Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[GeneralMacArthur]

Can we talk about how Elizabeth Warren is now leading in Iowa and New Hampshire according to recent polling?

What is Warren's ceiling?  It seems paradoxical that she has nearly 80% approval and only 18% disapproval, despite identifying as a policy wonk on policies that a majority of Democratic voters oppose.

I think there are a lot of people out there who disagree with Warren on policy but see her as the only acceptable choice among the top 3.  Biden is way too old and clumsy, while Sanders is completely unacceptable on a million different levels, and no other candidate has a serious shot, so Warren becomes the default.

This seems to be the main position of Warren supporters I've met in real life.  They also will always say they "generally agree" with Warren even though they don't agree with any of the major tentpost policies of her campaign.  People just want to like her so they don't have to throw in with Biden, who's very uncool to support right now due to relentless flaming on social media.

[GP270watch]

 I've met plenty of people who support her policies. I think most of the pushback is does she have what it takes to withstand Trump's taunts. I worry about neither, I think the real threat to Warren will be the banks, corporate owned media, and big corporations who will sell out to beat her because they're that scared of her.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I've met plenty of people who support her policies. I think most of the pushback is does she have what it takes to withstand Trumps taunts. I worry about neither, I think her real threat to Warren will be the banks, corporate owned media, and big corporations who will sell out to beat her because they're that scared of her.

This is certainly what Warren would like to be true but I don't think it's actually true.

I can see the pump is being primed for all subsequent attacks to be dismissed as secretly orchestrated by a shadowy cabal of "corporate X" though.  This is one of my main issues with Warren is that she seems incapable of responding honestly to criticism.  Her most well-known quotes of the campaign are her flippant dismissals of legitimate criticism from John Delaney.

[Frenido]

Apparently racist and sexist attacks on the other half of the progressive movement are unity and outreach.

 Quick to say something about my little pushback against trolling anti-Warren posters, but says nothing at all about their attacks. Don't want to be associated with Bernie Bros, then call out their behavior.

 I personally don't give a crap about outreach to Sanders supporters, that ship has sailed. The stakes are too high to baby huge babies.

This is the same attitude that helped cost Clinton 2016. This kind of elitism and the policies associated with it are why so many people voted for Trump.

I've met plenty of people who support her policies. I think most of the pushback is does she have what it takes to withstand Trumps taunts. I worry about neither, I think her real threat to Warren will be the banks, corporate owned media, and big corporations who will sell out to beat her because they're that scared of her.

This is certainly what Warren would like to be true but I don't think it's actually true.

I can see the pump is being primed for all subsequent attacks to be dismissed as secretly orchestrated by a shadowy cabal of "corporate X" though.  This is one of my main issues with Warren is that she seems incapable of responding honestly to criticism.  Her most well-known quotes of the campaign are her flippant dismissals of legitimate criticism from John Delaney.

John Delaney is an establishment character who made no legitimate criticism, much less any good policy.

[GeneralMacArthur]

This is not in response to the troll, but just in general thought the transcripts of Delaney-Warren were worth posting.  It really is substance vs. populism.

Episode One

Delaney:  So, I think Democrats win when we run on real solutions, not impossible promises, when we run on things that are workable, not fairytale economics. Look at this story of Detroit, this amazing city that we’re in. This city is turning around because the government and the private sector are working well together. That has to be our model going forward. We need to encourage collaboration between the government, the private sector and the nonprofit sector, and focus on those kitchen table, pocketbook issues that matter to hardworking Americans, building infrastructure, creating jobs, improving their pay.

Warren:  I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for. I don’t get it. Our biggest problem in Washington is corruption. It is giant corporations that have taken our government and that are holding it by the throat, and we need to have the courage to fight back against that. And until we’re ready to do that, it’s just more of the same. Well, I’m ready to get in this fight. I’m ready to win this fight.

Delaney:  When we created Social Security, we didn’t say pensions were illegal. We can have big ideas to transform the lives. I mean, I started two companies and took them public before I was 40. I’m as big of a dreamer and an entrepreneur as anyone, but I also believe we need to have solutions that are workable. Can you imagine if we tried to start social security now, but said private pensions are illegal? That’s the equivalent of what Senator Sanders and Senator Warren are proposing with healthcare. That’s not a big idea. That’s an idea that’s dead on arrival. That will never happen. So, why don’t we actually talk about things, big ideas that we can get done. The stakes are too high.

Warren:  He talks about solutions that are workable. We have tried the solution of Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance, and what have the private insurance companies done? They’ve sucked billions of dollars out of our healthcare system. They’ve made everybody fill out dozens and dozens of forms. Why? Not because they’re trying to track your healthcare. They just want one more excuse to say no. Insurance companies do not have a god given right to suck money out of our health care system, and 2020 is our chance to stop that.



Episode Two

Delaney:  What I’m talking about is really simple. We should deal with the tragedy of the uninsured and give everyone healthcare as a right, but why do we got to be the party of taking something away from?  That’s what they’re running on! They’re running on telling half the country that your health insurance is illegal. It says it right in the bill. We don’t have to do that. We can give everyone healthcare and allow people to have choice. That’s the American way.

Warren:  So look, let’s be clear about this. We are the Democrats. We are not about trying to take away healthcare from anyone. That’s what the Republicans are trying to do and we should stop using Republican talking points in order to talk with each other about how to best provide that health care.



Essentially, Warren's position seems to be that we have to take away people's ability to choose their own insurance for their own good.  Otherwise, people are too stupid to avoid getting snookered by the big insurance companies, and they'll continue suctioning up billions in profits and forcing people to fill out dozens of forms (as opposed to the government, which is famously light on red tape and bureaucracy).

Then when Delaney called her out on that, she said it was a "Republican talking point" instead of actually responding.

[Heebie Jeebie]

This is not in response to the troll, but just in general thought the transcripts of Delaney-Warren were worth posting.  It really is substance vs. populism.

Episode One

Delaney:  So, I think Democrats win when we run on real solutions, not impossible promises, when we run on things that are workable, not fairytale economics. Look at this story of Detroit, this amazing city that we’re in. This city is turning around because the government and the private sector are working well together. That has to be our model going forward. We need to encourage collaboration between the government, the private sector and the nonprofit sector, and focus on those kitchen table, pocketbook issues that matter to hardworking Americans, building infrastructure, creating jobs, improving their pay.

Warren:  I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for. I don’t get it. Our biggest problem in Washington is corruption. It is giant corporations that have taken our government and that are holding it by the throat, and we need to have the courage to fight back against that. And until we’re ready to do that, it’s just more of the same. Well, I’m ready to get in this fight. I’m ready to win this fight.

Delaney:  When we created Social Security, we didn’t say pensions were illegal. We can have big ideas to transform the lives. I mean, I started two companies and took them public before I was 40. I’m as big of a dreamer and an entrepreneur as anyone, but I also believe we need to have solutions that are workable. Can you imagine if we tried to start social security now, but said private pensions are illegal? That’s the equivalent of what Senator Sanders and Senator Warren are proposing with healthcare. That’s not a big idea. That’s an idea that’s dead on arrival. That will never happen. So, why don’t we actually talk about things, big ideas that we can get done. The stakes are too high.

Warren:  He talks about solutions that are workable. We have tried the solution of Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance, and what have the private insurance companies done? They’ve sucked billions of dollars out of our healthcare system. They’ve made everybody fill out dozens and dozens of forms. Why? Not because they’re trying to track your healthcare. They just want one more excuse to say no. Insurance companies do not have a god given right to suck money out of our health care system, and 2020 is our chance to stop that.



Episode Two

Delaney:  What I’m talking about is really simple. We should deal with the tragedy of the uninsured and give everyone healthcare as a right, but why do we got to be the party of taking something away from?  That’s what they’re running on! They’re running on telling half the country that your health insurance is illegal. It says it right in the bill. We don’t have to do that. We can give everyone healthcare and allow people to have choice. That’s the American way.

Warren:  So look, let’s be clear about this. We are the Democrats. We are not about trying to take away healthcare from anyone. That’s what the Republicans are trying to do and we should stop using Republican talking points in order to talk with each other about how to best provide that health care.



Essentially, Warren's position seems to be that we have to take away people's ability to choose their own insurance for their own good.  Otherwise, people are too stupid to avoid getting snookered by the big insurance companies, and they'll continue suctioning up billions in profits and forcing people to fill out dozens of forms (as opposed to the government, which is famously light on red tape and bureaucracy).

Then when Delaney called her out on that, she said it was a "Republican talking point" instead of actually responding.

To me, it seems like Warren is smart to not engage with this line of criticism. She's not a dummy, and she knows there's substance to these critiques. But she also knows  that to win the nomination she has to prove herself acceptable to a large chunk of Sanders's supporters. She also knows that no major health care bill is getting through Congress anyway, so why bother getting bogged down in the weeds on this when defending Medicare for All and pushing the health care debate to the left is more productive anyway.

[GP270watch]

 Delany was grandstanding. Elizabeth Warren is making a simple point that the method of delivering affordable universal healthcare through private for profit health insurance companies is incredibly broken and inefficient. This is supported by a mountain of evidence, with our own government run systems which are more cost effective and have higher patient satisfaction rates, and data from the rest of the industrialized world. In countries where thye still have health insurance providers to provide universal healthcare coverage they look nothing at all like ours.

[GeneralMacArthur]

To me, it seems like Warren is smart to not engage with this line of criticism. She's not a dummy, and she knows there's substance to these critiques. But she also knows  that to win the nomination she has to prove herself acceptable to a large chunk of Sanders's supporters. She also knows that no major health care bill is getting through Congress anyway, so why bother getting bogged down in the weeds on this when defending Medicare for All and pushing the health care debate to the left is more productive anyway.

So essentially you agree that she's dodging the criticism and doesn't have a response to it, but that's ok because it's good political strategy.

Delany was grandstanding. Elizabeth Warren is making a simple point that the method of delivering affordable universal healthcare through private for profit health insurance companies is incredibly broken and inefficient. This is supported by a mountain of evidence, with our own government run systems which are more cost effective and have higher patient satisfaction rates, and data from the rest of the industrialized world. In countries where thye still have health insurance providers to provide universal healthcare coverage they look nothing at all like ours.

How was Delaney "grandstanding"?

I think most Americans would agree with Warren's point but that doesn't mean we have to get rid of all private insurance.  Delaney wants to introduce a public option as competition to force the market to overcome its current inertia and provide a better service.  That would set us on the path towards becoming like the countries you reference (that is, pretty much every European nation), without restricting choice and innovation or having to raise middle-class taxes, another attack Warren refuses to engage honestly.

And that's not me saying that.  These are all points Delaney made on stage that night.

[Heebie Jeebie]

To me, it seems like Warren is smart to not engage with this line of criticism. She's not a dummy, and she knows there's substance to these critiques. But she also knows  that to win the nomination she has to prove herself acceptable to a large chunk of Sanders's supporters. She also knows that no major health care bill is getting through Congress anyway, so why bother getting bogged down in the weeds on this when defending Medicare for All and pushing the health care debate to the left is more productive anyway.

So essentially you agree that she's dodging the criticism and doesn't have a response to it, but that's ok because it's good political strategy.
 

Others will probably disagree, but yeah, that's basically how I see it.  Given her circumstance, she's handling the issue about as well as she possibly can.

[GP270watch]

How was Delaney "grandstanding"?

I think most Americans would agree with Warren's point but that doesn't mean we have to get rid of all private insurance.  Delaney wants to introduce a public option as competition to force the market to overcome its current inertia and provide a better service.  That would set us on the path towards becoming like the countries you reference (that is, pretty much every European nation), without restricting choice and innovation or having to raise middle-class taxes, another attack Warren refuses to engage honestly.

 He was grandstanding because we would have to change the private insurance market so drastically that it would look nothing at all like what they are today. A simple demonstration of this is how veraciously the private insurers are fighting the public option. If market forces alone would improve health insurance competition we would have the best and most affordable healthcare in the world, we do not. In countries that have private health insurers to deliver universal coverage the government heavily regulates them with price controls on procedures and drugs, guaranteed benefits and coverage, and quality standards. Some other countries have private insurers for those who want to fill gaps in what the government provides or want "faster" or different services and can afford it. Our private health insurers don't function this way with the exception of some of our citizens who are already on government programs. Obamacare was a step in this direction to using private health insurers as a step towards universal coverage that is affordable, more regulated, offers guaranteed benefits, and starts to introduce price controls. It was fought tooth and nail by not only the Republicans but the health insurance companies themselves to water it down.

 Elizabeth Warren is on the correct track and Delaney is not.

[GeneralMacArthur]

How was Delaney "grandstanding"?

I think most Americans would agree with Warren's point but that doesn't mean we have to get rid of all private insurance.  Delaney wants to introduce a public option as competition to force the market to overcome its current inertia and provide a better service.  That would set us on the path towards becoming like the countries you reference (that is, pretty much every European nation), without restricting choice and innovation or having to raise middle-class taxes, another attack Warren refuses to engage honestly.

 He was grandstanding because we would have to change the private insurance market so drastically that it would look nothing at all like what they are today. A simple demonstration of this is how veraciously the private insurers are fighting the public option. If market forces alone would improve health insurance competition we would have the best and most affordable healthcare in the world, we do not. In countries that have private health insurers to deliver universal coverage the government heavily regulates them with price controls on procedures and drugs, guaranteed benefits and coverage, and quality standards. Some other countries have private insurers for those who want to fill gaps in what the government provides or want "faster" or different services and can afford it. Our private health insurers don't function this way with the exception of some who are already on government programs. Obamacare was a step in this direction to using private health insurers as a step towards universal coverage that is affordable, more regulated, offers guaranteed benefits, and starts to introduce price controls. It was fought tooth and nail by not only the Republicans but the health insurance companies themselves to water it down.

 Elizabeth Warren is on the correct track and Delaney is not.

I don't think you know what grandstanding means.  Delaney was making a policy argument that you just spent a wall of text trying to refute.

Why didn't your candidate make any of those points instead of just saying "lol Republican talking points"?

[GP270watch]

Why didn't your candidate make any of those points instead of just saying "lol Republican talking points"?

 She did make those points, you just refused to listen. People with private insurance routinely go bankrupt when they get sick. Did you not hear her make that point? She stays away from using words like taxes because the Republican party has had a 40 year crusade against taxes, making the public anti-tax even as they are frustrated with the ineptitude of the government services they are provided, our infrastructure and public institutions crumble, and Americans pay more and more out of their own pockets for things they used to have their government invest in.

 It was Grover Norquist who said he wanted to starve the American government to the size where you could drown it in a bathtub. Could you imagine if a a member of "the squad" said this? Every single Republican of recent times has signed his anti-tax pledge.

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." - Grover Norquist

“Look at the business model of an insurance company. It's to bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums and to pay out as few dollars as possible for your health care. That leaves families with rising premiums, rising copays and fighting with insurance companies to try to get the health care that their doctors say that they and their children need. Medicare for All solves that problem.” - Elizabeth Warren

 That's your real choice, right there. Because roughly half the country is solidly with Grover and even more have been conditioned to recoil at any mention of the word taxes.

[GP270watch]

I don't think you know what grandstanding means.  Delaney was making a policy argument that you just spent a wall of text trying to refute.

  During the debate Delaney's defense of private health insurance, was "hey look at me, my dad had a good union job and likes his insurance". If that's not political grandstanding, what is?

[Heebie Jeebie]

How was Delaney "grandstanding"?

I think most Americans would agree with Warren's point but that doesn't mean we have to get rid of all private insurance.  Delaney wants to introduce a public option as competition to force the market to overcome its current inertia and provide a better service.  That would set us on the path towards becoming like the countries you reference (that is, pretty much every European nation), without restricting choice and innovation or having to raise middle-class taxes, another attack Warren refuses to engage honestly.

 He was grandstanding because we would have to change the private insurance market so drastically that it would look nothing at all like what they are today. A simple demonstration of this is how veraciously the private insurers are fighting the public option. If market forces alone would improve health insurance competition we would have the best and most affordable healthcare in the world, we do not. In countries that have private health insurers to deliver universal coverage the government heavily regulates them with price controls on procedures and drugs, guaranteed benefits and coverage, and quality standards. Some other countries have private insurers for those who want to fill gaps in what the government provides or want "faster" or different services and can afford it. Our private health insurers don't function this way with the exception of some who are already on government programs. Obamacare was a step in this direction to using private health insurers as a step towards universal coverage that is affordable, more regulated, offers guaranteed benefits, and starts to introduce price controls. It was fought tooth and nail by not only the Republicans but the health insurance companies themselves to water it down.

 Elizabeth Warren is on the correct track and Delaney is not.

I don't think you know what grandstanding means.  Delaney was making a policy argument that you just spent a wall of text trying to refute.

Why didn't your candidate make any of those points instead of just saying "lol Republican talking points"?

I mean, I think her rising poll numbers are a pretty good indication of why she didn't make those points. Her actual, short response was obviously very acceptable to primary voters.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why didn't your candidate make any of those points instead of just saying "lol Republican talking points"?

 She did make those points, you just refused to listen. People with private insurance routinely go bankrupt when they get sick. Did you not hear her make that point?

No, your post was about private health insurance in other countries and how it supposedly differs from America.  That's an acknowledgment that there is a role for private insurance and an ethical, efficient model it could follow, in collaboration with the state.  Which is what John Delaney said.

Warren's argument in the debate was that private health insurance, because it is for-profit, is inherently evil and must be abolished.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I don't think you know what grandstanding means.  Delaney was making a policy argument that you just spent a wall of text trying to refute.

  During the debate Delaney's defense of private health insurance, was "hey look at me, my dad had a good union job and likes his insurance". If that's not political grandstanding, what is?

69% of Americans are happy with their current health insurance.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx

This is another thing that bothers me about Warren is she rails and rails that Americans shouldn't be happy with our health insurance, as though we're all sheep with the wool over our eyes blind to how badly we're being abused.

I have private health insurance and I've never had any issues with it.  It generally covers everything I need it to, and when there's any ambiguity it's always quick and easy to find out.  For the most part I don't even have to think about it.  Just at the beginning of the year when my deductible resets.

Are there abuses in the system?  Absolutely.  Are there horrible practices in these insurance companies that need to be fixed?  Are there people falling through the cracks of those practices?  Yes.  Are there hacks trying to deny coverage at all costs to try to make a profit?  I don't think that's as prevalent as love to believe -- it's simultaneously "the big dirty secret" about the insurance industry and a story everyone has some variation of -- but it does happen. 

But introducing a public option to compete with private insurance is the way to solve these inefficiencies.

If the public option is perfect and better in every way than private insurance, private providers will be forced to adapt and innovate, or else they will die as everyone moves to the public option.  If it's true that they are in the business of denying coverage for profit, as Warren alleges, then they will have to stop or everyone will choose the public option.

If the public option isn't perfect, and has flaws, then thank goodness we still have private insurance and didn't let Warren abolish it!

[Beet]

The % "happy with their private insurance" is rather meaningless, as most Americans are healthy and don't think about their insurance company. This doesn't actually represent widespread emotional attachment to insurance companies. If you asked the average American if they would switch to a system that offers equal coverage but with no copays or deductibles, they would say yes.

The whole "abolish private insurance" frame is wrongheaded. It's not doing that; it's simply having the government offer comprehensive coverage and prohibiting private insurers from "duplicating" or competing directly with the benefits offered by the government. So in theory if there was some service not offered under the government plan, then private insurers would be able to come in, like they do in Canada, and offer supplemental insurance. That would the equivalent of Delaney's pension plans. What we don't want to do is create an incentive where government-offered insurance becomes considered substandard/get longer wait times because private companies that offer the same thing are selling expensive plans to wealthy people.

It's a rather hardcore position but we know from experience that insurance companies & other interests will exert massive pressure over the legislative process, so if you start from this position, you might get something reasonable. A candidate that is willing to campaign on abolishing private insurance is not living in complete terror of the insurance companies 24/7, and that's a good thing.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The % "happy with their private insurance" is rather meaningless, as most Americans are healthy and don't think about their insurance company.

Yes, this is the line currently being thrown out by Warren and Sanders.  Those of us who like our private insurance are just too dumb to understand what insurance really is and confusing health insurance with health coverage.

I like my private insurance!  It's Anthem Blue Cross.  I have no trouble finding PCPs and getting access to specialists, and only pay about a $10-20 copay.  I have to pay a deductible, but after that my three recurring prescriptions are only about $30 a month.  I've never had trouble getting access to someone when I had questions, or getting a new provider/pharmacy to sync with the insurance company.

I don't feel like I have anything to gain from BernieCare/M4A.  The best case scenario is that my new insurance is exactly the same as my current one.  The far more likely scenario is that it would be worse, cover less, require longer waits, have a lot more red tape, be full of loopholes, cost more (in taxes), cause doctors and hospitals to shut down, and be vulnerable to political meddling.

Is everyone in as good a position as me?  Plenty of Americans are (that's the 70% who like their current insurance).  Some people aren't, and we should offer them a cheap, secure form of coverage.  For the 70% who are, we should try to find ways to improve their coverage by making it cheaper and more reliable.  Both of these would be accomplished with a public option.  If you automatically enroll everyone below a certain income threshold, you'll achieve near-universal coverage, diversifying the risk pool.  That's what BidenCare is.

[GoTfan]

This gets back tomy favourite point: Warren I think is smart enough to know she won't get a full abolition of private insurance, but starting from an extreme negotiating position means you get more of what you want in the final bill.

[GeneralMacArthur]

This gets back tomy favourite point: Warren I think is smart enough to know she won't get a full abolition of private insurance, but starting from an extreme negotiating position means you get more of what you want in the final bill.

People say this over and over and over but can you provide a single historical example of this working?

Any example, just one, where a party took an absurd, extremist position and forced the other side to negotiate them down to reason?

Unless the other side is forced to negotiate, it doesn't work.  They just won't come to the negotiating table at all.  It's like going to a Porsche dealership and saying "my starting offer is $10,000" you'll just get laughed at and nobody will talk to you.

Also, by making this point you admit that the public option is the true goal and single payer is absurd and extreme.  Yet you guys hate on Biden and moderate Dems every day and twice on Sunday for supporting the public option.  Which is it?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This gets back tomy favourite point: Warren I think is smart enough to know she won't get a full abolition of private insurance, but starting from an extreme negotiating position means you get more of what you want in the final bill.

People say this over and over and over but can you provide a single historical example of this working?

Any example, just one, where a party took an absurd, extremist position and forced the other side to negotiate them down to reason?

Unless the other side is forced to negotiate, it doesn't work.  They just won't come to the negotiating table at all.  It's like going to a Porsche dealership and saying "my starting offer is $10,000" you'll just get laughed at and nobody will talk to you.

Also, by making this point you admit that the public option is the true goal and single payer is absurd and extreme.  Yet you guys hate on Biden and moderate Dems every day and twice on Sunday for supporting the public option.  Which is it?

There's nothing extreme about single payer. What would be more extreme was if private medical practices were mostly eliminated as well, like the UK's NHS system did.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hahahahaha!!!!

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1176595862153244673

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1176810806685634560

https://twitter.com/terri_rupar/status/1176810886830395392

[rhg2052]

With this Quinnipiac poll, Liz just crossed 20 on the RCP average for the first time

[GP270watch]

Yes, this is the line currently being thrown out by Warren and Sanders.  Those of us who like our private insurance are just too dumb to understand what insurance really is and confusing health insurance with health coverage.

 You haven't really demonstrated any knowledge of how the private health insurance market has failed Americans to be honest. Your anecdotal argument about you personally liking your insurance tells us nothing. What state do you live in? What political party controls that state? What is your gender? What is your employment status? What is your race? What is your current health status? Depending on the answer to any of those questions your health insurance coverage and outcomes can vary greatly. That is a system that is fundamentally a sham.

 The satisfaction that Americans supposedly have with their private health insurance is a myth. Read the work of Wendell Potter a former health insurance insider who explains how the health insurance industry used a lot of money to market this message even though it's not true. Also realize that nearly every government provided healthcare system has a higher satisfaction rate. The more detailed and comprehensive studies of healthcare outcomes shows people are often unsatisfied with their private health insurance and drug pricing, especially if they are sick or suffering a chronic condition.

 The free market system of private health insurance plans provided mostly through employment based compensation is a terribly inefficient system, it's so bad that it's abandoned whole segments of the population and left government to cover these folks as they cherry pick the healthiest and wealthiest customers, because at the end of the day that's all they are, customers. So why the hell do we need health insurers to be the primary basis of healthcare coverage when they can't cover those who really need healthcare coverage? They couldn't cover the elderly so we created Medicare, they wouldn't cover people with kidney disease so we decided to enroll everybody regardless of age into Medicare, they couldn't cover the poor, the poor and elderly, poor mothers, or very poor children so we created Medicaid and applied that very unevenly depending on what political party's philosophy you live under. I could go on and on about who they don't cover and how they fail when those they do cover actually need medical care.

 But if we're ignoring the real overwhelming data, the real unfairness and inequality in the healthcare system all because you simply like your insurance what's the point? That's not how you make policy. You make policy based on the best use of money and the best outcomes for that money spent, this is where the private health insurance market and big pharma falls flat on its face.