• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nevada's powerful Culinary Union declines to endorse a 2020 candidate

Surrealistik said:
This is the best aggregator I've seen thus far; majority support seems rather durable:

Tracking Public Opinion on National Health Plan: Interactive | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

As to Nevada, I'm far more concerned with the overall vote where Sanders looks to be doing well as Biden falls off, than a single union leadership.

Ultimately this fear that 'good' health plans will be supplanted by 'worse' public ones is essentially without merit. I have no doubt that MFA will be both more comprehensive and cheaper after taxes than whatever the Culinary Union has managed to negotiate for its workers.
Click to expand...
I'm loosely familiar Kaiser, but didn't think of using it. I have concerns with the terms "national health plans" vs "Medicare for All", but the poll makes it clear they are thought of as the same. I realized "national healthcare" was a moderate majority, but didn't realize it specifically reference "MFA". Oh well, I'll accept your data.

But I don't think embracing MFA will be so easy. I agree it will likely be similar (or better) in healthcare results, in relation to the union's current plan. But it will still have to overcome perception. And for better or worse, citizens vote perception. In addition, it seems a large proportion of the country does not want MFA. So why alienate them - shoving it down their throats - when it can be offered as a public option? It would seem to me a public option would satisfy both groups' needs.

I see the MFA in terms of public acceptance as having similarities to gay-marriage and abortion. These are things that many want, and many others do not, with extremely strong personal preferences in both groups. So, why not offer an option? If you don't believe in abortion or marriage, don't do it. If you do desire to avail yourself of these rights - it's your personal choice to do so. That seems better than alienating large swaths of the country.
 
Nap said:
I have been saying this since the people first started talking about M4A, it is detrimental to the working class. It shouldn't be suprising that unions that fought for great healthcare coverage are going to balk at the idea of having to give that up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't get it - when a public option can be supplied keeping both proponents & detractors happy.
 
VanceMack said:
Pretty clearly, they dont want Biden, who they would have initially supported. But they also definitely dont want Bernie. But they cant support Warren who is just Bernie. and Clearly they cant support Biden who is a loser. And they cant support Buttiegieg because he doesnt even have a pulse in Las Vegas and they dont want to throw their support behind a loser BUT throwing their support behind Bloomberg just became really risky after the last few days. And...oh yeah...they cant support Bernie. And they DEFINITELY dont want Biden.........

Starting to look a little bit like a dialogue from Vizzini.
Click to expand...


.This the summation of the problem the Democrats have.
 
Nap said:
I essentially have that now other than no copays for less than 1k annually (when you include vision, dental, LT and ST disability coverage which were optional) and this is a non union job, I always heard union jobs had significantly better.

I know not everyone has the same quality of healthcare I recieve, but I imagine there are enough at that level to cripple the Democratic party for a generation if they aren't able to match the quality and cost of the healthcare they currently recieve. Seems like an incredibly risky gamble, especially after the blowback they recieved after the ACA which if not for Trump they would still be reeling.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the "forced MFA" argument makes no sense when juxtaposed alongside a "public option". To me, it is unconscionable to bar Americans access to private health insurance if they so desire to avail themselves of it. I think it's best to offer MFA type coverage as a universal public option, such as we offer Medicare & Medicaid. But we should not force individuals into these system. That removes free choice.
 
Linc said:
Union and nonunion members who’ve bargained for great health care at the expense of better salaries will vote for trump, especially in the Midwest, if mfa is in the Democratic platform. Guaranteed. Dems are heading for the worst drubbing they’ve taken since 1984 if Sanders is the nominee.

Once again, I’ll direct you to see how Sen. Sherrod Brown would tackle health care. When he wasn’t so naive and stupid to endorse mfa last February, leftist regressives pulled their support from him. He stopped exploring the presidency soon after.
Click to expand...
Yep. I agree. Thing is - the Dems can run on a public option, and garner a great deal of support with far less alienation.
 
I understand why a union including the Culinary in Nevada would be hesitant to endorse a candidate who might weaken a benefit that was bargained for. My only issue I suppose is if it's only one position that's keeping a union or any voter from supporting a candidate. Ultimately you you get to vote for any candidate you choose regardless of your reasons for doing so, but single issue voters I don't completely understand.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm loosely familiar Kaiser, but didn't think of using it. I have concerns with the terms "national health plans" vs "Medicare for All", but the poll makes it clear they are thought of as the same. I realized "national healthcare" was a moderate majority, but didn't realize it specifically reference "MFA". Oh well, I'll accept your data.

But I don't think embracing MFA will be so easy. I agree it will likely be similar (or better) in healthcare results, in relation to the union's current plan. But it will still have to overcome perception. And for better or worse, citizens vote perception. In addition, it seems a large proportion of the country does not want MFA. So why alienate them - shoving it down their throats - when it can be offered as a public option? It would seem to me a public option would satisfy both groups' needs.

I see the MFA in terms of public acceptance as having similarities to gay-marriage and abortion. These are things that many want, and many others do not, with extremely strong personal preferences in both groups. So, why not offer an option? If you don't believe in abortion or marriage, don't do it. If you do desire to avail yourself of these rights - it's your personal choice to do so. That seems better than alienating large swaths of the country.
Click to expand...

It should also be noted that those who explicitly oppose MFA are roughly half to two thirds of those who support it; it's not like there's an even split.

The fundamental problem with MFA for all who want it/public options schemes is that they do not tackle runaway health costs nearly as well as SP can (and in the States right now, they're bad going on worse), they effectively act as a generous indirect subsidy to private insurers in that it is essentially an outlet for all the worst risks, leaving them with the best and most profitable customers, while (and perhaps most importantly/problematically) keeping the private health insurance industry (and lobby) around as a powerful, toxic actor capable of perverting health legislation to its ends that will continue to actively fight against and sabotage any further displacement of their gig to the public sector, regardless of the cost to Americans, while undermining the public option as a competitor. Remember, they were one of the main proponents of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act that forbade Medicare from negotiating drug prices, while private insurers were able to continue doing so, and I have no doubt that so long as they exist, they will tirelessly endeavour to continue passing poison pills and toxic legislation like this to their benefit, and our collective expense.

Simplified it would be essentially the equivalent of allowing people to opt between two worse choices versus one better default option; bad choices in my view, are not choices worth having when the alternative is superior.
 
Last edited:
FormerCentrist said:
I understand why a union including the Culinary in Nevada would be hesitant to endorse a candidate who might weaken a benefit that was bargained for. My only issue I suppose is if it's only one position that's keeping a union or any voter from supporting a candidate. Ultimately you you get to vote for any candidate you choose regardless of your reasons for doing so, but single issue voters I don't completely understand.
Click to expand...

During a primary it is typically only a small selection issues that differ between the candidates, and with how the system works it doesn't really matter whom the candidate is as someone like a Bernie Sanders won't be able to get much done without the backing of the moderate Dems so the end result between a Bernie Sanders or a Joe Biden administration will largely be the same so if the issue you care about is what that person is vocal about then just about any other candidate will do.
 
Nap said:
During a primary it is typically only a small selection issues that differ between the candidates, and with how the system works it doesn't really matter whom the candidate is as someone like a Bernie Sanders won't be able to get much done without the backing of the moderate Dems so the end result between a Bernie Sanders or a Joe Biden administration will largely be the same so if the issue you care about is what that person is vocal about then just about any other candidate will do.
Click to expand...

Think I get what you're are saying, it's true the difference between the Democratic candidates positions on many issues are similar and only in a primary race they are made larger to distinguish themselves from another candidate.

The bigger point I was trying to make was although there may be several valid reasons to vote or not to vote for candidate if it's ONLY one position that cancels out all the rest or if one position is a non starter in regards to supporting a candidate I have a hard time even believing it's an honest answer to give for reason to vote or not for a candidate.

To tie this issue into Bernie is the following.
There are many valid reasons not wanting to vote for Bernie, many I think are dubious. I don't like him or his supporters, he's a socialist who will be ruinous, he's said things decades ago that seem evil/anti american.

Three of the major reasons people are giving have some validity, his support for Medicare for All. his electability, and he won't get anything passed. The electability seems to be based on the M4All position and he's a Socialist. If you honestly won't vote for a Democratic Socialist despite all reasons who shouldn't be afraid to then so be it, I won't even try.

What he can or can't get done if he's elected will be issue for any of the candidates.

What's left is the M4All issue that so many, including his opponents seem to be harping on. If that's the issue that is a bridge too far then ok, I guess.
 
FormerCentrist said:
Think I get what you're are saying, it's true the difference between the Democratic candidates positions on many issues are similar and only in a primary race they are made larger to distinguish themselves from another candidate.

The bigger point I was trying to make was although there may be several valid reasons to vote or not to vote for candidate if it's ONLY one position that cancels out all the rest or if one position is a non starter in regards to supporting a candidate I have a hard time even believing it's an honest answer to give for reason to vote or not for a candidate.

To tie this issue into Bernie is the following.
There are many valid reasons not wanting to vote for Bernie, many I think are dubious. I don't like him or his supporters, he's a socialist who will be ruinous, he's said things decades ago that seem evil/anti american.

Three of the major reasons people are giving have some validity, his support for Medicare for All. his electability, and he won't get anything passed. The electability seems to be based on the M4All position and he's a Socialist. If you honestly won't vote for a Democratic Socialist despite all reasons who shouldn't be afraid to then so be it, I won't even try.

What he can or can't get done if he's elected will be issue for any of the candidates.

What's left is the M4All issue that so many, including his opponents seem to be harping on. If that's the issue that is a bridge too far then ok, I guess.
Click to expand...

His policies if enacted would be ruinous, however I simply don't believe any of it will actually be implemented so not much to worry about. If the squad was more that 4 people then I would be worried. If elected Bernie will only get the same things that a Biden or a Buttigieg would be able to get passed so he would effectively be the equivalent to a moderate Democrat due to the constraints Congress will put on him. I wouldn't be shocked if Democrats made a decision to tank a few races so that Republicans took back the house if Bernie got elected so that they could sit back and blame Republican Obstruction preventing them from passing legislation. The last thing the DNC wants is Bernie as President with control of both the House and Senate.

Edit: As for your main point, there are always going to be issues that for some people that it is a deal breaker or in some cases that 1 issue is the reason you vote for a person. I would vote for Tulsi even though I despise most of her platform and that is purely due to her foriegn policy. If someone I agreed with everything they stood for but openly campaigned on continuing America's current policy of bombing and fueling civil wars across the globe then I wouldn't vote them.
 
Last edited:
Rexedgar said:
I just returned from a scheduled, routine visit with my GP. He says the Culinary Union didn’t negotiate great pay, but they did negotiate an outstanding healthcare plan for members. Whatever Bernie is offering would be a significant downgrade to their existing coverage.

My doc also has a sibling as a judge in SDNY, he says “keep the faith!”
Click to expand...

As far as I understand it, under MFA, all conditions and injuries would be covered at 100%, and all hospitals and doctors would be required to accept public coverage. At most, a person would pay $200 out of pocket for any and all prescription medication (that is, if they have 2 prescriptions that would normally cost $200 each, they would only pay $200 in total--not $400). It would cover dental and vision, all in-patient and outpatient procedures, etc.

Hard to imagine that very many people have private insurance that would be better than that.
 
I for one am shocked. I never knew there was a Nevada Culinary Union.
 
Nap said:
Do you believe that working class people can eat essentially a 2 to 3k tax increase (for a single person, I imagine it will be worse for family coverage)?
Click to expand...

My premiums now amount to $3000 per year. Deductible, co-pays and other charges are extra. It's worth noting our premiums went up by 50% Jan 1st.

MrPeanut said:
So this is the claim: The Medicare for All Act will provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in our country -- without out-of-pocket expenses. No more insurance premiums, deductibles or co-payments. Further, this bill improves Medicare coverage to include dental, hearing and vision care.

$250 a month for that seems like a pretty good deal to me. Everyone has different healthcare needs though so I'm sure some people would lose out.
Click to expand...

As I explained to Nap, my portion of the premium already costs that amount. My employer's portion is several times that. Forget about co-pays and such, there is no conceivable way to reduce costs by that amount. Working class taxes would go up substantially more than 3k per year.
 
Michael Cole said:
My premiums now amount to $3000 per year. Deductible, co-pays and other charges are extra. It's worth noting our premiums went up by 50% Jan 1st.



As I explained to Nap, my portion of the premium already costs that amount. My employer's portion is several times that. Forget about co-pays and such, there is no conceivable way to reduce costs by that amount. Working class taxes would go up substantially more than 3k per year.
Click to expand...

Are you single or is that for a family?
 
Nap said:
Are you single or is that for a family?
Click to expand...

Single. Good insurance. BCBSIL

I'm not aware of any details regarding MFA. I'd like to know who pays for what and how much. What is the cost to employers?
 
Edit: As for your main point, there are always going to be issues that for some people that it is a deal breaker or in some cases that 1 issue is the reason you vote for a person. I would vote for Tulsi even though I despise most of her platform and that is purely due to her foriegn policy. If someone I agreed with everything they stood for but openly campaigned on continuing America's current policy of bombing and fueling civil wars across the globe then I wouldn't vote them.[/QUOTE

I'm only going address this part of your reply because the first part, although debatable it's not worth either of our time. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some of our conclusions.

Yes, you're right sometimes you draw a line or lines in the sand for whatever reason. If you TRULY in good conscious cannot vote for a candidate because of a position, then ok.
However, if M4All, or he's self avowed Democratic Socialist is the deal breaker
then imo a hard pill to swallow for those like myself who believe Bernie is the strongest advocate for those less fortunate then themselves.

I do appreciate your response, hope you have a good weekend.
 
To Nap, let me address one other point you're making about a single issue voter. Yes, it's just not against a candidate sometimes it's FOR a candidate. Again, I would say ok if it's Truly held in good conscious.
 
Chomsky said:
"Do we need further proof that 'Medicare for All' is not desired by the vast majority of Americans?"
Click to expand...

No, we don't. If we run on the abolition of private health insurance, then we will lose the election. Full stop.
 
Too bad for them Nevada does not matter at all in presidential elections.
 
Michael Cole said:
Single. Good insurance. BCBSIL

I'm not aware of any details regarding MFA. I'd like to know who pays for what and how much. What is the cost to employers?
Click to expand...

Ah, I was curious because that was around what many of my coworkers pay for family coverage. We also have BCBS
 
Chomsky said:
I'm loosely familiar Kaiser, but didn't think of using it. I have concerns with the terms "national health plans" vs "Medicare for All", but the poll makes it clear they are thought of as the same. I realized "national healthcare" was a moderate majority, but didn't realize it specifically reference "MFA". Oh well, I'll accept your data.

But I don't think embracing MFA will be so easy. I agree it will likely be similar (or better) in healthcare results, in relation to the union's current plan. But it will still have to overcome perception. And for better or worse, citizens vote perception. In addition, it seems a large proportion of the country does not want MFA. So why alienate them - shoving it down their throats - when it can be offered as a public option? It would seem to me a public option would satisfy both groups' needs.

I see the MFA in terms of public acceptance as having similarities to gay-marriage and abortion. These are things that many want, and many others do not, with extremely strong personal preferences in both groups. So, why not offer an option? If you don't believe in abortion or marriage, don't do it. If you do desire to avail yourself of these rights - it's your personal choice to do so. That seems better than alienating large swaths of the country.
Click to expand...

Oh, learned something else of relevance: not only is the Culinary Union decision specific to its leadership rather than the rank and file, but Argüello-Kline, its secretary treasurer, has close ties with the Center for American Progress, which is the pre-eminent neoliberal/Third Way think tank and a vehement opponent of Sanders' Medicare for All: Center for American Progress - Wikipedia | A Nevada Culinary Union Tried to Lay a Trap for Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren Played Along - Paste

Can't say I'm especially surprised.
 
ashurbanipal said:
As far as I understand it, under MFA, all conditions and injuries would be covered at 100%, and all hospitals and doctors would be required to accept public coverage. At most, a person would pay $200 out of pocket for any and all prescription medication (that is, if they have 2 prescriptions that would normally cost $200 each, they would only pay $200 in total--not $400). It would cover dental and vision, all in-patient and outpatient procedures, etc.

Hard to imagine that very many people have private insurance that would be better than that.
Click to expand...

It’s not just a question of coverage, you need to also consider how accessible it will be. Right now if my so has strep throat I can see the dr, stop by CVS to pick up a prescription and be home in 45 minutes. I can see any specialty dr I want no questions asked. I have zero interest in waiting hours or days to see a dr when my children are sick and I have zero interest in my primary being my gatekeeper to specialists. Have any friends in Canada? Ask how easy it is to get an appointment with a dermatologist for acne or some other specialist for a non life threatening condition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom