ChrisWeigant.com

Two More Medicare For All Arguments

[ Posted Monday, October 21st, 2019 – 16:44 UTC ]

I read today an excellent article in Salon which took on the utter shallowness of the current frenzy of making Elizabeth Warren admit she's going to have to raise taxes to pay for Medicare For All. This article impressively paints the bigger picture and offers up several soundbites that I wish we had heard from both Warren and Bernie Sanders in last week's debate. Warren and Sanders are the ones defending Medicare For All, but so far they have struggled to do so in a way which directly answers some of the inane criticism not only from the pundits but also from several centrist Democratic presidential candidates as well.

But while the article does a great job addressing the tax issue, there were two other attacks on Medicare For All which were made last week (notably by Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar) which really demand a much stronger response than either Warren or Sanders gave. The first is the charge that Medicare For All would "kick 160 million Americans off their health insurance," and the second is that "people love the health insurance they have now." Both need knocking down, and while Warren and Sanders have attempted to do so in the first four debates (all of which have spent a large amount of time on the healthcare reform issue), they still need to drive the point home in a way they so far have failed to do.

So here are my suggested talking points for them. When Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders hears the accusation made that Medicare For All would "kick people off" their health insurance, they should very forcefully push back not only on the concept but also on the way this is being politically framed:

Wow -- when you talk about me 'kicking people off' their health insurance, you make me sound like one of those Republicans who voted dozens of times to kill Obamacare and kick millions of people off their health insurance -- leaving them completely uninsured and unable to afford any health insurance. If that were actually true instead of just being a Republican talking point, I certainly wouldn't want to vote for me either.

It's not true, however -- not even close. In fact, it is nothing short of fearmongering and you should be ashamed for using such misleading language. Under my plan no one would be left uninsured. Let me repeat that, since I don't think you have heard it before: no one would be left uninsured. No one. Everyone would not only have insurance, but they'd have a lifelong guarantee of having health insurance. Period.

See the difference? Yes, millions of Americans will have to transition -- another key word: transition -- from the private health insurance they have now onto Medicare. This currently happens every day, I would point out. People retire or they turn 65 and they sign up for Medicare. When people turn 65, nobody talks about 'forcing them off their health insurance,' for the simple reason that they do not lose coverage. And neither will anyone else under my plan. Republicans may say differently, but that doesn't make it true. Universal health insurance is just what it says it is: universal. So I wish you'd stop trying to scare everyone into thinking that somehow they'll be left with no health insurance at all, because I think using such scare tactics cheapens the debate.

The second slam against Medicare For All is just as easy to refute as the idea that any Democrat would want to strip health insurance from millions of people. All you have to do is make the issue relatable to how people currently use their health insurance and interact with their health insurance company:

You keep talking about how people 'love' their current health insurance. In my experience, the only people who say this are the people who have never had to make use of it in a major way. Mostly, people are satisfied enough with what they've got through their employers, and are terrified that their employers will change their plans one year to something worse than what they've got now. That's not quite the same thing as 'loving' it.

Why do people not love their health insurance companies? Well, that's a long list. Some people like the doctor they go to and are afraid any change in insurance will mean they won't be able to see her or him again. Some people have gotten hit with exorbitant charges because they had to use a hospital or emergency room that was 'out of network.' Some people are paying extremely high premiums, even under Obamacare. That means thousands of dollars they have to spend out of their own pockets before their insurance pays anything. And some people are just tired of arguing with insurance company bureaucrats about what procedures and treatments are allowed and which are not.

So let's take these problems one by one. Under Medicare For All, every doctor in the country would be in the same network. You could see any of them -- the choice would be completely up to you and you alone. Do you like a doctor that you can't see anymore because your employer bought a cheaper plan or you changed jobs? Well, Medicare For All means you can go see that doctor again. Want to stay with a particular doctor you now like? You will be able to do so, because they'll all be in the same network.

Have to go to the hospital for an emergency? Well, you'll now be able to go to the nearest hospital instead of having to tell the ambulance driver -- assuming you are still conscious, that is -- to drive you across town to the one in your network. All hospitals will be in the same network, so it won't matter which one you go to, and 'out of network charges' will forever be a thing of the past. High premiums will disappear under Medicare For All, and Medicare will cover costs without endless phone calls and emails to get the approval.

Medicare For All will mean all of the things that people are afraid of now with their current health insurance will no longer be gigantic headaches and cause so much stress and worry. None of the fears people now have of having to change insurance plans will exist under Medicare For All. When you explain that to people, they understand why Medicare For All is a much better way to go than what they've got now. All doctors and hospitals will be on the same network, and you won't have to fight with bureaucrats when your loved one is sick. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me, and it's why the idea of Medicare For All is so popular.

All of these talking points shift the debate back to the perspective of ordinary people. How is health insurance actually used by the average family? What are the problems which exist for that family in the current system? How will Medicare For All remove or ameliorate those problems? That is where the Medicare For All debate should move, because this is the strongest and most personal case progressives can make. Arguments about trillions of dollars and taxes don't address these issues at all. The centrists are getting bolder in making these arguments since the progressives haven't knocked them down forcefully enough.

There are more debates to come. There are more chances to make these arguments, and to shame the centrists for their use of Republican talking points against Medicare For All. So I'd dearly love to hear either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders push back a little harder against both the pundits and their fellow candidates on the stage the next time we hear such specious arguments made against Medicare For All. Let's have an intelligent debate on the merits, but in doing so let's please get beyond the shallow and misleading right-wing talking points.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

58 Comments on “Two More Medicare For All Arguments”

  1. [1] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Great ideas CW how can we insure that Elizabeth sees this?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I always see it.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Yes, millions of Americans will have to transition -- another key word: transition -- from the private health insurance they have now onto Medicare. This currently happens every day, I would point out. People retire or they turn 65 and they sign up for Medicare. When people turn 65, nobody talks about 'forcing them off their health insurance,' for the simple reason that they do not lose coverage. And neither will anyone else under my plan. Republicans may say differently, but that doesn't make it true. Universal health insurance is just what it says it is: universal. So I wish you'd stop trying to scare everyone into thinking that somehow they'll be left with no health insurance at all, because I think using such scare tactics cheapens the debate.

    REALLY GOOD.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I haven't really been following the healthcare debate very closely so is it true that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would eliminate private health insurance as part of their Medicare-For-All plans?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    You raise some good points about how to counter the Medicare-For-All critics.

    I also think Bernie Sanders could do a better job of explaining in detail why while taxes will go up that will be more than offset by much lower healthcare costs, right?

    But, I think Sanders and Warren also need to explain more about how the healthcare system will actually work, down to the minutia and not just about costs.

    Do healthcare professionals mostly support Medicare-For-All?

  6. [6] 
    andygaus wrote:

    Even if Medicare for All is by rights a better program, Medicare for All Who Want It is inherently more respectful, and I think I speak for many voters when I say, Respect!

    I think many voters felt, rightly or wrongly, that Secretary Clinton didn't respect them enough, and I'd like that not to happen to Senator Warren.

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [2],

    I always see it.

    (Clapping) I see what you did there! I got a kick out that!

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would just like to mention the little fact that there is a national election happening today in Canada and, while watching the coverage as polls are closing across the country, I am reminded that Canadian elections are quite fun to watch!

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Anyone can answer the questions in [5], by the way, ahem ...

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I just read the "excellent article", better late than never.

    So, there will be no private health insurance in a Medicare-For-All scenario.

    But, that's a pretty big deal and a huge step from where the country is now. It's that 'transition period' that scares a lot of people, I'm guessing. Because, government efficiency doesn't exactly have a stellar record, does it …

    That's why I think Sanders and Warren have got to explain so much more than just how they'll pay for it.

  12. [12] 
    Paula wrote:

    [6] andygaus:

    Even if Medicare for All is by rights a better program, Medicare for All Who Want It is inherently more respectful, and I think I speak for many voters when I say, Respect!

    The problem there is that by continuing to have private insurers involved costs go up for everyone. It is ultimately a selfish position. Private insurers exist purely to COST money - they offer absolutely no healthcare value. But people conflate the notion that you pay money to insurers and get, in return, "better care" with the fact that you pay money to insurers and they pass it on to care-providers - if they don't refuse coverage.

    The FEAR of M4A is that it would automatically be like the stereotypes of bad government services. But there's a number of differences. When you go to get your driver's license, the people there provide the service (well or badly). Under Medicare (our already existing socialized med program) you go to the doctor, hospital, etc. for your service. The difference lies in how you are - or aren't - billed for service, not how well you are served by the providers.

    What we really need is one of those CNN Town Halls where every candidate gets 30-60 minutes to present their healthcare plans and take questions. (I watched the Climate Change and LBGTQ events and thought they were some of the best stuff CNN has done.) This would be more valuable after the field is reduced - 6-8 candidates, say. Let the candidates make their pitches with some time for complexity instead of them having to jam everything into 1-2 minutes.

  13. [13] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    As tempting as the Medicare For All scenario sounds, the question does remain, even from the "perspective of ordinary people": what is all this convenience and sense of security going to cost me compared to what I pay now?

    At least one article I've read has noted that the transition from private insurance through the employer to a public plan for all has a very sticky point: much of the employee's premium is paid by the employer, invisible to the employee as part of the 'benefits', but very visible to the employers as part of the 'cost of employing someone'.

    If Warren or Sanders expect to make this thing work without substantially raising taxes (i.e., premiums) to replace the hidden premiums now paid by employers, they are going to have to pry the employer premium out of the employer's hand and force it into the employee's hands as a substantial pay raise - which can then be applied to paying the higher taxes/premiums of Medicare for All. If the famous efficiencies actually kick in, perhaps the pay raises will outweigh the new taxes, and employees will actually experience a rise in their take-home pay.

    But the key, as I understand it, is getting the corporations to cough up when they are no longer withholding pay to cover the benefits, and give the pay explicitly to their workers. Otherwise Medicare for All is a massive wealth transfer to the large employers. A large number of the common people thus get screwed, and notice they're getting screwed because the Democrats "took their health insurance away", i.e. made them actually pay for it with higher taxes when they didn't have to pay for it (as much, anyway) before.

  14. [14] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    andygaus,

    Even if Medicare for All is by rights a better program, Medicare for All Who Want It is inherently more respectful, and I think I speak for many voters when I say, Respect!

    Why do you think it is “more respectful”? Giving people the choice to choose plans that do not offer adequate coverage or that they could have canceled at any point without warning does not sound like we are being “more respectful”!

    If choosing to keep their coverage means that everyone else gets a Medicare for All Who Want It where the coverage is not nearly as good/comprehensive and costs people way more than if we ALL switched to Medicare of All... shouldn’t we be willing to do what is best for the most people? Honestly, it’s going to result in universal care for EVERYONE, how could any plan you are on currently be that much better?

  15. [15] 
    Paula wrote:

    [13]
    John M from Ct.

    Good points and do need to be addressed.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Carried over from FTP comments, your comment 37.

    "Something different is in order and long overdue."

    It's about time you came around.

    Big thinking, big ideas need not be about big items, per se. In fact some of the biggest thinking is about small things, or more accurately how to bring small things into play to solve problems that big things may make worse."

    Exactly what One Demand is.

    You asked for it- you got it.

    Now do something about it by encouraging CW to address it.

    You were (are) very wrong about Biden being "Up-wing".

    A candidate taking big money cannot by definition be "Up-wing".

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I have zero influence with CW.

    Biden is up-wing alright, just not nearly as up-wing as I would like him to be.

    The election in Canada tonight resulted in a minority Liberal government. Which is a win for the environment - let's see how big a win ...

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … let's see if someone can convince Trudeau that buying a pipeline is pretty much down-wing.

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The downside of a debate between 12 candidates is that none have enough time to fully process what others have said and deliver a well formulated response - assuming they are even given a chance to respond before the moderators have moved on to fresh topics. In the early mass contests, more heat is bound to be generated than light.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is going to have to demonstrate some very effective leadership skills to keep our dear country whole or we may have to go through yet another constitutional crisis. :(

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    A strong debater does not necessarily translate into an effective POTUS, you know.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How many times must I point that out?

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Canadian election campaigns last about 40 days, give or take. Yes, DAYS … less than two months.

    Just a little FYI, if I may … :)

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Michale on holiday? Isn't Thanksgiving this week?

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indubitabubbly.

  26. [26] 
    dsws wrote:

    We need to de-carbonize ASAP. Until we do, though, we're using fossil fuel. Coal is much worse than oil and gas, and trucking oil and gas is less efficient than using pipelines. Gas pipelines in particular make it possible to extract and use oil without flaring (or even worse, venting) the gas that comes with it. So I don't think it's a good idea to automatically oppose pipelines. There can be good reasons for opposing specific ones, but they don't make it through the fog of political discourse.

  27. [27] 
    dsws wrote:

    Canadian election campaigns last about 40 days

    How do you keep people from electioneering earlier than that?

  28. [28] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    I agree with John M. that getting employers to transfer their part of current insurance premiums to employees would be a major difficulty. Converting that directly into tax sounds like a possibility, but then those taxes would reflect the variation in employment insurance provision, so still not an easy answer.

    Would it be possible to stage a transition, moving sections of the population into Medicare or Medicare eligibility at different times? That would give the system more time to adapt. Or perhaps an optional phase?

    I hope we will hear more about how this could work out, bearing in mind that even a perfect plan is likely to be a bit battered by the time it gets through legislation and implementation.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    "I have zero influence on CW."

    That's a cop out. And not true.

    I remember a time when you and I agreed that covering every little idiocy of Trump was playing into his tiny hands and CW responded by saying he would try to cut back on doing that.

    While it did not really change much, it does show that you have some influence, I have some influence and together we have even more influence.

    Biden being up-wing but not as much as you would like him to be is the equivalent of saying Trump is honest- just not as honest as you would like him to be.

  30. [30] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm thinking that the phrase "abuse of power" should feature prominently in discussions of the ra*ist-in-chief. If the boss of a TV show maintains a workplace environment where women have to "let" that boss commit sexual assault, that's an abuse of power. If prison guards do horrible things to people detained for alleged irregularities in the procedure by which they applied for refugee status, that's an abuse of power. And if the president withholds military aid until a country agrees to make up dirt on the president's presumptive opponent in the next election, that's an abuse of power.

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-22,23

    "A strong debater does not necessarily translate into an effective POTUS, you know."

    I agree completely. I think there may well be a loose negative correlation between pure rhetorical dexterity and political honesty and good governance...think "too clever by half" or just plain "glib."

    I especially believe this is true when the number of debaters exceeds two and the refereeing is poorly executed...as I believe is the case now.

    "How many times must I point that out?"

    As often as you like."

    For somebody with a Laconic writing style you don't seem to appreciate it others very much.:)

  32. [32] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz - 23

    Forty days seems about right to me.

    Liz - 24

    Michael?

    Doing research watching Star Trek, Marvel films and Fox Network? The deep stuff.

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Perhaps it is unfair for me to ask you to encourage CW to address One Demand.

    But maybe you would be willing to discuss your opinion on whether it is an up-wing idea and if CW should address it.

    Your influence over CW has no bearing on that discussion.

    Also, as I am often advised to try something different and you feel something different is needed and overdue, what would your opinion be on having a Town Hall here in the Weigentia comments section on One Demand?

    CW could pick a time and date (preferably not during a Giants game) when CW and I can have about half an hour or so of direct back and forth on One Demand followed by questions/comments from other commenters and answers to those questions by CW and me.

    Maybe it could even become something used every month or two to discuss other issues that keeping recurring in the comments despite the content of the article at the top of the thread with CW and a commenter or two that want to be part of the Town Hall on those issues.

  34. [34] 
    TheStig wrote:
  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dan,

    I agree, essentially. But, while we are building these last pipelines, it would be nice if we were building the same infrastructure for green energy and at least try to catch up to China, no?

    As for the strict 40 days thing, I think it has something to do with the law or our constitution or both. :)

    Something else we do differently here in Canada - no pharmaceutical advertising. Imagine that ...

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    I just read that brackets piece you linked to.

    Fantastic idea! Certainly better than what you have now.

    Here, only party leaders (6 of them this time) can campaign, for 40 days, to win the right to form a government.

    Relatively speaking, our debates were pretty good. And, the moderators actually operated as real debate moderators.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    As often as you like.

    I knew that. :)

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For somebody with a Laconic writing style you don't seem to appreciate it in others very much.:)

    Well, TS, maybe it's because … it's all so new to me. Heh.

  39. [39] 
    Paula wrote:

    So the State Dept releases report clearing HRC of any "deliberate" wrongdoing re: her emails. Naturally this news is not played up by the major media players who turned HER EMAILS into the crime of the century during 2016.

    Kevin Drum comments:

    Lest you think it’s unfair to hold the Times accountable for a conclusion reached three years after their Hillary jihad took place, they could have reached the same conclusion themselves if they’d actually read the entire FBI report, which was released in early September of 2016. I read it, and it flipped my view of Emailgate completely from “sloppy bad judgment but not illegal” to “Hillary did nothing wrong, period.” Of course, the FBI report was 58 pages long, so who can blame anyone for just skimming it? Clinton was obviously sleazy and had been her whole life, so what were the odds that the email affair was just another Republican hit job?

    Pretty high, actually, but the Times still hadn’t figured that out in 2016. Bygones, I suppose. Still, you’d think there might at least be an apology in the works or something.

    https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/10/try-asking-hillary-clinton-about-that/

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula, when it comes to the devolutionary US media, the phrase, "Get over it", as well as a great Eagles song, is apropos here.

    Besides, FBI Director Comey already cleared her of any deliberate wrongdoing before the last election and it got a lot of coverage, as I recall.

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    [40] EM: Nope and BTW, I wouldn't quote Blotus or Mulvaney or anyone else with "get over it".

    Aside from the fact that it's extraordinarily offensive, it's also why the same problems occur again. "Getting over it" is a nasty way of saying "forward not backwards". There has to be acknowledgment and accountability or bad actors just replay their bad acts cos there's nothing to stop them.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [40] EM: Nope and BTW, I wouldn't quote Blotus or Mulvaney or anyone else with "get over it".

    Actually, I was quoting the inestimable Don Henley.

    What acknowledgement are you looking for?

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wouldn't it be totally awesome if the person who wrote that New York Times op-ed with a warning about Trump had the audacity to write a warning book? ;)

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Like we could ever hope to be so lucky!

    It would be perfect if they were able to release their book right as the impeachment trial begins. It would allow Kellyanne.... errr, I mean, it would allow the resistances’ secret agent to tell us all of the things we need to know about just how much of a train wreck Trump has truly been. It will also allow this person to save their good name and hopefully avoid being brought down like everyone who chose to be involved in this disastrous presidency will be.

    Surely the NYTimes could never work that sort of a deal out! Nor could they already be planning a book tour for this person! But we can dream....

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    45

    Like we could ever hope to be so lucky!

    I feel lucky!

    It would be perfect if they were able to release their book right as the impeachment trial begins.

    How's about November 19?

    Surely the NYTimes could never work that sort of a deal out! Nor could they already be planning a book tour for this person! But we can dream....

    Of course, a book tour would mean never having to refer to yourself as "Anonymous" again. :)

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The Republicans screaming that Democrats (esp. Adam Schiff) are not allowing Trump’s people to play a part in these hearings and that the Democrats are making this too secretive a process are exactly right. That’s because past impeachment investigations were conducted by the DOJ’s Special Counsel. But after the DOJ refused to do its job and investigate the allegations made by the Whistleblowers, Congress was left to conduct the investigations themselves. Schiff is handling this investigation the way a grand jury would — everything is done in secret until such time that charges are brought.

    Trump has only Barr to blame for this! His DOJ refused to consider opening investigations even after the DNI inspector general and the CIA’s lawyer both entered criminal referrals. Barr’s DOJ simply refused to interview any witnesses making allegations against the White House — this alone is enough to secure articles of impeachment for Barr’s removal.. Barr knew that even he couldn’t spin the allegations enough to hide the truth of Trump’s crimes, so he chose instead to bury his head in the sand.

    I also thought it was telling that Trump’s appointment to head the DOJ’s criminal prosecutions division claimed he would not have coordinated on some projects with the president’s personal attorney had he been aware that Giuliani was the subject of a counterintelligence investigation! How is it that the #3 person and the head of the CRIMINAL division was not aware of that? Personally, I hope he is telling the truth and that he was completely unaware of it....that means Barr isn’t controlling all of the DOJ with an iron fist. It sounds like the Southern District has lived up to its reputation of being independent and ignoring the political motivations that the AG attempts to force the DOJ to act on.

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    Funny how all the newspapers that made Hillary’s emails their front page headlines daily during the election chose to bury the results of the investigation on page 16; under an article about someone seeing the face of Jesus in their latte and an advertisement for discount teeth cleaning.

    I would have thought it had earned front page coverage in big bold lettering announcing the findings for such an important investigation!

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    [48] Listen: Exactly.

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If you haven’t read the opening statement from Ambassador Bill Taylor regarding Trump’s repulsive abuse of power, here is the link:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/opening-statement-of-ambassador-william-b-taylor/6b3a6edf-f976-4081-ba7f-bce45468a3ff/

    I cannot believe how much damage Trump has done in destroying the faith that other countries used to have for us! Reading his account literally made me sick to my stomach. A young country that has fought so hard to free itself from their own internal sources of corruption...only to get a face full of our corruption when they look to an ally they have long looked to for support.

    Putin must be ecstatic with how well Trump has served Russia’s interests since they put him in the White House. He has accomplished far more than Putin could have ever hoped for!

  51. [51] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-36

    I first broached this idea on this very website during the Obama Years, and CW sort of liked the idea, as I recall it. Not that I claim it's MY IDEA, I don't believe there are any new ideas on a planet approaching 8 billion thinkers (and that's not counting dolphins, non-human primate species, octopi and some the better sorts of birds).

    Note the seeding system, which I think is very important.

    I would keep debates very short, (easy when it's one a on one debate) especially in the early rounds. Forty minutes works for collegiate basketball...why not Presidential Aspirants? Half time break (with cheering squads & bands)...oh my yes, for beer and bathroom breaks (older audience and candidates require these).

    I could see the Democrats running bracketed debates between promising candidates throughout 4 year Pres. Election Cycles. Go for a full field of 68 candidates. Managing these events would actually give Party Officials something more to do besides fundraising. The field could even be broken into 4 regions...say, East and West Coasts, Dixie and Mid America?

    Do not rely on networks for broadcast. The Democratic Part should live stream on the internet. I know of high schools with the tech savvy to do this. My son could do this. He needs the work. We could limit wagers to $200 bucks and possibly still beat or come close to beating dark money.

    Could online wagering provide a revenue source for campaigns drawing in small donors. Don't scoff at this, many state educational systems use lotteries to cover some of their budgets.

    The hard part of all this is how you choose the winners. Experts using a well defined rubric? Audience votes? Either could work, but not everybody would agree on which was best.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS.

    I think you should send your proposal to the DNC and all of your representatives.

    It won't change this election cycle, of course, but it should be .. how shall I say … debated! before the next presidential election.

    You'll have to be persistent and keep trying, multiple times throughout the next couple or three years.

    Send it to all the media outlets, etc. etc. etc …

    I think it could be very successful because it really is a great idea!

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    I think 68 might be too many.

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    [50] Listen:

    Reading his account literally made me sick to my stomach. A young country that has fought so hard to free itself from their own internal sources of corruption...only to get a face full of our corruption when they look to an ally they have long looked to for support.

    Yep.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    2

    I always see it.

    Heh!

  56. [56] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-52

    Thank you for your kind words. I have floated the basic idea around on The Web for a number years, but it's only been readily Google-able since around 2015. It's a fairly hot topic now, try searching and you'll get dozens of hits. Now that I think about it, CW may have given me the idea of using a bracket system.

    Every now and them I come up with what seems to me a novel wrinkle in the scheme (say wagering), and I'll shoot the idea off somewhere. That said, I'm comfortably retired, I have enough money to live in gentile poverty until I'm roughly 110 yrs or so and wish I were dead. I do what I want without much concern for making more retirement income - although I don't turn down any morally acceptable checks that might arrive in my mail box or direct deposit.

    The idea that Presidential debates are an American Tradition is hogwash. The Lincoln Douglas debates weren't remotely like the TV debates that have sometimes occurred since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960. There is a lot of room for innovation.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

    I mean, the DNC comes up with a new game plan for the debates every presidential primary season.

    You might have to tweak your idea a bit to make it more palatable to the DNC, though.

  58. [58] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Re- 56 Looks like autocorrect has struck again. Gentille for genteel. I never been good at editing my own stuff. Pretty good pun though. :).

Comments for this article are closed.