Pete Buttigieg officially announces 2020 presidential campaign - Polidicks

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/pete-buttigieg-officially-announces-2020-presidential-campaign-n994046 Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, officially announced his presidential bid Sunday afternoon, hoping to make history as the youngest-ever, and the first-ever openly gay, commander in chief. He been interest of running for three months, but now officially and formally running for president.

It's cool to have an openly LGBT candidate, but I'm not sure I trust a candidate that only has political experience on a local scale.

Trump getting elected doesn't mean we all have to lower our standards when we're picking a leader.

Bernie & Buttigieg 2020 dont care who is vp/p

Kinda ridiculous imo. The dude's been running. This isn't even an announcement. He seems like a good candidate but it's silly to be openly campaigning for months then go "hey guys guess what? I'm running for president!" like... Yeah dude. We know. We've been talking about it for a while. Where have you been?

He used to exploratory committee trick

I understand why. He's not exactly well known, and unlike a bunch of the other fools running, he didn't automatically assume that he already has it in the bag. But his performance in the polls has clearly demonstrated that he actually has a chance, unlike over half of the current roster.

You seriously think Warren has a better chance than Sanders?

Well-spoken charismatic guy but he's not for Medicare for All or free college tuition which are pretty big nonstarters for me.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/224422/49e3520f-98a5-431c-9024-acca52c27b98/huh.gif What does that even mean?

He wants Medicare access for all but not abolishing private insurers like Bernie

Yeah, but Medicare buy-in is a half-measure that I strongly think is a strategically bad idea and it doesn't guarantee universal coverage. The private insurers need to go. Let them cover supplemental care, cosmetic surgery, etc. but they shouldn't be the primary provider of basic healthcare needs.

It's nice to see a candidate who doesn't look like some elderly, out-of-touch crypt keeper

I don't disagree with anything in this post except for the assertion that buy-in is a strategically bad idea at this stage. Buttigieg has said that he wants to use buy-in as a transition period to move from our private system to a universal system. I don't remember whether he specifically said transition to single payer at that point or if he wanted private insurers to still exist. While I want to move headlong into single payer, there's significant barriers to that. First is the lack of political will. A lot of people just don't like the idea of the state coming in and eliminating an industry, even if that industry profits off of some pretty unsavory practices. See e.g. tobacco industry. Second is the potential economic impact of the transition to a single-payer system. Last I recall hearing, health insurers make up about 7% of the country's economy. Nationalizing 7% of the economy is a lot harder than nationalizing (whatever medicare buy-in can reduce it to)--economists have been concerned about inducing a recession through such a process. We're due for one anyway soon, though, so meh? Finally there's also the consideration for employment. A lot of people work in the healthcare industry, including the health insurance industry. I live in Connecticut, which is often considered the insurance capital of the US. There's a lot of people making middle-class incomes in Connecticut through working for insurance companies-anywhere from mid 50s through 60s/70s/80s for more upper tier non-management positions. Nationalizing those industries and cutting those jobs, without an adequate industry to replace them, would cripple the state of Connecticut even more than it already is. And crippling the State of Connecticut would directly impact a lot of the services which we provide to the poor and vulnerable. so basically what I'm getting at is - as an ardent Bernie 2016 supporter and still a 2020 supporter - I'm not sure that the immediate move to single-payer medicare for all is the best or most feasible option. Incrementalism is a good start, even if it's not the be-all-end-all.

I don't know what that means, could you just explain yourself instead of repeating the same term?

Oh good; we're coming back to this bullshit again.

And we don't have to do so with Pete. He has more experience than Trump when it comes to running a community.,

I really couldn't disagree more. Incrementalism has almost always meant "never" and an important component of this policy is whether or not a guy like Buttigieg truly honestly believes in a single payer system or is just paying lip service to get favor from the left. Some people are doing this obviously (like Kamala, Cory Booker, etc.) but for a relative newcomer like Pete I honestly can't say one way or the other. With Bernie I trust what he says because he's got the long record to back it up. Secondly, as far as political will goes, a Medicare buy in is going to take almost as much blood, sweat, and tears as Medicare for all. It's going to get zero Republican votes no matter what. So why not just go all the way? You bring up the job loss, and that's a perfectly fair point. There should be a plan for the regular folks currently in the industry so they aren't left out to dry, and Bernie should address this. But I don't think we should let that stop us. I just truly think anything other than a full sprint to the finish line is going to get strangled and killed by the powerful lobbying interests who have a lot of money at stake in the private insurance industry. If Bernie tries and fails, then maybe we can consider a half-measure, but we shouldn't be conceding the battle up front. We conceded the public option up front in 2008 and look what that got us. Shitty, watered down, right-wing healthcare plan. We shouldn't make the same mistake again.

butt peteigieg

There's nothing as permanent as a temporary solution, so I don't support things like this. They'll just become the next step up in mediocrity, and still isn't acceptable for a first-world country.

The age of mainstream candidates is over, he better work on his showmanship

So I've got a different perspective on incrementalism, probably because I'm a law student. I perceive the development of various rights in the United States as long-running efforts that take decades to finally come to fruition. This comes from developments in the rights of racial minorities, the rights of women, the rights of the indigent, the rights of the LGBT community, etc. So while I don't think incrementalism is the best / ideal way, it's at least one way that I've identified at least works over time. Does that mean that it's something I like in my politicians? Depends. The example I'd point to is Hillary and gay rights. Hillary's early refusal to support gay marriage, instead supporting civil unions, was either (1) truly representative of her beliefs or (2) was a compromise to appear less "radical" and to appeal to the mainstream. Either one of those results is a bad choice, but for different reasons. It's important to note the context of that time - in 2000, it was still illegal to engage in gay conduct in some states. That wouldn't end until 2003. So it's not unheard of that, to preserve herself politically, she would temper her positions. That tempering of positions is what is important to me. As long as I don't believe that the politician is just going for what is politically expedient, I'm fine. As long as they're fighting for what they actually believe in - and what they believe in matches up with me. Bernie's got this across the board. He's been fighting for the same shit for decades. You know he's real. But with Buttigieg there's less to go off of. Even if he doesn't support a true single-payer system, he's taking steps in that direction through medicare-buy-in. So I guess what I'm getting at is that when I zoom out and look at the development of rights over a long period of time, to me, it looks like incrementalism is working - albeit slowly. Incrementalism has been working in the healthcare industry, to a certain extent. We reached high with the ACA, but didn't end up getting universal coverage. But, we still got pre-existing conditions and a number of other important protections.