Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "Tulsi Gabbard On "Abolishing" Private Insurance" video.

She was wrong and we absolutely have no use for private health insurance companies if we have a robust universal system. Stop making excuses and rationalizations for keeping those fuckers around just like Tulsi has.
4
And any people who would be willing to support her are almost certainly already backing Sanders. You know, like she should be doing.
3
@Forthepeoplepodcast305 Regarding, " I said that she’s the only one other than Bernie that’s supported it her entire career." Meanwhile, in reality, the first thing you wrote was, "Tulsi is the only one in the race who has unequivocally supported M4All her entire career." Bernie is absent from this statement. Because reality.
3
@Cindy99765 Tulsi is great but she is very wrong to be running and people supporting her rather than Bernie are making a mistake. She shouldn't just be supporting Bernie's policies. She should be supporting Bernie Sanders for president just like we all should.
3
Calls Tulsi a centrist and fake progressive then props up Warren. Too fucking funny.
3
I'm more likely to believe Tulsi "evolved" at young age like she did on gay rights. I'm less likely to believe Warren "evolved" at an old age like she did when becoming a "progressive" after being a 90s republican.
3
@roderickburrell2060 You do not make sense.
2
It was one of the rare times when Kyle was wrong.
2
What world do you live in where it's going to come down to the two most progressive candidates? I want to live there. Sadly I live in reality.
2
@ECisvotersuppression Regarding, "how? I just told you the truth." Why were telling me "med4all will NOT cover penis implants dude." Was there something that led you and your tiny intellect to believe I thought they did? Because I was actually saying the exact opposite you fucking moron.
2
@Blodhelm Regarding, "Whoa there buddy, turn down the paranoia dial a little." Because there aren't paid shills? Oh wait. There are and if you want to deny it it's you who has trouble with reality. Regarding, "Any system like Medicare for All will still have holes or procedures that aren't covered." Only if holes are left and there is no reason to leave them. Regarding, "Allowing for the existence of private insurance can fill the gap." Why again are there gaps being left? Why exactly is the private health insurance industry a better answer than just giving great comprehensive universal health care? Better idea, we close the gaps. Private insurance has no place in good system. They are completely unnecessary to a robust single payer system. Regarding, "Even single-payer systems still don't "abolish" private insurance entirely." The idea is to cover all areas that insurance would be used. You make it illegal to double up on coverage. And just like that they have no room to breathe and no reason to exist. The goal isn't to "abolish" them with brute force, but to destroy all the places they would exist. We give good universal care and there is no reason for them. And if you want a boob job or a dick implant you can pay for it out of pocket or finance it. Those are already the types of things that private health insurance doesn't cover. Regarding, "Having <1% of the population choosing additional and regulated private insurance vs forcing everyone to use it, is still a huge shift." Or better yet we just do it right the first time. Why are you determined to have a slice of cake when it would be better to just have the whole pie? Regarding, "Private insurance doesn't even need to be eliminated by law" Yup. That's the idea. To not technically eliminate it but to create a system that covers everything private health insurance would cover, to outlaw duplication of coverage, and just like that they have no reason to be and the world is a far better place. Regarding, "Not using the language of "abolishing" insurance however, can be useful for deflecting the panic of the uninformed who fear major changes but would be more amenable to the concept of a mixed system." Stupid people are going to be stupid regardless. I know what I want, a world where private health insurance companies are gone. Anyone not committed to that goal isn't fighting for what's right and what I want. I don't have time for word games. I want leadership and a clear representation of my values. Private health insurance companies have no place in out society. I'm not interested in half measures. That's what the ACA was and it was a failure and blowjob to the powers that be. It's time for the real hope and change that I was promised long ago but never received. Let's just do it right the first time shall we? Because the whole world is rightfully laughing at us while we let our people die unnecessarily.
2
Regarding, "She wants it and knows that you need private insurance for certain procedures." If that's what she wants us to know she would be wrong. We don't need private health insurance companies for dick.
2
The answer to both questions should be the same. Stop blaming the question for Tulsi's mistake.
2
It takes me two seconds to answer. Yes they should be abolished.
2
@delboyg01 Regarding, " I get ur points in all these comments" So why are you fighting me? Regarding, "it's early yet" So what. The war has already begun so we probably should be being smart already shouldn't we? Regarding, "only time will tell." Sure. Only time will tell if Bernie gets the nomination or a corporate dem gets it. But those are the only scenarios based in reality other than the unthinkable happens to Bernie and his supporters are forced to look to Gabbard or someone else. Regarding, "the fake progressives know what they need to say to get the soundbites now, even if they quietly walk back their positions next day, it won't be on TV." Fake progressives tend to be opposing and fighting against Bernie. That includes politicians. Progressives need to be supporting and enabling Sanders. Period. Full stop.
2
Her integrity can be found in her voting record on gay rights.
2
Nope. The correct answer to, "Do you support abolishing private insurance?" is YES. I support abolishing private insurance because corporations making money off of sick people is sick.
1
@chadsimmons4496 Regarding, "nonsense" Hardly. Splitting the vote is a legit concern and you think it isn't imagine for a second how Joe Biden running in 2016 would have a been a game changer. Regarding, "She'll back out or win." What world do you live in where these are the only two options? Where running and losing isn't a thing? Cause that isn't this world. And when she backs out matters. If you are talking about her backing out after some primaries have been held the damage has already been done. Any pledged delegates that she earned are gone and lost forever at that point. All the votes that she got that would have gone to Sanders matter, not just because of those votes but because of momentum in politics. Regarding, "She will not hurt Bernie." She is to Bernie what Biden would have been to Hillary in 2016. Biden didn't run because even thou he sucks he understands and realizes that splitting the vote hurts their cause. Our best chance of getting a progressive president is by unifying and rallying around the clear leader of the progressive movement, Bernie Sanders. That's the reality. Please realize it.
1
I love Tulsi but my biggest problem with her is that she is running against Bernie Sanders and making it more likely a corporate shill like Biden wins by splitting the progressive vote in my opinion. I wish she were supporting Sanders when we all know the establishment is going to try and fuck him over and not opposing him.
1
@chadsimmons4496 One more thing regarding, "this is all your opinion" Meanwhile, in reality, people posting Bernie/Tulsi and Tulsi/Bernie is very common. You know what I don't see? Tulsi/Biden. You know this is the case but you are just being intellectually dishonest.
1
@chadsimmons4496 Regarding, "Grow up. "Intellectually dishonest". Lol. Unbelievable." This sequence of words is pretty funny. Yes you are being intellectually dishonest when you can't admit that if Tulsi were not running the great majority of her supporters would then go to Sanders. That's the reality and you damn well know it.
1
@chadsimmons4496 Regarding, "if were, and a Tulsi supporter," You would almost certainly say you would be supporting Sanders if she dropped out. Because reality. Regarding, "you would be hurting Bernie's campaign more than her" I'm not about trying to "hurt" a campaign. I'm about trying to use logic and reason to achieve my goal of getting a progressive in the white house. This should be a share goal among progressives. That's my "principle." That's what I want and I'm trying to achieve. If you have a problem with that, or how I do it I honestly don't care. It's coming from a person who is clearly being intellectually dishonest to try and validate the conclusions they have already drawn. Splitting the vote is a legit concern for people with shared interests and similar goals. When you try to deny this you are denying reality.
1
@chadsimmons4496 Regarding, "so my opinion differs from you, that's me being intellectually dishonest... Got it." We can have our own opinions. We don't get to have our own facts. And it's a fact that the majority of Tulsi's supporters would support Sanders if she dropped out today. Regarding, "Ron Paul voters." Aren't really relevant to this conversation if they aren't going to support any other dem nominee if Tulsi dropped out. It's about the people that would go elsewhere in the party if Tulsi isn't around. Regarding, "I sure as heck wouldn't be smearing Tulsi Gabbard" I love Tulsi but I have substantive problems with her including the one I've mentioned. It's my opinion that progressives should be helping Sanders overcome the rigged game, not taking votes away from him. She is taking votes away from him. Not every last Gabbard supporter, but most. Regarding, "especially while giving Warren a pass." I trash Warren. And among the reasons I give for not liking her include her not running against Hillary in 2016. Her not endorsing the true progressive Sanders when he did run because she didn't. I trashed the shit out of her for running in 2020 because I thought she too would split the progressive vote. It is only intellectually honest of me to have the same objection for Tulsi while Tulsi does the same thing. Regarding, "Warren has the voters you should be worried about taking Bernie's bubble." I type this as I go and address all the points I see as I go along the way. I've already addressed this. I am worried about Warren's effect. But if you think it's a valid point for Warren why don't you think the same of Tulsi? Or is this merely you trying to be me? As for why I haven't talked about Warren specifically til now... well it hasn't been about her til now. Regarding, "There are a dozen corp dems splitting that vote." The establishments behavior here and their disregard about splitting their vote can be explained two ways. I think there is truth in both. First: they don't care about splitting their vote because for them it's all about stopping Bernie on the first ballot. Every candidate will steal at least a handful from him especially in their home states. Kamala takes Sanders voters in California, Booker in Jersey, O'rouke in Texas and so on. Secondly the establishment, while trying to act like Biden was their guy, knew exactly how deeply flawed their candidate of choice was. So they threw everything at the wall hoping that one of them would eventually stick... kinda how Kamala has been doing and kinda how Warren, the new darling of the corporate media, has been doing. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they do coalesce around an establishment candidate of choice. Regarding, "This is the same conversation I have about Jill Stein "stealing" Hillary votes." I voted for Jill Stein in 2016, in a swing state. Clearly these things are not the same. I'm not saying anyone, even Bernie is "entitled" to anyone's votes. He's not. But progressives should have common goals that we should be working towards. And if you are doing things that works against those common goals, like making it more likely Biden gets the nomination, I'm going to start questioning their sincerity towards progressivism. Jill Stein had every right to be there because she had a lane that hillary didn't fill. If I didn't vote for Jill I wouldn't have been voting for Hillary. That is simply not the same as Bernie/Tulsi. They ARE running the same lane. Then you have to start to asking why and fearing the effects. Regarding, "It is an assumption. Period." There is plenty of polling done about second favorite candidates. There is also common sense. Bernie and Tulsi are closely aligned. Their voters come from the same pool. Progressives. It is far more than an assumption at this point. Regarding, "The people who write Bernie/Tulsi...are not splitting anything." These are people trying to have their cake and eat it to. They are trying to show support for more than one candidate when the fact of the matter is that they only get one primary vote to cast. I assume they plan to cast it for Bernie, but clearly they also like Tulsi, as they should, because they are in the same lane. Regarding, "You included that with Tulsi/Bernie...two different groups of people." How different are they really? They aren't. They are all progressives. The only difference is who they think should be at the top of the ticket. They are all progressives, with similar goals, even if one specific difference persists. And the reality is that if either of them is going to get the nomination the chances of getting one of the two is best if they would be working together from the start rather than opposing one another and splitting their shared voter pool. Regarding, "Anyway. I'm done with this age old debunked Ralph Nader gave you Bush psychopathy, ingrained in way too many Americans." Because I'm that guy who you think it's ingrained into huh? Meanwhile I voted for Nader. But this time it wasn't like my voting for Stein. That time I wasn't in a swing state. That time I was in a state whose election was decided long before I voted. So I voted for Nader because I liked him and because I wanted to support more than just the two major parties and show my support for more options. Had I been living in a swing state at the time I absolutely would have voted for Gore. Nader did "steal" my vote in a way. But only because I knew my vote wasn't going to matter. And at the end of the day we can determine how many votes were "stolen" and how elections would be different without people in the mix. And no Nader didn't cost Gore the election. But you can't act like him running doesn't affect other candidates because candidates don't operate in a vacuum... they affect the people around them and often times how they affect things is pretty easy to see and predict ahead of time. Regarding, "The point is the condescension from the Gore side, unable or unwilling to follow their own advice and vote Nader...while assuming "the other" should just fall in line." I'm not telling tulsi and her supporters they need to fall in line. I am trying to give logical reasons why I think they should be supporting sanders and not tulsi. If ultimately they disagree so be it. This is an area where we can have a difference of opinion at the end of the day. But we can't act like Tulsi's campaign doesn't affect Bernie's campaign. Because it does. How important that effect is is what people can have their own opinions about. Regarding, "Bernie has been saying the same thing for 50 years. Has been on the right side of most every issue during that time." Which is why, among other things, that all progressives, including Tulsi, should be backing him in a world where we know the game isn't fair. Regarding, "Nobody listened BECAUSE of the "split the vote" concept." I've never heard bernie talk about it ever. But I'm not bernie. And there are plenty of people who understand the concept. Again... joe biden in 2016. If you think he didn't run because of his son you would be wrong. He didn't run because he was clearing a path for hillary and wasn't willing to chance splitting the establishment vote because splitting the vote is a real thing to be considered. Regarding, "Tulsi ABSOLUTELY still needs her voice on that stage." Don't get me wrong, there is an argument to be made about benefits of her running. I love another progressive talking about progressive issues. I love her message of peace and about taking it to the MIC. But ultimately I think the downside of her running outweighs the good. In an election where every vote and every delegate matters I would prefer ensuring that Bernie gets every vote that is possible. It's my firm belief that progressives would be wise to be unified from the start. If people don't find the points I make compelling, so be it. But I'm going to make them. The "democratic" primary is far too important for us to fuck it up and I'm bothered by what I see as a very big, very avoidable mistake being made in real time.
1
@delboyg01 We agree on that. It really isn't about it being on her website. It's about if she can be trusted to fight for it if she were in the WH. And she can't.
1
@CrucibleBlack13 Regarding, "It is in circumstances that relate to this where one might opt for private coverage." Which is total horseshit and you know it. That doesn't happen NOW. Much less in the future. It's done by paying up front or through financing. Then again you got 3 instant thumbs up in 15 minutes on a buried comment. You reek of paid shill and you should be ashamed of yourself.
1
If only you had the internet to check it yourself.
1
@ECisvotersuppression Your lack of comprehension is showing.
1
@willwright2099 Holy fuck. I am not talking about the M4A bill. I don't know how to make that anymore clear.
1
@steakismeat177 Regarding, " in almost every other single payer system private insurance does play a role." This is irrelevant to me and it should be irrelevant to Tulsi. We do not need a private insurance industry nor should we have one. A robust universal system like we should have eliminates their purpose entirely and trying to justify their existence is terrible. If you want cosmetic surgery you don't have insurance for it, you pay for it out of pocket.
1
@delboyg01 Regarding, " You don’t seem to understand WHY the DNC has packed the field with so many no-hoper Presidential candidates?" Cool. I look forward to being educated by you then. Regarding, "That IS to unsure that Bernie can’t get the 50% he needs on the 1st round, then on the 2nd round they can bring in the super delegates and say all was fair!" Which is pretty much exactly what I think. That is why I have a problem with Tulsi running and siphoning votes away from sanders. I want to do anything and everything to get Sanders enough delegates on the first ballot. Tulsi makes this goal harder to achieve. Regarding, "If you really want Bernie you also have to support Tulsi so she can chip away votes from the no hopers!" Meanwhile, in reality, Tulsi voters, if she were not in the race, are likely to go almost exclusively toward Bernie. She isn't taking votes from Biden and the establishment. Because duh. Regarding, "Bernie cannot win this alone" That's the only way he can win it. Regarding, "the only other candidate who you can guarantee to give Bernie their votes IS Tulsi." Candidates can't give their pledged delegates to one another. Even if it goes to a second ballot and a contested convention Tulsi can only advice her delegates to support Bernie and ultimately those delegates can do whatever the fuck they want at that point. If you are planning on the second ballot you are setting yourself up for defeat when we should be focusing on the first ballot. That's the only place we know we can't get fucked over. Regarding, "I really hope you have a better understanding of what is going on now!" The irony. Two can play your game. I really hope you have a better understanding of what is going on now!
1
@LeftIsBest001 Regarding, "Every single day of her Senatorial career, Warren has fought against Big Banks, Big Pharma, Wall Street and on behalf of Americans." In which she has accomplished dick all other than some finger wagging. Meanwhile, she has stated her commitment to taking legalized bribes should she make it to the general. Regarding, "She's NEVER compromised with Republicans to weaken her stance." She WAS a Republican herself as recently as the 90s. People don't change like that so late in life unless they are pandering and pretending to be something they are not. Regarding, "She's NEVER supported or condoned the use of torture." She recently voted to give Donald Trump, a person she claims is "unhinged" more money for bombs than even the orange clown wanted. But what could possibly go wrong with that am I right? The department of offense really needed those extra billions didn't they? But it's not torture when you are just trying to kill people so that's different and better somehow. Regarding, "Yes, I can see how you'd find that amusing. 🤔. Fuckwad." I find your stupidity amusing in a pathetic idiotic sort of way. Fuckwad.
1
@stumpe9662 She was fucking terrible until she crushed Tim Ryan. Thankfully she had that moment to salvage an otherwise terrible night.
1
@richardgreenwood6474 Regarding, " David Doel needs to be called out on his failure to research candidate positions thoroughly" You are replying to a person whose original comment is, "So just to be clear, Tulsi is the only one in the race who has unequivocally supported M4All her entire career." Which is straight bullshit. After being called out more than once for this pure fiction they lied with, "I said that she’s the only one other than Bernie that’s supported it her entire career." I'm not going to lie I find the irony pretty fucking funny. Oh and everything else you said is also wrong for one reason or another.
1
@richardgreenwood6474 Tulsi fucked up. She should have just raised her hand and sent a clear message of you can go fuck yourselves to the private health insurance industry. I mean, if you think we should keep them around then she didn't fuck up. But as a person who wants them gone and sees no need to keep them around I very much wanted her to raise her hand. I was deeply disappointed when she didn't. Even Warren raised her hand for fucks sake not that I think she is sincere.
1
@willwright2099 Regarding, "that is NOT what Both #MedicareForAll bills do!" I'm not talking about the M4A bill. I'm talking about what we, as progressives, should be fighting for. I'm talking about what our goals should be and ending private health insurance absolutely should be our goal because they are soulless institutions that have no place in our society. STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND RATIONALIZATIONS FOR THEIR EXISTENCE. They should have as much place in our society as for profit private prison industries. IE NONE.
1
@chadsimmons4496 Regarding, " You are assuming a Tulsi voter will automatically be a Bernie voter, if not for Tulsi." Not every last one of them but the great majority clearly would. For you to claim otherwise demonstrates that you are not intellectually honest and are just trying to reverse engineer things to say at this point. They sure as fuck wouldn't be likely to be going to the Joe Biden's of the world. Sheesh. And the reverse works as well because logic and reason. I'm a firm Bernie Sanders supporter. I have no interest in supporting anyone other than him. If the unthinkable happened and he died today my support would then go to Tulsi for obvious reasons. They are aligned on policy. They are both progressives. They are people that share the same voting base. Stop being a clown trying to claim otherwise. Tell you what... when you find Tulsi supporters ask them who their second choice would be if she dropped out today. Regarding, "That is Hillary-like." Only if you ignore the nuance of what I'm trying to say.
1