- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,050
- SL Rez
- 2002
If its allowed and depending on the plan, that isn't clear.There's the role for supplemental insurance.
If its allowed and depending on the plan, that isn't clear.There's the role for supplemental insurance.
If its allowed and depending on the plan, that isn't clear.
What is outlawed is duplicative coverage. There is room for private insurance for things that are not covered. Although the coverage itself will be comprehensive and basically eliminate most of what private insurance covers now, you just gave a good use case of something that, if not covered by M4A, private insurance could cover.If its allowed and depending on the plan, that isn't clear.
What is outlawed is duplicative coverage. There is room for private insurance for things that are not covered. Although the coverage itself will be comprehensive and basically eliminate most of what private insurance covers now, you just gave a good use case of something that, if not covered by M4A, private insurance could cover.
Carriers could still sell policies that covered nonmedically necessary procedures, such as cosmetic surgery.
The Bernie Effect: Sanders sets the bar in Democratic health care debate
This would be very different from how supplemental private insurance works in other countries that provide publicly financed coverage, such as Canada and Denmark -- which Sanders and Medicare for All supporters often point to as examples.
Two-thirds of Canadians buy separate private policies to cover prescription drugs, dental and vision care, private rooms in hospitals and other benefits not provided by the universal public plan, according to The Commonwealth Fund, a left-leaning think tank.
It's not about the debates, it's about the bills that exist. But then, the debates are terrible for actually explaining the bills and policies.After watching the debates thus far, I would disagree that this is clear. The candidates all seem to have different and sometimes changing answers.
CNN Article (on Kamila Harris's issues with the question)
The Post lets people like Jennifer Rubin post not one, not two, not three, but as many as four (so far) negative articles in one day. And has posted up to 16 from their so-called journalists. Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 HoursWaPo Editor Slams Bernie Sanders Over 'Conspiracy Theory' About Coverage
The Democratic presidential candidate suggested Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is negatively influencing the newspaper's coverage of him.www.huffpost.com
I noticed something interesting in that email that they sent her. The narrative of Bernie being a legislator with few accomplishments seems to begin right there. Contrast that with their portrayal of Hillary Clinton being portrayed as having so much stuff done. I think that explains a lot, yes.I found this article, regarding Tulsi Gabbard, interesting: Tulsi Gabbard Has Enemies In High Places
It paints a portrait of how Gabbard fell out of favor with political star-makers Darnell Strom & Michael Kives, when she resigned from the DNC to support Sanders, and the warning they threw down on her.
This kind of behind-the-scenes media connections is not something I usually think of when I'm looking for reasons as to why someone like TYT's Ana Kasparian is so oddly negative against Gabbard. When you look at their client lists, which is a little jaw-dropping, you can start to see how career advancement and information gets connected like a switchboard and how when Tulsi Gabbard is the #1 search on Google, "Assad" can mysteriously end up being the top trending subject on Twitter.
Indeed. Little people are always looking for some grand rationale for why things end up being the way they are. This article is making this look more like some syndicate that is poking money and opportunity up each others asses. When someone actually takes a sincere stand, it just blows the whole operation to bits. It's almost better when we believe they are actively working against us, than to accept that they don't care enough about us to bother. It's just all about themI noticed something interesting in that email that they sent her. The narrative of Bernie being a legislator with few accomplishments seems to begin right there. Contrast that with their portrayal of Hillary Clinton being portrayed as having so much stuff done. I think that explains a lot, yes.
Yes, their answers are as clear as mud on a topic most people do not know much about in the first place.After watching the debates thus far, I would disagree that this is clear. The candidates all seem to have different and sometimes changing answers.
CNN Article (on Kamila Harris's issues with the question)
I think it was the Daily Show that pointed out how Booker must have had a hard time there. He is a vegan.I mean, it's not the worst corn dog photo ever published.
Biden has foot-in-mouth down to a fine art.Biden jumps into damage control after upsetting Latino leaders
Biden echoed a conservative talking point in the last Democratic debate, saying undocumented immigrants need to "get in line."www.politico.com
So let me offer an explanation of what Sanders’s real media problem is: Right now Sanders 2020 is suffering from the comparison with Sanders 2016, when his candidacy was a captivating new phenomenon that turned what could have been a dull coronation for Hillary Clinton into a real contest. That made him compelling to reporters — again, always drawn to what’s new and what creates conflict — who wrote story after story about this fascinating campaign, particularly the unlikely fact that a rumpled 74-year-old had become the hero of college students everywhere. They covered his policy proposals, but they also covered all the attendant human-interest sidelights such as people getting Bernie tattoos.
Sanders’s current candidacy doesn’t provide that same narrative interest. He’s just one candidate among many, running somewhere between second and fourth in every poll — a part of the big story, to be sure, but not the primary protagonist/antagonist, depending on the framing. If during the 2016 primaries he was getting something like half the coverage, most of it positive, now he can expect only to get a much smaller portion of a pie that has been sliced into many more pieces. Is that fair? Perhaps not, but you’d have to define what “fair” coverage would look like for all the candidates to say for sure.