Not having policies sounds like someone else we know.

as the only way to get to universal healthcare, I am glad to see due caution. If every state had been mandated to bring insurance companies to the table to compete, and had had to accept Medicaid subsidy to expand coverage to all eligibles, ACA would have had lower premiums throughout the US, and Medicaid, which offers good to excellent coverage, would have covered all low income people who applied.
I would like to see a new administration shore up workable programs we have now—offer choice to millions who according to surveys want to keep their employer-provided coverage, and ensure the continuation of Medicare advantage plans that cover large numbers of seniors. Subsidizing rural hospitals, studying the kind of plans that have proven workable in a state like California, before we commit to a complete overhaul, bringing drug costs down, these steps are just some of the incremental ones that would make change not only possible, but more palatable to the electorate.
Medicare for all will not be free. It is an untested idea, the suggested comparison for which is Europe and Canada. European healthcare systems are not the ideal quality and uniformity care standard proponents of Medicare for all suggest. Canada does not have our huge population to cover. Taxation in Europe and Canada is a real issue.
It is interesting that though Biden has not locked his campaign into policies proposed by other candidates, he runs ahead. Maybe voters care more about principals than detailed policies for now. In any case, those policies that seem to have framed the debate a priori, will be subject to approval in a Republican run Senate.
The real complaint I think is at play in regard to Biden not yet having nailed down a sweeping policy is that he is not likely to endorse Medicare for all while he remains thus far likely to continue to lead the pack. Is not endorsing Medicare for all an unfair advantage?
Perhaps.
We know by the time of the debates, Biden will have to make clear the outlines of a healthcare policy.

The choice isn't Medicare for all versus nothing. It's between Medicare for all and a thoughtful alternative - and he's had plenty of time to decide on one.

Public option buy in seems a good idea, at least for those with qualms about Medicare for all. I imagine Biden’s advisors would be looking at it.
I don’t think enough people though have the info on it.

which is a version of public option. It wouldn't get rid of private insurance, but it would allow people to switch to a new version of Medicare.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/house-democrats-medicare-for-america/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Most+Recent%29

Two House Democrats reintroduced health care overhaul legislation Wednesday that would provide universal coverage but stop far short of the sweeping "Medicare for All" plan embraced by several 2020 presidential candidates.

"Medicare for America," a plan first introduced last year by Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Jan Schakowsky, would create a new version of Medicare that would be open to people of all ages. It would provide coverage for newborns, who would be automatically enrolled in the program, uninsured Americans and those currently on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare plans.

The bill would allow employers to continue to offer gold-level benefit plans, a key distinction from Medicare for All, which would get rid of private insurance.
In a phone call with reporters on Wednesday, DeLauro argued it was important for people to be able to make their own choice about health benefits, "and not one day be stripped of what they do know."

not our enemy" is not so good, and not at all true (hey, remember Merrick Garland, Joe?). Yet, we must beware of insidious forces constantly trying to split us apart, and using our own emnity against us.

The jee-wiz, gosh golly factor is only going to get us so far. People want answers not just grandpa stories.

So, he doesn't really have anywhere to go "further along".

He's going to need a plan B if he continues to hemorrhage support to Biden and the others.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

understand that.

Sanders DOESN'T excite most Democrats. If he did, he'd be doing much better in the polls.

Karl Rove likes him though.

If it was easy, it would have been done already.

Medicare is good for seniors who paid Medicare taxes all their life.
But it only pays 80% of hospital bills. And still it is under constant financial stress.
ACA is very good for people who can't afford private health insurance.
But most on ACA are tax payer subsidized. And private insurance loves ACA.
Because they can sign up customers who otherwise would not afford it.

One thing which could reduce cost of healthcare is reducing doctor's liability cost for malpractice.
But that is a hot potato no one wants to touch.

At the end of day only solution is single payer with higher taxes on all to pay for healthcare for all.

Leaves 20 % to be paid out of pocket. My last hospitalization probably ran about 25 thousand dollars. Medicare as it stands also has deductibles, limits on hospital stays, and does not cover
a host of medical expenses one can need, which is where the Medicare advantage programs come in, supplementation with private insurance.
Medicare is not free.
Proponents of Medicare for all need to explain how they will greatly expand benefits, and how people now on Medicaid will have equal or better coverage than they do currently.

the claim that private insurers like ACA - in my state at least they have nearly all abandoned it. I would love to see the public option.

Are making higher profits since ACA became law.
May be different experience in various states.

That would save us a boatload of money. And, more importantly, all Americans get covered and no one has to languish without getting treatment they need because they can't pay. That is and has always been unconscionable.

Biden/Harris would be a formidable ticket.

when the debates begin. He is a likeable guy and very experienced in politics, but hopefully he'll get the organizational aspects of his campaign rolling soon if he wants to win the nomination.

But I don't think that's a good thing.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

he is number 2 or 3 in many of the current polls, you would be right for the moment. Sanders (I-VT) numbers have dropped dramatically since Biden stepped into the race. There are just too many great Democratic choices this time around and there is no real focus of hate for some so-called progressives. Well, some are trying with Biden but it is having the opposite reaction this time.

Almost every Democrat I know is completely on board the Biden train.

Time will tell of course.

ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

As long as candidates are positive to other candidates and concentrate on pulling down the real enemies...tRump, Republicans, Russian trolls and interferers, they should be respected by all Democrats and Democratic supporters.

Those candidates, staff and supporters who dig up dirt on or spread right-wing memes on other Democratic candidates should be shunned and called out.

I'm sure you agree with this as a Democratic supporter.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

I presume you have a source for your assertion? From what I've seen, he's pretty much solely targeted Trump.

when a particular Democrat has a long history, including some non-progressive positions.

I want to believe that he, today, wouldn't take the same position on banking and bankruptcy and student debt bills that he has in the past. (He and Elizabeth Warren have been at loggerheads over these issues.) But how can I know where he stands now if he won't say?

We're not in the depths of a major recession, as we were when Obama took office, and Biden is his own man.

and had plenty to say. That is an asset for him. You would have to really bend over backwards to try and take that away from him to fit the anti-Biden theme.

I’m more turned off by those who think repetitive rallies means you don’t have to talk about details and costs, yet there doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency to provide details. Some candidates still get a complete pass. I’ve already heard plenty from Biden that I like.

at his rallies, but at least he could put something on his website besides a request for money.

You don't seem to understand that 2008, when Obama became President, was a very different time than 2020. Biden needs to come up with plans that will fit 2020, not 2008 or 2012. And you don't seem to understand that Biden is his own person. He'd be the first to say he's not a carbon copy of Obama.

He just entered the race and as many are quick to point out, the first debates are a couple months away and the first primaries aren't until next year.

He's a known quantity and the clear front-runner, and the electorate has recent experience with him in the public eye in his eight years with Obama, during which he was fairly active.

I think it's a little early to be panicking that he hasn't provided detailed proposals yet, nine months before the first primary.

I'd like to know if he's changed his mind about some of the banking and bankruptcy bills that put him opposite Elizabeth Warren, for example. And I'd like to know where he fits on the health care spectrum.

No other candidates does. Rallies are about connecting with people. Sounds like that’s what Biden is doing.

This is repetitive now. I’ve heard lots from Biden already. He thankfully hasn’t joined the socialism bandwagon, looks to be why he’s polling so high. Nothing wrong with someone in the race for two weeks letting their new hires get used to their positions or whatever they are doing. It’s been two weeks.

Otherwise, I'll just figure he's got the same positions he held when he was Senator -- which don't look very good in the midst of the student loan crisis.

public option which he addressed in his Pittsburg rally among other things, and said the specifics would be coming shortly.

I get it pnwmom, you don't care for Biden, and you made a point of that in the last few weeks starting with what you considered was the inadequate apology to Anita Hill, and that is fine, we have 21 candidates, and I have no doubt you will find some more to your liking.

rallies, so why should Joe. There have been posts in this thread about Joe’s health care policies. I heard him on The View saying the campaigns are already long enough so he doesn’t feel he is on other candidate’s timetable.

on how to pay for them.

The first time he ran for President was in 1988. The second time was in 2008.

So he's had plenty of time to figure out an agenda.

His son died in 2015, four years ago.

He's had plenty of time in the last year to develop some policy proposals, and he has the resources to pay for people to assist him with that, so it appears that's not a priority for him. Or maybe he thinks he will somehow be more electable if he can't be pinned down -- if he can be all things to all people.

What issues/policies from 2008 do you want him to draft now??

BTW, I've heard plenty of his policy proposals and think they are unique to the field of everyone-jumping-on-the-socialism bandwagon. His cancer initiative is brilliant and will be a huge draw. He's also attacked by the left, so I don't mind his extra caution at all. You don't know how much he's put into anything.

Medicare for All is a general election loser. We need a buy in or a robust public option. Taking insurance away from people that like what they have is a mistake.

I don't understand why he hasn't already done that.

"He also called for a national minimum wage of $15 per hour and said noncompete agreements, which prohibit some workers even in relatively low-paying jobs from moving to a competing employer, were "wrong."
Biden called for reversing "Trump's tax cut for the wealthy," saying there was some $1.6 trillion in tax loopholes that could be closed, which would provide enough to send 6 million people to community college free.

"He also addressed health care, saying the Affordable Care Act approved while he was vice president to former President Barack Obama was "a huge step forward."
"We have to stop this administration's efforts to gut it," he said. Biden revealed he favors allowing Americans not now covered by Medicare to buy into the plan, what's known as the public option."

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/718408499/biden-calling-himself-a-union-man-kicks-off-campaign-with-pennsylvania-rally

And you can ridicule the personal anecdotes all you want, but it builds rapport with voters in a way that being a policy wonk during a rally speech won't.

mouthing some broad ideal states like a robot.

Hell, he could say that he will have free college and Medicare for All with scant details about how to do that and look like a hero to some, but why on earth should he do that knowing the difficulty of bringing those to fruition. Better to quietly craft workable plans.

Or he could say he agrees with the public option that the Democrats in the House are already backing. How about that?

You say that he is "admitting sound policy doesn't get done by mouthing some broad ideal states" but that sounds exactly like what he is doing. I think this is great but he could ALSO tell us what legislation he would back as President:

Joe will have to get into specifics soon enough. One reason why Warren is surging is her getting into details of how she will do the things that she propose.

I watched both of his rallies last week, the one in Pittsburgh and the one in Iowa. Same speech, a mile wide and an inch deep. Both times he said he would go into details later because he didn't want people standing too long. The platitudes are nice, very uplifting, but I think people are eventually going to want to know how he would work to translate them into policy.

None of his fans seem to mind. It’s funny to see the concern now over Biden after two weeks.

They seem to be alike in that respect. Seemingly content to be symbols...one representing an ideal of something we probably never can be, the other an ideal of something we never were but are nostalgic for anyway.

only two weeks. Lots of people are nostalgic for Obama, though, and he gave us the ACA, something very real for millions and is under GOP threat.

Including the months he spent earlier this year putting off announcing his official entry into the race. Was he not using any of that time thinking about what policies he would advance as president?

Don't mix up Obama and Biden; they are not the same man. Being someone's vice-president is not the same as being president all by yourself. To me, it looks like Biden is putting off having to present himself on his own merits so he can ride the wave of nostalgia for his former boss.

It is not a reflection on what Biden is doing. That is a fact in his favor. Trying to turn it around on him is laughable.

Biden has been campaigning for two weeks. I’ve heard plenty from him already. It’s been two weeks and what he did “his whole life” doesn’t have anything to do with 2019.

What’s more laughable is that one candidate has a repetitive stump speech, never providing many details for years now.

The VP advantage is only one element in the mix.

I believe you, that you are satisfied with what you've heard from Biden in the two weeks since he announced. For myself, I want to hear a whole lot more. In the debates, and in the many many months of campaigning to come.

Naderite types. One candidate currently has staff that voted third party. That’s what didn’t work out, not the VP title.

I bet you are not worried about one candidate who has a repetitive stump speech for years while offering few details. In the meantime, so much concern over Biden after two weeks, lol.

Joe intended to be light-hearted and make the speech a bit humorous - which is the way that most others and I took it. He gave a good amount of details and I know that more will be provided, in due course.

Until then, I am just enyoin' ridin' with Biden...

me standing too long.

It's called the PPACA and it's going strong. You're expecting him to run against it?

The also-rans can promise the sky because they know they won't have to deliver. I expect Biden to get elected, period. Frankly the less he promises the better.

p.s. I think it's a great idea, I just don't think he needs to stick his neck out any earlier than necessary.

There's no sense in trying to hide your own plans. It looks weak to pretend you don't have any plans because you are afraid of attack.

and got elected. He didn't even "look weak."

Tools like shameless lying, ethnonationalism, division, and fear. Tools we can't use. This is asymmetric warfare. We can combat that with real policies that will help people.

I put the link at the bottom of the thread.

But, if the election is going to be based on which Democratic candidate you trust to do the right thing, Bernie wins, hands down!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

because he fought shoulder to shoulder with Obama.

Bernie wanted to primary Obama in 2012.

I rest my case.

for policies that are in their best interest, as Bernie's been doing that his entire political career. I rest MY case!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

Waaaaaaaay back!

and only about being likable and having a beer with the candidate.

That last round of poll numbers really rattled a lot of cages, eh?

.... Is being able to criticize candidates, and not being put in the position of having to defend their own personal choice. I think a lot of the undecideds have made their choice but understand the advantage of cutting their argumentative burden in half. I'm just making a personal observation based upon the wording and tone of the anti-whoever posts that show up.

recognition, thinking that's more important than fleshing out policy.

I believe that most all of the candidates will have a solid policy to run on in due time. As far as Joe Biden taking advantage of name recognition, why shouldn't he? Wouldn't you? Joe Biden is playing it extremely smart, and some people don't like that it's working so well. Look at the poll numbers. Will these poll numbers change? I'm sure they will, especially after a debate or two. Joe Biden's poll numbers may drop, or they may get better, but I'm not willing to abandon him without being given a fair chance to put a solid policy together.
Of those half a dozen other candidates that you like, do they all have solid policies in place? If so, it would seem the choice you make would be a simple matter of reading the policy of each candidate, and choosing the one that best fits your own ideals. I have no qualms about telling the world that a big part of my decision to support Joe Biden is electability. drump's got to go, and it's my firm opinion that Joe is the one to get him out of there.

can defend their positions, and how well they might do in a debate against Trump.

That will be more important to "electability" than a dazzling smile or Obama's reflected glory.

.... I'm pretty sure it will be because he climbed a much higher mountain in the debates than the rest of the field because of a pre-concieved bias against him.

"That will be more important to "electability" than a dazzling smile or Obama's reflected glory."

That's not merely an observation.

I'd rather see be the nominee.

.... because after thinking about it, I realized there are candidates in the running who will have to climb that higher mountain in order for me to support them in the primary. I may not agree with you on the dazzling smile and running on Obama's coattails as the reasons for his lead in the polls, but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I will also one hundred percent support your eventual choice if they end up as the nominee.

In Pittsburgh last week he said: