Did Elizabeth make a mistake with her MFA endorsement?

[kentuck]

Looking at the polls, she may have scared a few voters away that do not wish to surrender their employer-provided insurance?

If that is the case, what can she do to correct the mistake?

Perhaps there is another reason her polls have gone down?

In my opinion, she needs to refine her message on the MFA. The reality is that many voters do not support Medicare For All at this time.

Does Elizabeth need to change her position to fit political realities?

[tblue37]

1. Could be. nt

[Voltaire2]

2. She refined her position on MFA and is now incorporating a Public Option transition period.

So that should address your concerns.

Everyone who is in love with their shitty for profit healthcorp insurance plan can keep it during the transition.

[Perseus]

3. I like the way you explain it.

"Their shitty for profit..." It is amazing how people by into that crap of "many people love their current insurance".

Having said that, I would incorporate into the plan allowing people to keep "Their shitty for profit insurance plan", I believe they would soon realize how shitty it is and move to EW's plan.

[Saviolo]

4. I'm always reminded of the Bors comic:

[Perseus]

14. Yes, that is a good one, I am glad you posted it.

I sent that one to a bunch of my friends..although that is like preaching to the choir, but nonetheless I am sure it gets to those who need to see it.

[PufPuf23]

19. Spot on ++++

[Big Blue Marble]

6. You are overly confident as to how wonderful it woudl be.

Their would be snags and complications; you can count it. And at this time, there is no congress,
even a democratic one that would vote for or fund her plan in its current form.

[Perseus]

15. I have family who live in Europe, I know first hand that it works

I am very confident that if those who oppose it are kept at bay, and the process is allowed to take the form it needs to, that it will be a success.

I also have family who live in Canada, and they love it.

So yes, you are correct, I am very confident.

[Voltaire2]

7. to put it bluntly I am fucking fed up with people mouthing healthco talking points

either because they are political zombies who just repeat what they are told, or worse, because they have internalized the bullshit messaging and now actually believe that their shitty for profit healthco insurance, with its co-pays, ever-changing-networks, mystery bills, huge deductibles, routine denial of service, and reams of paperwork is the greatest thing since pet rocks.

What the ever loving fork.

[dansolo]

20. And I'm fed up with people parroting false M4A points

M4A will cost significantly more than is estimated, there is no chance that every tax increase needed to pay for it will be passed, and even if both of them were miraculously able to pass, that will still leave us with over a trillion dollar deficit, no money for any thing else that they are promoting, and no money to address anything else that needs to be fixed. The problem has to do with the underlying costs in the entire healthcare system, which this bill does not address, and cannot just be poofed away overnight.

M4A may be a possibility someday, but the need for Sanders or Warren to get credit is leading them to push it at an accelerated timeline that at best will scare away support, and at worse will actually decimate the healthcare industry with unintended consequences.

[Big Blue Marble]

5. Not everybody has shitty private coverage.

Plenty of people are still happy with their employer-based coverage. Many union members have made compensation sacrifices to obtain excellent coverage which is not taxed as other forms of compensation are.

EW has not made reference to the fact the employees will lose the tax free compensation they receive in
the form of medical insurance. The aggregate impact of the loss of this additional benifit alone is truly significant.
No employer will be likely to make up the difference in additional compensation. Additional replacement
compensation in any other form would be taxable.

[Voltaire2]

8. case in point

[Big Blue Marble]

11. You are wrong.

I had excellent medical insurance prior to retiring. My husband was struck with a rare disorder which
caused him to need over 250,000 dollars of services. And I might add, we were in a very small group
plan. They covered nearly everything; our out-of-pocket was under $3000 over his more than a year
of treatments, surgeries, physical therapy. etc. And there was no paperwork needed other than
to file the stack and stacks of EOB's that poured in all paid by the insurance company. Nothing shitty
about it any of it. We were very grateful that he was able to make an near full recovery and return
to work within 14 months without medical debt.

[oasis]

21. Wifey and I will stand pat w/our coverage which has served us well.

[LakeArenal]

10. I know folks like that too

One friend $140 a month, with dental and optical. $3 Co pay for office visits and drugs.

I would want to keep it too.,

[Perseus]

16. The issue is that those insurances cost a lot of money

Also, people may have a great insurance when they are union, even though they pay big for it and so corporations, but the day he/she gets fired from their job, that is the end of their "great insurance", that would not happen with M4A.

[bluedovepdx]

9. the wind

She's already changed her position with her public option/transition period plan. Are you saying she should change it again? Based on polls? Makes her appear to not stand for anything when it comes to health care. Would make her look more like a typical politician whose word doesn't mean much. All of the candidates should fight for what they believe in.... presuming that particular candidate has passionate beliefs about policy. Crazy huh. If she were to change again on health care....why should anyone support her over Biden, Mayor Pete, Kamala, Booker, others? If it's make it up as you go the politicians become generic. I understand compromise in politics is necessary but that comes after getting elected.

[Alithea]

18. This

[moonscape]

12. I've never understood why any candidate

would go out on a limb about something that has zero chance of being enacted in the next x-plus-10 years. We need to address the crisis we have in healthcare (prescription drugs, shore up ACA, etc) and work towards a public option. But to put so much emphasis on this never made sense to me.

[Blaukraut]

13. That doesn't explain why Bernie is rising and passing her in the polls

He is for M4A, too. The problem for Liz is that she runs on having a plan for everything, which is unique and refreshing, but it also put her in a bind when it came to M4A. So her biggest mistake was to actually come up with a detailed plan, even though she had little choice. Had she remained vague, like others who advocate for M4A, she would probably not have plateaued or her momentum stalled. The plan, well designed as it was, gave the media and others something concrete to ridicule and take apart. Add to that the billionaire whine parade all over TV, and her poll numbers dropped.

[Alithea]

17. Should she though?

What happened to the idea of a candidate presenting what they actually believe is the best policy and persuading others of it? That shows leadership. A willingness to easily change one's positions suggests he/she cares more about winning than what they purported to stand for.

I'm tired of the media approaching politics primarily as a horse-race rather than for what it is: a public forum for elaborating common issues and debating competing policy proposals. A forum that we're fortunate to have because of living in a democracy, "if we can keep it".

I like Elizabeth Warren a lot. She offers substance, not just fluff, and she seems to want the office in order to accomplish specific things, not just as a matter of personal ambition. I think she would make a fantastic President. I hope she tries to attract more people by explaining why she thinks MFA is the best option, rather than copping whatever view happens to be more popular in the hopes of gaining a couple more points. The shift might actually cost her more points than she gains.

Frankly, I think she should focus more on showing how public medicine works very well in other countries; countries that have strong economies AND rank at the top of happiness indexes. If they can have it there, it is certainly no pipe dream to accomplish it in the US. She could even turn it into a patriotic thing... "Who says that Americans can't accomplish this?? Why shouldn't Americans have as nice of things as citizens of other countries?? Are Republicans saying that America should be "less great" than other countries, or are they implying that our citizens deserve less?? Don't they love America??"

[BeckyDem]

22. No. Warren's lack of being prepared to speak to specifics left her position vulnerable to

critics. All decisions on the plan needed to be ready for public consumption and what has transpired since then is a remedy for ACA to expand to Medicare for All. The Physicians for Single Payer does not endorse any candidate but they are not shy looking critically at the plans rolled out by the candidates. Since Warren's announcement they have responded and if I were her, I would present their commentary to those who believe she is a craven political sell out. Operative words, "not compromised."

Physicians for a National Health Program By Don McCanne, M.D.


As promised, Elizabeth Warren is proposing dramatic transitional steps in improving our health care financing system, ending in the third year with a full transformation into a bona fide single-payer improved Medicare for All program. The sketchy details of the transformation are spelled out in her article, but much more important is that the end goal of a single payer model of Medicare for All is not compromised. It really can be achieved.

PNHP does not endorse any political candidate for public office.



https://pnhp.org/news/elizabeth-warrens-proposed-transition-to-medicare-for-all/

[BlueMTexpat]

23. She didn't make a mistake with

her endorsement and knows very well what she is doing. She's not watching the polls from one day to the next. She is concentrating on her grassroots organizations. And she still is generating a LOT of enthusiasm.

Remember that enthusiasm and organization were the keys to winning the most recent elections!

She's clarified her position on M4A because other candidates took her to task at the Oct debate, especially wrt her funding proposals, which - unbeknownst to them - she had already been preparing and circulating among economic experts since last August. Those candidates got what they asked for.

The great hullaballoo with which her more detailed funding proposals were received caused some shock at first. But more and more economists and financiers are seeing the sense in her financial proposals, which are less scary than they are reasonable, workable and LONG overdue.

Then she recently also showed how she proposes to implement M4A, which is NOT in one fell swoop - if it EVER was - but in phases. This is in line with what Harry Reid has said all along that she would do.

But OH, the "outrage" because what she proposes might actually work!

She's damned when she does and damned when she doesn't. Nevertheless, she persists.

And I will persist right along with her.

[apnu]

24. I think Liz problem is the same as all the progressives... too many choices.

Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive wing, and there's a few other choices in that area. This leaves room for Biden to attract all the rank-and-file Democrats and all moderates. He has no real competition for this sector of the Democratic tent. I though Harris would have possessed more staying power, but she's struggled to get noticed in this huge field.

We are many months away from the primaries, where we'll find out what's really going on. That's when we'll find out how split the progressive wing is and if I'm right or wrong.