America's new power couple: Mitch and Joe

[Shalcker]

Why don’t the same rules apply to you, as they do to the people you respond to? Why are you capable of having both criticism that is legitimate and criticism you disagree with, but others can’t?

They can, stance on any criticism is obviously personal.

People who go from "i don't see it as a problem/important" to personal attacks on those who see things differently are wrong though.

[Omega10]

Having something as the only choice doesn't necessarily mean refusing to acknowledge specific ways in which this choice is lacking - especially past the point where that choice already won and thus you're stuck with it, flaws and all, for four more years.

I am quite aware of who Biden is. I am also aware of the political situation in the United States.

This thread has made me a lot more comfortable in Biden being President. Theo's threads combined with the political reality of the US (Trump REALLY DID get a record turn out for republicans) has convinced me completely that Biden is the best choice moving forward.

If we had a decent political environment, I would be a lot more willing to discuss the flaws of Biden. But we don't. Not even close.

And Theo's I hate liberals with a passion cartoon doesn't do a lot to make me want to have nuanced discussions about what Biden's flaws are. Yeah our blue wave was partially negated by Trump's red wave. So how does this effect America? Trump and his supporters are destroying faith in the US electoral process, more virus plagues the US, economic projections are worse due to lower stimulus bills, and Theo is hating liberals for being unhappy about these developments. Are we supposed to cheer for these developments?

[Felya]

They can, stance on any criticism is obviously personal.

Obviously, or from your perspective?

People who go from "i don't see it as a problem/important" to personal attacks on those who see things differently are wrong though.

That’s besides the point... stop it... pooping in lunch boxes of people you disagree with is also wrong.

[Shalcker]

Obviously, or from your perspective?

From my perspective it is obvious.

Where exactly do you disagree?

[Draco-Onis]

You still can't seem to prove anything about the Trump Supporter bit unless "You weren't in the perpetual outrage meltdown we had for the last four years", I get that for you this is kind of a fandom thing, but maybe calm down and actually join reality.

It's funny the only part of that you want to go against is being a Trump supporter, I honestly don't care as to the topic at hand my point remains there's literally nothing you can say about Biden that can be worse than Trump. We had Neo Nazis and white supremacists like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka dictating policy, the bar is pretty darn low.

[Theodarzna]

This comes from comments made by Democrats in 2010 when it was being passed. They couldn't get Medicare for all thru congress, they couldn't even get a public option thru congress, the ACA was seen as the closest we could get given political realities at the time.

Funny story, so was Medicare. Medicare at the time was supposed to be the incremental step to Universal Health Care. Heck they even had a whole ceremony of Truman getting the first Medicare card because Truman first pushed for Universal Health Care in the 1940s. So, gosh, this incremental plan is really not seemingly working. Since we basically started over from scratch and it all is contingent on someday, in the next 15 years getting a Public Option that isn't a means tested clone of Medicare.

A Public Option wouldn't be means tested, it would mean you can buy Medicare on the ACA marketplace. If you are over 65, you don't have to buy it, you just get it for free. If you are in poverty, you get Medicaid, which provides essentially the same coverages with a different billing structure in the back end.

Further, a public option would set a price and services floor. No insurer could offer less services at the same price and stay in business, because private insurers need to turn a profit. No insurer could offer the same services at a higher price, because nobody would buy it. This sets the baseline for what it should cost and what you get for your money, while building the Medicare risk pool, and driving down costs even further the more people that buy in.

I agree it's a hot mess currently. I agree that we need something like Medicare for all (with no co pays) or the NHS to actually solve the problem.

I also don't see how you sell that to an electorate that by and large has adequate employer provided health insurance you would necessarily take away. They wouldn't get a raise, because what they pay in premiums now would essentially be taken as taxes to pay for the new system. They would see a reduction in out of pocket costs, but that never seems to sway people, because people are predisposed to believe "well I'm healthy now, why should I worry about healthcare costs later? I probably won't get sick anyway".

The alternative to the ACA, right now, is to have no protections for pre-existing conditions whatsoever, the ability for your insurer to drop you at any time for any reason, no controls for costs, no controls for what a plan actually covers, and still having to pay out of pocket for preventative care up to the deductible.

The choice, RIGHT NOW, isn't ACA vs M4A. It's ACA vs zero regulation. I'd take M4A over ACA in a heartbeat, but I'll absolutely take ACA over literally nothing.

The ACA can be protected, but lets not make up fanfictions that its going to lead to M4A, nor will I care for it as if it was. What Americans need is a sailing ship to cross the ocean, and what Obama handed them is a plastic fisher price sail boat toy. I won't act as if the two are the same thing.

I've seen nothing that suggests a "Public Option" is going to be Medicare anyone can sign up for. Most language suggesting it will come with a pricing structure, I.E. its not free at point of service, or its like Medical here in California, its only if you are dirt poor I.E. its means tested. All language around Obama's public option suggests means testing. A thing offered to people who can't pay premiums. That is again an unlikely to work program and seems like just reinventing the wheel when medicare is already in existence. I.E. the Public Option was touted as a way to control costs and a place to park people too poor, or too sick to afford the premiums of the private plans. So Again, all language points to means testing. OR worse the Public Option is essentially Pete Buttigieg's plan of Medicare that you pay premiums for, so NOT free at the point of service. Plus the power of lobbying by allowing these businesses to persist means you will always have large and wealthy interests lobbying to destroy it.

As for how you sell it to the electorate? Well, the parts about Health Care they don't like are the market bits, and given we are in a great depression where vast swathes of people will never afford to buy a plan on the market place, OR if you live in California, soon to be a 1099 gig economy slave with nothing, well, the ACA is about pointless. Plus Universal Health Care remains wildly popular across party lines, it just isn't among the largely Libertarian minded people who occupy positions of power.

[Sunseeker]

If the country didn't pass Austerity measures back when they were the new big thing in saving failing countries, they're certainly not going to do it now especially after we've seen just how terribly Austerity worked out.

America likes spending money. Americans like spending money.

Yes I suspect Democrats will ultimately compromise on their goals with Republicans. But it will be the status-quo sort of compromise, not the big nation-altering compromise.

[Antiganon]

Funny story, so was Medicare. Medicare at the time was supposed to be the incremental step to Universal Health Care. Heck they even had a whole ceremony of Truman getting the first Medicare card because Truman first pushed for Universal Health Care in the 1940s. So, gosh, this incremental plan is really not seemingly working. Since we basically started over from scratch and it all is contingent on someday, in the next 15 years getting a Public Option that isn't a means tested clone of Medicare.



The ACA can be protected, but lets not make up fanfictions that its going to lead to M4A, nor will I care for it as if it was. What Americans need is a sailing ship to cross the ocean, and what Obama handed them is a plastic fisher price sail boat toy. I won't act as if the two are the same thing.

I've seen nothing that suggests a "Public Option" is going to be Medicare anyone can sign up for. Most language suggesting it will come with a pricing structure, I.E. its not free at point of service, or its like Medical here in California, its only if you are dirt poor I.E. its means tested. All language around Obama's public option suggests means testing. A thing offered to people who can't pay premiums. That is again an unlikely to work program and seems like just reinventing the wheel when medicare is already in existence. I.E. the Public Option was touted as a way to control costs and a place to park people too poor, or too sick to afford the premiums of the private plans. So Again, all language points to means testing. OR worse the Public Option is essentially Pete Buttigieg's plan of Medicare that you pay premiums for, so NOT free at the point of service. Plus the power of lobbying by allowing these businesses to persist means you will always have large and wealthy interests lobbying to destroy it.

As for how you sell it to the electorate? Well, the parts about Health Care they don't like are the market bits, and given we are in a great depression where vast swathes of people will never afford to buy a plan on the market place, OR if you live in California, soon to be a 1099 gig economy slave with nothing, well, the ACA is about pointless. Plus Universal Health Care remains wildly popular across party lines, it just isn't among the largely Libertarian minded people who occupy positions of power.

What I've seen suggested is that the public option would be Medicare you buy and pay premiums for.

Premiums are paid in advance (typically through paycheck withholding), not payments at point of service. Co-pays and co-insurance are POS, and IIRC Medicare already had some of that even for over 65 people, hence where there is supplemental Medicare insurance and Medicare Part D.

[Theodarzna]

Then don't complain when people don't give a toss about your opinion. Surely when you point it out yourself, you can see as to why no one should care, when you don't have intentions that align with theirs.
Oh and let's not play that game of, "I am totally unbiased side observe", no one is, and no will be. It is a farce at best.

I am not saying I'm unbiased, nor complaining, mostly I find it rather amusing if a tad bit annoying that any thread on any topic inevitably gets changed to a personal fun inquisition where I get to reveal for the fifty thousandth time how childish people act. As for intentions? What do intentions have to do with literally anything? Intention really doesn't matter here, what would intent be in this context? You mentioned it earlier but I still wonder what the relevance is? Like intention? What exactly could I be trying to do? Like, if I make a pro-Minimum Wage thread what do you imagine my intention is, or what do you imagine that intention could possibly be and what is it supposed to do? This reminds me of a discussion I had where one person, fishing desperately for what the "Trick" was suggested I must be trying to red-pill people into an obscure dead legal theory from the late 18th century that I learned about only on that day because I had to google what this guy was on about. If by intent you mean "Theo makes these threads to make us doubt the Democratic Party!" well, Yeah, I'm pointing out why the Democrats aren't friends of these issues. Like what, am I supposed to not point out that Biden said he'd veto Medicare for All if it came to his desk because its super important for some Liberals self image to pretend they aren't Liberals? Or is it that I've been coded as a Trump supporter by you guys, but alas I go off script and haven't accused people of being evil Socialists, and thus pre-canned responses are useless? Like if a bunch of MAGA hat guys want to help me get the troops out of Afghanistan, GREAT, welcome aboard guys! If a dude agrees to help me move my furniture around for me, but is only doing it because he wants to prove that women are too weak to move a couch, well, he moved my couch, I don't care why he did it, he moved my couch for me.

Yes it is a clique, as much as anything in life is. I am sorry, but I am just not in the mood for the whole, "I am sooooo woke and galaxy brain that I am above all that". It is tiresome, it is irrelevant unless your brain is literally misfiring, because if not, you are as much a victim to our nature as the rest of us; being able to see it in places is not some grand awakening that puts you above the rest, when it is based upon hypocrisy.

Cool, glad we established that. As for the rest of that, looks like you just whinging that I'm not super into trying to recite some shibboleths to get along with people who IMHO have painfully unoriginal thoughts. I have my own clique and friendship circle, I'm not interested in pseudo-friendship from MMO-C posters, sorry I don't know most of you. And I certainly don't want friends whose only quality is recitation of loyalty to a brand.

The fact that you are ignoring and incapable of even acknowledging what I am saying, is both somewhat humorous but equally so frustrating. You can play the act of super out there and beyond it all, but you continue to be here and spend time responding, so unless your life is that empty of other greater aspects, would indicate that there is at least parts that wants to be here for acknowledgement.

And I never said that you had to sacrifice your first born, and be on a constant Trump rail. But being silent, about topics that you supposedly care deeply about, until you can throw it on a Democrat or liberals, is, and I will spell this out. Not. The. Behaviour. Off. Someone. That. Cares. Deeply. - It is the behaviour of someone that tries to get people to only hate them for it, while the opposition that is even worse at it, goes scot free. Please for the love of all that is holy, at least acknowledge that fact, because I don't care about this whole defense of it and how that isn't the case, I believe that, but I want you to say that you actually understand what it means and how it has an effect. You can be beyond it and whatever, but I just want you to acknowledge it.

I have acknowledged what you say, several times now. I have just pointed out that you basically agree with me. That the reaction is purely fandom and cliquish and not born of any reality but merely that I talk about other things and people cannot help but spill their spaghetti because to them any criticism of the brand, of the fandom must be a personal attack. The fact that you people consider as evidence that its all a trick that I don't participate in the ever present and eternal rage at the now former president, is confirmation of all that I say.

As for hate or hating an opposition? What opposition? From my standpoint both Democrats and Republicans as institutional are enemies. It isn't as if Democrats and Liberals are just some moderate version, the two are functionally hooked into the same political program of Neo-Liberalism. If by differing means, but that is there game, they debate means, not ends. As for Trump? I'm not convinced he is any worse than George W. Bush was, a man whom believed God elected him to make war on the Middle East to bring American Democracy to that region. A man whose image has been revised and rehabilitated by these same Liberals. I personally weigh the Iraq War and Afghanistan Wars as more evil than say mean tweets or being a public asshole. The only topics most on here wish to discuss is the level of which Trump may or may not being a Russian spy agent; a topic I find laughable and silly. I've explained many times why I post what I post, I post what I find interesting to talk about. What is often not discussed or not spoken. I feel like many posters here have the Trump stuff covered and did a cracker jack job for the last four years. However I'd also say that the intentions were dubious; kind of like the people who became NeoCon Warhawks over night just because it was opposition to Trump. But intentions don't really matter.

For most on this forum, I think if Trump came had come out and said "I am going to declare war on Russia and invade!" many here would then without skipping a beat shift from Adam Schiff Warhawks to peaceniks overnight again, as if nothing had ever been different.

You have already acknowledge that my point is correct, but seem to be very insistent that I accept this behavior by this clique as somehow valid or worth caring about.

I don't know any of you, why would I give a single damn about your fandom clique? And what exactly am I gaining by going through some dull boring ritual of fandom loyalty? What would I have gained if 2/3rds of my posts were some variation of "Orange Man Bad"? Uhhhhh the same dull and uninteresting takes but maybe my threads would have less problems with the same five or six people wanting the topic to be either "Orange Man Bad" or "WHY ARENT YOU TALKING ABOUT BAD ORANGE MAN HMMMMM?!!".

Yes, which is why I continue to try and tell you that you are going on about it wrongly, I want those topics, very much so. But I will have a better time trying to fix one person, than the entire forum; I only have so much time in the day.

I tried the same with Connal, he actually understood what I said, and did try to take that advice to heart, bless it, his attempts weren't particularly good.

It is disheartening, because I really do want these conversations, but when it is from people that are appear very hostile and show no indication, at all, that they have good intentions, and actually wants to have that conversation, and is not some slam at what people align with; it goes nowhere. Which, as a staunch believer, one should accommodate to some degree. A win is not a viable aim, if the only other outcome is total loss.

Which I know all of that is not fun, and no one on the internet should tell you how to act; but this is in my own interest, so I do apologies for trying to make an attempt at your behalf.

Clearly you don't, because if you join the dog pile inquisition anyway, it is the same result, so spare me your pretend intentions. Ultimately you could have summarized this with the "This is bad look chief" or "Yikes, read the room" or "I'm worried for you!?" you aren't some concerned friend of mine, I don't know you and you don't know me. So lets cut this weird charade game where you pretend to really care about something.

Just spell out what you want. More over what would I even gain by doing so? Given it didn't work for Connal, and what exactly do I win for being a good girl and making fifty threads a day about Trump and the GOP? I mean do you all need another one of those? Can't you just go read a MovieBob's twitter threads or a DNC Press release on your own? Do people really need another person reciting what they just saw on MSNBC?

And again, what is the prize I get for enacting this debased, empty, hollow, unthinking ritual of reciting magic words and phrases?

- - - Updated - - -

Very next sentence in the part i was replying to was "Theo shaming people for going with their best option at the time that's the most realistic is possibly some of the worst morality finger wagging bullshit I've ever witnessed"

Where is shaming of people in discussing and acknowledging specific flaws? People who see flaws being pointed out in their candidate as personal attack are the problem.

Shaming is a weird claim, I've not called anyone here a bad person. In fact the only one's who seem to go for morality and shaming are these same people claiming I am shaming them. Is it shaming to acknowledge Biden's politics are warmed over Reaganomics with some rainbow flags? I mean unless you were pretending he wasn't or had some vested interest in denying the obvious, its not shaming in that respect.

I never called any of these people "Deplorable" or anything. I am unsure why they conflate thinking something is incorrect, wrong, or is the same as personally calling them bad people.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny the only part of that you want to go against is being a Trump supporter, I honestly don't care as to the topic at hand my point remains there's literally nothing you can say about Biden that can be worse than Trump. We had Neo Nazis and white supremacists like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka dictating policy, the bar is pretty darn low.

It's funny, you still can't prove things you claim, but you love claiming them.

- - - Updated - - -

If the country didn't pass Austerity measures back when they were the new big thing in saving failing countries, they're certainly not going to do it now especially after we've seen just how terribly Austerity worked out.

America likes spending money. Americans like spending money.

Yes I suspect Democrats will ultimately compromise on their goals with Republicans. But it will be the status-quo sort of compromise, not the big nation-altering compromise.

We've been having austerity and cuts in spending since the 90's, in fact that is the most consistent thing in American politics.

- - - Updated - - -

What I've seen suggested is that the public option would be Medicare you buy and pay premiums for.

Premiums are paid in advance (typically through paycheck withholding), not payments at point of service. Co-pays and co-insurance are POS, and IIRC Medicare already had some of that even for over 65 people, hence where there is supplemental Medicare insurance and Medicare Part D.

So, the Public Option isn't even a Medicare clone, its actually worse than that. So you've created another bill to cut into their paycheck, a program that will only be as good as its funded, and based on the rhetoric and Obama's own proposal at the time, means tested for those too sick for regular private insurance or too poor, but still might have to have some form of income because paying for it comes out of the paycheck. So, the stepping stone to Universal Health Care is creating a WORSE version of Medicare, instead of just building on Medicare.

That is what is weird here. You keep harping on the ACA as the stepping stone, despite Medicare already existing. And there being no indication that its some bridge to Universal Health Care given all the parts that are unpopular are the parts that resemble markets.

[Blur4stuff]

I can't take any conservative seriously on healthcare until they produce a better alternative to either a public option or M4A. You've had over ten years to do it. Simply arguing against the option/M4A isn't going to cut it.

We know for a fact these more progressive healthcare systems work because dozens of other countries have been using them for decades. They are doing significantly better than the US. This is a fact.

So until conservatives create a better system than what many other countries already have they should cooperate and help improve a potential option/M4A plan or be quiet.

[Felya]

I can't take any conservative seriously on healthcare until they produce a better alternative to either a public option or M4A. You've had over ten years to do it. Simply arguing against the option/M4A isn't going to cut it.

We know for a fact these more progressive healthcare systems work because dozens of other countries have been using them for decades. They are doing significantly better than the US. This is a fact.

So until conservatives create a better system than what many other countries already have they should cooperate and help improve a potential option/M4A plan or be quiet.

They had almost 30... Hillarycare predates cries for M4A... it’s what put her on the conservative shit list.

[Theodarzna]

I can't take any conservative seriously on healthcare until they produce a better alternative to either a public option or M4A. You've had over ten years to do it. Simply arguing against the option/M4A isn't going to cut it.

We know for a fact these more progressive healthcare systems work because dozens of other countries have been using them for decades. They are doing significantly better than the US. This is a fact.

So until conservatives create a better system than what many other countries already have they should cooperate and help improve a potential option/M4A plan or be quiet.

M4A is the only good choice, America needs a National Health Service. UK Has it, and even got it up and running without computers and after the country was left in ruins.

Also the Public Option isn't the same as M4A, conflating the two is muddying the waters and mystifying the plans. The two aren't even the same species in terms of programs.

[Sunseeker]

We've been having austerity and cuts in spending since the 90's, in fact that is the most consistent thing in American politics.

If you're going to argue that "any cut ever is Austerity" then you completely devalue the definition of Austerity, and frankly, don't leave anything to actually discuss.

"have things been cut?" yes.
"have things had increases in spending?" also yes.

But because there were cuts we therefore had austerity?

That's not how austerity works.

[Theodarzna]

If you're going to argue that "any cut ever is Austerity" then you completely devalue the definition of Austerity, and frankly, don't leave anything to actually discuss.

"have things been cut?" yes.
"have things had increases in spending?" also yes.

But because there were cuts we therefore had austerity?

That's not how austerity works.

Who is the decider on what gets called austerity?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, for an update, here is Rahm Emanuel saying that what Joe needs to do is tell all the newly unemployed to "Learn to Code". We get what is likely the preview of the Dems response to the Depression.

[Antiganon]

So, the Public Option isn't even a Medicare clone, its actually worse than that. So you've created another bill to cut into their paycheck, a program that will only be as good as its funded, and based on the rhetoric and Obama's own proposal at the time, means tested for those too sick for regular private insurance or too poor, but still might have to have some form of income because paying for it comes out of the paycheck. So, the stepping stone to Universal Health Care is creating a WORSE version of Medicare, instead of just building on Medicare.

That is what is weird here. You keep harping on the ACA as the stepping stone, despite Medicare already existing. And there being no indication that its some bridge to Universal Health Care given all the parts that are unpopular are the parts that resemble markets.

Medicare exists because the working population funds it for retirees via payroll taxes.

Medicare for all would work by eliminating private insurance and adding the employer provided insurance premiums that people already pay into that payroll tax pool.

A public option (which is a necessary intermediate step to get Republican buy-in to the program, though there is no actual reason we can't just go right to M4A in a practical sense) would have to be funded somehow, and that is by people paying premiums, like any other insurance.

Medicare buy-in provides for:
1. Massive risk pool, resulting in comparatively low premiums.
2. Significantly lower overhead than most private insurance due to less administrative staff and simpler plans.
3. Good coverage when compared with existing marketplace plans, and many employer plans.
4. Essentially a profit cap on private insurers, as they can't reasonably charge more than Medicare premiums unless they are offering more services.
5. Extremely low deductibles, $200 for Medicare Part B in 2020. Contrast with my wife's employer provided plans, where the "low deductible" option is $3000.
6. Provided Congress can pass a law allowing for Medicare to negotiate on prescription drug pricing, vastly cheaper prescriptions for people due to Medicare Part D. This would further drive down prescription costs even for non-Medicare people via market pressures for private insurers to negotiate better deals in order to compete with the public option on price.

The ACA is the health care floor. It sets minimum coverage standards, provides for free preventative care, and prevents insurers from dropping, refusing to insure, or charging a higher rate due to a preexisting condition (which are massively common - any woman who has ever been pregnant for any length of time, anyone who has ever had surgery, anyone who has had a disease with potential long term effects like pneumonia or COVID, etc).

The public option is the next step. It sets a floor for "this is the minimum value the market can provide". Any private insurer offering plans with less value for money over the public option would very quickly have no customers, and would go out of business.

Then once the public is more amenable to wide scale public health insurance, you drop the requirements for large employers to offer health insurance, raise payroll taxes, eliminate the public option premiums, and you have universal healthcare. The private insurance industry would die out due to market pressure at this point, aside from offering supplemental coverage for things like cosmetic/elective procedures.

I would be perfectly fine with passing Medicare for All on 1/21. I would also be fine with nationalizing all the hospitals and passing a USHS mirrored on the UK's NHS on 1/21. Neither is likely to happen, and in the meantime, I'll take what I can get.

[Theodarzna]

I am quite aware of who Biden is. I am also aware of the political situation in the United States.

This thread has made me a lot more comfortable in Biden being President. Theo's threads combined with the political reality of the US (Trump REALLY DID get a record turn out for republicans) has convinced me completely that Biden is the best choice moving forward.

If we had a decent political environment, I would be a lot more willing to discuss the flaws of Biden. But we don't. Not even close.

And Theo's I hate liberals with a passion cartoon doesn't do a lot to make me want to have nuanced discussions about what Biden's flaws are. Yeah our blue wave was partially negated by Trump's red wave. So how does this effect America? Trump and his supporters are destroying faith in the US electoral process, more virus plagues the US, economic projections are worse due to lower stimulus bills, and Theo is hating liberals for being unhappy about these developments. Are we supposed to cheer for these developments?

I am curious where you get that bit.

[Sunseeker]

Who is the decider on what gets called austerity?

For starters, not you, and not the op-eds you read.

[Felya]

I am curious where you get that bit.

It’s blatantly obvious... You literally started a thread claiming that Newsome is using covid as a back door for big tech.

Right now, you posted this:

M4A is the only good choice, America needs a National Health Service. UK Has it, and even got it up and running without computers and after the country was left in ruins.

Also the Public Option isn't the same as M4A, conflating the two is muddying the waters and mystifying the plans. The two aren't even the same species in terms of programs.

You do understand how the above is giving up your game? No?

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/int...ntries/england

Role of private health insurance: In 2015, an estimated 10.5 percent of the U.K. population had private voluntary health insurance, with nearly 4 million policies held at the beginning of 2015. In 2016, voluntary private health insurance accounted for 3.3 percent of total health expenditures.

Some private insurance is offered by employers, but individuals can also purchase policies. Private insurance offers more rapid access to care, choice of specialists, and better amenities, especially for elective hospital procedures; however, most policies exclude mental health, maternity services, emergency care, and general practice. According to a 2014 investigation, four insurers account for 87.5 percent of the private insurance market, with small companies making up the rest.

What should happen to private insurance?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ate-insurance/

Bernie’s version of medicare for all, would essentially get rid off private insurance.

[Draco-Onis]

It's funny, you still can't prove things you claim, but you love claiming them.

Again don't care but it seems to be the only thing you want to talk about not about the fact that literal Neo Nazis and white supremacists were dictating policy under Trump. There's nothing you can say Biden would do that Trump wouldn't have done worse, this is the guy that spent 4 years defending monsters all over the world.

[Brubear]

Which would those be? Biden opposes and has stated as such, that he opposes most of the popular legislation.

....I gave you 3 examples in my post, all of which Biden hasn't shown opposition to.