2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWith his fantasy health-care proposal, the Bernie movement becomes closer to a left-wing tea party.
The angry white people have been there from the start, and now he's added magic unicorn policies to the mix. And when I say magic unicorn, I mean exactly that: everyone knowledgeable who's looked at Bernie's plan in any detail (Krugman, Ezra Klein, etc.) has come to the same conclusion: it's a joke.
It's obvious why he did it. First of all, this moment has been coming for a while. He's avoided policy details for as long as possible, because he's well aware that his proposals cost a lot. And being honest -- admitting that Single Payer would mean a significant number of people would either pay more, have worse coverage than they do now, or both -- isn't very appealing politically. So instead, he proposes something that resembles more than anything the GOP's budget proposals with their wildly unrealistic assumptions.
It might hurt him a bit with people who care about policy, but I'm sure he's calculated that there aren't too many of those people, and he's probably right. But it does mean that the whole "Hillary more electable, Bernie better on policy" thing that was going on for a while is no longer valid. Now she is better not just on guns, but also on healthcare, and a few other issues including financial reform. But Bernie consolidates his advantage with the passionate left-wing base.
In some ways, the growth of a left-wing tea party is a good thing. For a while now, the Democrats have been the only party with serious policy proposals, whereas the GOP has been proposing fantasy supply-side tax cuts, banning Sharia law, defaulting on the debt, etc. The political advantage to that is that the Dems become seen as the sane party, and the GOP as the crazies. But the downside is, too often, in the media, too often it just gets reported as two competing visions, as opposed to one sane vision and one fantasy vision.
Well, now there are two fantasy visions. And if the movement he started lasts past this election, that means that there are going to be more fantasy proposals from the left going forward. And it will be tough for the media to label the left-wing fantasies as fantasies after a decade of taking right-wing fantasies seriously. If getting rid of the IRS, flat taxes, and all that are part of the media discussion, we might as well in add free healthcare and college all paid for by billionaires. It restores the balance.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)The only fantasy is that the US can't have it, because we are so poor and so stupid.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We could have SP, but it would mean higher taxes than Bernie has admitted, and also a lot of people would have worse coverage than they have now. If Bernie would come clean and say that, it would be a serious proposal. But he didn't do that.
And I understand completely. People who love SP passionately don't care about whether the numbers add up. Neither do people who hate SP. The only people who care are intelligent observers like Krugman, but there aren't too many of those.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Where is Krugman's "realistic" proposal for single payer? Why isn't Krugman fighting for the healthcare system we all know we need?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)because they may have to share their physician with a few more patients, or they may have to wait 3 days to see a dr to get cough syrup for their cold instead of one.
Other than that, the coverage should be the same.
Now there are tons OF stuff that has to be done to make this work, or your dire predictions will come true.
I could list them but only if people are serious about resolving this instead of just arguing about it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)a lot of people now who have better coverage than what it provides, not just a few billionaires.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)If he was, he'd be honest about how much it would cost & how difficult it would be.
Clinton is serious.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)corporate profiteering.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)how much money she's taken from the pharmaceutical industry
Gman
(24,780 posts)And why it's nothing more than fantasy.
And I think it's incredibly cruel of BS to do this to his supporters and get their hopes up when it will not happen.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Electing Ssnders, if that's your thing, or HRC. We have to change congress and change minds
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... not those that are preaching that we just have to accept the crap that we have because it is too hard to get what we want now!
Even if we don't get single payer tomorrow when we elect people like Bernie Sanders, we are then electing people that are motivated to use opportunities to get that system in place later when the opportunity presents itself, not who are compromised by "campaign contributions" (aka BRIBES!!!) to keep in place the system that screws most of us for the wealth of those PARASITES that we need to flush out of the system so that we can have a more healthy system the way other countries have today.
Electing Hillary will more likely doom us to never getting something like single payer, even if that opportunity presents itself later. We DON'T WANT THAT!!!
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)People who go about insisting how it is all so simple remind me of people who claim to have a deep personal interest in saving me through Jesus Christ. We've had 7 years of the Republicans fighting tooth and nail against the ACA, but somehow universal healthcare is just going to be self-executing and opposition will evaporate.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)demand it continually, loudly, and publicly and the will to do what is best for US citizens rather than your insurance company and Big Pharma campaign donors.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)they will all turn on him- like they did with Obama when he didn't deliver everything fast enough. I support SP but there is no realistic path that I can see to achieving it on a national level in at least the next 4 (and possibly more) years. I think that it would be best if we could find a strongly blue state or two with solid Democratic/progressive majorities (i.e. California) to set up a SP system that works to demonstrate that it can work well. In the meantime, we need to hold the WH, work on gaining solid progressive majorities in Congress, and tweaking ACA to make it more progressive (i.e. Public Option). Getting any kind of progressive tweaking of the ACA past Ryan's padlocked Republican House is going to be really challenging but fighting for SP with a Republican House (at least) is akin to tilting at windmills.
Gman
(24,780 posts)In 2010 for taking them for granted. So they stayed home, bitched and moaned. Only problem was 2010 was a redistricfing election and the GOP ran the table, gerrymandered the hell out of everything to give us what we have now in congress and statehouses. YET, Bernue will deliver up this fantasy of a single payer plan the day he walks in and the only fingers they'll have to lift are on a keyboard.
Incredible.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... were just about the sum total of those that were pushed out of office in 2010. If the DCCC had really worked with those on the ground to get candidates working for their PEOPLE constituents in their districts, rather than the corporate BS that Emanuel was pushing then, we might have a different story today, both with who controls the House and the various state legislatures, etc. too.
People demonstrated last election why running compromised candidates doesn't work, when many of them got voted out for Republicans in the same states that they passed ballot initiatives like raising the minimum wage, which shows that people wanted change, but those like DWS's corrupt DNC didn't provide those people to vote for which would give them what they wanted.
Gman
(24,780 posts)You're excusing it. Incredible. Defending the indefensible.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)
Andy823
(11,555 posts)The same group of "Obama" haters jumped on the Bernie bandwagon, and as you stated, they will have no problem turning on Bernie when they don't get what they want on day one, or at least by day two.
I like Bernie, but I think it was someone else in his camp that decided to come out with the health care plan. At the last debate he even admitted it was not very detailed, and it's not. I sounds good, but there is no actual detail on how it will be accomplished when the republicans won't even talking to him about universal health care for all, and that's simply a fact.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)It's as simple as that. 
enid602
(9,684 posts)" There's nothing fantastic about a program that every other developed nation has." Every other developed nation does NOT have single payer. They have UNIVERSAL Health Care. Thanks to Obamacare, the US has universal healthcare for the first time as of 2014, per the WHO. Among larger countries, only Japan and the UK have single payer. Most (France, Germany and Belgium to name just a few), have Insurance Mandated universal healthcare, similar to Obamacare. Better to concentrate on putting more teeth into a system that already has the POTENTIAL of approaching something like Germany's or France's.
Another problem of initiating single payer right now is DEMOGRAPHICS. The fastest growing segment of the US population is the elderly, who while needing the most medical care, will not be contributing much in terms of revenue. Bad timing. Bad timing also with regard to politics, as the Republicans will most likely retain control of the House until 2022.
Does Bernie really want this election to be a referendum on Berniecare?
Kall
(615 posts)There are 31 million people who are uninsured. And aside from the coverage factor, the cost in terms of percentage of GDP is far higher than every other industrialized country.
enid602
(9,684 posts)The US does have Universal Healthcare, per the World Health Organization. For the first time. As of 2014. Go to their website. We do, unfortunately have 30 mm unemployed, thanks to the efforts of Republican Governors who refused to expand Medicaid. How long can they hold out? Will the same conservative elements find a way to take the teeth out of Single Payer? Chelsea pointed this out, and in response to her criticism, Bernie released the latest (9th) incarnation of his vaunted health care proposal two hours before the last debate, changing 'administered by the States' to 'nationally administered.' Problem solved? I don't think so.
DFW
(60,186 posts)We have a patchwork system that covers most people, but some still fall through the cracks. It's very bureaucratic, and for millions of Germans, they only get health insurance if they actively go through the bureaucratic hoops. People with good educations or high incomes do it. People at the low end still sometimes either can't or won't. My wife was a social worker for decades and worked with these people all the time. I was shocked to learn that in modern German society there are still a large number of illiterate people who somehow manage to work their way through life. But of course they never fill out a form, and there are estimated to be several hundred thousand Germans, for a variety of reasons, without health insurance. Compared to the USA, of course, this is laughably low, but the Germans still consider it scandalously high.
In my particular case, I could get German health insurance if I could afford it. But my employer is in the USA and I am paid in the USA, so while I get to pay German taxes as a resident, I enjoy zero of their benefits. To insure myself there, at my age and pre-existing condition, I was quoted €2500 per month, or $33,000 a year, which would have to come out of my pocket. As my wife is in that limbo between early retirement and the age of 65, I have to pay €400 a month, or about $5300 a year for her health insurance, or she wouldn't have any either. She is a German citizen who has worked before, so the rules are different for her, luckily, but it still ain't cheap.
BlueMTexpat
(15,690 posts)the ACA in some ways. That is, there is a required basic coverage that all policies must offer and there can be no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance is purchased from private companies. Employers are generally mandated by law to provide coverage for their employees, both during their employment and after retirement. The problem, of course, is that it is very difficult for expatriates who are not EU-citizens to be hired by Swiss companies. Finally, there is a general idea here that no one should ever go bankrupt because of medical costs.
I was very fortunate while I was still working because I was covered through the international organizations that employed me. My insurance covered nearly everything, including dental.
Unfortunately, I worked for two different organizations with two different insurance systems. Although I was as a full-time employee for a total of 13 years before retirement, the time was split between seven years for one organization and six for the other. For me to continue paying a minimal fee for insurance after retirement, the vesting requirement was a minimum of 10 years with the same organization.
My residence permit requires that I show proof of insurance, so I must pay about CHF 400/mo for coverage (CHF 1000 deductible). The CHF and the USD are pretty much at parity right now. There is no real paperwork hassle. Either the service provider sends the bills to the insurance company or I send them and the company pays directly, although I must make up any difference from my own pocket. I am allowed to deduct any unreimbursed costs from my tax liability.
As I also worked in the US for several years, I receive US SS benefits and have Medicare premiums deducted from them. I receive Medicare B coverage through my husband's former US employer. Of course, Medicare covers medical expenses within the US only. My Swiss policy has a provision for global coverage but - knock on wood - I've never put it to the test.
One lesson we learned about Medicare and expatriates: if you attain the age of 65 and are eligible for Medicare, you must apply for benefits then. If not, you risk paying a higher premium or fine if you later decide to live in the US and use Medicare. My husband turned 65 several years before I did but, as he was covered by my insurance, didn't sign up for Medicare then. Later, he decided to spend more time in the US and thus registered. To avoid the higher premium/fine, we had to provide the Medicare officials with proof of coverage for every year after 65 up until he applied for Medicare. Fortunately, this was easy for us to do, but it was something that we had not realized. I made sure to sign up for Medicare as soon as I was 65, to keep my own options open.
And no, it ain't cheap at all. 
DFW
(60,186 posts)I would be thrilled to pay CHF 400 a month for comprehensive coverage with a CHF 1000 deductible! The requirement for residence here also included proof of health insurance. The Germans were OK with my Blue Cross card, though I suspect that was because they had no idea what it was. It was a relief that I didn't have to sign up for €30,000 a year! I didn't move here to beg for spare change!
BlueMTexpat
(15,690 posts)I forgot to mention that the Swiss Federal Government also monitors drug prices and prices for medical procedures so costs do not get out of hand.
The care that I have received here from various providers, whether in their offices or at public hospitals or private clinics, has been uniformly excellent.
gordyfl
(598 posts)If I remember, the ACA was some 23,000 pages long.
In the early stages of Canadian Healthcare, theirs was just 13 pages.
Medicare is already up and running. It shouldn't be too complicated to add more people to an existing program.
The biggest problem ahead is keeping the insurance companies in check, which includes the politicians representing them. That includes Hillary.
In Canada you can still buy private health insurance as a supplemental if you're not satisfied with the universal healthcare.
Bernie Sanders is on a good mission. It's not going to be easy. He needs the people to support him on this issue, otherwise Bernie loses, and the insurance companies win.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)The US is not Canada, although I would like it to be more like Canada. There are huge differences in the two countries' constitutional and political structures, to say nothing of the different political culture.
Gothmog
(179,857 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Human101948
(3,457 posts)and you, my fellow person, are part of the problem.
Gothmog
(179,857 posts)When the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate including for a time a 60 vote majority, we could not adopt single payer. This plan has zero chance of getting a vote in the House or becoming law
Human101948
(3,457 posts)you will probably end up with more of the same or worse.
Gothmog
(179,857 posts)This plan will not be adopted nationally http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health-plan_us_569ff110e4b076aadcc50807
That’d be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldn’t be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 trillion over the next decade.
To help pay for his plan’s unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.
That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, he’d have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacare’s architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.
Two lessons from Obamacare
The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the “public option” -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.
Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didn’t want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenues....
Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's
No, this grim political reality doesn’t mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.
But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isn’t a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. It’s a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)No, this grim political reality doesn’t mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy.
First they laugh at you...
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)It's you who are the problem, not the people who are willing to acknowledge the complexity of the task and the necessity for detailed strategy. Some people seem to think every problem can be solved by chanting the right slogans at it.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)That's reality.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I should just stop reading GD
- it's like being trapped at a church or one of those motivational speaker conferences. Your catchphrases are not reality, they're just things you say to yourself to help you cope with your fear and confusion. Reality is the place where things tend to fall apart if you don't have a detailed plan when you undertake a big project.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Ever find that your cherished beliefs were not as real as you thought they were?
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Doesn't take much to get people to drop their masks these days.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)as this campaign unfolds. You can plan logically all you want thinking one thing will happen and then suddenly events surprise you and your plan is just crap.
It was Mike Tyson that said that by the way. The joke was calling him a great philosopher.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I'm urged to 'calm down' even though I'm not the one using loaded language or foreclosing the discussion with slogans. Surprises are a normal part of life and that's why I make contingency plans, plural, as opposed to faith-based 'solutions.'
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Can you direct me to where you put forth all those plans?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But you did it on the very first post so I can save lots of time by not going through the whole thread...thanks.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You don't have to sell the idea of universal healthcare to me, I grew up with it, have worked at delivering it, and regard it as an unambiguous Good Thing.
It does not follow that simply being for universal healthcare means that you're competent to build a system that delivers it. Otherwise we just put a few beauty pageant contestants in charge of the UN, because every beauty pageant contestant I've head claims to be a supporter of world peace and by the standards of many radicals that alone is sufficient.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)us we have to. If Europe can do it why the fuck can't the US?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tax rates across Western Europe are much higher than in the US, and also much higher than what Bernie is proposing.
Some would argue that the higher taxes are worth it, because they get more benefits. And I would tend to agree with them. But Bernie isn't proposing European-style tax rates. And he's also not coming clean about the fact that a significant minority of people in the US would have worse coverage under single payer. And not just billionaires.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)because it is a great start. Looks like SP plan would be an even better start.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The amount of money it raises is simply not enough, by a long shot, to pay for the benefits it promises. If it were to go into law, one of three things would happen:
1) Big cuts in benefits
2) Big new tax cuts on not just the wealthy
3) Enormous expansion of the debt
Just saying "Single Payer" is not enough. There are a huge number of details to be worked out. Obamacare worked out those details, and it's actually functioning well, which is a huge accomplishment. What Bernie has proposed doesn't come close to being realistic. And not just for political reasons. As a policy, even if he had dictatorial power to pass it through congress, it wouldn't work.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)the savings will more than pay for it and improve it. Big Insurance says not so much.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not talking about SP in general, I'm talking about Bernie's specific plan. Plenty of people who support SP in general (e.g. Krugman) have looked at this plan and found it to be wildly unrealistic in its assumptions.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)to break up the large banks and bring back more regulations for Wall Street?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)he's written several times that the current penalties for being deemed a systemic risk (i.e. too big to fail) are actually effective. But, yeah, he wants more regulations on Wall Street. As do both Hillary and Bernie. I'm not sure what this has to do with single payer.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Or are you just conceding that DanTex is right about the Sanders plan?
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)And Western European countries have very little in terms of military spending.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)enid602
(9,684 posts)So why isn't Bernie suggesting a massive shift from military spending to health care spending? That would be more straightforward.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"While Bernie appreciates a strong defense system, he has also views the cost of endless wars and tremendous peacetime defense spending as detracting from facing “some of the most pressing economic issues affecting the well-being of ordinary Americans.” Bernie firmly rejects any increase to defense spending at the cost of cuts to domestic social spending.
"In his role as member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Bernie has been highly concerned with not only the immediate, overt costs of waging war, but also the less obvious and longer-term costs of engaging in military conflicts. "
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-military-and-veterans/
enid602
(9,684 posts)I would agree with Bernie that the 'endless wars' strategy is not the answer. However, finding ways to economize on bloated military spending is not the same as a massive shift away from military spending.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)A not insignificant amount of our military spending is in Europe where they elect to not spend money on a military, which given the militarily aggressive Putin on the eastern border, might not be a great plan.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)How will emulating that level of investment mean higher costs?
You are starting with the base assumption that costs for healthcare in the U.S. are immutable. That makes all your subsequent assumptions and arguments false.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not assuming that healthcare costs are immutable, just that Bernie's numbers don't add up. Yes, there will be cost savings, but not nearly enough to pay for it without more taxes.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Here's an example of why your argument is faulty--
In return for paying their taxes, Swedes have access to a generous support system for families and individuals that most Americans can only dream about. That includes not only quality health care but also child care, a more generous retirement pension, low-cost college education (most Swedish universities charge no tuition fees), job retraining, paid sick leave, paid parental leave (after a birth or to care for sick children), ample vacations, affordable housing, senior care and more.
In order to receive the same level of benefits as Swedes, Americans have to fork out a lot more in out-of-pocket payments, in addition to our taxes. These payments often are in the form of fees, surcharges, higher tuition, insurance premiums, co-payments and other hidden charges. Whether it's in the form of a tax, fee or surcharge, either way it comes out of your pocket. Yet that fuller picture is not considered when calculating who pays the most.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-myth-of-low-tax-america-why-americans-arent-getting-their-moneys-worth/274945/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The bottom income tax rate is 31% after an exemption of $2600. At $61K, the marginal rate goes up to 51% and at $88K it goes up to 56%. In the US, if you earn $30K per year, you're in the 15% bracket, versus 31% in Sweden. At $70K it's 25% in the US versus 51%. And so on. And on top of that, they have a payroll tax, which is larger than here. Sweden also has a 25% VAT. The US has no VAT, and state sales taxes aren't nearly that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden
That article makes the very good point that Swedes get a lot of benefits for their taxes, which is how it works -- more taxes, more beneftis. The problem is, Bernie wants Swedish-style benefits without Swedish-style taxes. Because he knows that proposing Swedish-style taxes is a political loser. So instead of being honest, he puts in fantasy assumptions about cost savings.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)You cannot discuss healthcare costs and lump in all the other social benefits that they pay for ...happily!
If we modeled our healthcare after one of the other systems that get better results at half the costs, what will happen to your total expenditure? It will go down.
But I can see that you are determined to undermine Sanders by using the boogeyman of socialism which has been a favored technique of the right for the past 70 years. It is not a tactic that relects well on you or your candidate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)accomplish was single payer, then we wouldn't need Swedish level taxes. Still much higher than what's in his proposal, of course -- his numbers there don't come anywhere close to adding up, but not as high as Sweden.
Of course, he's also proposing free college tuition, big infrastructure spending, etc. To get his entire platform in, we would be looking at Western Europe tax rates.
Well, first off, our system is already modeled after one of the other systems that gets better results at much lest cost. Germany has a system very similar to Obamacare, basically an individual mandate with subsidies and community ratings. For some reason, a lot of people don't understand this and thing that the term "single payer" is somehow magic. It's not.
Would single payer save us money? Probably, though we could also cut costs simply by improving Obamacare. But it won't save nearly as much money as Bernie claims it would, which is why people who looked at his numbers have concluded that his proposal is a fantasy.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)You see, the Wall Street Journal piece cited research by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. And there was just one small problem with their interpretation of his research. They blatantly omitted his conclusion.
But in the age of information, major newspapers are rightfully under more scrutiny than ever. Professor Friedman saw the Wall Street Journal’s piece and responded in the Huffington Post with “An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece.”
He writes that the Journal wasn’t completely wrong: the program would involve spending $15 trillion over a decade. But they left out the key detail: it would actually save the country a total $5 trillion over those 10 years. We’d see those savings in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by decreasing the rate of medical inflation.
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/the_wall_street_journal_gets_whacked_how_its_bernie_sanders_hit_piece_completely_backfired_partner/
Politifact Confirms Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Plan Will SAVE Every American Family $1,200/Year
http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-healthcare-plan-would-save-the-average-american-family-1200/
TubbersUK
(1,517 posts)Healthcare expenditure as % of GDP:
UK 9.1 %, Canada 10.9 %, France 11.7%, Germany 11.3%, Australia 9.4% .............................
US = 17.1 % with many millions not covered or inadequately covered
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
ETA: Sweden, by the way, spends 9.7%.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Proposing Swedish level benefits. The Swedes get a hell of a lot more for their high taxes than just single payer healthcare.
Bernie's proposal is not perfect, and may have weaknesses, but it's a start and is a big step in a different and better direction. As with any major policy negotiating proposal, one starts with everything you want to achieve + a little more knowing that, through negotiation, the final policy will end up being somewhat less or modified, so you compensate at the start.
Taxes have nothing to do with health care in Europe. In Germany, for example, you pay premiums. The difference between the US and Germany, is that your costs are out of control. Ours are not. We don't pay $20,000 for broken finger at the ER, $25,000 for a caesarian, or $50 per pill for life saving medicine. It´s called oversight andregulation....Germany has it, the US does not. It can be done in the US too as long as there is the political will.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Germany doesn't have single payer, they have a system very similar to Obamacare, with mandates and subsidies. It's nothing whatsoever like what Bernie is proposing. Moving towards a German system means improving Obamacare, which is what Hillary is proposing.
I agree, that could be done here as well. In theory, single payer could too, but politically it would be much more difficult, and it definitely won't work with the proposal the Bernie has floated because the numbers don't add up.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)America pays more per capita than any country on earth and gets crappier results than most of the west.
All you're (extremely transparently) doing is trying to push Hillary's Obamacare Plus cause.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bigger my a margin than what Bernie has in his plan.
Oh, and not all countries other than the US have single payer plans. I don't really get the obsession with single payer. There are a number of ways to reach universal coverage. Some countries like Holland or Germany have a system similar to Obamacare, with a mandate for private insurance. But somehow single payer or bust has become a rallying cry among a segment of the left. Not sure why.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)As for the tax increase, that's just your opinion and some other peoples. Plenty of economists thing its a great plan.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A lot of economists think that, in principle, single payer is good, but I haven't found many (any) serious economists who think that this particular plan is workable.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)"4. “His single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”
This is a duplicitous argument. Studies show that a single-payer system would be far cheaper than our current system, which relies on private for-profit health insurers, because a single-payer system wouldn’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing. So even if the Sanders single-payer plan did require some higher taxes, Americans would come out way ahead because they’d save far more than that on health insurance."
http://robertreich.org/post/137454417985
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)"Today, Bernie Sanders will be unveiling the details of his single-payer healthcare plan. I've seen it, and it's a huge advance over what we have now. The Affordable Care Act is an important first step towards the goal of universal health care -- insuring more than 17 million Americans who had lacked health insurance. But 29 million Americans still lack health insurance, and millions more can’t afford to see a doctor because of high co-payments and deductibles. And the nation continues to spend a higher percent of our total economy on health care than any other advanced nation while getting the worst health outcomes. We must move to a universal single-payer system, as in almost every other advanced nation.
Bernie’s plan isn't nearly as radical as it will be portrayed. It builds on the strengths of Medicare. Like Medicare, it's universal -- separating health insurance from employment, and enabling people to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network: All they’d need do is go to the doctor and show their insurance card. No more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.
Through a single national insurance system, we’ll no longer be paying for the marketing and advertising of private for-profit health insurers, nor their giant executive salaries, or their complex billing systems. Government will negotiate fair prices with drug companies, hospitals, and medical suppliers.
I’ve looked at the savings and the costs in Bernie’s plan, and it will work. The United States currently spends $3 trillion a year on health care —nearly $10,000 per person. Bernie’s plan will save American families and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade. The typical middle-class family will save over $5,000 a year; the typical business will save over $10,000 a year. The costs for families and businesses will be far less than these savings. "
DanTex
(20,709 posts)forward, but I guess he's sticking by his man.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)How can the USA afford not to change to single payer?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I'll take the word of Bernie's people over some dude on the internet who mostly like to punch hippies as his hobby.
BlueMTexpat
(15,690 posts)health care systems. Some EU countries have systems not all that different from our current ACA.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,690 posts)making. But thanks for your response.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You know why the US can't do it? Because it has too many populists who'd rather chant slogans than crack open a textbook to educate themselves. I've been pushing the notion of universal healthcare to anyone who will listen for the 20 years I've been living here, but one thing that I don't do is try to bullshit people about it being easy or cheap. It's complicated and expensive and requires deep political consensus, an alien concept to many people here.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)We need to out crazy those wild and crazy Republicans.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There's no reason there shouldn't be unrealistic proposals from the left as well as the right, for the sake of balance.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)"Left wing tea party"...
thanks for that, BTW...stupid and, frankly, insulting comparison.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)of the past like FDR, LBJ, and others.
Don't forget, we currently have a debt to GDP ratio of 65%, an all time high save that at the end of the Great Depression and WWII, when it was also 65%. That same ratio was only 11% percent at the beginning of FDR's first administration. IE, we had the money for his programs. We don't have that luxury right now. And it's not like Berniecare is the ONLY big program that Berrnie's promising right now. We're broke!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)National finances are not like balancing a checkbook. The country is not broke, and bringing in policies that will actually increase the disposable income of working people is how you grow the economy. Pretty much every policy he's suggested would have the knock on effect of boosting peoples ability to spend, and thus create demand. If the corporations weren't incredibly short sighted and stupid, they'd be lining up to support his policies.
Yes, I seem to remember remember President Cheney saying that debt levels are unimportant, and that people just need to continue spending. Seems to me that that logic was a great contributor to the Great Recession.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Normal people spending is exactly how you grow the economy. How you shrink the economy is by squeezing working people, cutting the programs that help them manage their lives, and funneling the cash to the richest people in society in the vague hope that the money will somehow trickle down to everyone else.
intersectionality
(106 posts)People have a really difficult time when trying to discuss macroeconomic policies when most of their understanding of economics is microeconomics. It's the same problem people have when trying to fathom how things work on a cellular (or even worse an atomic) level. Trying to fathom the idea that there are literally millions of transactions occurring each second (particularly when markets are open for trading) is like trying to understand the cell. Or, as Bill Bryson indicates with this quote systems at varying scales have vastly different functions and processes that seem unimaginable.
"If you could visit a cell, you wouldn’t like it. Blown up to a scale at which atoms were about the size of peas, a cell itself would be a sphere roughly half a mile across, and supported by a complex framework of girders called the cytoskeleton. Within it, millions upon millions of objects—some the size of basketballs, others the size of cars—would whiz about like bullets. There wouldn’t be a place you could stand without being pummeled and ripped thousands of times every second from every direction. Even for its full-time occupants the inside of a cell is a hazardous place. Each strand of DNA is on average attacked or damaged once every 8.4 seconds—ten thousand times in a day—by chemicals and other agents that whack into or carelessly slice through it, and each of these wounds must be swiftly stitched up if the cell is not to perish."
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)Of course, in order to create that spending, one has to ensure that consumers have the disposable income to circulate. Otherwise, they are spending money they don't have, which is asking for trouble.
Whether or not the current economic model is wise, is a separate question, and apparently nobody, Mr Sanders or any other candidate, is interested in asking it.
-- Mal
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Debt can be caused on the tax cut side. It can and was recently also caused by war, the financial collapse which took trillions out of the US economy and the subsequent lack of demand keeping tax revenue low to decreased economic activity and then austerity further reducing demand. There are many things that cause debt that have absolutely little to do with government spending on its people.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)If I get a little too far in debt, I try to increase my income, not work less hours.
Since most of this evil debt was incurred after Bush took office, maybe a return to pre-Bush tax rates would be a good place to start. Then take it a few steps further.
Seems like a Simpson-Bowles-Clinton cult has taken over DU lately.
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)We have revenue streams that we aren't tapping cuz the rich have bought off our politicians.
Yeah, The New Deal was nothing more than crazy...unicorns...never work.
Same with Medicare...I mean, what was LBJ thinking? I'm sure 1960's Krugman was poo-pooing that as well.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Bernie's policies are better AND he is more electable. Besides that, could we really say the a win with hill is a win???? I think not.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)looked at it in detail knows that. I imagine Bernie knows that as well, he's not dumb. It's a play for the base, and it's probably a smart one politically, but policy-wise, it's not there.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)Funny how things change in real time, especially unsupported declarations of Natural Law.
Kall
(615 posts)And they cover everybody to boot. They pay more in taxes. But they pay no private insurance premiums, co-payments or deductibles because private insurance is totally unnecessary, so the vast majority of people come out ahead financially simply because the tax system is progressive, but also because private for-profit health insurance, delivered by publicly traded companies with a fiduciary duty to maximize profits, with its mountain of marketing, administrative and bureaucratic costs, is far more expensive.
Now, what are Hillary's numbers on how many uninsured people she'll cover, what taxes she'll pay for it with, and what current costs in the system will be eliminated? Oh, she hasn't given you any, she just says she'll "improve the ACA." Like her original position on Keystone XL, she'll probably get back to you after she is (not) elected.
Are you so committed to your prior decision to elect Hillary Clinton President that you are totally indifferent to Hillary and Chelsea lying to your face and insulting your intelligence in a flagrant bunch of lies about what a single-payer system (which 81% of Democrats support) involves? That you don't care that Democratic Party operatives like David Axelrod and Howard Dean, fact-check organizations and journalists across the board have categorized her claims as blatantly falsehoods? That you don't care when they say Bernie Sanders wants to dismantle Medicare when he wants to expand Medicare? That you don't care when they say that he wants to tear up the ACA, as if he wouldn't have already passed the new system to replace, improve and expand the coverage prior to its replacement? Do you just not care that Hillary Clinton is peddling lies in order to scare up support from gullible, low-information voters, and that you will mindlessly regurgitate whatever gruel her conscienceless rapid-response team cranks out to serve you? Do you want to elect a President this comfortable with lying and misleading? She learned well from the last Clinton who parsed the meaning of the word "is".
Your candidate is flat-out lying to you with no shame whatsoever. You should be upset, not manning the barricades for her.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also, it's not true that there are no co-pays. It varies from country to country, and also within countries depending on what service. Medicare, by the way, has both co-pays and deductibles.
And, yeah, they have higher taxes. Higher than what Bernie is proposing. If Bernie had proposed enough funding to actually pay for single payer, that would be different. But he hasn't. Politically, he wants Western Europe services with American tax levels.
Hillary's plan, as you said, is to improve the ACA. It's not a big overhaul of the entire system, it's incremental. You can read about it, for example, here. I'm sure there are things to agree and disagree, but it's nothing like proposing a huge new system with not nearly enough funds to pay for it.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/
As far as insulting my intelligence, well, Bernie's single payer proposal does exactly that. But I'm not particularly insulted, he's a politician, I get it. Telling the truth wouldn't go over very will in this particular instance. Yes, Clinton's attacks on Single Payer were misleading. She should have just pointed out that Bernie's numbers don't add up, and that if we go with his plan, we're either facing big unsustainable deficits, big tax increases, or big reductions in the quality of coverage. Dumb move on her part.
Kall
(615 posts)Why would the fact that other countries with different forms of universal health also have lower costs than under the ACA invalidate the fact that other countries with single-payer universal health care have lower costs than the ACA? America's is the worst system, bar done.
I'm not going to waste any more time with you. It's impossible to make someone understand something when their interests lie in not understanding it.
If you want to read about how your chosen candidate (with knowledge about health care) and the daughter she sends out to lie on her behalf (who has a Master of Public Health) are lying unapologetically to you, you can do so here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/chelsea-clinton/chelsea-clinton-mischaracterizes-bernie-sanders-he/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The reason that it matters that not all countries with efficient systems have single payer is because it refutes the argument that single payer is the key to cost control and efficiency. There are a lot of reasons why we pay more, health care economics is complicated.
Your problem here is that you think that just because something is called "single payer" means it will magically work, and there's no need to actually look at the numbers and see if they add up. That's what Bernie is counting on, in fact. People with expertise who went through the plan in detail found it to be a fantasy, with wildly optimistic assumptions like the GOP's supply-side tax cuts. But most of Bernie's supporters don't care about little details like whether the plan has any hope of actually working. So he gets to propose huge benefits without enough revenue to pay for them, and people are happy.
Also, I've already said that I agree that Chelsea mischaracterized Bernie's plan. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The fact that Bernie's plan is a joke doesn't change simply because Chelsea Clinton said something dumb.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)without resorting to personal attacks.
Your posts make a lot of sense. It really bothers me that so many of Bernie's supporters don't do nuance. Reminds me of the tea party types, sad to say. You are pointing out the nuances that make the difference in whether Bernie's plan as proposed is honest and workable or mainly political.
It's disappointing that a candidate who constantly talks about a political revolution in this country feels the need to advance the usual pie-in-the-sky scenarios when it comes to how his proposals would be funded. Why not be revolutionary and tell people what it will actually cost in tax increases? Why not say some people's health coverage would take a hit? Stand up for what you believe in and explain the pain along with th benefits. THAT would be revolutionary.
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)Then you cry foul when you've been called a piece of work, calling it a "personal attack."
Nice.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)They always start the personal insults. It usually happens about this same place in the thread.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)and the nerve to claim nobody's actual facts matter.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)eom
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'll take third way slurs that could have originated on Fox News for $500, Alex.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)for using the term "left wing tea party".
!!!???!!!
On Wed Jan 20, 2016, 08:01 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
"Left-wing tea party"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1034230
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Left wing tea Party"? This crap needs to stop.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 20, 2016, 08:13 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's what the OP says!!! Alert that. (Insert word here showing what I think of the alerter's IQ.)
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Some people get quotes, some don't.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Author of the alerted post did not write the "" quoted term but responded to it.
Non-sense alert.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They pulled the same thing last week with different results, thrilled to see the jury saw right through that dishonest tactic.
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)What about these 170 economists?
1. Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
2. Robert Hockett, Cornell University
3. James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
4. Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
5. Christine Desan, Harvard Law School
6. Jeff Connaughton, Former Chief of Staff, Senator Ted Kaufman
7. William Darity Jr., Duke University
8. Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research
9. Brad Miller, Former U.S. Congressman and Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute
10. William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City
......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511032322
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Proserpina
(2,352 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Proserpina
(2,352 posts)you haven't been paying attention.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)enid602
(9,684 posts)No, financial reform is financial reform, and single payer is single payer. But don't worry, I'm sure those same economists will have an opportunity to review Bernie's health care proposal. It will be interesting to see what they have to say about them.
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)"And being honest -- admitting that Single Payer would mean a significant number of people would either pay more, have worse coverage than they do now, or both -- isn't very appealing politically."
If it would mean that a significant number of people would either pay more, have worse coverage than they do now, how many is that?
Are we talking people who make over $250,000, $1 million, 75,000?
I'm worked for a computer services company for years and made about $30,000 per year. I lost that job and now I am currently making about $20,000 but just completed a program for a job that pays about $45,000. My husband makes about $28,000. It really just depends on what the cutoff point for paying more is, doesn't it?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If his plan went forward exactly as written, then what would happen is the debt would go way up. He's promising good benefits at low cost. People with good private insurance would end up with worse coverage, but not that much worse. I dunno, I'd guess like 20% of the population or so, but check the links below (and the links they link to) for more details. For most people, the benefits would be as good or better than now. But the problem is, good benefits cost a lot.
He only proposes raising income tax rates at the top. He also proposes increasing payroll taxes, which is a tax on everyone, but that's balanced by the fact that nobody has to pay insurance premiums anymore. Still, the problem is, the money he raises isn't enough to pay for it all. He puts in wildly optimistic assumptions about cost savings to make it add up on paper.
In reality, to pay for it, more taxes would go up. I don't know who would be paying them because Bernie avoids this issue with his cost savings estimates.
As a sanity check, look at Western Europe and Scandinavia, where Bernie draws a lot of ideas from. They have a stronger safety net and universal healthcare (though not all by single payer, some of them have hybrid systems that resemble a more generous version of Obamacare). But in order to pay for that, they have higher tax rates, and not just on the rich. If we want to move in that direction, we have to pay more taxes too. Which I'm OK with, but Bernie isn't coming clean about it, because he knows that broad tax raises aren't politically popular.
Here are some articles going into more detail.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I wasn't nickeled and dimed every time I go to the doctor. Not only do I pay for health insurance, every time I go to the doctor I pay a copay and then sometimes I also get a bill and sometimes the bill is more than I can pay. When it's taken out before you get it and you never have to pay more then you will adjust to the difference in pay, but when you get more in your paycheck you end up spending more just living, your car breaks down, etc., and then get hit with healthcare costs you can't afford and that are unexpected. If it was all paid for up front and I didn't have to worry about it that would suit me just fine.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)things too, like infrastructure, more generous safety net, education, etc.
The issue I'm bringing up is that Bernie is trying to propose European style benefits with American style taxes, and it just doesn't add up.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)Having higher taxes coming out of your check every week to pay for health insurance when you never get sick is like having to pay for car insurance when you don't have a car.
Age figures in to what an employer or employee currently pays in insurance premiums. Under a Bernie-like plan, everyone would be taxed the same percentage for healthcare, no matter what their salary. That's fair in one way, unfair in another.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)stopbush
(24,808 posts)
INdemo
(7,024 posts)Husband would pay annually $1200.00
That's at a payroll tax of 2.5%
$28,000= $700. Annually
20,000=$500.00 Annually
Employer's cost for both of you would be
6.5% or $3,120
For your current income Employer contributions
for $20,000 = $1300.00
For 28,000 =$1820.00
As you can see Huge saving.
But Hillary supporters will
Not look at this in a rational way.
They want to jump on this plan using Republican talking points and reject it.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)and it isn't the left
Alan Simpson ring a bell?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Can you clarify your question?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Why Bernie Sanders Holds Potential Appeal for Trump Voters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251961051
Sanders says he’s courting Trump supporters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251949930
Why Bernie Sanders Thinks HE CAN WIN Trump's Supporters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251951359
Sanders wants Trump supporters to back him
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251960114
He thinks the racist, nut-job, fascist-loving Teabaggers will be his ace-in-the hole in the general election.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Has he said anything to appeal to racism or fascism? Or is it just that some of them find his message on inequality and reining in Wall Street appealing?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Courting them & accepting them as they are would be disastrous.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)If they vote for Bernie or Hillary, for that fact, they do so because of other things about those candidates that speaks to them. On the other hand, Donald Trump and other Republican candidates are pandering to the worst instincts of the Tea party. I think you are smart enough to know the difference.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Trump supporters hate Wall Street and the 1% because they want to be among the pie takers. The racism, xenophobia and misogyny are an integral part of the Teabagger thought process. Sanders shouldn't even try to pander to them. But he is.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I must have missed the speech where he called for a wall at the border and a ban on Muslims.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I reject this more-of-the-same screed as mere sour grapes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They want to deport 10 million people, get rid of the IRS, cut taxes on the rich, privatize SS and Medicare, etc. I'm not sure what you're having a problem distingishing.
djean111
(14,255 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)On Wed Jan 20, 2016, 07:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
With his fantasy health-care proposal, the Bernie movement becomes closer to a left-wing tea party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511034209
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Comparing fellow Democrats to teabaggers is disgusting and has no place here. This is pure trollery.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 20, 2016, 07:47 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Insulting towards Bernie supporters and campaign.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you serious? DUers have been compared to everything but a child of God on this site, so I'm not sure why this is suddenly so offensive. Moreover, this is not an attack or ad hominem. It is thoughtful piece that should be read, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing hurtful, rude, or insensitive here. Just an opinion that you disagree with.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an opinion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let Dan have his lil ole diatribe if it makes him feel better.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I would rather fight and lose for what I believe in than sell out to the corporations and their minions.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)It just shows their true colors. More fuel to the fire = more votes! XD
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And you might want to research the meaning of t-e-a in tea party before you compare Bernie Sanders' campaign to that movement.
This is the most desperate sounding post I've yet to see, and you know what? I'm actually starting to feel sorry for your candidate and her supporters.
Response to DanTex (Original post)
Post removed
leftupnorth
(886 posts)On a daily basis on th DU.
Amazing. Simply amazing. I had no idea how bad it really was until recently.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)All I'm hearing from the Shillarians is "NO WE CAN'T".
DanTex
(20,709 posts)that Bernie's plan is based on fantasy cost savings projections.
MrChuck
(316 posts)Single Payer is the goal.
If you argue against it you are just kicking the ball down the road for someone else to score.
Do it now, do it right and be the change.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Or the Swiss system? Or any of the other non-single-payer systems out there?
MrChuck
(316 posts)Is there any candidate running on that?
Within whose lifetime are we working?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Implementing the German system basically means improving Obamacare, which is what Hillary is running on.
But the groundwork is already there, in this lifetime. Single Payer on the other hand, is not happening in this lifetime, and that would be true even if Bernie's specific proposal wasn't so flawed.
MrChuck
(316 posts)That's complacency.
I admire your loyalty to the establishment and the status quo. Just the "loyalty" though. Not the ideology.
Obamacare represents failed ambitions.
It's bittersweet to have to say it since it is a hallmark piece of legislation and it's done a lot of good. If it had included the PO we might not bee having this discussion.
Democrats shouldn't argue against comprehensive health care though. I heard someone say that once.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We already have a mandate system in place, and we know that such systems can be made highly effective, for example Holland or Germany. The only naysaying here is on your part, which is throwing out anything that isn't called "single payer."
I agree that Democrats should not argue against comprehensive healthcare. I don't know many who do. Maybe Joe Lieberman, but nobody running for president is doing that. I think we should improve Obamacare so that it functions as well as the systems in Holland, Germany, and elsewhere that have the same framework. I don't get how that's naysaying.
MrChuck
(316 posts)I'm not interested in convincing you necessarily.
I think it's clear that several million people are in favor of a better plan. Most importantly, big insurance and big Pharma need to be dealt with in order for costs to go down.
Single payer is the way to get big insurance out of it. It's simply wrong, imho, for profits to be made this way.
It's a difference in ideology and, frankly, neither you or I owe one another an explanation.
We'll just vote and see how it turns out.
You'll forgive me if I don't wish you and your candidate luck.
Peace.
MrChuck
(316 posts)DFW
(60,186 posts)(See my post #79). It works for most Germans (more or less), but has its drawbacks. It has sort of a First Class treatment ("Privat," meaning you pay up front and hope your insurance reimburses you--for which you go to the front of the line for appointments, often treated right away). Then there's the Second Class treatment (Kassenpatienten--most of the population, my wife included), which means you wait for hours as a walk-in with no guarantee you'll see the doctor that day, or you call for an appointment, which is often only available weeks or even months in advance. It does sort of work, but you won't find a lot of Germans crowing about how superior their system is to others in Europe--only to ours.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)control, single payer is not the only way to go, nor is it somehow magic. I don't have any personal experience with the German system, but I do know that the costs and benefits it provides are basically in line with the rest of the developed world. The same goes for the Dutch system, which is also based on the same mandate/subsidy model as Obamacare.
There are also single payer systems that have problems like waiting periods, etc. Not as bad as the GOP likes to pretend, but no system is without its flaws. Health care is complicated.
DFW
(60,186 posts)I remember visiting Sweden in 1971, after my first year of studying their language intensively, and the mother of a friend was explaining their health care system to me. Of a generation before universal teaching of English was mandatory, she had never met an American who spoke Swedish before. I told her I liked the idea of health care for all (I was 19, did not grasp any of the nuances). She told me "men man måste vara nästan död för att få se läkaren." (But you have to be nearly dead before you get to see the doctor.) Like you said, definitely not magic, though to people who have none or are under-insured, I can understand how it might seem that way by comparison.
The waits in Germany for normal mortals sometimes push the mortality. My wife had a small operation in January 2001 because her gynecologist suspected cancerous lesions in her breast tissue. The biopsies revealed it was worse than they thought, and they recommended further surgery immediately with follow up. The immediately stretched out five months, and by the time she finally was on the appointment list, it had spread to her lymph nodes, and her surgery was drastic and complicated. Then chemo, radiation, and rehab. The good part is that she didn't have to pay for it. The bad part was that she could have avoided the cancer spreading if they had operated within weeks rather than months. She had a lot of cancer in her family, and the doctors knew her family history.
Actually, the only reason I'm alive is because of Germany's class system of health care. I had felt some twinges in my shoulder upon mild exertion and shortness of breath in April 2004, while I was in Europe (not a full-time resident then). Since both my dad's parents had died from heart attacks before age 70, I had read up on symptoms, and recognized what was probably happening. I called a cardiologist in the town where we now live, and asked to be checked out. They said they could see me in two months. I said I was from Texas, just passing through, and would pay up front as a "Privatpatient." Oh, well, in THAT case, they could see me that same afternoon. That was on a Monday. By Thursday morning, I was having stents put in, and the surgeon told me my arteries were so blocked up that I would probably have died from a massive coronary before the week was out, and I was the luckiest man in Europe that day. Had I been a German with my wife's insurance for normal people, I would have had to wait the two months, and would have had the coronary. Since two arteries were clogged, my chances of surviving it were iffy at best.
Response to DFW (Reply #109)
DanTex This message was self-deleted by its author.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)Declare Brnie Sanders plan won't work without trying to understand how the plan would even work.The reason Hillary is so dead set against it is because she is being paid to reject the plan.She has reveived millions to her PAC from insurance companies and Pharmacuticals.
Hillary supporters should know that Hillary was twice all for a Single payer plan until she was bought and paid for by insurance companies She can only use Republican Talking points to reject the plan.To say Bernie wants to abandon all other plans is BULL SHIT Just no other way to describe Hillary's nonsense.
There won't always be a Corporate owned Wall St Congress. Unless Hillary is elected then nothing changes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)because it's called "single payer." The fact that the numbers don't come close to adding up is just some minor detail.
And the people pointing this out aren't big Pharma shills. They are liberals like Paul Krugman.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)If he is backing Hillary what would you expect him to say
For the details of Berniies plan and think about Medicare.Medicare works doesn't it?
I have medicare and My wife doesn't.
I had Union self pay insuring fog her until they dropped that option
Through Obamacare her monthly premium is$484 (with huge deductibles)and her income is not that great
my wife would pay with Bernies plan $180.00 per month and that is figuring her income as self employed
think
(11,641 posts)
Yupy
(154 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Because the 1%ers, Wall Street and the Entrenched Establishment Turd Way want her to say no.
Well FUCK THAT SHIT!
The true Democrats and Proggressives have had enough of moving to the Republican side of governing.
...what an insulting post.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)Is it really necessary to talk about Tea Parties and unicorns? How will that do otherwise than give offense? Your central argument, that Mr Sanders's numbers don't add up, is sufficiently damning on its own, without throwing in gratuitous insults. Which is more important, expressing contempt, or sober analysis? One might also question, because you find it necessary to be so contemptuous, if your facts are correct. You undermine the legitimacy of your argument by adding in what amount to ad hominem attacks. That is bad tactics.
-- Mal
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)Progressives against single payer??? Don't think so. Democrats???? We can't get it now so we should not try? It can't possibly work. What are we, too stupid to make it work? "Democrats" sounding oh so Republican.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)moderate Republican nightmare..And since when did Dick Nixon's health care proposal become the best we can do?
Deregulating the Wall Street banks because deregulation leads to bigger profits and bigger profits will always trickle down to the poor and middle class... Bill Clinton signing the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which dismantled the Glass-Steagall Act.
Attacking Iraq because they were connected to 9/11 and Iraq was a direct threat to this country.. Hillary Clinton jumped on board that multi-trillion dollar disaster without even bother to read the intelligence report.
Wall Street insiders make better Treasury Secretaries because they know the business.. When did this trend of filling a Democratic president's administration with Wall Street a corporate hacks get started?
Trade agreements that undermine our sovereignty and sent millions of US manufacturing jobs overseas because the increased profits would create new and higher paying jobs for US citizens....
Time to reverse these 3rd way moderate fantasies and bring back the FDR/JFK Democratic Party!!!!
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)The United States has hands down the worst healthcare system of any first world country in the world and all Hillary promises is more of the same corporate profiteering we already have.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)systems around the world, for example Holland and Germany. Bernie wants to scrap all the progress we've made and start from scratch on a single payer program that is neither politically nor financially feasible, at least not with the numbers he's provided. If you actually want the healthcare system to improve, Hillary is the clear choice.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)are still profiteering off of the backs of US citizens at records rates.
What has Obamacare done to bring down costs? Nothing. Healthcare costs have risen to an all-time high.
Hilary will give us more of the same "progress" Obama gave us. No public option. Increased spending and corporate profiteering. She is Big Pharma's, Big Hospitals' and Big Insurance's firewall against real healthcare reform that would stop corporate profiteering on a precious human right.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)that doesn't mean Bernie Sanders! The horrible horrible single payer that Bernie is talking about is just soo bad sooo awlful is again BS. The attacks on Bernie start. And in the Clinton group they think it disgusting that Bernie said that the establishment of the current groups that endorsed HRC are just that establishment. He was saying that the top dogs of those groups were the ones who endorsed not the members. And all he did for them over years...what a disgusting action. ....
I had to put up with looking at Trump each time I changed channels this morning and I almost vomited because if he is elected he will be a dictator. So keep trashing Bernie and what he stands for. HRC demanded he put out a plan so what so those in her camp could talk about how bad he is or his plans are or if he did not put out a plan what a disgusting thing that would be. HRC failed at healthcare! I will continue to feel the Bern.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)
pinebox
(5,761 posts)It is and honestly this should be an issue we ALL agree on.
It's time to have a liberal litmus test.
"The angry white people have been there from the start, and now he's added magic unicorn policies to the mix" says it all right there. Yes, people are pissed and is it any wonder? They've been screwed over by politicians on BOTH sides. Period. People are sick and tired of politics and politicking by representatives who claim to be for them but in the end act like they belong to the other party over all. Casein point; the 89 Democrats (including DWS) who voted to gut SNAP http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1/29/1273428/-These-89-Democrats-Voted-to-Cut-8-7-Billion-from-Food-Stamps
That's one example of many. If we want to go on, we can talk about Hillary and how she voted for building a border fence which O'Malley hit her on http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1/29/1273428/-These-89-Democrats-Voted-to-Cut-8-7-Billion-from-Food-Stamps
Yeah, people are pissed.
This whole entire "how much will it cost" coming from Dems about Bernie's health care plan sounds identical to Paul Ryan when Obama first proposed the ACA. The talking points coming from Hillary supporters are IDENTICAL and you've just shown that. Are we going to start hearing about the "Bernie single payer death panel" or "Bernie death panels" next?
Health care is a HUMAN RIGHT and we are the only country among all first world countries who doesn't have it. You sight cost but yet in the end, you actually save money because the cost of your deductible is greatly reduced under a single payer system. Your talking points here with what you say with "admitting that Single Payer would mean a significant number of people would either pay more, have worse coverage than they do now, or both" is exactly the kind of fear mongering that Republicans did with the ACA. It's a conservative talking point yet you've nothing to back that up. However I do.
Under a single payer system, people get better care. From Physicians for a National Health Program....
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/quality.pdf (more at link)
income, employment, or diagnosis. Under single-payer, every American would be covered by the
insurance plan in their state or region, which would pay hospitals and doctors – who would remain
private – directly. This unified system would foster universal high quality, because quality of care
would have to be kept high enough to be acceptable to all citizens. Other proposals perpetuate a
multi-tiered health systeŠm.
Š*Single-payer would allow patients to choose their physicians and to continue to see them if they
changed jobs or financial status. No other proposal can assure this. This continuity of doctors
and nurses, who can get to know and care about patients, is critical to quality, but is rapidly
disappearing from the medical landscape, as HMOs/insurers hire and fire physicians, and
employers’ shift plans to take advantage of the lowest price each year. These disruptions in care are
built into other reform proposals.
Š*Single-payer reform makes health care affordable and accessible to all. Health care that is
denied or delayed because of costs – or, increasingly, because an insurer is refusing coverage – can
no longer be characterized as the “highest quality in the world.” Single-payer uses savings on
administrative waste (over $350 billion annually) to fund coverage of uninsured and to improve
benefits to insured Americans
You say
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/more-and-more-americans-agree-bernie-sanders-and-not-just-those-who-identify-left
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/03/polls-americans-socialists-bernie-sanders.html
You say "left wing" like that's a bad thing. Sorry but "left wing" is a beautiful thing. You have a problem with getting the money out of politics, free college, universal health care, a living wage, less wars, more concentration on the American people than on regime change? These are Dem ideals. The problem is the party in many respects has moved right. FDR is rolling in his grave and Ike is saying a gigantic "WTF, I'd be labeled a socialist today".
Sorry but when you throw single payer under the bus, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)don't understand this. Look at Holland, for example.
I agree that all Democrats should support universal coverage. And all the Democrats running do.
But that doesn't mean single payer, and it especially doesn't mean Bernie's preposterous proposal which has no hope of paying for the benefits it promises. The only one resembling Paul Ryan here is Bernie. Paul Ryan proposes budges with huge tax cuts and claims that magic growth effects will pay for them. Bernie proposes huge benefits and claims that magic savings will pay for them. Clear-thinking people like Paul Krugman call them both out on their pie-in-the-sky assumptions.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Single payer is universal health care and insures everybody. "Single payer" only describes the funding mechanism however in that style of system, everybody is insured as a general rule of thumb.
As far as Holland goes, what about it? It's a single payer system where purchase is mandatory and everybody is insured thus "universal health care".
No Dan, sorry, Hillary does not support universal health care and if she did, she wouldn't support the ACA because that is not universal health care, it leaves over 20 million people uninsured.
You say Bernie's proposal is "preposterous" yet supporting a system which leaves millions upon millions uninsured and where insurance companies like United Health Care are dropping out of exchanges isn't? Sorry but Bernie's plan isn't just flat out better, it gives us a real chance at insuring everybody for once. As Harry Reid said, the ACA is just a step towards single payer. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/10/sen-harry-reid-obamacare-absolutely-a-step-toward-a-single-payer-system/#2715e4857a0b536e91a71aab
There you go.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)universal coverage without single payer. Medicare is an example of the former, and Holland/Germany/etc are examples of the latter.
And Holland is not a single payer system. It is a mandate system, similar to Obamacare, with private insurance companies.
The goal of ACA was universal coverage, but it didn't get all the way there due to the GOP. This is why it needs to be protected and expanded, as Hillary says.
And yes, Bernie's plan is preposterous. It simply doesn't raise enough revenue to pay for the benefits it promises. It would be great if it did, but it doesn't. And that's before the GOP has started chopping it apart. If you're actually interested in improving the healthcare system, Hillary is the better candidate.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Dan, in every European country, health insurance is mandatory, in Germany people are offered 3 different styles of insurance, all of which are mandatory. Bernie is calling for Medicare for all, you do realize this correct?
Now if you're championing Holland here as being so great, can you tell us why Hillary isn't backing a system that's similar? People literally die under Hillary's plan. That's unacceptable. People's lives are more important than your argument of "cost", which is false to begin with.
The goal of the ACA originally was single payer. The public option was torn out of it.
As far as Bernie's plan not raising enough revenue....we've been through this.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's a mandate system like Obamacare (in case you haven't noticed, health insurance is mandatory in the US also). Single payer means that there's, umm, just one payer: the government. In Holland, there are private insurers, hence no single payer.
Oh, and Hillary is backing a system like Holland's. It's called Obamacare.
The ACA is NOT universal health care. Let's not spin it to where over 20 million+ people uninsured is universal health care. It's not. Universal health care is a system where everybody is covered. The ACA is flawed. Big time.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/11/19/unitedhealth-group-earnings-downgrade-obamacare-affordable-care-act/76040322/
Until the system is nationalized, this will happen.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I'm European. I lived in the Netherlands for 2 years (nobody calls it Holland, which is just one province within the country). They do not have single payer or universal healthcare. They have a universal insurance coverage requirement, which is not at all the same thing. It is still a market-based competitive system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and I lived next door in Germany for more than a decade as my wife is German.
From wiki...
A 2008 article in the journal Health Affairs suggested that the Dutch health system, which combines mandatory universal coverage with competing private health plans
That IS universal health care defined.
Omaha Steve
(109,228 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)... smells like victory.
DFW
(60,186 posts)Hillary is owned by everybody except the Dutch East Indies Company, and she is a "corporatist," whatever that means this week. You are not allowed to make any comment on Sanders other than that he is right on everything, whereas Hillary is, as one poster put it (without a peep from either side) "a lying, warmongering personal masseuse for Wall Street psychos."
Neither Hillary nor Bernie has addressed a certain issue important to me, so I'm on the fence still, but when I make up my mind, it certainly won't be due to hysterics I read on an internet board. I have talked at length with DFA's Jim Dean, Howard's brother, about Bernie Sanders, whom Jim supports. From what Jim says, Sanders himself would probably gag in disgust at many of posts that purport to support him on here. When you read quotes like the one above, you really have to wonder if their REAL goal is to make Sanders look good.
Nanjeanne
(6,588 posts)Country Start Date of Universal Health Care
Norway 1912
NZ 1938
Japan 1938
Germany 1941
Belgium 1945
UK 1948
Kuwait 1950
Sweden 1955
Bahrain 1957
Brunei 1958
Canada 1966
Netherlands 1966
Austria 1967
UAE 1971
Finland 1972
Slovenia 1972
Denmark 1973
Luxembourg1973
France 1974
Australia 1975
Ireland 1977
Italy 1978
Portugal 1979
Cyprus 1980
Greece 1983
Spain 1986
S Korea 1988
Iceland 1990
Hong Kong 1993
Singapore 1993
Switzerland 1994
Israel 1995
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Red bait much?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Fantasy? Fuck that. Seriously. Just fuck that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Germany and Holland have mandate systems similar to Obamacare. Others like France have two-tiered systems.
Beyond that, there are a lot of details to single payer plans, and Bernie's details just don't add up. Just because it's called "single payer" doesn't automatically make it good. Bernie's will cost more than he claims, by a significant amount. It's a little curious that so few Bernie supporters seem to care the slightest bit about policy details of his signature proposal.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Nanjeanne
(6,588 posts)Germany has a mandated system in that people must by health insurance. The government program (single payer) covers about 85% of the population. 10% by private insurance. The remainder (ie police, military) are covered under special programs.
It is true that the Netherlands are mandated to buy private health insurance - but the government regulates it. Children are fully covered using public funds, and premiums for adults are set at 50 percent of the expected costs, with the remainder paid through a national "risk equalization fund" -- essentially funds collected from the public at large. Even the for-profit insurers don't typically make much of a profit on their basic health care and concentrate profit on supplemental like dental, cosmetic surgery, more upscale hospital rooms, etc.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Both have mandate systems, not single payers. In the US, a lot of people are also covered by public insurance. Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.
I agree that their versions of Obamacare are better than ours, which is why we need to improve it.
Nanjeanne
(6,588 posts)Mandate system is not a system. It's simply that buying/having insurance is mandated (like the ACA is supposed to be except when it isn't). But as I said, you are completely wrong about GERMANY - 85% is single payer government run insurance. Only 10% is private. If you want to split hairs - it's not "completely" single payer. I also believe that if Sanders pushes for single-payer - we will also find that insurance companies will offer adjunct services - and possibly plans that very wealthy people may purchase if they prefer to buy all their insurance needs from a for-profit company and no go into the government single payer system. But to try to say that Germany is more like the ACA and not like single-payer - you just need to read more about the system and not just a quick glance at a chart or something (oh, and just for the record - my sister-in-law lives in Germany with her German husband and family).
The Netherlands is more in line with what you are talking about - and that's true. Netherlands is. And yes, the ACA with tremendous regulation and government oversight and a push for basic healthcare plans to be non-profit would be similar to the Netherlands. Can you point me to Hillary's proposal for these changes? I haven't been able to find it. I know she says on her website that she wants to expand and make better. But can't find out what changes she wants or how she does it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Germany has a mandate system. It's not the same as ours, I said that also -- they have a public option, and broader coverage -- but it's certainly not a single payer. Neither is Holland. France is closer to a single payer, but theirs is a hybrid system, single payer for basic care with private coverage on top of that.
By the way, about half of US healthcare spending also comes from one of the various single-payer programs we have. Does that make the US a single-payer system? Of course not.
Nanjeanne
(6,588 posts)You are right. I am so against single payer. It's crazy. It's a pie in the sky dream that we have no right to believe can happen here. Bernie believes in unicorns. He is completely hopeless because he didn't write into his single payer plan that insurance companies would be allowed to provide for-profit cosmetic surgery options. I'm convinced. Thanks. I feel so much better about Hillary's plan . . . as soon as I find it. I also feel so much better about her desire to expand the ACA with a public option - as soon as I find that too.
Whew . . . Thanks!
peace13
(11,076 posts)...if a person needs health care reform they are a member of the left tea party. Single payer is the only way that most Americans can afford true health care. My insurance premiums are twice what my highest mortgage ever was. I would love to know what kind of health care you have as I am trying to figure out this line of thinking. What am I missing?
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)I agree with this 100% and you stated it much more eloquently than I ever could have.
Z_California
(650 posts)Over the line insult of a whole lot of very well informed people. You will join my ignore list now.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)In weather vane world?
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)Do you work in health care?? Just curious due to your responses throughout this thread.
TheBlackAdder
(29,981 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)I guess Medicare for All is now a fantasy, as was landing a man on the moon, or a black president.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)coming from the Heritage Society. It makes insurance mandatory,
but leaves the private insurance companies intact.
The idea of a SP system is to get rid of the profiteering
middleman and to create the largest pool of customers.
Considering as well that deals can be made or regulated
with big pharma.
The private insurance companies would not exist, if they
could not make a terrific profit, and that in spite of the fact
that their pools are smaller.
By the way I have family in Germany, and they are very
happy about their AOK, but they always have to get extra
insurance for their travels to the US, because our system
is so outrageously expensive.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I always thought there were tremendous similarities between the two movements.
The similarities have been solidified with the unrealistic proposals from Bernie's campaign.
CommonSenseDemocrat
(377 posts)Trump will appeal to the independents and moderates.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that Trump also has problems with than they would support Hillary's positions (or LACK of positions) on these issues, that will be viewed a lot less populist in nature than someone like Trump's, and more as being a tool of Corporate America that she is in these areas.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Vinca
(53,994 posts)The idea there are people here promoting big insurance just because they support Hillary is disturbing.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Hillary's corporate, austere castle.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)From the heading, I was expecting an over-the-top Onion-style piece, but the humor here missed me. Oh, well.
Demobrat
(10,299 posts)because the Republicans won't let us. I haven't liked her since her cowardly Iraq war vote, but this is beyond the pale.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)Is what the haves always tell the have-nots. "There's not enough to go around". Millions of years of evolution have programmed that response.
This is by design, of course. Integral to the mythology of kings, and gods, and hierarchical control, imprinted by thousands of years of monotheism.
We humans are just waking up to the possibility of a world in which everyone gets what they need, rather than a tiny few getting everything they desire. And those two nodes might, just might, not be all that far apart.
It starts with "rights". I have some, and they are inalienable.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Then you decide to reply again 3 hours later.
Did Dan strike a nerve?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hillary cannot run on the issues!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) Logical
(22,457 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,960 posts)never mind that england does it...not a liberal bastion by any means. Keep trying to close America's eyes to the fact that a nation run of, for and by rich people is not the only way to go.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)Having our movement called a left-wing tea party won't bother me at all.
Gothmog
(179,857 posts)I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Single payer is not a fringe position.
But thanks for the arrogant condescension.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
Bettie
(19,704 posts)We (you know, the people) should never hope for anything more than a corporate state where we get the crumbs that are even too small for all of the corporate mouses.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Simply *IMPOSSIBLE*!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)It's not a matter of feasibility. It's a matter of morality.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)I'm very comfortable with what I see.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)in taxes to cover more Americans. What you want is for Bernie to try to advance this pipe dream plan, have it fail, and so you can keep your status quo. Very cynical, but I guess that's you.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Gothmog
(179,857 posts)This is a great editorial from the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending “will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation.” This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves — and is equally fanciful.
The Washington Post is agreeing with Prof. Krugman's analysis
