Iowa Starting Line - Where’s The Beef, Bernie?

[Alfresco]

http://iowastartingline.com/2016/01/14/wheres-the-beef-bernie/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wheres-the-beef-bernie
Excerpt:
January 14th, 2016
by Pat Rynard

Your Home for Iowa Caucus and Iowa Politics News

As caucus night draws near and the polls tighten, the Hillary Clinton campaign is putting increasing pressure on Bernie Sanders to release a detailed plan on his Medicare-for-all proposal. Namely: how is he going to pay for it?

The newest battle began after Sanders himself told CNN on Tuesday night that he would release his full tax plan before the Iowa Caucus. The next day, however, his national campaign manager Jeff Weaver backed off of that commitment. Sanders’ Iowa state director, Robert Becker, told the Des Moines Register that “Bernie Sanders will put forth details for universal coverage when he is ready and not because Hillary Clinton suddenly realized she is losing.”

All that didn’t sit well with team Clinton, which quickly called the backtracking on a plan “alarming,” and suggested Sanders was withholding information so to make caucus-goers think his Medicare plan could be implemented with little to no burden on most families. It’s likely also frustrating to Clinton backers who see a double-standard at play. If Clinton, seen by many critics as too calculating in her politics, decided to not release important details of a plan that could have negative effects before an important primary vote, she would be pilloried in the media non-stop for it.

The Sanders campaign shot back that Clinton committed a “flip-flop” on healthcare, even accusing her of using “Karl Rove tactics.” However, they weren’t hitting Clinton on a policy change, instead they were pointing to a statement she made in 2008 that Democrats shouldn’t criticize each other’s healthcare plans. But Clinton was largely criticizing Sanders’ lack of a plan in this instance.

There are two criticisms here coming from the Clinton campaign when it comes to Sanders’ Medicare plan. One is on the idea of Medicare-for-all itself, which Clinton and allies are arguing would either 1) be impracticable to implement without a large new tax on middle class families or 2) would dismantle much of Obamacare, CHIP and Medicare as it currently is. That policy argument has been met with push-back from many progressives who feel Clinton is attacking the idea of singer-payer, which is still very popular in many circles.

But the broader implication in this line of critique from Clinton is that Sanders promises a lot in his speeches, but would have extreme difficulty getting them actually enacted once in office. And that Sanders hasn’t adequately explained how much his “political revolution” would be realistically implemented.

[djean111]

1. And many of us do not believe a word Hillary utters.

She is in full campaign blather/lying mode.
So there's that.

[EdwardBernays]

3. Plus

It's BS.

As the media have repeatedly pointed out (and costed) his plan is fairly well known and fairly specific. He hasn't formally released the campaign specific version, but again so what.

Hillary is allowed lie all the time, but Bernie potentially misses a deadline and watch out world he can't be trusted.

No one's buying it.

Except all the Chelseas on DU and in the media.

[firebrand80]

8. That begs the question

If it's a big "so what," why hasn't he released it? There has to be a reason.

It's really a rhetorical question, because we all know the reason for the delay, and I don't even personally have a problem with it.

The problem for Bernie supporters is that admitting the reason for delay would force them to admit that (a) St. Bernie makes political calculations, and (b) There are aspects of his plan that are very politically problematic.

[EdwardBernays]

20. You don't

Actually no the reason.

And the media is discussing his proposed Medicare for all plan, including cost and savings to consumers as if he has released a plan.

The only people that are desperate for him to release something are the Chelseas on DU that can't find anything else to attack him with.

This also won't work.

And it shows just how impotent and useless a candidate Clinton is.

[firebrand80]

23. I'm pretty certain I know the reason

It's pretty obvious

[EdwardBernays]

29. You should've used that power of yours

To win the power ball.

[firebrand80]

35. Or, I could call Bernie a liar

That the typical level of political analysis on DU. His campaign said they would release a plan before the IA caucus, now they're backing off. Thus, they lied.

However, I wouldn't do that, because these decisions aren't so black and white. Instead of just saying he lied, I look at the surrounding circumstances and try to see why they changed their minds. Once you do that, the answer becomes obvious. It has nothing to do with psychic powers, it's just basic analytical thinking.

[JonLeibowitz]

40. He stated again yesterday he would release it before Iowa.

[firebrand80]

42. I wasn't aware of that

last I read was a statement from his campaign that they may not.

I stand corrected.

[JonLeibowitz]

46. You're right of course, Jeff Weaver was playing coy the day before. I think it is some kind of strat

I admit i don't understand it....doesn't make much sense.

[firebrand80]

82. I think that since Bernie has the momentum in IA

They didn't want to risk putting out something that could end up being a distraction from the "Bernie is Rising..This is 2008 All Over Again For Hillary" narrative that is emerging. No point in shifting away from a story that's good for him.

Now, Clinton may be making some headway with the "He won't put out specifics" attack, their calculation might have changed.

[Bubzer]

49. You could call him a liar... but you'de be wrong. The Iowa caucus hasn't happened yet.

the Hillary Clinton campaign is putting increasing pressure on Bernie Sanders to release a detailed plan on his Medicare-for-all proposal. Namely: how is he going to pay for it?

Those who have their basic analytical thinking engaged would remember Bernie has pointed out time and again that the comparative cost for universal healthcare is substantially less than the current system. Slightly more advanced analytical thinking would determine that the very same sources being used to pay for the current system could be used for the new system, only with an additional savings.

Although, if that's not good enough (lord knows Bernie is never good enough when under the microscope of a hillary supporter), there's always this as well:

Bernie’s proposal would amend the tax code to create the American Health Security Trust Fund, which would be financed by various tax revenues, credits and subsidies. It’s not set in stone, but the tax revenues in the draft include a new healthcare income tax, an employer payroll tax, a surcharge on high-income individuals, and a tax on securities transactions. So, basically, it’s not wishful thinking at all.

But, more importantly, single-payer healthcare controls costs and so would save us money in the long run.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/

You can also see the actual proposal bill here:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/american-health-security-act-of-2013?inline=file

Basic analytical thinking tells me that the bill, which is 189 pages, isn't likely to be read by hillary or her supporters... particularly since the question is just a cover for the attempt to score quick political points, all while pretending Bernie lacks a funding plan.

Mmmmmmm Beefy!

[EdwardBernays]

76. What's "obvious"

Isn't always the truth.

Logic isn't the same thing and psychic powers... You've made an assumption and that's fine; we all do that from time to time.

But.

You can't really know.

And btw many Chelseas on DU are calling him a liar. I guess that's just part of the game.... Sigh.

[firebrand80]

80. It's obvious to me

That the polls in IA are moving toward him, so he doesn't want to risk anything by releasing his plan; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's really the only logical explanation. Although now it appears they may be changing their tune, we'll see.

As far as the name calling and all other types of silliness, it's rampant on both sides. I just personally make a point not to engage in it.

[riversedge]

83. "as if he has released a plan" Why would Bernie allow this deception? WHY?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. Your side lost the authority to talk about deception. You can, but it doesn't carry meaning.

[MADem]

115. No--this sounds like Bernie is doing just what all politicians do.

Promise, and then not deliver.

No one has the high ground, here. And the proof is in this failed promise to deliver the numbers BEFORE the caucuses, and then reneging on that promise.

It's Vermont all over again.

[Fawke Em]

63. He has released it.

It's Senate Bill 1782

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text

[firebrand80]

96. Has Bernie said that's his plan?

And if a plan has been released, by is his campaign saying that a plan will be released before the IA caucus?

[MADem]

116. Oh come on--not even his STAFF is suggesting that that is "it." nt

[MADem]

91. It probably looks a lot like the Vermont Universal Health Care Plan.

i.e., a Hot Mess, a complete disaster, an unsustainable, unmitigated disaster.

I think it's not just "politically" problematic, but his numbers are likely also garbage.

The governor tried to stall that mess for as long as possible, too.

[Scootaloo]

101. Five demerits for improper use of "begs the question"

[MADem]

14. And it doesn't have a hope in hell of passing Congress.

He can't "executive order" his way into a health care 'revolution.'

All appropriations start in the HOUSE. He knows that--he hung out there for long enough....!

Where's the beef, indeed.

[Ed Suspicious]

27. And Hillary can't "status quo" us into a better America.

[MADem]

90. And if Bernie can't raise taxes (and he cannot do that),

all his grand plans are toast.

So gee, that puts us back right where we started.

[enid602]

38. bern

It's not just the health care revolution. He's promising substantial SS increases, immediate massive infrastructure financing, free higher education, etc. It's almost as if he feels he can win the Presidency by just promising everything.

[Fawke Em]

65. Nice Republican talking points there. eom

[enid602]

74. hardly

Hardly. Any political candidate, regardless of their stripe or party, would be well advised not to promise more than they deliver. And btw, asking that candidate to come up with figures to show how the promises will be paid is not asking too much.

[MADem]

92. It is all 'pie in the sky.' I don't believe him.

He speaks in this gruff, angry voice, but he doesn't have the ability to back up his comments. It's weird--he's GOT to know that people are going to check his math; heck, they're already doing it...and his promises just don't add up.

[Goblinmonger]

64. So how, exactly, then is Clinton going to do ANYTHING?

If we follow your logic, there is no need to care about any proposals since none of it will happen.

If that is the case, then vote for Bernie because at least he'll call out their bullshit when they do as they please. He'll probably veto more of their crazy crap than Clinton, too.

I mean, you do realize the futility of your argument that you think you are making in favor of Clinton?

[enid602]

77. lead

Well, she is endorsed by a lot of Reps, Senators, Mayors, Governors, Wall Street etc. She will 'lead' the government, not magically transform it. She will pick her priorities wisely, not promise everything. Remember, the country has the highest debt levels in our history. Just 1% increase in the rate of inflation greatly affects the amoun of tax receipts we'll have to devote to interest payment on the debt.

[Goblinmonger]

86. So Sanders has not clue how to do that?

And if we follow the logic above, though, Congress will not give a shit about what she wants because we won't have the magic 60 senators. Or are we pretending that Republicans like Clinton and not Sanders?

[MADem]

104. Clinton has coattails in an election--Sanders does not.

All you have to do is look at the endorsements she has received, compared to the ones he has managed to acquire.

[John Poet]

106. Some of us believe the opposite is true.

Sanders is generating genuine excitement in the voters and particularly younger voters, whom we need to turn out and vote as they did for President Obama, to have any chance of winning the general election.

Hillary? Not so much excitement there, other than with a few such as yourself, perhaps.

I think a Hillary nomination will seriously hurt our down-ticket candidates by the time a whole general election campaign has been completed.

[MADem]

112. That excitement turns to "Let's move on to the next big thing" when it becomes

obvious--as it will, and perhaps fairly soon--that this guy cannot deliver on "free" college, never mind "free" healthcare, and all the other "free" stuff he wants to provide by raising taxes on middle class Americans. That whole "Robin Hood" meme was just stupid, and now it's biting him in the behind.

Congress just isn't going to vote for the onerous tax increases he will need to make his dreams come true. We aren't Denmark, and we never will be. All that dream weaving is nice, but reality is, no one is going to vote for it. And the people who need to be doing the voting for it are in CONGRESS.

The spotlight is now on Sanders (everyone was complaining that he wasn't getting enough attention? Well, now he's getting it). He is being called to answer, all eyes are on him. He's getting all the airtime and the focus. He's been asked to provide the details on his health care proposal, the details he PROMISED to provide before the Caucuses. Now he's going back on his word, and having his minions go forth and tell people the bad news--that they aren't going to release their "secret plan" to provide health care for all so that the IA caucusers can make an informed decision.

Reminds me of "A Secret Plan To End The War." No one appreciated THAT shell game trick, either.

Of course, we know why he's all of a sudden not releasing the figures he promised--he can't make them work--it's like VERMONT, writ large. Delaying the inevitable isn't going to make it any more palatable.

[John Poet]

113. You're way off-topic now. We were talking about coat-tails,

and Hillary's lack thereof, IMHO.

I guess I don't have to wonder why you let your mouth run off on this "Bernie can't deliver" rant tangent.

HILLARY will be an UNMITIGATED DISASTER for Democrats down-ballot,
if she becomes the nominee.

As for the Robin Hood meme-- I'm all for it.
It's about time we had a Robin Hood in the White House,
instead of Prince John stealing from the poor and middle to give to the rich.

Whether he can deliver or not is beside the point--
I want someone who will at least fight for it, at the top of the ticket.

Obviously that ain't Hillary, she's just another 'Prince John'.

[MADem]

114. If I'm off topic, it's because YOU brought up the "excitement" factor and started

in on how he is whipping up the kids. This is a discussion board--YOU (not ME) pulled the conversation in that direction, so it's a bit (no--a LOT) disingenuous of you to then accuse me of being "way off topic" when YOU changed the topic-- like you're the pontificator, and no one is allowed to respond to your musings.

Or was it not you at all-- perhaps you have a squirrel in your pocket that typed this:

Sanders is generating genuine excitement in the voters and particularly younger voters, whom we need to turn out and vote as they did for President Obama, to have any chance of winning the general election.

Yeah. Whatever.

There was "genuine excitement" for Howard Dean, too...until there wasn't. All those kids in the orange hats just didn't bring it. We thought they would, we hoped they would...but they didn't.

And I can tell you're getting annoyed, because you are becoming increasingly uncivil and surly. "Let your mouth run off?" You talk to your mama like that?

I think this discussion is coming close to reaching its nadir--and you can pat yourself on the back for that.

If you like children's stories, then Robin Hood IS right up your alley, I suppose.


To adults, though, this kind of stuff just doesn't resonate:

[John Poet]

117. You wanna be my momma, now?

I think not.

Annoyed?

I think I'm the one annoying YOU.

I'll pat myself on the back for THAT, sure!

[MADem]

120. Just when I thought you'd reached your nadir, you disabuse me of that notion!

No--you'd have to step it up quite a few notches to cause me anything more than mild bemusement.

And given that you've resorted to the personal yet again, I think you've run out of tricks and you're about done.

[John Poet]

121. You made it personal FIRST.

No, you're right. You really DO annoy me.

[MADem]

122. No, I didn't--you did. Go on, pull the string.

I talk issues, and you talk about me.

Facts ARE stubborn things.

[Goblinmonger]

108. Do you even hear what you type in your head?

So in your scenario, Sanders wins the Presidential election but he doesn't get coattails? Pretty much everyone is clear that if Sanders is going to win it is because he is going to motivate a LOT of millenials to vote, but they aren't going to vote for other Dems?

Yes, if Sanders wins the Presidency, things will be horrible and awful and nothing will ever get done. If Clinton wins, it will be all rainbows, skittles, and unicorns. Jesus. At least try to have some semblance of a consistent argument.

[MADem]

109. Look at the super delegate count. How many of those DC incumbents are backing BS?

And do YOU ever hear what YOU type in your head?


Where does THIS come from, I wonder?

Yes, if Sanders wins the Presidency, things will be horrible and awful and nothing will ever get done. If Clinton wins, it will be all rainbows, skittles, and unicorns. Jesus. At least try to have some semblance of a consistent argument.

In a DU where the ratio wasn't eight to one, or even more lopsided since so many people have left, that kind of comment would be regarded as terribly rude. Now, it's par for the course.

Let's leave the horrible awful rainbows behind, shall we, and talk facts. Sanders can't get hardly a SOUL in DC to endorse him; he has almost no super delegates, he has no FRIENDS. This is because he's spent a quarter century on the Hill, and has done very little to reach out to people in all that time. This isn't "Being Mean To Bernie" -- it's fact.

And facts are stubborn things.

He has no clout and no coattails. And he has a crappy, bad math Pie in the Sky plan that will NOT pass Congress. So basically, what HE is (not Clinton) is a "rainbows, skittles, and unicorns" (those are YOUR words) spinner. And people who actually vote on legislation for a living see this, and are not impressed.

Anyone can point and yell. He does that well. What he can't do is deliver that "plan" he keeps talking about--and everyone is starting to realize that.

The thing that sucks about getting all that great press when you have a surge in the polls is that sometimes the press isn't so great. The spotlight is on Bernie, and he's going to be called to account like everyone else. He promised to release his figures, and now he's reneging.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-health-care-plan/

[John Poet]

119. And Clouds will come down from the sky

to carry Hillary up to the Heavenly White House!

[MADem]

89. Clinton's going to do it incrementally, with a bit of quid pro quo.

That'll piss people off, but she'll get there.

Better than pissing 'em off by being ineffectual and getting stiff-armed at every turn.

Congress is not going to vote to DRASTICALLY raise their own taxes. Pigs will fly first.

[comradebillyboy]

102. Quid pro quo is pretty much how anything at all

gets done in congress. Appeals to altruism are not as effective as the tried and true 'one hand washes the other' approach for actually getting things done. When congress got rid of ear marks they also did away with their ability to horse trade and find mutually beneficial compromises.

[Alfresco]

15. Does this mean I can't convince you to reconsider and support Hillary? :-)

[djean111]

17. Bwahahahaha! A visit from Bill and Hillary could not get me to support Hillary.

And I supported her and voted for her in that fucked-up Florida primary, the last time.
No more. Too much has come to light/happened since then.

[CoffeeCat]

55. And the fact that the author of this article was a 2008 Hillary staffer

demonstrates some misrepresentation here.

Pat Rynard runs the website that posted this article. And he also wrote the article. Pat worked on Hillary's 2008 campaign. He's run hit pieces on Bernie before.

His site purports to give "news" coming from the Iowa caucuses.

No, this is planted opinion, from a former Hillary staffer.

Pat Rynard's blatherings don't represent Iowans and their views. His blathering represent the opinion of a former Hillary employee. Nothing more. Nothing less.

From his website:

"Pat Rynard is a former Democratic campaign staffer who has lived in Iowa for the past 12 years...He later went on to work for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and has worked on a number of state legislative races in field and management roles, including serving as the statewide field director for the Senate Majority Fund.

[Alfresco]

58. He has pro-Sanders articles on his site. I find his writing to be informative and unbiased.

[CoffeeCat]

79. Actually NO...

He's a former Hillary 2008 staffer who has run hit pieces on Bernie before.

You're just too clever by half aren't you? You think because his website includes some ho-hum articles about Bernie that you can position this guy as just an average Iowan reporting news from Iowa?

LOL! Seriously.

Pat Rynard is a former Hillary employee who writes Bernie hit pieces. These pieces are then leveraged by her surrogates and assorted Hillary fans as, "Oh LOOK!! LOOK OVER HERE AT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN IOWA!! IOWANS DON'T LIKE SANDERS!!! IOWANS ARE QUESTIONING SANDERS!! LOOK!! LOOK!"

Sorry, no. The entire site--and the hit jobs on Bernie are PR stunts from a former Hillary employee.

Smoke and mirrors, folks. Smoke and mirrors.

As an Iowan, I am a bit tired of Hillary stinking up our state with her fake stunts. She planted questions in an Iowa audience, during one of her Q&As that was supposed to be her grand attempt at finally being honest with Iowans. Using staffers to plant questions and avoid real questions from Iowans. This is what Hillary does when her campaign is behind in Iowa, folks.

Plant questions. Plant stories from former 2008 staffers and attempt to pass those stories off as the prevailing Iowa attitude. What bunk. What an insult to all Iowans.

[MADem]

93. So you're saying he's like that Goodman fella who gets so much love here lately. nt

[CoffeeCat]

100. Was Goodman on the Sander's payroll? (Nt)

[MADem]

103. If he's not getting paid, he's in the throes of a fine (b)romance.

This website is the picture perfect example of not journalism, but slavish and almost creepy devotion:


https://hagoodman.com/

If he's not getting paid, he's OTT.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

95. Self-respecting people don't accept being lied to. nt

[MADem]

118. Oh, ok....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-health-care-plan/

Keene, New Hampshire (CNN)Bernie Sanders could break his pledge to release details on how he would pay for his health care plan before the Iowa caucuses, according to a top aide.

His campaign released details Wednesday of how Sanders will pay his $1 trillion dollar infrastructure plan and his $75-billion-a-year plan to make public college and universities tuition-free. But noticeably absent was his plan to pay for Medicare for all, a price tag that some estimates put at $15 trillion.

Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager, isn't saying when those numbers will be released.

"I don't have a date for that," he said earlier this week. "Not necessarily before the caucuses."

[madokie]

105. Not one damn word do I believe

that she says anymore.
When I see post like this one I check and sure enough 90+% of the time its put out here by hillarites.

If its too far out there I use the i feature so I won't have to read anymore from them too. Fuck it, life is getting too short for me to put up with or listen to lies, half truths or all out bullshit. Fuck that noise.

[stone space]

2. None of the candidates have said how they will pay for such a bloated military.

For Iowa Democrats (as opposed to Iowa "read my lips" Republicans), taxes is not a dirty word.

But how can any nation, including our own, manage to support the largest military machine in the world in the long term?

The candidates all need to come here to Iowa and explain that to us.

How the hell are we going to pay for it?

This Iowan would suggest holding a Bake Sale.

[dreamnightwind]

19. Thank you!

[Ed Suspicious]

28. Amen

[Green Forest]

4. POLITIFACT STANDS BY BERNIE'S PLAN. DO NOT FEED THIS THREAD. KICK WORTHWHILE BERNIE OPs INSTEAD.

[firebrand80]

10. What's the point of this forum, in your opinion?

Having substantive discussions or spreading Bernie's message?

[Alfresco]

11. This article is written by an Iowan for Iowans and you want to suppress it. What are you afraid of?

[CSStrowbridge]

30. Yep...

I kept posting links to polls in the Bernie group and they blocked me.

I'm really worried they have shut off all outside information and are stuck in a bubble. This will cause them to think Hillary Clinton "stole" the election when the polls still have her as the overwhelming favorite.

The only way the Democrats don't win is if Bernie Sanders; supporters decide not to vote for Hillary Clinton out of spite.

[JonLeibowitz]

44. LOL, getting started a bit early on throwing liberals under the bus for Hillary's weak general prosp

Aren't we?

[CSStrowbridge]

127. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

"LOL, getting started a bit early on throwing liberals under the bus for Hillary's weak general prosp Aren't we?"

I've seen the polling averages. Hillary Clinton isn't weaker than Bernie Sanders in the general election match ups.

[Fawke Em]

68. Some people won't vote for her, but not out of spite.

Some people don't like anything she stands for and find the Green candidate more closely matches their viewpoint.

Not everything is a zero sum game.

[CoffeeCat]

50. No, this was written by a FORMER HILLARY STAFFER. It's bunk.

Pat Rynard runs the website and he wrote the article. It's nothing but editorial comment coming from a former Hillary staffer who worked on her 2008 campaign.

Suggesting that this is somehow indicative of the views of "Iowans" is an overreach.

It's the opinion of a former paid Hillary employee.

[Alfresco]

60. He has pro-Sanders articles on his site. I find his writing to be informative and unbiased.

[MADem]

16. They do? You sure about that? Didn't look that way to me...

They said wages would go DOWN under his plan; they said comprehensiveness of care would suffer; they said his math SUCKS and Congress wouldn't buy off on it:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

Employers "pay nothing for insurance in reality," as health care is a fringe benefit of a total compensation package, said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. So when employers stop providing insurance and are required to pay into single-payer, less money will be available for paychecks.

Experts agreed that single-payer gets you more bang for your buck by reducing administrative overhead, hospital and doctor's’ fees, and prescription drug prices. But some say Sanders is overestimating the potential reductions.

With Sanders’ proposed taxes, costs would need to be trimmed by roughly 42 to 47 percent — a tall order when "the most generous estimates of how much you could cut cost are on the order of 20 percent," said Sherry Glied, a professor of health policy and economics at New York University who’s served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.

"And there are a lot of people who don’t believe those numbers are possible," she said. "Single-payer saves money, but it doesn’t save all the money in the system."

Second, reduced costs could also create issues with access. Lower drug prices limit funding for research and development, lower physicians’ salaries disincentivize people going into medicine, lower fees could bankrupt hospitals, and people would have less choice in health plans, listed Hussey.

And finally, experts expressed skepticism that lawmakers would ever pass Sanders’ single-payer system, which would require a tax increase of hundreds of billions.

"Keep in mind each dollar saved is a reduction in someone’s income, which is part of why this plan is politically untenable," said Don Taylor, a professor of health policy at Duke University. "But if you could wave your hand and do it, we could spend less."

[a2liberal]

53. Employers pay NOTHING for health insurance?

Or even next-to-nothing as they seem to mean? I'm sorry for the swear words, but that is complete and utter fucking bullshit. If employers could provide health insurance for super cheap why wouldn't they all be doing that?

My employer is very open and transparent with insurance costs and I guarantee you they don't pay nothing or virtually nothing for health insurance. It doesn't even make logical sense.

[MADem]

94. All of the assertions are sourced at the Politifact website.

They are not saying what some in this thread are claiming. They find problems with the candidate's assertions.

[Skidmore]

47. Iowans want to know and we have less than a month

until the caucus. I don't see fully fleshed out plan yet. You can't push Sanders as being above board and transparent when we are seeing obfuscation and mismatches between words and deeds.

Consider this a kick.

[Fawke Em]

70. Iowans can read Senate Bill 1782

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text

What's not transparent?

[CoffeeCat]

84. Suggesting that this opinion piece is reflective of the views of Iowans is ludicrious

This is an opinion piece written by a man who worked for Clinton's 2008 campaign. He can have his opinion. All he wants.

However, there is not some grand uproar in Iowa over this. This is nothing more than Hillary supporters trying to parlay a planted editorial from a former Hillary staffer--into some kind of, "Iowans want answers!!" narrative.

This editorial is the opinion of one former Hillary staffer. Anything beyond that is spinning, at best.

[merrily]

5. LOL! Sanders will have a lot less trouble getting things enacted than Hillary would.

[BlueMTexpat]

7. LOL! Is that the plan?

[merrily]

54. What's Hillary's plan? See Reply 39.

[CSStrowbridge]

32. How?

How? What evidence is there to possibly back that up.

[merrily]

39. While a Senator, she had zero success working with Republicans to get bills she wrote passed,

except for strictly ceremonial bills, such as re-naming a post office, remembering Harriet Tubman's birthday and remembering the anniversary of the American Revolution. She could not even get her two unconstitutional flag desecration bills passed.Since then, she has been gratuitously disrespectful to Republicans, calling them the enemy of which she is most proud and acting a certain way during the Benghazi hearings. (For that matter, she could not even get Billarycare through a Democratic Congress when her husband was head of the Democratic Party.)

Contradistinctively, Bernie and McCain worked on a veterans' bill that passed. The Brookings Institute made a case study in working across the aisle. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708 See also, http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71225/bernie-sanders-is-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway

Your turn: you tell me what evidence you have that Hillary can get things done with Republicans better than Bernie can.

[CSStrowbridge]

125. The GOP Hate McCain.

"Contradistinctively, Bernie and McCain..."

And most of the GOP hate McCain.

And they certainly won't help him when he's president.

"Your turn: you tell me what evidence you have that Hillary can get things done with Republicans better than Bernie can. "

She won't work with the GOP. She will work around them.

[merrily]

128. Republican Senators do not hate McCain, but that's irrelevant.

Point is, Sanders was able to get bills and amendments passed; Hillary was not. As far as your unsupported point, Hillary was not able to work with or around the GOP before. No reason to assume she will be able to do that in the future. Moreover, with 60 votes needed for cloture, claiming she can work around Republicans even if she can't work with them misses reality.

[enid602]

51. Bullshit

Bullshit. The Bern is a lamb being led to slaughter. Obama was criticized for promising what turned out to be a pretty modest health care reform. He had to resort to vicious, cunning congressional tactics to get it passed, and had to water it down plenty. As a result of keeping just ONE promise, he lost the House in '12 and the senate in '14. And yet ol' Bern thinks he's going to be met by the Republicans with sweets and flowers! Bullshit! No one in their right mind believes it, and Hill is right to prove that he can't.

[merrily]

52. I backed up my assertion. Get back to me when you back up yours. BTW, Obama

has nothing to do with it. It's about Hillary and Sanders, not Obama and Sanders. And nothing you posted shows Hillary can do better than Bernie.

[enid602]

69. quixotic

Bern's ability to work with McCain once on non controversial veteran benefits legislation does not convince me that he will be able to convince the Republicans to endorse his massive projects which overhaul health care, spending, free college, etc. It simply won't happen. I only brought Obama into it to show how the Republicans have, in the past reacted to a newly elected president who promised even a single modest program. Bernie's assumption that his 25 year history in the legislature uniquely makes him able to bring people together is quixotic at best.

[merrily]

73. Still no back up? Sorry, no point reading more of your unsupported opinion.

[MADem]

99. It's hiarious--and it only took him a quarter century (and John McCain making the first move)

for him to get off his ass and do that one thing.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. Thanks, Alfresco! eom

[Warren Stupidity]

9. What the heck are you going to post about when he does release details on his health care plan?

[Alfresco]

12. I'll think of something. :-))

[safeinOhio]

18. Yep , it'll be back to

his hair.

[Alfresco]

21. I've not commented on his attempted combover. :-) Probably his non-support of the Democratic Party.

A previous post questioning his supposed support for our party.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251970029

[safeinOhio]

34. Yep I know what you mean.

He is way to progressive and liberal for most Democratic regulars.

[Alfresco]

36. I'm glad we agree. Most Democrats support Hillary because she is best for the party and the U.S.A.

[Fawke Em]

72. Now that's funny.

And becoming increasingly untrue.

Having name recognition doesn't mean you're best for the country.

Donald Trump?

[Protalker]

13. Morning Joe had Trump on

Same old voodoo economics. Lower taxes mire spending no explanation of how to fund it. To get anything done we need coattails for the house or it's a dead duck. Europe and Canada make 1 payer work.

[SoapBox]

22. And Hill promises...

Who knows!

[Alfresco]

24. If you're really interested you could start here >> www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ :-)

Check it out. You never know you may see the light and switch over to Team Hillary.

[nxylas]

41. Don't forget to refresh your browser regularly

How else will you be sure that what you're looking at is her current position?

[Alfresco]

45. Good idea. She does come out with new and exciting proposals regularly. :-)

[99Forever]

25. More bullshit from the same artist.

Ahh, the sweet smell of Clinton Fanclub desperation in the morning. It's a thing of beauty.

[Alfresco]

31. You didn't like the article? I am honored you called me an artist, a slight exaggeration I think.

[99Forever]

61. Sometimes us amateur bs artists...

...have to acknowledge a professional.

[Alfresco]

71. You underestimate yourself. Stand proud 99. :-)

[CSStrowbridge]

33. Posting facts...

Posting facts is desperation? That explains why I was blocked from the Bernie group for posting links to polls.

[99Forever]

57. "Facts" my ass.

Every "poll" posted here is pure propaganda with a fucking agenda. EVERY ONE OF THEM.

[Alfresco]

78. There you go. I knew you could do it. Pure artistry. :-)

** We Are Team Hillary **

[CSStrowbridge]

126. I'm worried.

I'm worried that too many Sanders supporters are like you. Unreasonable to the point where they will hurt the Democratic Party rather than work to support a progressive agenda.

[99Forever]

129. Your "concern" is noted.

I'll be certain to give it all of the deep "worry" it deserves.

[zeemike]

123. jury results.

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Would you like someone saying "More bullshit from the same artist" about a post you created? Is this "OK" on DU now? This is a really low blow.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 15, 2016, 06:57 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A spade is a spade
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster's raison detre is to always attack and disrespect other posters from the safety of his anonymous internet connection.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And this is really thin skin...leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A BS alert. No TOS violation
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The only thing worse than "Clinton Fan Club desperation" is shit-stirring by a Sanders fanboi. This is a great example of what is making DU suck lately.

[Amimnoch]

26. Smoke, mirrors, and lies. Promises that can never be kept.

He promises a brain, but he only hands out a piece of paper... and the crowd eat it up.

All hail the Wizard of Vermont.

[AllyCat]

37. Well, if it's hard to do, we should definitely back off.

I mean, why fight for anything? It might be difficult.

[CoffeeCat]

43. Iowa Starting Line is run by a former 2008 Hillary campaign employee!

Pat Rynard runs Iowa Starting Line. He also wrote this article.

He was a paid staffer who worked on Hillary's 2008 campaign

I think that's all you need to know.

This article has nothing to do with "news" coming from the Iowa caucuses, or Iowans in general.

He drops these bombs every once in a while, when her campaign is taking on water.

[Alfresco]

56. He has pro-Sanders articles on his site. I find his writing to be informative and unbiased.

[CoffeeCat]

59. He's a former Hillary staffer, and his articles are used

to suggest that he reflects the opinions of Iowans. I live in Iowa, and this is clearly the opinion of a former Hillary staffer who is doing her a solid.

Nice try.

His views have nothing to do with the current sentiment happening in Iowa.

As usual, with Hillary--it's all smoke and mirrors.

Get former employees to write opinion pieces and position those pieces as the prevailing attitude in Iowa.

Sorry no.

[Alfresco]

75. I now know where to go If I ever need and expert on Iowa politics.

[CoffeeCat]

81. By all means, if you consider

"expert" to be a former paid Hillary employee who writes hit-job pieces for her when her campaign is in a free fall...by all means!

After reading Hillary-staffer editorials, you can get some more news from Mad Magazine and Nickelodeon!

[Alfresco]

85. As opposed to you the resident DU Iowa expert on Iowa politics. :-) Yes.

[CoffeeCat]

87. I never positioned myself as an "expert"

...but when you try to blatantly misinform about Iowa and play games--you make it easy for anyone to debunk the misrepresentations. All you need is a couple of neurons!

It's laughable.

I'm not an expert on anything. Pointing out that a paid 2008 Hillary employee doesn't represent dominant Iowa opinion--is picking low-hanging fruit. No expertise required for that one!

You want to position a former Hillary staffer as the prevailing opinion in Iowa? You're going to get people--many who are a great deal more intelligent and knowledgable about Iowa than me--calling you out on your laughable bunk.

[catnhatnh]

88. You've said this several times

but sadly repetitions do nothing to increase veracity...

[LexVegas]

48. Don't trust Bernie as far as I can throw him. nt

[leftofcool]

67. I don't trust him that far.

Smoke and mirrors, pie in the sky.

[Fawke Em]

62. You'd think political reporters would know there is a "Medicare For All" Senate bill

already out there and that Bernie Sanders introduced it.

Not that hard to find and has a lot of the details and has articles already written about it.

I suspect he won't change it much.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text

[Skwmom]

66. Looked at Clinton's issue page. Tons of stuff listed with NO discussion of how to pay for it. n/t

[aidbo]

98. IOW that we as a nation paid this kind of 'how are we going to pay for it?' scrutiny to wars.

[merrily]

130. Or Homeland Security. Or the CIA. Or the FBI. Or the Secret Service. Or the NSA.

The only things we scrimp on are the things taxpayers need to stay alive.

Fsck 'em.

[John Poet]

107. The last guy to use that line lost 49 states to the Republicans....

... and there seem to be some parallels between the Hillary and Mondale campaigns-- particularly their levels of support among the party establishment.

I'd hate to see it played out to a similar conclusion. We can't afford to lose this presidential election, because all the Republicans are insane...

[azmom]

110. Anthony Weiner is endorsing Hillary

[Alfresco]

111. Does that surprise you?

[wildeyed]

124. It is also interesting that they accuse her

of using "Karl Rove tactics" using a classic Rovian smear word.

The Sanders campaign shot back that Clinton committed a “flip-flop” on healthcare, even accusing her of using “Karl Rove tactics.”

Because asking for a detailed plan on healthcare policy from another presidential candidate is hardly "Karl Rove tactics", right? How is this request unreasonable?

If 2000 was the year of the soccer mom, 2004 is the year for flip-flops: as fashion footwear, waving props (at the Republican convention) and taunting yells (at Bush rallies). This strategy was the brainchild of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, who decided that the way for Bush to win was to destroy Kerry’s credibility and to attack his leadership qualities, largely by focusing on his alleged inconsistencies about the war in Iraq.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/flip-flop-flim-flam