". Which only makes sense in the context of your own assumptions about what is left wing. And yet your post right here highlights other perfectly reasonable reasons why it might be. eg - "more manageable", "realistic" or a host of other possibilities. These factors become even more pronounced when you consider what the Senate democrats are talking about re: healthcare reform.
I prepose we evaluate their political leanings based on what they propose as policy!
Warren's health care policy, seemingly as some kind of publicly propped up private insurance system, is not as left wing as true single payer. There are several policies shes offered where this is the case. And thats fine, as far as these things go, theyre generally better ideas than what we have now, but it doesmt change that underlying fact.
Youve asked in the past why leftists would support Sanders over her or why we arent often as enthused by her. This health care plan is a pretty great example.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Like with all means testing, the practical concern is that having a break point invites degredation in quality. Warren might start with 50k but what are the odds it stays there through passage and implementation?
Starting from a universalist standpoint at least sets that bar higher.
The bigger issue for both plans is what they’ll do to try and control the cost of college going forward. If the government says that they’ll forgive $50k in loans every every college president is gonna be looking to get a piece of that. Mostly by raising four year costs by $50k. It’s the same economic problem as with suspending the federal gas tax back in ‘08 or whenever.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I'm wondering why the distinction between physical and mental in regards to private insurance existing, other than a distinction for distinction's sake, so she can try to please both sides
It’s a bad position, but unfortunately one that’s all too naked into our system. Mental health is somehow different from physical health, one’s teeth are covered under different insurance than the rest of your body, and eyesight is in a third insurance policy because reasons.
*shrug* she didnt put it in her platform because she's not as left wing. Its not a big mystery.
Except this assumes that this is the test for whether someone is left-wing or not. Which it isn't.
I mean her student loan program is less generous too. Its all part of a pretty clear division between progressive politics and social democracy.
Is that all the difference is? A dollar amount?
It’s means testing, something I’m not a fan of in any social program.
I guess it's just raw disappointment then, because in most other topics she's actually been very good about speaking truth when perception is different than reality.
Like with all means testing, the practical concern is that having a break point invites degredation in quality. Warren might start with 50k but what are the odds it stays there through passage and implementation?
Starting from a universalist standpoint at least sets that bar higher.
The bigger issue for both plans is what they’ll do to try and control the cost of college going forward. If the government says that they’ll forgive $50k in loans every every college president is gonna be looking to get a piece of that. Mostly by raising four year costs by $50k. It’s the same economic problem as with suspending the federal gas tax back in ‘08 or whenever.
Neither plan is just a payout and both have major reforms on how college is paid for in the US with a complete revamping of the public college system for both 2 and 4 year colleges.
Posts
I guess the thought is health care needs to be a differentiator so you can’t do this...and others already beat her to where she likely would have gone, so we’re left with all the “backlog” ideas?
Sander's plan eliminates private health insurance. That's an enormous risk to sign on to.
Which seems like a solution nobody asked for and is only there to say “it’s different”
I mean she straight up says "Supports and wants to implement the Medicare for All Act" which is Bernie's bill and the centerpiece of his plan.
There are a lot of plans floating around that use that term and fall far short of the mark.
Well then, she might as well promise rainbows, unicorns and a cure for cancer if that's to be the case.
All these folks vying to be the MOST SOCIALIST might look a little like idiots if a Republican Senate refuses to hear any healthcare reform stuff, however mild, and spends the whole 4 years impeaching President Warren for Being Annoying.
Luckily the Senate can't impeach.
Also this is why its important for the primary winner also be good at helping run for other candidates for the Senate. The chance the senate goes Dem is not low but its not like 5% low. And it change a lot and very quickly. There are a lot Republican seats up and at least 3 are in danger (Colorado with Gardner, Collins in Maine, and McSally in Arizona who lost once already). In the end it just requires 50 senators+the VP to get a majority.
A Republican controlled Senate is going to refuse to pass any Democratic healthcare reform.
A Democratic controlled Senate is going to refuse to pass some of the proposed reforms.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Scenario: Democrats get the Presidency and the House but not the Senate. All their campaign promises turn to mud in the face of Republican stalling, and they catch the blame for the inevitable recession. Result: they lose the house and the President gets impeached for whatever the fuck the Republicans feel like impeaching them for.
We’ve just gotta take our best shot, stay true to our values, and expect Republican recalcitrance
Literally none of the candidates can do anything about a hypothetical future Republican-majority Senate that is more interested in owning the libs than doing their jobs
Even if the Democrats win the Senate, it's Congress that is ultimately gonna write the bill. And they aren't really signing on for M4A from anything I've heard.
A recent The Weeds podcast (Trump's Latest Trade War Aug 27 if you are looking for it) had a section at the end discussing the Senate's view on the issue. I think this Vox article covers a bunch of it: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/27/20827210/senate-democrats-health-reform-medicare-obamacare-2020-filibuster
The basics are that, at least from my reading of what is going on there, the Democrats in charge of this shit in the Senate's opinion is:
- Fuck working with the Republican party.
- Push something much closer to what Obamacare was supposed to be then something like M4A, primarily anchored in expanding government-run programs. Basically, expanding medicare to some degree and some sort of public-option or buy-in idea.
That, for the moment, seems like what any of these candidates is gonna be dealing with.
Except this assumes that this is the test for whether someone is left-wing or not. Which it isn't.
She's literally a cosponsor of that bill.
Her support for m4a is almost blatantly, "yeah let's start with Bernie's plan".
The article essentially says, okay get to this m4a bill we've co sponsored, then here's a few more things I wanna do, with at least one of those being unfortunately vague and ill fitting with the rest of the proposals.
I mean her student loan program is less generous too. Its all part of a pretty clear division between progressive politics and social democracy.
Then that seems like a big problem that we should be discussing. If we are discussing solutions that only work if North Dakota goes Democrat, are we wasting our time? It just gives us a rep for pie-in-the-sky thinking. If electoral reform is the #1 issue, maybe we should be discussing that rather than impossible-to-implement healthcare reform.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Part of the problem besides electoral reform not being seen as exciting is that most of it comes down to a combination of winning state legislatures and just appointing friendly judges to federal courts if a Dem wins the presidency.
The bigger things like changing from FPTP elections are not going to get through Congress.
Despite being huge, both the left and center left did not focus on the SCOTUS in 2016 as a major issue for a similar reason.
Cosponsoring isn't a sign of support? Is the fact it is not called out not a sign of support either? Or when she has been on stage backing it? Or speeches?
I am confused here. You say putting your name on a bill trying to bring it to the floor to be passed as legislation in a way that is beyond just saying you back it isn't backing a bill?
Does one have to sign a contract in blood now?
Cosponsoring is a sign of support. Having unambiguous single payer m4a in your platform is a bigger one. Warren has kind of hemmed and hawed for a while now on her language regarding health care policy and I see this news today as a continuation of it.
She says "yes medicare for all" but doesnt talk about single payer and has this nonsense about pruvate insurance for mental care in there too which undercuts how seriously we should take the parts about medicare paying you costs etc.
Single payer advocates have been burned before. We have every reason in the world to be suspicious.
Is that all the difference is? A dollar amount?
Dollar amounts are philosophical differences! "Cancel all" vs "cancel some" is more than a matter of degree.
Is it? Based on what?
Like, you like this policy better then that, ok. But I'm not seeing what makes one policy the real left-wing one and the other not here. That's just your own personal metric you've attached to the debate. As if all healthcare reform proposals fit on some nice number line.
Her program, last I heard, forgave 50k and Sanders was a blanket cancellation.
I think there's a serious degree of...idk Schrodinger's Leftism? in people deciding how left wing Warren really is. Say shes not as far left as Sanders and people obviously disagree but then when she puts out a plan of some kind one of the most common praises it will recieve is that its so much more managable and realistic etc. It seems like try to have it both ways, wanting to be the left wing candidate but not the left wing policy. I dont think it really matters but its certainly reflected in her campaign and its interesting to watch.
Urban Institute has a very good write up on Warrens plan. I recommend reading it.
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/who-would-benefit-elizabeth-warrens-student-loan-forgiveness-proposal
Brookings did a more conservative look at it as well.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/24/how-progressive-is-senator-elizabeth-warrens-loan-forgiveness-proposal/
I am trying to find the good one that dug through comparing full forgiveness verse Warren's. But in the end Warren's and Sanders for folks and the lower end of the economic spectrum come out relatively equal.
Also both are tied to free college plans which is important.
Honestly I think this is kind of a silly way to approach the thing. It ignores debt to income ratios and even then it would leave alotnof PoC with unjust debt just to avoid making sure not too many white people get help or something.
Student debt is bad, and should not exist. The right thing to do is get rid of it.
It explicitly doesn't ignore debt to income ratios. It does the exact opposite of that. Plans that ignore income ignore debt to income ratios!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It’s a bad position, but unfortunately one that’s all too naked into our system. Mental health is somehow different from physical health, one’s teeth are covered under different insurance than the rest of your body, and eyesight is in a third insurance policy because reasons.
It’s means testing, something I’m not a fan of in any social program.
Starting from a universalist standpoint at least sets that bar higher.
Again, this is all just based in your assumption of this policy being more left then that policy. This is all just a reflection of your own idea of what is the "true left".
To get back to the first point in this tree, you can see the problem right there. Because your assumption is that she's proposing a different idea because she's "not as left wing". Which only makes sense in the context of your own assumptions about what is left wing. And yet your post right here highlights other perfectly reasonable reasons why it might be. eg - "more manageable", "realistic" or a host of other possibilities. These factors become even more pronounced when you consider what the Senate democrats are talking about re: healthcare reform.
I prepose we evaluate their political leanings based on what they propose as policy!
Warren's health care policy, seemingly as some kind of publicly propped up private insurance system, is not as left wing as true single payer. There are several policies shes offered where this is the case. And thats fine, as far as these things go, theyre generally better ideas than what we have now, but it doesmt change that underlying fact.
Youve asked in the past why leftists would support Sanders over her or why we arent often as enthused by her. This health care plan is a pretty great example.
The bigger issue for both plans is what they’ll do to try and control the cost of college going forward. If the government says that they’ll forgive $50k in loans every every college president is gonna be looking to get a piece of that. Mostly by raising four year costs by $50k. It’s the same economic problem as with suspending the federal gas tax back in ‘08 or whenever.
I guess it's just raw disappointment then, because in most other topics she's actually been very good about speaking truth when perception is different than reality.
Neither plan is just a payout and both have major reforms on how college is paid for in the US with a complete revamping of the public college system for both 2 and 4 year colleges.