again, she failed miserably in trying to revisit her aggrievement with Biden.

She did succeed in swatting back attacks by Gabbard, though she (Gabbard) did land some blows and set up some doubt about Harris' past record.

I'm merely being objective here as I really DO like Harris.

American voter, it seems reasonable that you will have your game together, in how to address the issues, from the very start. It's clear to me that Kamala (and others) jumped to mark Bernie's position, so as not to be outflanked on the progressive left. That now seems to have been ill-advised, as she then had to backtrack on removing Private Healthcare. Since then she has floundered on a firm stance on healthcare. What I want her to do is spend the time now, to come up with a plan that she can confidently defend. It's still relatively early enough, but she needs to get this sorted.

I wouldn't worry about Gabbard's attacks. I agree that bringing bussing up again, was ill-advised.

It is so damned complex that these massive 10-person debate formats just can't begin to do it justice, but CNN's leading questions haven't helped. Maybe when we get the field winnowed down it can be thoughtfully discussed. I agree that Harris is all over the map on the issue, though. She needs to spend time further delineating her position.

but I fear trying to explain Medicare for All, will be a vote winner for a liar like Trump. In an ideal world, she would be right. However, to achieve MFA, you not only need to win the WH, the House, but also get to 60 votes in the Senate, comfortably. And even then...

... companies and some have to pay very little at all.

To say scrap all of that and pay for MFA which could end up in a reduction of coverage isn't fair.

Let it be an option, like the USPS, and let the private HCI's compete.

achievable goal.

I'm open to correction on this, but i think his idea was

Fix the issues with the current ACA.

Keep your Private Health plan if you want.

Keep you doctor.

Take a copy of Medicare as your template for a Public Option.

If you can't afford even a Public Option, the Government will pay for it, for you.

Make the Public Option the best you can, so that only an idiot would want to pay through the nose for an equivalent Private Health policy.

That way you negate the whole "They're coming to take my healthcare" lie.

... from the M$M and stick to substantive issues.

Talking about what happened 1234 years ago doesn't help because nothing about those issues are going to disqualify any of the candidates save Gabbard on LGBTQ issues.

At least not in the way I think you mean. I wish I was wrong.

Full implementation of universal coverage and cost reforms will take multiple election cycles to achieve. Every cycle the vested interests and the republicans will fight us with fear mongering.

I don’t think Americans have the attention span needed to resist the sound bites.

The argument is not between medicare for all and buy in or any variant. It is between “they are taking away your plan and doctor” and “no we aren’t we are giving you more choices and saving you money”

I don’t agree that the debate should be about what is the best plan. It should be about how do we win argument against fear mongering.

I also want to do away with private insurance. I think the best way to accomplish that with the American public is to make it obsolete.

Talking about 40 years ago, people do not care! I know I do not and neither do those I talk with.

Thank you, True Blue

Guess you heard about the massive shooting in my area this morning, 10 now dead,26 wounded.

And, oh yes. McConnell fractured his shoulder this morning. Fell on his patio.

Moscow Mitch got a rough welcome home yesterday.

Shall we send him thoughts and prayers?

"..20 people were killed" in that mass domestic terrorist shooting.. I'm so sorry!

Dayton, Ohio. I live in the suburbs, but the area is a Historical District close to the College my Son graduated from. Full of Restaurants, bars, restored lovely old homes.

after I posted to you and thought that's where you must have been talking about.

I am so sorry.. I didn't know about Dayton, Ohio, yet.

This is so tragic!

On Thursday spouting his hate filled, racist tirades. That is about 40 miles south of Dayton.

I have to wonder if that did not fuel him. He killed his Sister, her boyfriend. They had a 22 month old baby. Of course it was racial. He boyfriend was black. He killed 5 more blacks.

For 3 years he has spouted his rage and now we are really seeing the effects of white nationalists.

She's too much into her own victimhood. and is unprepared on major subjects. No International experiences. and keep the hands down...out of people's faces.

...people trying to define her roles and potential for success.

'Victimhood' is a right-wing concept, a total invention, used to deflect from their own bigotry.

applied to Harris can’t you?

She has plenty of time to change. Her platform is very fluid.

I'll bet that framing went over the heads of many Harris supporters here.

Do you mind my asking about your "preference"?

I'll understand if you don't want to answer..

I thought you had a Warren pic and now I see you're Undecided.. Is that correct?

You can tell me if it's none of my business.

I had one major issue with her to start but easily overlooked it. I don’t like how she limited her fundraising.

My reason for removing her as my preferred choice is actually something that endears her to so many. Her plans. Plan after plan. I think it’s a great strategy for the primary but will hurt bad in the general. I think she will struggle mightily in the general. An overwhelming majority of general election voters don’t care about the details of plans but will hear about her plans being tore apart. It’s easier to tear something down than build it up.

I still like Warren every bit as much as I ever have.

Biden has been my number two choice. I think his temperament, history of coalition building, and immense knowledge of the federal government are necessary right now. I don’t think a lot of people are fully aware of how bad staffing is across all agencies. Biden is also respected across the globe. There would be a worldwide sigh of relief the day he took office.

So, Biden and Warren are currently at the top of my list. I no longer see myself voting for Warren in the primary. I haven’t picked him here yet because I’m a little unhappy with myself. I told myself some time ago that my primary vote would only go to a woman. Ohh well, things change.

I think Harris is perfect where she is at. While I do like her she really hurt her standing with me when it comes to her attacks on Biden. I’m not blind. The insinuation was that he’s racist. That is something that can stick and really hurt us in the general. Plenty of areas to go after Biden fairly. She went a really bad route.

I’m big on Castro. I think Obama tapped him for the perfect position and hope he returns to it under a new administration.

The secret I carry that I won’t share on DU is that I really like Gillibrand.

O’Rourke is going to be great for our party. His persona didn’t live up to the hype and it needed to.

Buttigieg? I’m a big fan. I’m not sure what direction he should go because of the state he is in. Head of the DNC? I don’t only think he is a genius, I think he is a big picture thinker able to connect dots.

Sanders? He is going to lose the primary, write a scathing book about democrats and progressives, and cash out to his lakefront home. I’ve never been impressed by one thing he has done outside of his opposition to Iraq.

Love Booker. Not happy with the direction he has gone. Again, to the casual passerby, they are insinuations of racism. Not cool.

Inslee is another one I really like.

So, it’s Biden and Warren for me. I no longer see myself voting for Warren in the primary. I don’t have anyone else up there with him.

I love how you expressed why you like Biden for the job.. you've put into words some of the important reasons why he's my choice. Once I settled on him early on it all made so much sense.. I didn't look any further. I realize I may have to.. depending on the future! Call me a "recycler" lol. They can try to label him all they want.. but ya can't pigeon hole Biden.

I think his temperament, history of coalition building, and immense knowledge of the federal government are necessary right now. I don’t think a lot of people are fully aware of how bad staffing is across all agencies. Biden is also respected across the globe. There would be a worldwide sigh of relief the day he took office.

Biden/ Warren. One to lead us back to sanity, the other to work on Wall Street. I understand even Wall Street managers like Warrens plan.

of ACA (obamacare).

Bernie, and then Warren, with Medicare for All.

of President Obama himself.

even most, achieved. Nor are they all necessary.

What I don’t hear is how they will address the social programs that are currently broken, underfunded, or endangered. Not much about fixing problems in the inner cities, in rural America, how they will protect and improve social security, Medicaid, Medicare, expand the food stamp program and welfare assistance, bring back job training programs cut from unemployment benefits, federal youth job training programs, the federal student debt forgiveness program, vastly improve public schools, adequately fund child protection services, subsidize areas in need of more funding for EMS, firefighting resources, policing, fund after school programs, protect school lunch programs...nothing about fixing existing programs.

And do we not need far more investment in crime prevention? What about in the front end of the justice system, probation? How do they propose to implement all these new programs and also build up the infrastructure, keep community colleges afloat—add more to the curriculum and meet the demand for classes and programs in state and cc systems? Free college is not a solution and not everyone needs free. Not everyone needs child care. Some folks can more than afford the cost.
Help people access education based on need.

As well, these plans that try to copy social democracies ignore what is happening in Europe since the recession, and the dissatisfaction with high taxes there that sees a backlash in the rise of the right wing. And just how do we take care of millions of deserving immigrants we must document and extend benefits to, and asylum seekers, and possibly refugees, while we
Spend trillions on the GND? Help those in need first.

So at a time when existing social safety nets are in trouble throughout the US, many candidates want to add new and bold programs mainly because those ideas are sexy. But not sensible in many cases. For instance, We don’t need to cancel 95 to 100 percent of student loan debt to make a difference. Several sensible steps can be taken to alleviate debt according to income. Take a half to one percent interest off going forward. Honor forgiveness programs. Stop the garnishee of social security. Freeze interest rates during periods of hardship.

And why give 200 billion dollars to the opioid crisis? For more twelve step rehabs? Experts agree that the most effective treatment we can offer now is suboxone coupled with therapy. Medicaid and Medicare covers that. We need to make sure those people not covered by either will be able to afford treatment and that Medicaid and Medicare stays solvent. In any case, alcohol is still our number #1 drug problem and we need much more funding for evidence-based treatment and research in the field of alcohol addiction.

What about medical and science research?

Some of the new and bold ideas are plain unaffordable without sacrificing dollars from existing programs, some go much further than needed to cover wealthy people, and many are mere promises that sound exciting but will never make it through even under a Dem house and senate.

The worst part of this fashionable emphasis on a plan in every pot is that we are not hearing why
candidates should be the next leader of the free world, how they will govern, what qualifies them
to be in charge of a super power, how they will deal with the nuclear threat, or how undo all the crazy stuff Trump has done and bring back a functioning government.

They spend political capital explaining particular pet plans, extremely costly ones. We are talking trillions on untested programs. Meanwhile, not a word about the deficit and the fact that we are a debtor nation now, practically owned by other countries. We have been known as the party of fiscal
responsibility. I am not seeing much fiscal big-picture thinking in some of the big, bold, and new.

Other than Biden so far, I hear little concern for foreign policy and relations. Even where climate change is concerned, we do not live in a vacuum.

Labeling criticisms Right-wing talking points does not absolve candidates who propose extensive and costly plans of the need to answer concerns about them.

I have never voted Republican in my life, and I am very concerned.

if that was supposed to be the answer for any flaw in the plan. smh.

... Biden Warren Harris.

I think the bold approach would be Harris Warren

what we get is boiled position sound bites from debate coaches and strategists. The candidate who cuts through that with spontaneous replies, clear policies, and wisdom will win the nomination. It's a Biden and Warren race. They are a little older than the rest and tested in the wiley and devious opposition whey will face in the general election.

She is a first term senator in the minority party who gained popularity by joining on board progressive ideas and bills which resonate in the social media chamber and the punditry class knowing it would not pass.

Now to win a national election you have to realise its not one size fits all and she is walking some things back. It makes her look inauthentic because it was recent she co-sponsored Sanders M4A bill. What changed? She's running for president.

announced, was MFA, and as soon as Bernie came out with it, Warren jumped on board. I think it was a mistake by Kamala, and she's getting it in the neck in trying so separate herself from it. If I were her, I'd "evolve" further on it asap, take the hit and re-position.

been “listening to people” when he tried to pin her down on some issues.

She did say she would allow, not ban, private insurance, but take the employer out of the transaction.

What this would mean I think is that an individual would be free to pay for her own insurance. If so, that is a huge drawback to Harris’s plan. Not only do many employers offer a group plan, which lowers the premium and ups the coverage, but these plans can carry over in retirement, at which point they supplement Medicare to provide 100 percent coverage.

I think all candidates need to pay attention to those retirees whose retirement benefits provide them low cost or no cost supplemental plans. Half of seniors carry these in addition to Medicare, though not all are equally affordable. Still, I do not see candidates addressing themselves to older voters, a demographic that votes reliably and in some numbers.

In any case, Harris needs to listen to people and make up her mind. And whatever the political cost, Warren needs to be honest about increased taxes for M4A. All single payer systems in other countries are funded with taxes, income taxes, tax on gas, sales tax. Regardless, people pay.

Even in France, which has taxed the wealthiest at up to 90 percent, regular folk pay. This cost, through gas tax, is what the yellow jackets were protesting. Of course they believe it is mass immigration that has driven up costs.

The tax burden has become a talking point for the likes of Marine Le Pen, a Trump favorite. And she has gained a foothold now politically that might catapult her into the presidency.

Please progressives. Be careful in modeling other countries and their social democracies.

where people look enviously at another country's health system or tax system or low gas cost or high quality of education etc, without understanding the consequence of usually more taxation to pay for it. That said, the outrageous per capita disparity between the cost of healthcare in the US v other Western countries, and versus outcome, is something that should be taken on, but expecting to bring MFA in while attempting to explain the 3 trillion a year that is now part of the conversation, is too heavy a lift.

how really terrible and uneven care is under the NHS, for instance, I am baffled as to how they do
have better outcomes in infant mortality, heart disease, and cancer treatment.

This may change however under a new mandate that allows for waiting up to two months to start cancer treatment which has been working out to up to four months. And cancer screening like pap
smears one can wait for far longer than we would find tolerable.

That probably makes a big difference. Two of my wife's nieces work/worked in the NHS. One worked as a GP in Devon before returning to Ireland last year, and her sister still works there as a radiographer. They both are fulsome in their praise for the sense of duty of those working in the NHS. On the other side of it, my sister lives in London, and was diagnosed with cancer of the womb in mid January. She met a consultant twice and was operated on within 5 weeks. Once she had recovered from the operation they had her into radiotherapy and chemotherapy, all done by July. And it didn't cost her a penny. The biggest concern is the longer the Tories are in power, the bigger the danger is for the NHS.

What this would mean I think is that an individual would be free to pay for her own insurance. If so, that is a huge drawback to Harris’s plan. Not only do many employers offer a group plan, which lowers the premium and ups the coverage, but these plans can carry over in retirement, at which point they supplement Medicare to provide 100 percent coverage.

We need to get to single payer, or something very close, with everyone covered as quickly as possible.

But, I think M4A -- whether 4 or 10 years in transition -- is likely a loser in General Election.

because it's certainly not going to become law anytime soon despite all of the talk and promises. For people who need healthcare now, why not give them some hope of something that is actually going to happen in the next 5 years?
Or will it be Medicare for All or nothing, no Plan B?

(While the ACA operates alongside but is kept from developing to what it's meant to be until it can finally be discarded? Huh?)

AND unnecessarily stripping people of all choice by outlawing workplace insurance have both already done their harm with me. I want to see politicians bending over backwards to protect the the freedoms and wishes of the people; anything else worries me.

I share your suspicion of an under-considered initial position that she should have but hasn't properly corrected. I know she has a long history of progressive liberalism, but I'm now concerned that her desire to win might outstrip readiness and even possibly current suitability. It's only one issue, but a big one and the reasoning or inadequate reasoning, either way, is concerning.

A public option as a stepping stone to single-payer is really the only viable path. And even that will be very tough to make happen.

dilemma. It starts about the 36 min mark.

together to debate Full MFA v Partial MFA v ACA plus. People need their stuff together for that.

You should have a watch of this.