To the Editor:
Re “Leading Liberals Fend Off Attacks on Big Promises” (front page, July 31):
Amid the customary gnashing of teeth about which Democratic candidate might be most capable of knocking off the incumbent, let us all take just a moment to bask in a set of presidential debates that so far have featured not a single reference to male or female body parts, no meanspirited name-calling and no bashing of basic democratic institutions like the press and the judiciary.
What? Somewhere in the fog, I almost recognize the United States of America!
Andrew Calkins
Gloucester, Mass.
To the Editor:
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren received credit for dominating the debate, but that doesn’t mean they “won.” They were front and center, they were loud and gesticulating, but they were repetitive. Tim Ryan, admittedly an underdog, was quite articulate and more centrist.
If Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders gets the nomination, the Democrats will surely lose the election.
Margaret Geller
Naples, Fla.
To the Editor:
There is an enormous difference between explaining what needs fixing and how to fix it on the one hand and explaining what might be possible politically on the other. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are doing the important work of the former. Everyone else is just guessing about the latter.
Unless the Senate changes to Democratic control, the situation is hopeless anyway. If it changes, we need to aim at the goals the front-runners are presenting.
Ed Gross
Washingtonville, N.Y.
To the Editor:
All this talk about who won the debate isn’t getting us anywhere. This isn’t a high school debate team; this is who is going to run against the worst president in the history of the United States. I want to read about who is going to win the election. Can we start focusing on this point, please?
Sure, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are great, but taking away people’s health insurance and decriminalizing crossing the border is not going to get a single Trump supporter to vote Democratic. It may even sway some Democrats not to vote at all.
Most of the journalists have dissed all the “moderates” in Tuesday’s debate. I think this is a huge mistake. If they are counting on Joe Biden to be the moderate candidate, that is really wrongheaded. This country needs someone younger, more dynamic, less mainstream Washington than Joe Biden.
I personally like most of these 20 candidates and will vote for whoever wins the primary, as I think the most important thing for the Democrats is to kick Donald Trump out of office.
Ronnie Ann Herman
Canaan, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I am a lifetime Democratic voter and am becoming more and more disenchanted with the debates and the candidates. This format does nothing to showcase individual candidates but allows the loudest and most bombastic to come out ahead. All this is doing is revealing to the Republicans how divided the Democrats are.
I have a better idea. Each candidate should be on live TV alone with three moderators for 30 to 45 minutes and asked the same questions. The responses should be time-limited. This would allow us to hear each candidate’s response in a calm environment.
I am afraid that the present format only leads to Democratic infighting that helps President Trump. I am sickened at the possibility that Mr. Trump could actually be re-elected.
Elliot L. Greenberg
Nanuet, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Re “Rivals Battle Over Health Care, and Blows Fly Left and Center” (front page, July 31):
Each time Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other progressives mentioned, defended or tried to explain “Medicare for all” and its various offshoots, one of Motown’s best songs kept ringing in my ears — the Supremes’ “Stop! In the Name of Love.”
What they said confused, bewildered and frustrated me, as they said so many seemingly complicated and contradictory things. The more they said, the more confused I got.
When the debate finally ended I didn’t know whether Medicare for all would cost me a lot of tax dollars, some tax dollars or none; whether everyone would be covered by it or just a portion of the American people; whether it would take years to fully implement or could be done quickly; whether it was far better or inferior to private insurance; whether it would replace private insurance or whether private insurance would be still be an option; or whether it would be a panacea for our insurance problems or just a further headache.
Kenneth L. Zimmerman
Huntington Beach, Calif.
To the Editor:
In the debate a major objection to Medicare for all was that so many Americans are happy with their current health insurance. Elizabeth Warren countered by telling an anecdote, but she did not spell it out. If you are happy with your private health insurance, the following are likely true:
1) You pay more in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses than you consume in health care services.
2) You have never had a catastrophic illness and found out how hard your health insurance company will work to deny coverage.
Casinos and health insurance corporations are profitable for the same reasons. Casinos know the odds of every bet that’s placed, and health insurance companies know the odds of every “choice” offered on their menu of health insurance plans. The house always wins.
Stephen Ames
Katy, Tex.
To the Editor:
Most of the discussion I have read about the debate concerns health care. In sheer wonkiness, it could not be beat. Unfortunately, most of us are not wonky enough to understand all the various proposals being touted, or to care about the details.
People do not vote for graphs, PowerPoint presentations or the like. People vote for people. I suspect that Joe Biden’s emphasis on the soul of the country is more persuasive than any technical analysis of a health care plan could ever be.
John T. Dillon
West Caldwell, N.J.
To the Editor:
No one gets his or her Social Security check and thinks, “This is nice, but I wish a big company were sending me this money instead of the government.” Similarly, under Medicare for all, no patient whose doctor and hospital bills are paid for by the government through taxes will think, “I wish a big company were paying my medical bills instead of the government.” We will quickly get used to a system where we have complete choice of private health care providers and the government pays the bills.
Winnie Boal
Cincinnati
To the Editor:
Candidates and commentators are referring to other countries with national health care systems and raising the question of what switching would mean for the private health insurance system in the United States for both the insurance companies and their current customers. Well, what’s the history of health care coverage in those other countries? Did any of them replace established private health care insurance systems?
And shouldn’t the candidates promoting a national health care system be asked what they think would be the best way to transition from what we have now to what they envision?
If major news sources would pursue these important lines of inquiry, they might advance our conversations about health care in a truly meaningful way.
Chip Hedler
South Strafford, Vt.
To the Editor:
Re “Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Marooned Together on Fantasy Island,” by Frank Bruni (column, nytimes.com, July 31):
What is still hard for me to understand is that you in the United States call things “fantasy island” that are standard and totally normal for us here in Europe, like universal health care and free education! Welcome to the civilized world!
Christian Kogler
Linz, Austria
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Moderates Take On Sanders and Warren at the Democratic Debate
Opinion | Moderates Take On Sanders and Warren at the Democratic Debate
To the Editor:
Re “Leading Liberals Fend Off Attacks on Big Promises” (front page, July 31):
Amid the customary gnashing of teeth about which Democratic candidate might be most capable of knocking off the incumbent, let us all take just a moment to bask in a set of presidential debates that so far have featured not a single reference to male or female body parts, no meanspirited name-calling and no bashing of basic democratic institutions like the press and the judiciary.
What? Somewhere in the fog, I almost recognize the United States of America!
Andrew Calkins
Gloucester, Mass.
To the Editor:
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren received credit for dominating the debate, but that doesn’t mean they “won.” They were front and center, they were loud and gesticulating, but they were repetitive. Tim Ryan, admittedly an underdog, was quite articulate and more centrist.
If Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders gets the nomination, the Democrats will surely lose the election.
Margaret Geller
Naples, Fla.
To the Editor:
There is an enormous difference between explaining what needs fixing and how to fix it on the one hand and explaining what might be possible politically on the other. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are doing the important work of the former. Everyone else is just guessing about the latter.
Unless the Senate changes to Democratic control, the situation is hopeless anyway. If it changes, we need to aim at the goals the front-runners are presenting.
Ed Gross
Washingtonville, N.Y.
To the Editor:
All this talk about who won the debate isn’t getting us anywhere. This isn’t a high school debate team; this is who is going to run against the worst president in the history of the United States. I want to read about who is going to win the election. Can we start focusing on this point, please?
Sure, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are great, but taking away people’s health insurance and decriminalizing crossing the border is not going to get a single Trump supporter to vote Democratic. It may even sway some Democrats not to vote at all.
Most of the journalists have dissed all the “moderates” in Tuesday’s debate. I think this is a huge mistake. If they are counting on Joe Biden to be the moderate candidate, that is really wrongheaded. This country needs someone younger, more dynamic, less mainstream Washington than Joe Biden.
I personally like most of these 20 candidates and will vote for whoever wins the primary, as I think the most important thing for the Democrats is to kick Donald Trump out of office.
Ronnie Ann Herman
Canaan, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I am a lifetime Democratic voter and am becoming more and more disenchanted with the debates and the candidates. This format does nothing to showcase individual candidates but allows the loudest and most bombastic to come out ahead. All this is doing is revealing to the Republicans how divided the Democrats are.
I have a better idea. Each candidate should be on live TV alone with three moderators for 30 to 45 minutes and asked the same questions. The responses should be time-limited. This would allow us to hear each candidate’s response in a calm environment.
I am afraid that the present format only leads to Democratic infighting that helps President Trump. I am sickened at the possibility that Mr. Trump could actually be re-elected.
Elliot L. Greenberg
Nanuet, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Re “Rivals Battle Over Health Care, and Blows Fly Left and Center” (front page, July 31):
Each time Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other progressives mentioned, defended or tried to explain “Medicare for all” and its various offshoots, one of Motown’s best songs kept ringing in my ears — the Supremes’ “Stop! In the Name of Love.”
What they said confused, bewildered and frustrated me, as they said so many seemingly complicated and contradictory things. The more they said, the more confused I got.
When the debate finally ended I didn’t know whether Medicare for all would cost me a lot of tax dollars, some tax dollars or none; whether everyone would be covered by it or just a portion of the American people; whether it would take years to fully implement or could be done quickly; whether it was far better or inferior to private insurance; whether it would replace private insurance or whether private insurance would be still be an option; or whether it would be a panacea for our insurance problems or just a further headache.
Kenneth L. Zimmerman
Huntington Beach, Calif.
To the Editor:
In the debate a major objection to Medicare for all was that so many Americans are happy with their current health insurance. Elizabeth Warren countered by telling an anecdote, but she did not spell it out. If you are happy with your private health insurance, the following are likely true:
1) You pay more in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses than you consume in health care services.
2) You have never had a catastrophic illness and found out how hard your health insurance company will work to deny coverage.
Casinos and health insurance corporations are profitable for the same reasons. Casinos know the odds of every bet that’s placed, and health insurance companies know the odds of every “choice” offered on their menu of health insurance plans. The house always wins.
Stephen Ames
Katy, Tex.
To the Editor:
Most of the discussion I have read about the debate concerns health care. In sheer wonkiness, it could not be beat. Unfortunately, most of us are not wonky enough to understand all the various proposals being touted, or to care about the details.
People do not vote for graphs, PowerPoint presentations or the like. People vote for people. I suspect that Joe Biden’s emphasis on the soul of the country is more persuasive than any technical analysis of a health care plan could ever be.
John T. Dillon
West Caldwell, N.J.
To the Editor:
No one gets his or her Social Security check and thinks, “This is nice, but I wish a big company were sending me this money instead of the government.” Similarly, under Medicare for all, no patient whose doctor and hospital bills are paid for by the government through taxes will think, “I wish a big company were paying my medical bills instead of the government.” We will quickly get used to a system where we have complete choice of private health care providers and the government pays the bills.
Winnie Boal
Cincinnati
To the Editor:
Candidates and commentators are referring to other countries with national health care systems and raising the question of what switching would mean for the private health insurance system in the United States for both the insurance companies and their current customers. Well, what’s the history of health care coverage in those other countries? Did any of them replace established private health care insurance systems?
And shouldn’t the candidates promoting a national health care system be asked what they think would be the best way to transition from what we have now to what they envision?
If major news sources would pursue these important lines of inquiry, they might advance our conversations about health care in a truly meaningful way.
Chip Hedler
South Strafford, Vt.
To the Editor:
Re “Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Marooned Together on Fantasy Island,” by Frank Bruni (column, nytimes.com, July 31):
What is still hard for me to understand is that you in the United States call things “fantasy island” that are standard and totally normal for us here in Europe, like universal health care and free education! Welcome to the civilized world!
Christian Kogler
Linz, Austria
Source: Read Full Article