SHOULD Biden run for a 2nd term? (10 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Biden has lost support from many people who voted for him in the past.
He is getting up there in age.
Here are a couple of sites I'd like to share...
*

Octogenarian Biden begins new year facing age-old question on 2024 race

In the coming months, Biden faces a simple question: will he seek a second term at the end of which he would be 86?

www.theguardian.com

*

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

*
WHAT DO ANY OF YOU THINK?
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEST SERVED BY HAVING PRESIDENT BIDEN RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM OR WOULD A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE BE BETTER?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

In the least, this could easily be argued:

CNBC Survey from 2019
Keep in mind these numbers below include republican and independent feedback.
Medicare for all was widely supported amongst Dems at 81%

Reuters poll from 2018 shows broad Democratic support for MFA

I could go on

Also, were we not ready for the progressive reforms for the times that occurred in the 1920's? IMO they were absolutely more "hot button" than the ones above, at least comparatively.




I'd definitely agree with most of this.

I think that yeah - we as a country have to start seeing that our government CAN and SHOULD work for us. People have been brainwashed into this idea that government is this evil thing you must get rid of instead of this thing that most definitely can be evil and we should be skeptical of...but that can also provide services to it's citizens that we deserve as Americans.

We're the richest country in the history of the world and have a middle class that is struggling more and more by the day just to get by. That delta just has to be figured out. We can't keep doing this and acting like it's fine and that our government as a function isn't rotten to the core with big money greed on both sides, which to me is one of if not THE biggest problem with the American government.

I have a question.
On the chart, what is meant by Medicare "for all"?
Who is excluded now that would hypothetically be added if AOC was the President?

 

[Dragon]

That poll only shows democratic voters. Then you are back to the Manchin/Sistema issue again. If 60% of the democratic voters are for something, they are still not a majority. Almost half the democratic voters are against free community college, and that % is going to be even higher among the republicans. As long as "my rights and needs" are more important that the rights and needs of society as a whole, then that is not going to change. Like those who run around with open carry guns just to show that they have the "right" - like the idiot in Florida who was parading outside a school forcing locksdowns and missed education. And the police could do nothing because he had the "rights" to do so.

As I said - it is going to take a major change of the way people think to ever get those things through congress.

 

[J-DONK]

You and I probably have very similar progressive ideologies. To me, a lot of the so-called "radical progressive" ideas would be bare minimum to start with. Reality is, we're probably 10-15 years away (unless something REALLY lights a fire under the young voter's arses - and results in a significant uptick of them taking action aka voting). I say all this because the older generations (boomers etc) tend to vote more/often. So as long as they are around, things will still kind of be cautious and more conservative. In 10-15 years, there will be less of that generation (as callous as that may sound) and we might finally start catching up to the rest of the developed world.

It's not even that to me. All the younger generations will have less wealth, and that means less motivation to conserve the current social, and political structure.

 

[J-DONK]

So could you describe it in your own words?

It's a lot of NIMBY's, and liberal hypocrites who want to preserve their insane home prices.

It's insane getting LTR plans approved in Minneapolis, despite all the houses in walking distances appreciating in value.

 

[samiam5211]

It's a lot of NIMBY's, and liberal hypocrites who want to preserve their insane home prices.

It's insane getting LTR plans approved in Minneapolis, despite all the houses in walking distances appreciating in value.

yea, and many of them have picked up another home or two and become landlords to suck a little more wealth from people poorer than them, while complaining about income inequality.

 

[Heathen]

That poll only shows democratic voters.

If you're talking about the first part which references Medicare for All at 54%, it doesn't. From the article:

In a survey of 800 Americans nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, the CNBC survey finds majority support for five of six proposals that have been percolating in the national debate mostly, but not entirely, from the Democratic side. On some of the issues, the survey even found majority Republican support.

The hot-button issue of “Medicare for All″ also gets majority support at 54 percent, including from 81 percent of Democrats but just 19 percent of Republicans.

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking poll - 77% of Democrats favored Medicare for All - 2020

Then you are back to the Manchin/Sistema issue again. If 60% of the democratic voters are for something, they are still not a majority.

If the Democratic party starts to broadly support it, lawmakers will have no choice but to address it and make it part of their platform.

Almost half the democratic voters are against free community college, and that % is going to be even higher among the republicans. As long as "my rights and needs" are more important that the rights and needs of society as a whole, then that is not going to change.

I understand that the political landscape can be discouraging, but we have many examples throughout history of things being accomplished in the face of the
"my rights and needs over yours" crowd. Take social security...

This was considered a 'radical socialist' policy. Opposition to the 1935 Social Security Act

Like those who run around with open carry guns just to show that they have the "right" - like the idiot in Florida who was parading outside a school forcing locksdowns and missed education. And the police could do nothing because he had the "rights" to do so.

As I said - it is going to take a major change of the way people think to ever get those things through congress.

But we know that this happens. The 'Overton window' as is said.

10 years ago the concept of Medicare for all was this fringe lunatic idea. Today it's generally known by most in the American political climate and even by poll after poll undeniably popular - or in the very least notable, amongst Democratic voters.

 

[Heathen]

I have a question.
On the chart, what is meant by Medicare "for all"?
Who is excluded now that would hypothetically be added if AOC was the President?

It would be a single payer, federal health system where all Americans are covered (basically by a more generous version of medicare that covers more).

I think if Im understanding your question correctly, you're asking who isn't a part of it now that would be? It would be an automatic enrollment so no eligibility gaps or precondition stipulations / conditions to deal with.

 

[zztop]

It's not even that to me. All the younger generations will have less wealth, and that means less motivation to conserve the current social, and political structure.

yes, gone are the days when you could buy a house for $1,200, support a family of 4, and afford higher education on minimum wage jobs (I made the numbers up, but you understand what I mean). Younger folk still need to get out and vote in significantly higher numbers, than what they typically do... I don't have a solution to that. So the other option is to wait for the voting juggernaut older generation to die off

 

[Dragon]

Education is the key - that is why the republicans are trying to supress it. If the only thing they learn is that Climate change is a hoax and medicare for all is a communist plot and the antifa want to take their guns.. Then you are in for a tough time

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

It would be a single payer, federal health system where all Americans are covered (basically by a more generous version of medicare that covers more).

I think if Im understanding your question correctly, you're asking who isn't a part of it now that would be? It would be an automatic enrollment so no eligibility gaps or precondition stipulations / conditions to deal with.

Thank you!

 

[CoolBrees]

I might be the furthest left here.

I am a socialist and I am far to the left of Bernie. I would take everything private that is for public consumption and nationalize it - everything from the internet to power grid to airlines to AWS to NBC and United Dairy Farmers. Effective tax rate in $ over $200k year would be 75%. We would be Sweden on Socialistic steroids.

I am also aware that not only are my ideas at odds with the majority of Americans, but also my philosophy simply doesn't work in a Free Market. It can't.

That is why I vote how I was taught by my military (the largest social program on earth or ever) father - Voting your interests is selfish. You don't vote your interests - you vote the interests of the nation that gave you the right to vote in the first place. That is always job 1 as a voter - protect the Union.

I voted for Biden and I will again. I also voted for a Dem exactly twice before and both times his name was Obama, who happens to be a whole lot more conservative than Joe Biden. And didn't get half of what Joe has gotten done in half the time no less.

There have been a minute number of these types of existential threat elections - I would argue only 2:

1) Lincoln vs Southern Dem John Breckinridge, Dem Stephen Douglass (who needs no introduction) and Constitutional Union candidate John Bell in 1860. If America had made the wrong choice then, we would not be able to recognize America now.

2) Biden vs Trump in 2020. He's going to turn over our allies to Putin and allow Ukraine to fall, which will destabilize neighboring nations - Poland, Romania, Czech Republic - leading to third World War within months of Trump being elected.

That's the list.

We are about to have our third.

We already suffered the loss of women's autonomy and any hope of sensible gun laws being upheld for the next 25-30 years. That is a fact of reality. If we lose one more seat and are at 7-2, there will be no hope at all.

These are real problems with real lasting consequences. But do tell about how he hasn't fulfilled every Champaign promise. Because you know, every President before him did exactly what they said they were going to do. Honestly, what could anybody do with the current Congress?

Voting for you own best interests is selfish. Voting for the nation's best interest is the whole forking point.

It a "Pursuit of a more perfect nation," not a more perfect liberal paradise.

 

[UriUT]

Thank you!

'Medicare-for-All' program could cost $32 trillion but may also save $2 trillion

What you didn't know about the $32 trillion Medicare-for-All figure in the Koch-affiliated report

abcnews.go.com

You can even apply market forces to this rationale, and Biden recently allowed Medicare/Medicaid partially to negotiate prices. Having the full force of a consumer as large as Medicare will shift leverage to the consumers, ie us. The us have been subsidizing the entire world with drug prices. We pay high prices while the rest of the world like Canada spends much less. A compromise with patent durations may need to be met, so yeah, it’s likely a good idea.

And this is another consideration that is lost on those against obamacare, which btw is a compromise because dems didn’t have the votes despite owning an overwhelming majority in both chamber. Before, the cost burden was really on the hospitals. There are laws that anyone with life threatening injuries has to be admitted and treated. Hospital stays are expensive. Surgery, icu, etc. if you are in medicine, one of the first thing you are made aware is that maintenance care, ie, maintaining daily health with frequent doctors visit is one of the most cost effective measure. Take diabetes. It’s a pernicious, preventable disease that is extremely expensive to treat at the end stage. Every system may be involve, kidneys, heart, vision etc. However, with annual visits with life style changes, medications, etc, one may avoid that consequence, and therefore save money to the system. So if an uninsured person waits, and is admitted into the er with an end stage consequence, you can imagine the cost comparison. And then there’s another benefit that’s lost. We all are aware of auto insurance. The reason that it’s effective is that everyone under that umbrella shares the risk of someone getting into accidents. Not everyone gets into accidents at once so the cost is spread to everyone, reducing cost. Now with the combination of maintenance care, which theoretically reduces the incidence of major costly procedures/measures, and the reduction in per person burden if we all share in Obamacare or Medicare for all, you can see that it’s a no brainer

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

'Medicare-for-All' program could cost $32 trillion but may also save $2 trillion

What you didn't know about the $32 trillion Medicare-for-All figure in the Koch-affiliated report

abcnews.go.com

You can even apply market forces to this rationale, and Biden recently allowed Medicare/Medicaid partially to negotiate prices. Having the full force of a consumer as large as Medicare will shift leverage to the consumers, ie us. The us have been subsidizing the entire world with drug prices. We pay high prices while the rest of the world like Canada spends much less. A compromise with patent durations may need to be met, so yeah, it’s likely a good idea.

And this is another consideration that is lost on those against obamacare, which btw is a compromise because dems didn’t have the votes despite owning an overwhelming majority in both chamber. Before, the cost burden was really on the hospitals. There are laws that anyone with life threatening injuries has to be admitted and treated. Hospital stays are expensive. Surgery, icu, etc. if you are in medicine, one of the first thing you are made aware is that maintenance care, ie, maintaining daily health with frequent doctors visit is one of the most cost effective measure. Take diabetes. It’s a pernicious, preventable disease that is extremely expensive to treat at the end stage. Every system may be involve, kidneys, heart, vision etc. However, with annual visits with life style changes, medications, etc, one may avoid that consequence, and therefore save money to the system. So if an uninsured person waits, and is admitted into the er with an end stage consequence, you can imagine the cost comparison. And then there’s another benefit that’s lost. We all are aware of auto insurance. The reason that it’s effective is that everyone under that umbrella shares the risk of someone getting into accidents. Not everyone gets into accidents at once so the cost is spread to everyone, reducing cost. Now with the combination of maintenance care, which theoretically reduces the incidence of major costly procedures/measures, and the reduction in per person burden if we all share in Obamacare or Medicare for all, you can see that it’s a no brainer

I know your post was for everyone, but I'd like to say thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic.

 

[Dragon]

'Medicare-for-All' program could cost $32 trillion but may also save $2 trillion

What you didn't know about the $32 trillion Medicare-for-All figure in the Koch-affiliated report

abcnews.go.com

You can even apply market forces to this rationale, and Biden recently allowed Medicare/Medicaid partially to negotiate prices. Having the full force of a consumer as large as Medicare will shift leverage to the consumers, ie us. The us have been subsidizing the entire world with drug prices. We pay high prices while the rest of the world like Canada spends much less. A compromise with patent durations may need to be met, so yeah, it’s likely a good idea.

And this is another consideration that is lost on those against obamacare, which btw is a compromise because dems didn’t have the votes despite owning an overwhelming majority in both chamber. Before, the cost burden was really on the hospitals. There are laws that anyone with life threatening injuries has to be admitted and treated. Hospital stays are expensive. Surgery, icu, etc. if you are in medicine, one of the first thing you are made aware is that maintenance care, ie, maintaining daily health with frequent doctors visit is one of the most cost effective measure. Take diabetes. It’s a pernicious, preventable disease that is extremely expensive to treat at the end stage. Every system may be involve, kidneys, heart, vision etc. However, with annual visits with life style changes, medications, etc, one may avoid that consequence, and therefore save money to the system. So if an uninsured person waits, and is admitted into the er with an end stage consequence, you can imagine the cost comparison. And then there’s another benefit that’s lost. We all are aware of auto insurance. The reason that it’s effective is that everyone under that umbrella shares the risk of someone getting into accidents. Not everyone gets into accidents at once so the cost is spread to everyone, reducing cost. Now with the combination of maintenance care, which theoretically reduces the incidence of major costly procedures/measures, and the reduction in per person burden if we all share in Obamacare or Medicare for all, you can see that it’s a no brainer

And then you haven't even included lost productivity/pay.

My husband got a blodcloth in his brain18 months ago and the doctors discovered he had multiple issues ranging from a tumor in his throat, another in his brain and a irregular heart beat. The first was causing massive hormonal issues which threatned his life and he had to undergo a long and dangerous operation to remove it. The second cant be removed due to where it is positioned. So they are keeping an eye on that one with frequent MR scans, He was also diagnosed with diabetes 1. He got lucky and only suffered minor injury from the blodcloth but is now taking a LOT of medicin. Every hospital and doctor visit is free of charge and after the first 150$ worth of medicin every year, he nows pays like 10$ a month for the remaining year. The fact that he got treated so quickly and are able to get all the medicine he needs and the free bi-weekly checkup visits with his doctors, has made it possible for him to resume work and to be a productive tax paying citizent within the limitations of his illness., He even get supplemental pay covering the difference between his regular full time pay and his now reduced part time pay,

Yes we do pay a lot of taxes but bottom line is that it is actually good business. Getting people healthy and back to work IS good business

 

[Optimus Prime]

For what it’s worth
===============
Vladimir Putin has said he would prefer a Joe Biden presidency to Donald Trump and mocked the former Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson for a “lack of sharp questions” during their interview at the Kremlin last week.

Asked by a Russian state journalist on Wednesday to choose between Biden and Trump, Putin said without hesitation that the current US president was “more experienced, predictable, an old-school politician”, but added: “We will work with any US president who the American people have confidence in.”

It was the first time Putin had spoken about the forthcoming US presidential elections, at a time when Kyiv waits anxiously to see if the US House of Representatives will approve a critical wartime aid package for Ukraine.

The Russian president also dismissed worries over Biden’s age and mental acuity, saying he had not noticed any issues with his American counterpart during a meeting in 2021.

“Even then [three years ago] people were saying that he was incompetent, but I did not see anything of this sort,” he said. “Yes, he kept looking at his papers, but to be honest I kept doing the same. So there was nothing peculiar.”……

Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump and mocks Tucker Carlson’s questions

Russian president says Biden is ‘more predictable’, in remarks likely to be attempt to make mischief in US election

www.theguardian.com

 

[coldseat]

For what it’s worth
===============
Vladimir Putin has said he would prefer a Joe Biden presidency to Donald Trump and mocked the former Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson for a “lack of sharp questions” during their interview at the Kremlin last week.

Asked by a Russian state journalist on Wednesday to choose between Biden and Trump, Putin said without hesitation that the current US president was “more experienced, predictable, an old-school politician”, but added: “We will work with any US president who the American people have confidence in.”

It was the first time Putin had spoken about the forthcoming US presidential elections, at a time when Kyiv waits anxiously to see if the US House of Representatives will approve a critical wartime aid package for Ukraine.

The Russian president also dismissed worries over Biden’s age and mental acuity, saying he had not noticed any issues with his American counterpart during a meeting in 2021.

“Even then [three years ago] people were saying that he was incompetent, but I did not see anything of this sort,” he said. “Yes, he kept looking at his papers, but to be honest I kept doing the same. So there was nothing peculiar.”……

Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump and mocks Tucker Carlson’s questions

Russian president says Biden is ‘more predictable’, in remarks likely to be attempt to make mischief in US election

www.theguardian.com

Sure he does, lol

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Sure he does, lol

hook, line and sinker to a certain group...lol

 

[Taurus]

And then you haven't even included lost productivity/pay.

My husband got a blodcloth in his brain18 months ago and the doctors discovered he had multiple issues ranging from a tumor in his throat, another in his brain and a irregular heart beat. The first was causing massive hormonal issues which threatned his life and he had to undergo a long and dangerous operation to remove it. The second cant be removed due to where it is positioned. So they are keeping an eye on that one with frequent MR scans, He was also diagnosed with diabetes 1. He got lucky and only suffered minor injury from the blodcloth but is now taking a LOT of medicin. Every hospital and doctor visit is free of charge and after the first 150$ worth of medicin every year, he nows pays like 10$ a month for the remaining year. The fact that he got treated so quickly and are able to get all the medicine he needs and the free bi-weekly checkup visits with his doctors, has made it possible for him to resume work and to be a productive tax paying citizent within the limitations of his illness., He even get supplemental pay covering the difference between his regular full time pay and his now reduced part time pay,

Yes we do pay a lot of taxes but bottom line is that it is actually good business. Getting people healthy and back to work IS good business

It's not just productivity related to the illness. It's also related to the hassle of dealing with the American system.

What is covered by whom, where, when, how much? Does anyone really know? No. Insurers and hospitals pay good salaries to people who's only job is to sift through a Byzantine set of rules to figure out how/who/what to charge for that Band-aid. It's $2 to you, 6$ to me and $265 to the poor schmuck who came in on a Sunday. It's insane, yet American's are so brainwashed by the "free market" that we put up with it.

I think a candidate who stresses the ease and simplicity of a single-payer system could make a lot of headway. You go in, show your card and get care. Done.

The entire Insurer Relations department can be let go or retrained into something productive.