Jump to content
270soft Forum

"Too far left"


Recommended Posts

Obama, Patrick, Hickenlooper, Biden, and others are warning the part not to "too far left.

"What is your definition of "too far left?"

Also, for balance, what is your definition of "too far right?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Obama, Patrick, Hickenlooper, Biden, and others are warning the part not to "too far left.

"What is your definition of "too far left?"

Also, for balance, what is your definition of "too far right?"

I'll confess I have a hard time determining what is too far left for me. I think any move left or right that is too authoritarian is "too" anything for me. As such, I'd prefer Ron Paul Libertarianism to Soviet/Chinese/North Korean-style Communism, despite greatly disliking Ron Paul Libertarianism. 

I think my left-wing sweet spot is Scandinavian style Social Democracy. 

I think too much left-wing populism might be too much, since at its extreme, it might ignore experts, research, etc., just as too much right-wing populism does. 

As far as "too far right," I think any military adventurism is "too far right." I think anywhere right of center on social policy is "too far right." I'm fiscally tolerant, so I'd say center-right on economics is fine and at times necessary. As I've said before, Marco Rubio is my line of tolerance for Republican politicians. Anyone right of him is a danger to the country and to the planet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Anyone right of him is a danger to the country and to the planet. 

Touche but left of Buttigieg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 5:16 AM, vcczar said:

Obama, Patrick, Hickenlooper, Biden, and others are warning the part not to "too far left.

"What is your definition of "too far left?"

Also, for balance, what is your definition of "too far right?"

For me : Too far left is someone who wants to impose a very high level of taxation (from 45% to 75%) and which hasn't been broadly agreed or impose the state against decentralized entities

Too far right is someone who want to make his/her believes => laws.

Also who want to cut any immigration to 0 or 10 000 (for example for France).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 9:16 PM, vcczar said:

Obama, Patrick, Hickenlooper, Biden, and others are warning the part not to "too far left.

"What is your definition of "too far left?"

Also, for balance, what is your definition of "too far right?"

The fact that we're still talking about "too far left," and "too far right," shows just how much the socio-political dialogue, and understanding of the issues and problems at stake by most voters, has so greatly deteriorated and been grossly over-simplified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of this boils down to criticism of the Medicare-For-All plans proposed by Sanders and Warren (and Harris, when she isn't taking every side of the issue), and the sweeping changes needed to implement such an idea. 

Even Warren is now starting to walk back her M4A promises, splitting her one bill into two, as I predicted she would.  The idea of abolishing the private insurance industry with the stroke of a pen is not going to sell in middle America, I'm sorry to say.  It's a losing issue.  The public just isn't for it, the polling has shown this to be the case.  It would be extremely difficult to implement, it would put lots of people in the insurance industry out of work (I'm talking rank-and-file people, not executives), and the Supreme Court would likely strike it down as unconstitutional anyway. 

Remember, Obamacare's mandate only survived the Supreme Court by 1 vote in 2012 - Justice Roberts.  And the court has only become more right-wing since then.  Even before then, the courts have not always sided in favor of nationalizing whole industries.  Usually, in the past, nationalizing industries & companies here in the US was most successful when it was either 1) temporary, 2) during wartime and related to the war effort, and/or 3) taking over firms that had become insolvent.  M4A doesn't pass any of those tests, and I think it's likely to be struck down by the courts, even if it gets through Congress and is signed into law by the President.

A little bit of background about me, at past jobs I have received some pretty generous employer-provided health care plans, which helped me at a time when I needed it.  If a politician had told me, at the time, that they were going to eliminate my excellent coverage and replace it with Medicare, with vague promises that Medicare would be improved - I'd have told them to go pound sand.  And I didn't have a family to worry about - just my girlfriend, who had her own health care plan anyway.  Many of my colleagues did have spouses and/or children, and would probably be even less enthusiastic about having their coverage taken away.  Suffice to say, public health care is needed for a lot of people in this country, but it's not going to work for everyone's situation.

Warren is still my #1 choice in the primary, but when it comes to healthcare, I'm closer to Pete Buttigieg's "Medicare for all who want it" approach.  Medicare as a robust public option, in my view, will get lots of people to sign up for it, and the private insurance companies will have to start playing ball if they want to stay in business. 

The countries we look at as a model for how the US can improve its health care system (Canada, the UK, and Australia, to cite three prominent examples) all still have private insurance available for various reasons - I think it's a bit much to take the position that we can completely eliminate the private health insurance industry here in the US, when even those countries haven't done so.

9 times out of 10, I'd say this country keeps lurching further and further to the far-right, often against the wishes of the people, and that's severely problematic.  I also have a long memory, and have vivid memories of the DLC/Third Way/Clinton machine politicians ceding every single argument to the right-wingers in the 90s and early 2000s, and they were wrong to do so.  I will likely be voting for Warren or Buttigieg in my state's primary precisely because I have a lot of issues with Joe Biden's record, attitude and Third Way approach.  I see a lot of young voters staying home again if Biden is the nominee, because he belittles younger voters and gives them many reasons not to support his candidacy.

But everything I'm reading about Medicare-For-All tells me this is not the hill we want to die on in 2020.  The evidence before me says this approach is radioactive and may even cost Democrats the election.  In general terms, I would normally disagree with the Obama/Pelosi/etc. statements - as the evidence also shows there are very few true "moderates" in this country - but I think these people are trying to tell us "back away from M4A, it's a losing issue" without explicitly saying so.  And in that very narrow sense, I'm forced to agree.  I think Elizabeth Warren is reading the same tea leaves I am, which is why she's starting to get wobbly on the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, darkmoon72 said:

I think most of this boils down to criticism of the Medicare-For-All plans proposed by Sanders and Warren (and Harris, when she isn't taking every side of the issue), and the sweeping changes needed to implement such an idea. 

Even Warren is now starting to walk back her M4A promises, splitting her one bill into two, as I predicted she would.  The idea of abolishing the private insurance industry with the stroke of a pen is not going to sell in middle America, I'm sorry to say.  It's a losing issue.  The public just isn't for it, the polling has shown this to be the case.  It would be extremely difficult to implement, it would put lots of people in the insurance industry out of work (I'm talking rank-and-file people, not executives), and the Supreme Court would likely strike it down as unconstitutional anyway. 

Remember, Obamacare's mandate only survived the Supreme Court by 1 vote in 2012 - Justice Roberts.  And the court has only become more right-wing since then.  Even before then, the courts have not always sided in favor of nationalizing whole industries.  Usually, in the past, nationalizing industries & companies here in the US was most successful when it was either 1) temporary, 2) during wartime and related to the war effort, and/or 3) taking over firms that had become insolvent.  M4A doesn't pass any of those tests, and I think it's likely to be struck down by the courts, even if it gets through Congress and is signed into law by the President.

A little bit of background about me, at past jobs I have received some pretty generous employer-provided health care plans, which helped me at a time when I needed it.  If a politician had told me, at the time, that they were going to eliminate my excellent coverage and replace it with Medicare, with vague promises that Medicare would be improved - I'd have told them to go pound sand.  And I didn't have a family to worry about - just my girlfriend, who had her own health care plan anyway.  Many of my colleagues did have spouses and/or children, and would probably be even less enthusiastic about having their coverage taken away.  Suffice to say, public health care is needed for a lot of people in this country, but it's not going to work for everyone's situation.

Warren is still my #1 choice in the primary, but when it comes to healthcare, I'm closer to Pete Buttigieg's "Medicare for all who want it" approach.  Medicare as a robust public option, in my view, will get lots of people to sign up for it, and the private insurance companies will have to start playing ball if they want to stay in business. 

The countries we look at as a model for how the US can improve its health care system (Canada, the UK, and Australia, to cite three prominent examples) all still have private insurance available for various reasons - I think it's a bit much to take the position that we can completely eliminate the private health insurance industry here in the US, when even those countries haven't done so.

9 times out of 10, I'd say this country keeps lurching further and further to the far-right, often against the wishes of the people, and that's severely problematic.  I also have a long memory, and have vivid memories of the DLC/Third Way/Clinton machine politicians ceding every single argument to the right-wingers in the 90s and early 2000s, and they were wrong to do so.  I will likely be voting for Warren or Buttigieg in my state's primary precisely because I have a lot of issues with Joe Biden's record, attitude and Third Way approach.  I see a lot of young voters staying home again if Biden is the nominee, because he belittles younger voters and gives them many reasons not to support his candidacy.

But everything I'm reading about Medicare-For-All tells me this is not the hill we want to die on in 2020.  The evidence before me says this approach is radioactive and may even cost Democrats the election.  In general terms, I would normally disagree with the Obama/Pelosi/etc. statements - as the evidence also shows there are very few true "moderates" in this country - but I think these people are trying to tell us "back away from M4A, it's a losing issue" without explicitly saying so.  And in that very narrow sense, I'm forced to agree.  I think Elizabeth Warren is reading the same tea leaves I am, which is why she's starting to get wobbly on the issue.

It is very unfortunate and sad that the wealthiest nation in the world has the most piss-poor medical coverage and de facto availability for the common citizen in the First World. But, the corrupt plutocrats who the U.S. Government kowtows to, and whom are ones who truly benefit from most of these heartless, elitist, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-regulation, Hammurabi's Code-style preferential laws for the rich over the poor policies have somehow hoodwinked so many common, everyday Americans to staunchly and firmly back laws and policies that barely serve themselves, but instead serve these vile, soulless plutocrats. A disgusting display of the power of Mammon destroying the utter integrity of a society. But, how many people truly feel "free" when they're broke and homeless because of corporate layoffs to save big companies' overhead costs and dying in the streets because they can't afford exhorbatent insurance costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the question from the OP, I'll try to be more concise.  What constitutes "too far left" or "too far right" for me, in the most general sense, is anything that undermines human rights, workers' rights and/or democracy itself.  I part company with people if they ever give me the sense that they think any of these three concepts are optional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

It is very unfortunate and sad that the wealthiest nation in the world has the most piss-poor medical coverage and de facto availability for the common citizen in the First World. But, the corrupt plutocrats who the U.S. Government kowtows to, and whom are ones who truly benefit from most of these heartless, elitist, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-regulation, Hammurabi's Code-style preferential laws for the rich over the poor policies have somehow hoodwinked so many common, everyday Americans to staunchly and firmly back laws and policies that barely serve themselves, but instead serve these vile, soulless plutocrats. A disgusting display of the power of Mammon destroying the utter integrity of a society. But, how many people truly feel "free" when they're broke and homeless because of corporate layoffs to save big companies' overhead costs and dying in the streets because they can't afford exhorbatent insurance costs?

While I mostly agree with your adjective-saturated reply, this doesn't really address the substance of my post - that completely eliminating private insurance in the United States is a non-starter, and is in fact more extreme than what other democratic countries with better health care systems are doing, like, say, Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, darkmoon72 said:

While I mostly agree with your adjective-saturated reply, this doesn't really address the substance of my post - that completely eliminating private insurance in the United States is a non-starter, and is in fact more extreme than what other democratic countries with better health care systems are doing, like, say, Canada.

To distill my point, the ultra-wealthy have a greater vested interest in keeping the private insurance system afloat than the average American - health costs are inconsequential at their high income bracket, and they don't want more taxes. They've convinced, though manipulated statistics, false numbers, bogus "experts," outright lies, and waving the Ghost of McCarthy around like a Halloween prop, a very large amount of Americans to believe that if healthcare were nationalized, the economy would collapse, catchphrases like "death panels," would become reality, and other bizarre non-truths, to get this majority to support a policy that is certainly in the benefit of the ultra-rich, but not nearly as much so for this hoodwinked majority as they're led to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

To distill my point, the ultra-wealthy have a greater vested in keeping that system afloat than the average American - health costs are inconsequential at their high income bracket, and they don't want more taxes. They've convinced, though manipulated statistics, false numbers, bogus "experts," outright lies, and waving the Ghost of McCarthy around like a Halloween prop, a very large amount of Americans to believe that if healthcare were nationalized, the economy would collapse, catchphrases like "death panels," would become reality, and other bizarre non-truths, to get this majority to support a policy that is certainly in the benefit of the ultra-rich, but not nearly as much so for this hoodwinked majority as they're led to believe.

I do agree with this.  I often tell people that for every good idea, there's a powerful group lobbying against it, especially in the US.  And at the end of the day, if we are ever able to seriously fix health care, it may be that Medicare does, in fact, cover a majority of the US population, perhaps even a vast majority. 

There is still a place for private insurance in the countries I mentioned above, and I think when all is said and done, private insurance will still be here as an option, even if it takes a different form or covers different things than it does now.  I guess if I had to put it in the context of the OP, I don't see the US becoming more left-wing than Canada on the issue of health care any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, darkmoon72 said:

I think most of this boils down to criticism of the Medicare-For-All plans proposed by Sanders and Warren (and Harris, when she isn't taking every side of the issue), and the sweeping changes needed to implement such an idea. 

Even Warren is now starting to walk back her M4A promises, splitting her one bill into two, as I predicted she would.  The idea of abolishing the private insurance industry with the stroke of a pen is not going to sell in middle America, I'm sorry to say.  It's a losing issue.  The public just isn't for it, the polling has shown this to be the case.  It would be extremely difficult to implement, it would put lots of people in the insurance industry out of work (I'm talking rank-and-file people, not executives), and the Supreme Court would likely strike it down as unconstitutional anyway. 

Remember, Obamacare's mandate only survived the Supreme Court by 1 vote in 2012 - Justice Roberts.  And the court has only become more right-wing since then.  Even before then, the courts have not always sided in favor of nationalizing whole industries.  Usually, in the past, nationalizing industries & companies here in the US was most successful when it was either 1) temporary, 2) during wartime and related to the war effort, and/or 3) taking over firms that had become insolvent.  M4A doesn't pass any of those tests, and I think it's likely to be struck down by the courts, even if it gets through Congress and is signed into law by the President.

A little bit of background about me, at past jobs I have received some pretty generous employer-provided health care plans, which helped me at a time when I needed it.  If a politician had told me, at the time, that they were going to eliminate my excellent coverage and replace it with Medicare, with vague promises that Medicare would be improved - I'd have told them to go pound sand.  And I didn't have a family to worry about - just my girlfriend, who had her own health care plan anyway.  Many of my colleagues did have spouses and/or children, and would probably be even less enthusiastic about having their coverage taken away.  Suffice to say, public health care is needed for a lot of people in this country, but it's not going to work for everyone's situation.

Warren is still my #1 choice in the primary, but when it comes to healthcare, I'm closer to Pete Buttigieg's "Medicare for all who want it" approach.  Medicare as a robust public option, in my view, will get lots of people to sign up for it, and the private insurance companies will have to start playing ball if they want to stay in business. 

The countries we look at as a model for how the US can improve its health care system (Canada, the UK, and Australia, to cite three prominent examples) all still have private insurance available for various reasons - I think it's a bit much to take the position that we can completely eliminate the private health insurance industry here in the US, when even those countries haven't done so.

9 times out of 10, I'd say this country keeps lurching further and further to the far-right, often against the wishes of the people, and that's severely problematic.  I also have a long memory, and have vivid memories of the DLC/Third Way/Clinton machine politicians ceding every single argument to the right-wingers in the 90s and early 2000s, and they were wrong to do so.  I will likely be voting for Warren or Buttigieg in my state's primary precisely because I have a lot of issues with Joe Biden's record, attitude and Third Way approach.  I see a lot of young voters staying home again if Biden is the nominee, because he belittles younger voters and gives them many reasons not to support his candidacy.

But everything I'm reading about Medicare-For-All tells me this is not the hill we want to die on in 2020.  The evidence before me says this approach is radioactive and may even cost Democrats the election.  In general terms, I would normally disagree with the Obama/Pelosi/etc. statements - as the evidence also shows there are very few true "moderates" in this country - but I think these people are trying to tell us "back away from M4A, it's a losing issue" without explicitly saying so.  And in that very narrow sense, I'm forced to agree.  I think Elizabeth Warren is reading the same tea leaves I am, which is why she's starting to get wobbly on the issue.

Excellent response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 7:45 AM, Actinguy said:

The countries we look at as a model for how the US can improve its health care system (Canada, the UK, and Australia, to cite three prominent examples) all still have private insurance available for various reasons

Care to tell me where I can get private health care insurance here in Canada that is a competitor the public health insurance? I'm not aware of any such thing.

There is 'extended' health insurance, for dental, drug, and vision. There's also private health insurance that can cover Naturopathic Doctors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Care to tell me where I can get private health care insurance here in Canada that is a competitor the public health insurance? I'm not aware of any such thing.

There is 'extended' health insurance, for dental, drug, and vision. There's also private health insurance that can cover Naturopathic Doctors.

Unless he means those shady, unregistered, and highly dubious "insurance" plans you pay like a king for to skip all the waiting lines - the ones where they fly you out to a Caribbean resort instead, and you just don't ask where they got the pharmaceuticals and donated organs, or the doctor's current standing in any college of surgeons and physicians. But I think those "insurance plans" are available in the U.S., too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Care to tell me where I can get private health care insurance here in Canada that is a competitor the public health insurance? I'm not aware of any such thing.

There is 'extended' health insurance, for dental, drug, and vision. There's also private health insurance that can cover Naturopathic Doctors.

Wait, why am I being quoted there?  That was Darkmoon, not me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

and you just don't ask where they got the pharmaceuticals and donated organs, or the doctor's current standing in any college of surgeons and physicians. But I think those "insurance plans" are available in the U.S., too.

☹️

Ya, the main 'private insurance' here is to fly to another country (mainly the U.S. and Mexico, I guess) to get certain procedures done because of unreasonably long wait times (for example, hip replacement that takes months to get in Canada).

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Care to tell me where I can get private health care insurance here in Canada that is a competitor the public health insurance? I'm not aware of any such thing.

There is 'extended' health insurance, for dental, drug, and vision. There's also private health insurance that can cover Naturopathic Doctors.

The 'extended' insurance is more or less what I was talking about.  I was trying to point out, in general terms, that the countries I mentioned have additional options available that you can pay for beyond what the public health insurance covers.  It's my understanding these 'extended' plans in Canada are the product of private insurance companies and not the government.  I suppose I ran the risk of overgeneralizing, since I didn't want to take the time to write in detail about each country's health care situation, preferring to focus on my main point.

Since I don't see the US completely eradicating its private health insurance industry any time soon, I see it as most likely taking a different shape, if we do, in fact, ever end up with a more progressive health insurance plan going through here.  Which is why, among other reasons, I prefer "Medicare for all who want it" to outright "Medicare For All".

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, darkmoon72 said:

The 'extended' insurance is more or less what I was talking about.  I was trying to point out, in general terms, that the countries I mentioned have additional options available that you can pay for beyond what the public health insurance covers.  It's my understanding these 'extended' plans in Canada are the product of private insurance companies and not the government.  I suppose I ran the risk of overgeneralizing, since I didn't want to take the time to write in detail about each country's health care situation, preferring to focus on my main point.

Since I don't see the US completely eradicating its private health insurance industry any time soon, I see it as most likely taking a different shape, if we do, in fact, ever end up with a more progressive health insurance plan going through here.  Which is why, among other reasons, I prefer "Medicare for all who want it" to outright "Medicare For All".

I used to have a friend who had a relative back in the 1990's who worked for the board of an Ohio-based private health insurance corporation that made the decision on each claim if it was fully, partially, or not covered. This relative left this job after a while in utter disgust, calling it the most "soulless" organization she had ever been a part of - a TRUE "death panel," to use the term by critics of Obamacare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Patine said:

I used to have a friend who had a relative back in the 1990's who worked for the board of an Ohio-based private health insurance corporation that made the decision on each claim if it was fully, partially, or not covered. This relative left this job after a while in utter disgust, calling it the most "soulless" organization she had ever been a part of - a TRUE "death panel," to use the term by critics of Obamacare.

Yes, I worked in insurance, but not health insurance.  I knew people who did who had similar stories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, darkmoon72 said:

It's my understanding these 'extended' plans in Canada are the product of private insurance companies and not the government.

Yes, you're right. However, anything that's medically required is covered. For example, extended insurance covers eye exams, but eye tests deemed medically necessary will be covered by public insurance.

Some want to extend public insurance to cover more of dental, drug, and vision (some of all of these categories are already covered by public insurance), such as the NDP and Greens.

For a contrast, look at optometrists (mainly for regular eye exams) and ophthalmologists (more medically necessary testing). The first is largely private insurance (or pay out of pocket), the second public insurance. It is typically easy to get the first and you can book and see one typically right away, and you have lots of choice. The second, you are looking at waiting months and have relatively little choice in which you get.

Ideally, I think the U.S. should try to figure out how to get the best of both worlds. Everyone can get access to decent care, no one is spending vast amounts of money on medically necessary treatment, but you retain the choice, speed of delivery, and best-in-the-world talent and resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, you're right. However, anything that's medically required is covered. For example, extended insurance covers eye exams, but eye tests deemed medically necessary will be covered by public insurance.

Some want to extend public insurance to cover more of dental, drug, and vision (some or all of these categories are already covered by public insurance), such as the NDP and Greens.

For a contrast, look at optometrists (mainly for regular eye exams) and ophthalmologists (more medically necessary testing). The first is largely private insurance (or pay out of pocket), the second public insurance. It is typically easy to get the first and you can book and see one typically right away, and you have lots of choice. The second, you are looking at waiting months and have relatively little choice in which you get.

Thanks.  I admit I'm not as familiar with Canada's system as I am with my own here in the US.  It's nice to know more detailed information like this.

 

10 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ideally, I think the U.S. should try to figure out how to get the best of both worlds. Everyone can get access to decent care, no one is spending vast amounts of money on medically necessary treatment, but you retain the choice, speed of delivery, and best-in-the-world talent and resources.

I agree.  That's why I'm more on board with the public option/Medicare for all who want it approach.  And I'm not surprised Warren is backing down from MFA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it;s ridiculous that these two are even in discussion, The only two things that can be defined as Too far left is Communism, and Too Far right to be fascism. It's simple as that. When I was debating a member of the Young Republicans group at my University (I am part of the young Democrats) I asked him the simple question what is too far left that the Democrats believe in? He didn't have a straight answer, and said they are Socialist. I think it's ridiculous like @Patine said that we are still using this over simplified rhetoric. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...