Update: Vice President Kamala Harris is now the Democratic presidential nominee
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
It’s wild to say that out loud. But absolutely true and something the GOP has known and exploited for a long time and now with the Elon-X machine it’s next level.
There’s a lot more “uneducated” people out there than educated.
There’s a lot more people that will take things at face value vs going out and doing their own research.
Have you listened to him speak, and looked at his family. I don't think his message style and imagery is selling on a national level.
You want a national white man, Shapiro from PA.
You want a national Black man (I'd recommend it), Wes Moore from Maryland.
Don't ever think of running another women, ever again, Even Big Gretch will get stomped.
I have no idea, but shit find a Mexican from California or Nevada or some shit.
Oh I already said you will not see a woman or person of color at the top of the Dem ticket for a longtime.
I willing to bet Gavin Newsom is the 2028 candidate.
Trump is not elite. Vance is not elite.
Asha is not elite.
Democrats who are trying to allow more people to get educated, so they can become middle class are the evil elites talking down to plumbers.
It will never make sense to me. Guess that's just how Democrats will always lose, funding all those damn useless public libraries and public schools.
Here's the Border Czar
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-border-czar-tom-homan_n_67318bf2e4b052f25adcbc9e?ndc
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-border-czar-tom-homan_n_67318bf2e4b052f25adcbc9e?ndc
Trump literally said that he loves the uneducated, but this is condescension?
Nah, this is just facts.
I think you can run a person of color again. It just can't be a person of color thats also a woman. You fighting a near impossible uphill battle with that.
Gavin may be too far to the left to win. Plus I wonder if running for POTUS is something he really wants to do. He doesn't seem to be all that interested in throwing his name into the hat.
What did they say that says they think they’re white. The housing market and rent is crazy right now. They got studio apartments in the South Bronx right now for 3000$ and month.These people think they are white.....
Now we have actual whites and a huge population of folks who think they are white as a political enemy
Though I do think they think they white. This ain’t the reason why
Kamala was on 60 minutes
Kamala was on both CNN and MSNBC townhalls
Kamala was on Brett Bair
Trump didn’t appear on any of them
This youtube may not play here on BGOL,
but the short answer - inflation
and Kamala saying she won’t do any different than Joe Biden
And things were better under Trump
Kamala has plans to stop high prices, but why the fk wasn’t
she and Biden doing it now?
and
A LACK OF ENTHUSIASM FOR KAMALA HARRIS
Kamala was on both CNN and MSNBC townhalls
Kamala was on Brett Bair
Trump didn’t appear on any of them
This youtube may not play here on BGOL,
but the short answer - inflation
and Kamala saying she won’t do any different than Joe Biden
And things were better under Trump
Kamala has plans to stop high prices, but why the fk wasn’t
she and Biden doing it now?
and
A LACK OF ENTHUSIASM FOR KAMALA HARRIS
Last edited:
I don’t think Gavin can run for another term. Not sure if he’d want to run. But let’s be honest America wants a “White” figure that has a perception see Trump of being “Manly” and “Strong”
I agree Gavin is another type of politician similiar to Trump respectively.
The good news for Dems is Trump is a different type of “Republican” for various reason.
After his 4 years and his last if he makes it.
You won’t have to run against his uniqueness again. It will be your more regular trying to be Trump type Republicans where you’ll have a chance and an even bigger chance if this admin follow suit and fucks everything up!
Do you believe the cryptocurrency community played a role in Trump’s election? When he first started talking about Bitcoin, the entire community rallied behind him. There are a significant number of young white men in this community. Under 35.
What's funny like most things is Trump was anti-crypto until recently.
I've been holding crypto for a few years. There's alot in the other threads thats been holding crypto for years and there's a massive post on it.
Point being BEFORE Trump and this year specifically I was up what? 50%?
I was up double in the markets...
Just like before another Republican, Trump, is going to come into a strong economy and let;s hope history doesn't repeat itself.
Before anointing Trump the promise savior let's give him time to put his Tariffs in place and see the effect they have on them,.
My guess? He won't put anywhere near the amount of Tarriffs on things like he promise during campaigning. He knows they're shit if applied broadly. He just said all that crap for the votes and the gullible.
This vid is bullshit any system that gets flooded will show the effects. Abbott was a max level asshole for what he did and I'll admit Dems are too soft.
Ofcourse it’s not about the “economy” never was!
But it’s a great word and concept to hide what it’s really about!
They want people to stay in their lane, black people to be with black people in black areas, etc for other groups. He made a good point about the biracial kids and it shows them white hoes knocking dudes down heavy.
They straight up scared, it's not the economy it's just white fear
The Four Core Pillars of Trump Healthcare 2.0
November 11, 2024While speculation swirls around key cabinet appointments in the incoming Trump administration, much is being written about how things might change for industries and the companies that compose them. Healthcare is no exception.
Speculation about possible changes originates from media coverage, healthcare trade associations, law firms, consultancies, think tanks and academics. Their views are primarily based on Trump Healthcare 1.0 initiatives (2017-2021), presumed Trump 2.0 leverage in the U.S. Senate, House and conservative Supreme Court and a belief by the Trump-team leaders that their mandate is to lower costs for “everyday Americans” and tighten border security.
Thus, Trump Healthcare 2.0 policy changes will be extensive, leveraging legislation, executive orders, agency administrative actions, court decisions and appropriations processes to reset the U.S. health system.
Context:
The red shift that enabled the 45th President to regain the White House was fueled by discontent and fear: discontent with prices paid by ordinary consumers and fear that illegal immigration was an existential threat. Abortion was an important concern to women but inflation and prices for gas, groceries, housing and healthcare mattered more. Exit polls indicate voter concern about how Trump 2.0 economic policies (tariffs et al) might inflate consumer prices or add up to $7 trillion to the national debt was low. And the fate of the Affordable Care Act was a non-issue: assurance about protection for pre-existing condition coverage neutered attention to other elements of the ACA that will get attention in Trump Healthcare 2.0 (i.e. subsidies, short-term plans, et al).
The Four Pillars of Trump Healthcare 2.0 Policy Changes
The new administration is inclined toward a transactional view of the U.S. health system. It does not envision transformational change; instead, it sees opportunity for the system to perform significantly better. Its policies, leadership appointments and actions will be predicated on these four pillars:
- Access to the U.S. healthcare system is a right to be earned. Fundamentally, Trump Healthcare 2.0 builds on its moral conviction that there should be NO FREE LUNCHES whether it’s illegal immigrants or patients who use the health system without doing their part. Trump Healthcare 2.0 will advance mechanisms to enable self-care, increase personal responsibility, promote cheaper/better alternatives to traditional insurance and health delivery and challenge lawmakers to limit financial support to free-loaders. The fundamental notions of public health and community benefit will be revisited and restrictions enacted.
- The status quo is not working. Change is needed. Polls show the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the health system. Affordability is their major concern: escalating, inexplicable costs are forcing their employers to share more responsibility. Trump Healthcare 2.0 will implement changes that lower spending and costs for consumers and employers. They’ll leverage coalitions of working-class voters and businesses to enact policies that expose waste, fraud and abuse in the system and direct the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to streamline its structure and prioritize cost-effectiveness (the HHS Strategic Plan for 2022-2026 is up for review).
- Private solutions solve public problems better than government. Trump Healthcare 2.0 posits that government is broken including the federal and state agencies that control healthcare oversight and funding. Reducing regulatory barriers to consolidation and innovation and lessening risks for private investors whose ventures align with Trump Healthcare 2.0 priorities will be foci. Fundamentally, Trump Healthcare 2.0 believes the private sector is better able to address problems than government bureaucrats: key Trump Healthcare 2.0 leadership positions will be filled by successful private sector operators instead of re-cycled DC luminaries desiring attention.
- Price transparency fuels competition and value. Trump Healthcare 1.0 mandated hospital price transparency via its 2019 Executive Order: Trump Healthcare 2.0 will expand the scope and usefulness of price transparency mandates in hospital, ancillary and outpatient services, physician services, insurance and others. It will facilitate accelerated use of Artificial Intelligence in decision-making by consumers, providers and payers. It will expand timely access to data on prices, direct costs, overhead, executive compensation, outcomes, user experiences and other elements of care management provided by hospitals, physicians and other providers. And it will move quickly to implement site neutral payments in the 119th Trump Healthcare 2.0 holds that providers, insurers and drug companies are not inclined to transparency despite strong support from elected officials and voters. They’ll advance these policy changes anticipating pushback from industry insiders. Trump Healthcare 2.0 believes price transparency in healthcare will produce transformational changes that enable more competition and lower costs.
The Trump 2.0 team’s immediate task is to assemble its Cabinet: that’s taken prior administrations 38 days on average to complete. In tandem, temporary fixes for CMS’ pending Physician Pay Cut and telehealth expansion will pass as Congress’ lame duck session begins this week.
Looking to 2025, the Trump Healthcare 2.0 team will focus initially on issues in Congress where Bipartisan support appears strong i.e. regulation of PBMs, implementation of site neutral payment policies, expansion of drugs subject to Inflation Reduction Act’s pricing limits and perhaps others. It will plan its legislative agenda coordinating with key committees (i.e. Senate HELP, House Ways and Means et al) and outside groups that share its predisposition. And it will use its political clout to build popular support for healthcare reforms that respond directly to consumer (voter) concern about affordability.
Trump Healthcare 2.0 will bring heightened transparency to the health system and be premised on pillars that are popular with working class voters. It will not be a duplicate of Trump Healthcare 1.0: it will be much more.
The Four Core Pillars of Trump Healthcare 2.0 - Paul Keckley
While speculation swirls around key cabinet appointments in the incoming Trump administration, much is being written about how things might change for industries and the companies that compose them. Healthcare...
paulkeckley.com
Yes, speaking down to ppl this way and expecting them to vote for you is condescension!
|
Please forward this email to a colleague and encourage them to subscribe here. |
|
Election Lessons for HealthcareBy David Jarrard5-minute read “You can’t argue people into feeling better with statistics.”Every election offers an education for leaders looking to learn and willing to hear difficult counsel. We all went to school last week.Donald Trump’s decisive victory over Kamala Harris has delivered us pointed instructions – and a dose of kind truth – for America’s healthcare leaders. Just what were voters teaching us through the ballot box? The answers matter because provider organizations are more politically vulnerable than ever. The erosion of the public’s trust in individual health systems and in the industry writ large is significant. The critical scrutiny from lawmakers, media and competitors is relentless. Healthcare needs to win and keep the public’s trust and have active support. How now? The campaign autopsies are already the stuff of endless coverage and will be filling bookshelves soon. Here are three lessons from Tuesday night that are urgently relevant for our industry. Wonky doesn’t work.The economy – with its subsets of inflation, wages, the cost of groceries and houses – was the cornerstone issue for voters (as it is in most every presidential campaign). James Carville’s campaign clarity from 1992 remains stubbornly true: “It’s the economy, stupid.”But is today’s economy “really” good or bad? Facts are only part of an effective message, and secondary, at best, to people’s experience and what is important to them. “Two-thirds of voters described the economy as bad,” said exit polls. And voters who described it that way went big for the next President. “Democrats had a good empirical case that what they had done to steward the economy was very successful. They just had no political case,” argues Atlantic writer David Graham in What Trump Understood, and Harris Did Not. Republicans disagree, of course, but Democrats had explanations for inflation, had taken complex action to address it and could reason the American economy “was running better than any other,” Graham says. “All of this was true and also politically unhelpful,” he writes. “You can’t argue people into feeling better with statistics.” Exactly. A lesson here for healthcare leaders? To effectively and persuasively tell your story, you must meet people where they are and acknowledge and address the issues that are most important to them with clear language they can appreciate. That’s called politics. Example? Too often, healthcare leaders respond to honest concerns about the extraordinarily high cost of care with a cold word salad that requires an MBA to eat. In the effort to fully explain the deeply complex, we can sound evasive and clinically dismissive of the anxiety behind the question. We can appear aloof from the very people we serve. One in six Americans say they have avoided seeking the healthcare they need for fear of its cost. Do we get that? Do we understand the political and emotional power behind that? Can we speak to that fear plainly with our own passion for the mission to which we have dedicated our careers? In effective messaging, emotion must meet emotion. Leaders must acknowledge the concern as real and valid, and meet it with an expression of their personal drive to address. Yes, it’s a problem. Yes, we see it, too. Yes, we’re on it. Let me explain... The details matter. The complexity matters. But when a patient owing six figures for a preauthorized procedure asks why healthcare is so expensive, the first answer shouldn’t be about the intricacies of payer contracts. Do non-profit hospitals provide their fair share of community benefit? The first answer shouldn’t be a mish-mash dissertation on Medicare shortfalls. Nuance is nice, but it’s not first. People do want details, but don’t begin with the byzantine. We lose them in our labyrinth. Neither the economy nor healthcare are engineering problems. Not at first. It starts with the cost of butter and the cost of the ER. Start there, too. Be real.Trump was – and is – a messy messenger. Harris was controlled and structured in a sharply packaged and well-financed campaign in her 107-day, last-minute sprint for the presidency.Whatever side of the aisle you live on (or, on no side at all, thank you very much), there is broad acknowledgement that Trump says what’s on his mind – probably in real time— and voters gave him points for this sense of authenticity. In fact, the majority of voters overlooked a host of issues and norm-breaking behaviors to take him seriously, not literally, rejecting a polished Harris operation supported by cultural luminaries such as Taylor Swift, Beyonce, a constellation of Nobel laureates, former Trump administration officials and, even, Oprah. This league of surrogates could not overcome the fact that in a sprint campaign voters did not feel like they knew Harris as well as they knew Trump. “Trump’s greatest strength, and perhaps his greatest weakness, is that he is always himself,” wrote PRWeek, calling his appearance of authenticity the “message that won Trump the election.” This is not so much about the content of the message (though that’s related). It’s about the performance of the messenger. It’s about offering that sense of risk and all-in commitment to a message that can be powerfully compelling and effective in the delivery of your message. To be clear: The point here is not “be like Trump.” Instead, healthcare leaders, it’s this: Ditch the PowerPoint. Lower the notecards. Shake hands, go to Rotary, round the halls, look people in the eye and tell stories about your kids. Have slow conversations over coffee. Healthcare is a uniquely human business. Bring your human self to your important engagements. Tap the strength of being real. Take no one for granted.Don’t assume the trust and support you enjoyed in days of yore remains true today.As this election demonstrated, we are in an age of historic reshufflings of support, loyalty and trust. For generations, it was a given that Democrats were the party of the working class with deep support from minorities, unions and those with less education. Republicans were the party of the monied, college educated, business-minded. Not today. We’ve witnessed a realignment – for now anyway – of party allegiance. Most hospitals and health systems have been the power brands in their markets for generations, the center of gravity for the delivery of care, earning strong trust throughout communities from decades of care. Is that still true? Can you still count on that support? How do you know?
There are more lessons to learn from last week, of course. The fragmentation of the media landscape, the plummeting influence of traditional news organizations and the rise of informal, “real talk” podcasts and social media feeds has been brought into sharp relief. We’ll unpack those another time. A national election is a kind of national CT scan, deeply revealing what’s important to our communities today and what communication strategies work (and don’t work) now. The challenge for healthcare is not that the environment in which we serve is changing. It always changes. The risk is that we don’t learn the lessons it has to teach. The risk is that we don’t tell our powerful, compelling story because our strategies and our message remain frozen in what worked in the past. Let’s ace our next test. |
Fellas. I remember people in here were talking about heading over to Bluesky. I'm there now and it's pretty good. A bunch of Black people from Twitter just migrated over. When you first join they have what they call Feeds that are dedicated to specific things (horror movies, cooking etc). They have a feed called Blacksky which is basically a feed from Black people on Bluesky. It's a good way to find Black people over there.
One more thing. They call tweets SKEETS over there. It seems it was something the white people made up when they first started it and it caught on. Still you know us.....Black people will joke about anything.
One more thing. They call tweets SKEETS over there. It seems it was something the white people made up when they first started it and it caught on. Still you know us.....Black people will joke about anything.
Bet - I’ll sign up today
This theorizing and blame gaming is moot, irrelevant, lacking data and misdirected. It’s entirely the wrong conversation to be having, in fact.