Smh.. BS.."I get a little bit tired of Democrats who defend a cruel, dysfunctional health care.."

[Cha]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[msongs]

1. same health care system that saved him from heart attack death lol nt

[HerbChestnut]

42. Thing is, not everyone has access to our wonderful healthcare system.

Bernie, as a U.S. Senator, has some of the best health insurance in the country. There are 30,000,000 people who are uninsured and tens of millions more who are under-insured. If any of them went into the hospital for the treatment Bernie received, they would have left with an astronomical bill. Knowing that, some people may have put off going to the doctor and likely would have died as a result. That's what he means by a "cruel" system. Don't have insurance? Don't have the money? Oh well, tough luck for you. M4A is the only proposed healthcare plan that fundamentally changes the way health insurance works. All the rest just slap bandaids on the problem. Link to the full text of the M4A plan below.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[pangaia]

101. Thank you...

[Ferrets are Cool]

104. Thank you

[Cha]

165. BS is being "divisive" here.. Dems are NOT supporting..

"..a cruel, dysfunctional health care.."

[YOHABLO]

127. Then you run for Congress and you too can have a ''wonderful'' healthcare plan.

[Cha]

169. BS is wrong.. The Dems support Improving Health care..& he's..

"divisive".

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Hortensis]

170. If Sanders really cares about people having healthcare, WHY

didn't he help elect Hillary in 2016's GE? Instead of claiming it didn't really matter that much which party won?

Does anyone but a handful of nuts (and I mean NUTS) believe that?

He's still saying it. How many people have been broken and died since 2016 for lack of the healthcare Hillary's administration planned to expand to universal? While Sanders blames everyone but himself?

[sammythecat]

148. Thoughtless thing to say n/t

[EmInColorado]

149. Medicare? Go figure.

[Merlot]

179. "Health care system" and "health insurance" are very different

And without a lot of money you can't have the first without the second.

No one is saying America doesn't have great health care, they're saying the system used to access that healthcare is dangerous, immoral and profit-driven.

[dflprincess]

187. Exactly!

Thank you.

And even if you have access to insurance you may still not be able to access care thanks to ridiculous co-pays, "co-insurance", and deductible costs. Not to mention to everything you find out "isn't covered" until it's too late.

[NNadir]

2. How interesting. I get a little tired of BS from BS the "not Democrat." n/t.

[oldsoftie]

18. There you have it

[ChiTownDenny]

25. It's his Bros.

Trump has the Deplorables and Bernie has the Bros.

[Cha]

100. The quote in the OP is from

BS himself.

[ChiTownDenny]

106. The replies to Charles Gaba are from his Bros.

I could have made that point more clear...

[Cha]

107. Oh Mahalo!

[Cha]

98. Incredibly so.

[redstatebluegirl]

177. Amen!

[Cha]

186. ..

[betsuni]

3. Bernie in 2017 on CNN:

"If we are able to have a serious debate on the health care crisis, I think there should be a public option available in every state in this country. If people don't like the private insurance they're getting, if it's too expensive, they should have a Medicare-type public option available in every state in this country. And that's one of the ways forward."

I agree with this. Give people a choice. There are many ways forward to universal health care.

I don't know what this "Medicare for All or millions die" thing is.

[Cha]

4. Thank you for that, betsuni.. I actually saw that

quote on a twitter feed today.

Yes Public Option.. is what Biden, Klobuchar, Harris, Buttigieg, etc want now.. to build on it.. so like Charles Gaba Tweeted..

" Seems to me ALL of the Dems on stage with you support significant improvements to the system."

It's a strawman.

[betsuni]

7. Accusing Democrats of defending leaving 87 million Americans uninsured or underinsured.

[Cha]

9. And, during the General Election one of

those caring, compassionate, excellent Dems is going to be running against trump, the sadistic monster.

I better not see anyone tweeting the Dem is more dangerous than trump.

[betsuni]

12. It's happening. Biden and Warren are getting the "Democrats are the REAL warmongers" thing.

Imperialism, capitalism, blah blah blah. Same as Obama and Hillary Clinton. Will be interesting to see if anyone's dumb enough to still fall for it. Leading up to the "lesser of two evils" which will come next year.

[Cha]

14. It's beyond scary.. they

have learned nothing over the last 2 1/2 years.. with putin-trump calling the atrociously vicious shots to bring down America.

Hopefully there will be Dems en masse who GOTV!! Electoral College and more than 66 Million Votes, baby!

[Cha]

20. I found this in the link of the Charles Gaba tweet....

Charles Gaba's blog » REMINDER: Most of the POTUS candidates support multiple paths to Universal Coverage...which is perfectly fine.

It's important to note that Sen. Sanders cosponsored the 2017 version of Sen. Schatz's "State Public Option Act" as well as the 2018 version of Sen. Warren's ACA 2.0 Act (CHIPA)...before stripping his name as a cosponsor of each for the 2019-2020 legislative session and then trashing the House version of ACA 2.0 as being unacceptable even as a short-term solution. Make of that what you will.

My point is that all of the bills listed below are good, and they'd all represent a significant improvement to existing law.

http://acasignups.net/19/10/18/reminder-most-potus-candidates-support-multiple-paths-universal-coveragewhich-perfectly

[betsuni]

24. +1

[Hortensis]

27. His plan couldn't be fully implemented for several years, and

any and all improvements to the ACA would weaken and eventually destroy support for trashing it and starting over. Which is already a very morally questionable proposition.

So expect him to continue opposing all plans to expand and improve the ACA by Democrats for purely political reasons, including the last one that would lower premiums and improve coverages. Which is just plain immoral.

[dansolo]

114. This the reason why I would never support Bernie's plan

If his plan isn't implemented, then nothing will be done, because so-called progressives will fight against improvements in the ACA in order to bolster their arguments for M4A.

[Hortensis]

115. I wouldn't worry about that, Dansolo. Those so extreme arer

relatively very few; only a quarter of the Sanders' voters alone refused to vote for Democrats and adding the public option to the ACA. The media amplify the noise of zealots, but by far most Democrats, and Republicans, want want a good universal healthcare system, not a crusade.

Btw, I've noticed that the last year or two very few have been calling themselves "progressives." (As in opposed to the dominant progressive liberal Democrats.) Even most of the anti-ACA zealots have distanced from it. Letting, for them even helping, the nation fall to a Republican leadership determined to purge the Democrats' liberal progressivism has disgraced the label.

[Cha]

131. Exactly.. thank you, dansolo

[oldsoftie]

17. Fearmongering, thats what it is.

[Cha]

21. So..

unfortunately.

Mahalo, oldsoftie

[betsuni]

23. +1

[Cha]

90. BS' speech writer.. "..then lots of people are going to die..."

Link to tweet

Fearmongering 101.

[betsuni]

91. Thanks for posting that tweet again.

Disgusting.

[Cha]

92. Birds of feather..

You're welcome, betsuni.. Thank you!

[Cha]

144. Oh yeah.. and I'm Tired of that.

[ehrnst]

176. It's called campaigning. I recall he said it could be done in 8 years in 2016. Now it's 2 YEARS!!!

He's always regarded that anyone who didn't agree with him 100% as being utterly wrong at best, corrupt and trying to destroy him at worst. Now he has a national platform for his right/wrong, you're either behind me 100% way or you're uninformed/corrupt/republican lite/corporatist/dishonest/threatened by me way of looking at the world.

That's very appealing to many in their authority figures, who believe that inflexibility and predictability indicates moral strength. Solutions to complex problems are simple because that authority figure says so, and anyone who dissents is suspect and trying to jerk everyone around by trying to confuse them with "propaganda" or "hit pieces."

We see it on the right when their leaders say "global warming is a hoax perpetrated by those who want to turn the US into a socialist/communist country" and "Planned Parenthood is the driver of abortion and premarital sexual activity in women and girls. Eliminate Planned Parenthood and you will eliminate abortion and women having premarital sex," and "Vaccinations are a way for big pharma and a complicit pediatric industry to make billions harming our children."

Anyone, be it a journalist, health policy expert or someone on FB who tries to present evidence that disputes those or argue alternatives to those views are dismissed out of hand as ignorant, the radical left, baby haters, shill for big pharma, sex fiends or marxists.

There is no dissent that can possibly considered rational or ethical.

[Cha]

185. Bears repeating.. Mahalo, betsuni!

[33taw]

5. Health Care is important, but right now there are bigger issues.

[Cha]

6. Health care is uber important but

that doesn't he gets to say things that aren't true about the Dem candidates.

[33taw]

32. Of course not

I wish the dems would spend less time focused on health care and realize if they don’t win it won’t really matter.

[Cha]

33. Apparently that's how the Dems

won the Midterms in 2018. It was on ACA.

The midterm elections cemented Obamacare's legacy and showed Democrats can actually win on healthcare

https://www.businessinsider.com/2018-midterm-election-results-obamacare-healthcare-big-winner-2018-11

[Hortensis]

29. Agree. All healthcare plans depending on them.

[YOHABLO]

128. What is a bigger issue than people going bankrupt and destitute because of healthcare bills?

These are life and death issues, or maybe that's not important enough.

[33taw]

129. Being taken over by a foreign government that is lead by a dictator.

[sammythecat]

147. This is what you fret about when you wake up at night? n/t

[33taw]

156. ? I am not fretting at night.

I am simply saying, health care plans are important, but moot if we don’t keep the house, win the Senate and Presidency. The bigger issue this election is national security.

[33taw]

135. I think this election is about natural security, not healthcare as the focus.

The last election was about the judiciary. 2008 was about healthcare.

[YOHABLO]

136. Did you mean 'national security'? As long as there's a GOP no one is safe.

[33taw]

138. Yes, typo. Thx.

[Cha]

172. It's most and all Dems want to improve it.. BS is Wrong

to drag on Dems.

[EmInColorado]

150. Pretty sure making sure peeople aren't dying is top of the charts

[SunSeeker]

8. No Democrats want to keep the status quo on healthcare. None.

What is BS talking about?

[Cha]

11. Of course not.. so what is he

trying to do with this strawman?

Mahalo, SunSeeker

[Grokenstein]

13. Feeding his base a steaming pile of Both Sides Bad

The GOP has made it clear repeatedly over the past several years that they're perfectly happy with poor people's corpses piling up in the gutters across the nation, so long as the rich get richer.

By suggesting that the Democrats feel likewise, he sets himself up as the Sole Outsider, the One True Savior. The controversy only excites the "shake up the system (and ignore the consequences)" crowd, and it scratches a little cat litter over the whole "he had a heart attack and his campaign lied about it for three days" poop, the stink of which continues to linger.

Why is he on that stage?
Did we learn absolutely nothing from the last time?

[Cha]

95. Doesn't care.. Thank you

so much for your post! Dead on!

[Celerity]

163. +100000

[Hortensis]

10. Obamacare a "cruel, dysfunctional health care system."

How can anyone possibly believe that? But I believe Sanders does and speaks the truth as he sees it.

I suspect, though, that his enmity to the ACA arises predominantly from the fact that it is a Democratic Party achievement. That belief is strongly reinforced by his own proposal, which is also based on capitalist, for-profit medicine, and is very similar to the ACA. But requires destroying the ACA to implement.

After all, he's spent his life insisting that the liberal Democratic Party is really no different from the Republican, that only socialists would create a national healthcare system for the people. And Obamacare is a complete refutation of that delusion. Notably, he's self-sidelined himself in the center of power for going on 30 years, and it's not his achievement. The Democrats did it.

Not insignificantly, his socially conservative populist followers, the ones who voted for Trump in the GE, don't like "Obamacare" for much the same reasons as the typical Republican. They want national healthcare for themselves, all right, just not the one with Obama's name on it.

Btw, he's spent his life dreaming of socialist revolution, for goodness sake. How could he really believe in his own program that is based on capitalists profiting from illness, inevitably just as much of a "cruel, dysfunctional health care system" as Obamacare?

'I am Not Now, Nor Have I Ever Been, a Liberal Democrat' ~ Senator Sanders

I believe you, Senator Sanders. I am a liberal Democrat, and I'm more than a little tired of being badmouthed by you for it.

[pazzyanne]

26. "I believe you, Senator Sanders....

I am a liberal Democrat, and I'm more than a little tired of being badmouthed by you for it."

Amen and

[YOHABLO]

102. Um M4A is not a pipe dream Sen Klobuchar, unlike your ambition to become POTUS.

[pazzyanne]

105. Ewww, I am assuming that your post is more about the post before mine, than mine.

[Cha]

124. That's so rude.

[George II]

60. Bazinga!

[dflprincess]

188. The ACA is not a healthcare system

it is a health insurance system. As noted in other posts, these are two very different things. Insurance does not guarantee access to care you can afford.

[Hortensis]

197. 100% wrong. There is no underwriting in the ACA, no refusals.

Applicants give their names and addresses and choose their plan of choice. Not a single question about their health history.

Being paid to assume a very carefully estimated risk that someone might need expensive care in future is what makes insurance insurance. Its purpose is to protect from unforeseen catastrophes that people can't reasonably save up for. That worked when physicians couldn't do much for heart attacks beyond prescribing nitroglycerin and advising moving the bed downstairs. And hospital bills seldom ran up for very long.

Those giant forces of change are why health insurance is already obsolete and dying.

Modern healthcare is now becoming cradle-to-grave health maintenance for much longer lifespans -- and that's far, far too expensive for the old but short-lived business model to work. Thus health insurers are increasingly being replaced by clerical/bill-paying operations. And of course government involvement is now absolutely necessary in order to organize means to meet the greatly increased need.

Ironically, Sanders and his followers have seriously retarded the death of most health insurance. They did that by helping Republicans win power trifectas both nationally and in various states in 2016. And, yes, there IS a real connection between that result and the Republican use of Sanders to defeat Democrats. They didn't do it for nothing.

[pnwmom]

15. I get a little tired of certain people wagging their fingers at Democrats

when it's the Republicans who are doing everything they can to prevent universal healthcare.

[Cha]

16. I know, right.. :(

[beachbumbob]

22. I have ignored most of what Sanders has ranted upon for years

He is good with ranting not so much with law making OR playing nice with others

[BlueMississippi]

28. Gah .. always the melodrama and always the attacks on Democrats

BS should drop out already and heal his heart

[Thekaspervote]

82. This!

[Cha]

108. I can't Say what I really

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2019, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

think so I'll just say that.

Mahalo, Blue!

[Cha]

166. Yes more attacks..

[Cha]

174. ..

[PhoenixDem]

30. OMFG

Can't the Sanders dude ever campaign without smearing and hurting his opponents with false memes that are conveniently used by the republicans?

Or is that the real agenda?

[peggysue2]

31. Another attack on the Democratic Party

From within. By a man who attaches himself to the Democratic Party only when he wants to run for office.

Meanwhile, having been served by the same healthcare system after a heart attack, Senator Sanders feels compelled to dump not only on the system but on Democratic members, all of whom (as Charles Ghoula points out) are dedicated to improve services, access and price for all Americans.

I'm glad Bernie Sanders is back on his feet. But this is a prime example why I would never support his candidacy. I'm a liberal Democrat. But that's not good enough for Bernie Sanders for whom it's always 'my way or the highway.'

So Senator Sanders, feel free to hit the highway whenever you're ready. But just so you know that highway does not lead to the White House.

[Zoonart]

34. Know what I get a little tired of...

Senators who only identify as Democrats every four years when they run for President.

[Joe941]

35. Bernie is correct.

I tire of the unfounded attacks on BS when he is presenting real solutions to real problems. Whose side are we on?

[NurseJackie]

37. How do you feel about the "unfounded attacks" on the Democratic party?

I tire of the unfounded attacks on BS when he is presenting real solutions to real problems.

How do you feel about the "unfounded attacks" on the Democratic party? Oh, you know... things like someone calling the Democratic party "feeble" and "ideologically bankrupt", or saying that the Democratic party is "no different than the Republicans" or that the Democratic party is "the party of the one percent" or "the party of the elite".

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this is hardly what any reasonable person would consider to be "presenting real solutions".

Whose side are we on?

Good question, but I think you're asking the wrong person.

[Joe941]

40. Bernie is the candidate of real change.

He is stressing that part of his candidacy. Take the comments with that point of view in mind. Thanks.

[NurseJackie]

41. When someone smears and denigrates the Democratic party it creates division and distrust.

Bernie is the candidate of real change.

When someone smears and denigrates the Democratic party it creates division and distrust. It creates resentment and suspicion. It WEAKENS the party.

He is stressing that part of his candidacy.

At a time when we want to get MORE people to JOIN the party and SUPPORT the party... and at a time when we need donors and volunteers, and people to canvass and work phone-banks... when we need people to VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS, it's a huge mistake for anyone to continually tear down the party with those kinds of LIES about Democrats and the Democratic party.

Take the comments with that point of view in mind. Thanks.

Okay... that changes absolutely nothing. You've offered a very weak defense for the lies that are being told about Democrats and the Democratic party.

Here are the facts that you need to keep in mind before blindly defending these types of smears on the Democratic party: The LIES and that type of negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

All I'm saying is... and what I want to know is: why would anyone do (or defend) anything that benefits Trump, the GOP and Russia? What good purpose does it serve?

[ehrnst]

49. +1000. (nt)

[George II]

46. He's been in DC for almost 30 years, what has he changed in that time, anything?

[Joe941]

57. You need votes to change things. He is one person.

As pesident he will have the power to make real change!

[NurseJackie]

62. LOL!

As pesident he will have the power to make real change!

He'll never be pesident.

He is one person.

He won't have as much "power" as you believe. He won't be KING... he'll only be pesident.

[ehrnst]

64. Others have made real change - Elizabeth Warren - CFPB, Pelosi got the ACA passed,

HRC and Ted Kennedy got CHIP into existence. Those were real progressive achievements that impacted people's lives.

None of them were POTUS.

Anyone can talk about change. But it takes a real leader to persuade and inspire their progressive allies to work together to make it happen.

Alienating one's allies doesn't influence them in a way that one needs to accomplish things as a legislator - even if one has been a career politician for decades.

[Joe941]

67. Obama got ACA passed not Pelosi hence the name Obamacare.

[Cha]

72. It was a TEAM EFFORT.. the

repugs started calling it "Obamacare" and then they were sorry they did 'cause it took off in a positive way.

[Joe941]

73. Exactly it was a team effort. Not one person. That's my whole point!

[ehrnst]

94. So when one can't work well with other people, then one doesn't accomplish much. (nt)

[Thekaspervote]

84. It was definitely a team effort and without Pelosi, Harry Reid and other leaders it never

Would have become law

[Cha]

87. And... Joe Biden!

[ehrnst]

93. You don't seem to be aware that he wasn't going to try to pass it, but Pelosi assured him

Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2019, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

that she could make it happen.

She delivered. That is her accomplishment. That accomplishment actually got affordable health care to millions more people. Unlike others who deliver strongly worded statements, and not much in the way of results.

Pelosi, perhaps more than anyone else, should be credited for getting Obamacare passed in the first place.

She pushed back hard when the health care bill appeared certain to fail and Obama and his top aides considered doing a smaller, “skinny” version of the plan. Pelosi dismissed the idea as “kiddie care,” and she eventually persuaded Obama to stick with the original plan. She leaned on dozens of lawmakers whose votes were needed to get the bill through the House. The bill passed the House 219-212 on March 21, 2010.

Former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), another critical player in the Obamacare fight, said Pelosi “did more than any other member in the House of Representatives to get the bill passed. But what’s at stake is not her or President Obama or my or any other person’s legacy. What’s at stake is the chance to give health insurance to millions of Americans, and they will certainly lose it if this Republican bill becomes law.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/house-pelosi-obamacare-235792

You're welcome.

[delisen]

178. Pelosi got it through Congress when others were ready to give up

and try to pass something much more limited. One of the others was the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Pelosi strategized and fought for it.

it was a battle and we lost the House (63 seats) plus 6 seats in the Senate. We also lost in total over 1000 seats around the country

We did not get the House back until 2018. Pelosi and women did a lot of the heavy lifting to accomplish this.

It is long past time for the incredible work of Democratic woman to to acknowledged by all democrats-and that includes Hillary Clinton.

[BlueMississippi]

53. He is a candidate that sloganeers change which is unattainable

He has not even fully thought through the ramifications.

Health care industry has some of the highest wages and low unemployment. By decimating it, he will put a lot of people out of work and stagnate their wages.

A doctor can afford to practice in a small town of 5,000 and employ a receptionist, a bookkeeper and a couple of nurses/CNAs. With MFA, the community of 5,000 will no longer be able to support that doctor and he/she will have to lay off the staff or close the practice down entirely, forcing the 5,000 people to drive to a large city and its crowded clinics. They will wait months for an appointment.

I am sick and tired of BS's slogans and platitudes denigrating the health system and the Democrats who have been trying to improve it.

I have first hand knowledge of socialism - it ends up making everyone poor.

And don't come back with the Denmark or Sweden excuse - those are very tiny countries with homogeneous populations and have no baseline poverty like the US. They are not comparable to the US.

At the moment, one can get a knee or hip replacement in the US in a couple of weeks. In the UK, the wait is 6-9 months. In Canada, 3-6 months.

[Joe941]

58. Are the anti Bernie people accepting the repukes arguments now.

Cause that is exactly the talking points on the right.

[Thekaspervote]

85. This isn't RW talking points. It's the reality of how several here see it

No offense intended I’m sure

[ehrnst]

96. Nice try.

[Thekaspervote]

83. When trying to pass real legislation whom ever it might be, you've got to have real allies and

Working partners to come together as a team to make it happen. over the years he has alienated so many in DC, how is it you think his ideas will ever become true change?

Lots of good ideas but no real path to make it happen.... IMHO

[ehrnst]

97. Strongly worded statements do not accomplishments make. (nt)

[BlueMississippi]

50. BS is completely wrong about this

He is just sloganeering and has not seen the ramifications of the MFA unicorn through.

Let's say heathcare is apples. In every city, town and small community, people have access to several apple vendors. Knowing that there is market, several apple growers spend money to innovate newer and better tasting apples.

However, there are some people who can't afford apples and some of them are given government assistance to buy a few apples.

Then suddenly, the government decides this is not acceptable and takes over the apple distribution. It mandates that all apples must be sold at a fixed cheap price. This cuts into the profits of apple vendors and many cannot stay in business. The result is that only a few large vendors remain and people have to drive long distances and stand in lines to get the apples.

Apple growers also stop innovating and coming up with better apples. They stick to growing the cheap apples that will allow them to still make a profit.

So, the whole population gets one or two kinds of cheap apples which are not conveniently available near them and they have to stand in long lines to purchase them.

How does it benefit people? It only gives satisfaction to those who are angry and resentful of apple growers and sellers making a profit.

[Joe941]

56. Strawman arguement.

Healthcare is a human right. Apples are in a different category.

[BlueMississippi]

61. Whether it is a right or not (I think it is a human right)

the commercial and market forces remain the same.

There are many other ways to go about delivery of affordable care without uprooting the whole forest and planting new trees.

[Joe941]

68. Bernie has the correct plan.

[BlueMississippi]

79. Then there are people who never admit that BS is wrong.

[Thekaspervote]

86. Just as you have an opinion and you are entitled to it, so do others.

This part is not an opinion, but a fact, The CBO study out this week shows mfa would cost 32 trillion over the next decade. The ACA is shown to be a much better bargain.

Can supply a link if you like

[Cha]

65. NOPE.. BS is Absolutely WRONG.. the PROOF

is in the OP if you Look!

[Cha]

63. No BS is WRONG.

[Joe941]

66. That's your opinion not fact.

[Cha]

69. It is FACT.

[Joe941]

71. Ok. Thanks.

[Cha]

111. BS is Not "correct" read the OP.. he's Wrong.

[Joe941]

112. Nope.

[ritapria]

36. Why do you call him BS all the time ?

No other candidate gets that kind of treatment ...

[BlueMississippi]

51. Those are his initials nt

[LakeArenal]

54. Because of Huckabee Sanders

We couldn’t say Sanders anymore.
Don’t look for trouble when there is none. bs is what’s troubling you. Not BS

[Cha]

75. No other candidate has those initials!

[George II]

76. I'm pretty old...

....(younger than YOU, ) and in all my years I've never heard anyone complain about people using FDR (before my time), DDE, JFK, LBJ, RMN, RFK, WJC, GWB, etc.

[Cha]

77. AOC!

So weird how sensitive they are about BS' initials. I think of his name when I use it.. what the heck are they going on about?

George!

[George II]

78. HHH, HRC, BHO, etc. Oh, and one more..........WTF????

[Cha]

88. OMG!

[LongtimeAZDem]

158. M, O, U, S, Eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[raging moderate]

151. .

Doesn't Bernie Sanders have a middle initial? All these other people you mention are called by all three initials. BHO would also be an insult without that middle initial. We could call Bernie B_S. Three initials. Problem solved. And we could resume living up to our slogan about going high rather than low.

[MrsCoffee]

152. Kinda ridiculous. If you don't even know it yourself, you've answered your own question.

All the angst over initials just intensifies the smell of desperation in the room.


(Hint: he doesn’t have one)

[raging moderate]

159. .

I do not support Bernie Sanders for President. I only want to avoid hurting feelings if possible.

And I had no way of knowing that he has no middle initial. Although Wikipedia and Facebook did not list one, I figured that was just an oversight.

[MrsCoffee]

162. You accused people of going low for not using a nonexistent initial.

I guess you think ascribing ugly ulterior motives doesn't hurt any feelings.

Sorry. Just think the hyperbolic Bernie is a victim posting is getting beyond ridiculous.

[Cha]

146. What kind of "treatment", rita?

[ecstatic]

38. Millions will lose their jobs and businesses under

Bernie's plan. He has not addressed that problem yet. And yes, I know that Warren has not addressed it either.

[George II]

48. That's something he's never addressed. He want to "outlaw" private insurance companies, but....

....doesn't say anything about what the people working in those companies will do for work/income.

[ecstatic]

89. And it's not just insurance company workers.

There are a ton of indirectly and directly related companies that would be affected as well.

[dflprincess]

190. So let's keep protecting the insurance companies and denying people access to care?

and I say that as someone who would probably lose her job if Sanders' or Warren's plan was enacted.

Thankfully, most of us who work for these behmonths have skills that would translate to other industries. Some of us would retire early if we didn't have to worry about healthcare (or retire on time - the current version of Medicare costs its members more than people realize) , others might start their own businesses.

[Me.]

39. In Get A Little Tired Too

of him

[George II]

43. I got an email this morning with that as the subject line. It's a direct attack....

....on many Democrats. The health care system is NOT dysfunctional, nor is the health care insurance system.

Didn't he just have a myocardial infarction and get treated for it, with two stents inserted in/near his heart? Are they working? Is that "dysfunctional"?

C'mon man, America has probably the best health care system in the world. Stop bashing it and try to improve it where needed.

[Cha]

132. Why does he have to

bash others' work to make whatever look better?

[Hoyt]

44. If Sanders wanted change, he'd accept Public Option is the fastest way to a single payer system.

Most people are not going to accept a single payer system being crammed down their throats if they don't know enough about it to know if they want it.

Most people would be glad to consider a public option -- with all details spelled out -- in comparison to health plans they are familiar with. If a public option is anywhere near as good as we think, they'll gravitate to it quickly.

It would really help if Sanders and Warren were to tell people what they will have to pay in taxes or premiums. They know taxes will have to go up -- supposedly replacing premiums and out-of-pocket costs -- but they can't tell us what we will pay.

One reason they can't do that is that they have other proposals that will require taxes to increase such as: bolstering Social Security, college debt, "free" college, child care, climate change, infra structure, etc. The top 1% aren't going to pay for all that because their wealth is mostly on paper.

[NurseJackie]

47. You're right. Unfortunately...

... this is what happens when any politician is too emotionally invested in a single idea, or in a single way to implement something. For vanity's sake, politicians are often "married" to his (or her) concept and are unwilling (or incapable) of considering other viewpoints, or recognizing facts. Even something as simple as adjusting or fine-tuning their message appears to be an impossible task for some politicians. When he (or she) would prefer to "stick to their guns" and not be willing to change or compromise... they often end up with nothing. Yet, I find it bizarre when he (or she) boasts to his (or her) followers that they "held strong" with their "never compromise" viewpoint... and supposedly, ending up with NO LOAF instead of half-a-loaf is something to be proud of.

All I'm saying is... I thought the entire idea behind being "progressive" was to actually create "progress".

[mcar]

45. This is not helpful, Senator

Every Democratic candidate has plans to improve healthcare/health insurance. His rhetoric is dangerous.

[Cha]

99. Same ol..

[GemDigger]

55. Dear Bernie:

Add on the expansion to the ACA that did not do me justice. Out of a $6,000 bill, I only had to pay $4.00.

Bernie, please make it so I don't have to pay the $4.

Thank you in advance.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

59. A different take...

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Cha]

70. Excellent, Otto.. Mahalo for Mangy Jay!

Link to tweet

[Hortensis]

80. Sanders slimes the ACA. Gabbard calls HRC embodiment of corruption.

I'd say these are useful if unavoidably ugly revelations of the way each thinks for Democratic voters.

Lay it all out, Sanders and Gabbard. More hidden sides for us tomorrow perhaps? Let the people choose.

[ismnotwasm]

74. And when I walk into an understaffed day that starts with blood and shit

Trying to stop bleeding at the bedside while managing a PCA and an insulin drip and delirium in other rooms, and end the day with an respiratory arrest, tell me how is that going to managed?

I haven’t seen a plan yet that addresses healthcare facilities and healthcare providers and healthcare workers

[sheshe2]

81. I know people that work in an ICU.

They are at the age that they are retiring and the hospital has not brought in any new hires to train and replace them. They are understaffed and overworked. A 12 hour day becomes 15 many times.

My PC is so overwhelmed that scheduled visits have me waiting an hour plus to be seen. I am on a very tight schedule as my sister and I do 24/7 home care for mom.

Correct. I have seen no plan to address this and I see it becoming worse.

[JoeOtterbein]

103. Our healthcare system is horrible!

Too many Americans are going bankrupt just trying to survive.

It's indefensible for the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth for that to happen to anyone.

[Cha]

109. Hey BS!.. "73% Like Biden's plan BEST"!!!

Link to tweet

[Cha]

110. I'm tired of his disingenuous insults.

[Hortensis]

116. Intense partisan dishonesty was always immoral, even

in the best, least dangerous of times.

For going on 50 years now, candidates trying to play me for a fool have always immediately disqualified themselves. Same for those who try to divide the electorate by appealing to fear and antagonisms, instead of trying to unite. They're ridiculously simple cuts.

[Cha]

117. Yes, and some think they can't win without it..

Last edited Fri Oct 25, 2019, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Pres Obama wasn't that way

[Hortensis]

118. Yes. :) Obama's message was all positive and aspiring, all about

what we accomplish working together.

The last thing he would have done was try to draw antagonistic types and turn them against Democrats. And no one attack dog who specialized in that need apply for a job.

Those are hired and sicced by wannabe populist leaders who see opportunity to get power in troubled times.

[betsuni]

113. Kick

[Gothmog]

119. Support for a public option has been increasing, and for Medicare-for-All has been decreasing

Link to tweet

[Cha]

123. Good to KNOW!

Gracias Goth.. Go Biden!

[Gothmog]

120. Choices for Financing Medicare for All: A Preliminary Analysis

This is from a non-partisan think group that is well respected http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis

Proposals to adopt single-payer health care in the United States have grown in popularity in recent years, as numerous lawmakers and presidential candidates have embraced Medicare for All. However, few have grappled with how to finance the new costs imposed on the federal government. By most estimates, Medicare for All would cost the federal government about $30 trillion over the next decade. How this cost is financed would have considerable distributional, economic, and policy implications.

In the coming months, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will publish a detailed analysis describing numerous ways to finance Medicare for All and the consequences and trade-offs associated with each choice. This paper provides our preliminary estimates of the magnitude of each potential change and a brief discussion of the types of trade-offs policymakers will need to consider.

We find that Medicare for All could be financed with:

A 32 percent payroll tax
A 25 percent income surtax
A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT)
A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita – the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance
More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates
An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending
A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt
Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector
A combination of approaches

Each of these choices would have consequences for the distribution of income, growth in the economy, and ability to raise new revenue. Some of these consequences could be balanced against each other by adopting a combination approach that includes smaller versions of several of the options as well as additional policies.

[oasis]

121. "little bit tired" folks need to take a long vacation. It'll do 'em

a world of good.

[Gothmog]

122. A dose of reality for Medicare-for-all

Link to tweet

Now we have two more data points. The quite credible think tank, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, comes up with some options assuming a cost of $30 trillion over the next decade (a midway point in the range of estimates):

We estimate the cost could be covered with a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita or more than $12,000 per individual who wouldn’t otherwise be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. Medicare for All could also be paid for by more than doubling individual and corporate income tax rates, reducing federal spending by 80 percent, or increasing the national debt by 108 percent of GDP. Tax increases on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector by themselves could not cover much more than one-third of the cost of Medicare for All.

But you say, none of that is remotely feasible politically and would have all sorts of negative economic consequences.

Warren actually has an even harder task since CFRB does not exempt the middle class. Therefore, Warren cannot use “a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita” if they are going to hit the middle class to such an extent that it wipes out savings from removing insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. This is the equivalent of trying to balance on elephant on the head of a pin.

[Gothmog]

125. A good rule of thumb: Don't get to Pelosi's left

Link to tweet

She is openly dubious of the left’s top priority in 2020: the push to establish a single-payer health-care system that will replace private health insurance. It would be better for Democrats to “begin with where we have agreement,” she said. “Let’s not start with: ‘You have private insurance—forget about it.’” She wants to begin by bolstering the Affordable Care Act, adding a public competitor to private insurance, and restoring provisions in the law that Trump has weakened. “Maybe Medicare for All is a destination,” Pelosi said. “But it’s certainly not a starting point.”

[Cha]

126. Nancy makes total sense!

Mahalo & Aloha, Goth!

[WobblyDem]

133. Nancy knows how to evade Rubin's crankery

Hmm. Healthcare consistently polls as the biggest issue voters have, and M4All as result is one of the most positively polling policies. Pelosi isn't dumb enough to oppose something like that, but she also isn't dumb enough to reveal that to an outspoken Republican interviewer prone to blasting anybody she disagrees with. We could get to the White House on JUST Medicare For All and we'd have more political capital to undo Trump being Trump while also President of the United States.

In saying that, it would help if she helped reframe the language. You don't need insurance if you just keep your doctor. All we'd be able to forget are the co-pays and premiums. I get why she might be hesitant to bat, but it's gonna help in the long run.

[WobblyDem]

130. Expanding infinitely is not the same, or as large, as infinity.

Supporting anything but universal coverage is by definition fighting to keep some number of Americans without health insurance.

You can want: Everybody to receive healthcare, with no deathtoll or support some or most people receiving healthcare, with a deathtoll. Hence 'No Middle Ground', as the 'middle ground' is still manslaughter. Preferring manslaughter of others to minor financial inconvenience is pretty cruel. A system that monetizes minimizing coverage is dysfunctional. You can support expansion all day and all night, but if there's still some number of Americans who suffer.

Where is the lie? Why are we upset that this is called out?

Expanding infinitely is not the same, or as large, as infinity. That's why we're fighting for universal coverage.

[Gothmog]

134. Joe Biden's health care plan will be ready to go the day he's sworn into office

Link to tweet

[Cha]

137. Thank you, Goth! Biden's Health Care Plan Will Be Ready to Go!

Link to tweet

[Cha]

141. Ready to Go like Joe!

Mahalo, Goth!

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

139. Elizabeth Warren's latest health plan is causing concerns for some centrist, moderate and rural Demo

I and other true Democrats have been working hard to turn Texas blue. We hope to pick up six congressional seats in addition to the two seats we flipped in 2018. We have a chance to defeat Cornyn in the Senate. The Democrats picked up 12 seats in the Texas House and need 9 more to take control of the Texas House prior to the next redistricting session. If Biden is the nominee, Texas will be a battleground state. If Warren or sanders is the nominee. Texas will not be a battle ground state and we can forget about keeping the two seats that we flipped in 2018

Speaker Pelosi is worried about losing control of the House with a weak top of the ballot ticket with a program that will kill down ballot candidates
.

Link to tweet

The most-vulnerable Democrat in Colorado’s state House, Bri Buentello, is dreading door-knocking in her rural district now that Elizabeth Warren dropped her massive “Medicare for All” plan into the presidential arena.
“This is going to cause down-ballot damage in swing districts and states if she’s the nominee,” Buentello says, describing how her Pueblo-area constituents — who voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2016 — were already echoing criticisms about a giant, one-size-fits-all big government run plan that cancels private health insurance and raises taxes.
Story Continued Below

The fear of blowback is indicative of the broad and largely negative response to Warren’s proposal from centrist, moderate and rural Democrats — many of whom, like Buentello, back Joe Biden in the primary. And it exposes the fault line between those who fret about winning voters in the center and the activist progressive base propelling Warren to the front of the Democratic pack.

The long-awaited plan to raise the $20.5 trillion she says is needed to pay for single-payer health care in America is Warren’s attempt to answer critics after weeks of questions from rival candidates about the cost of her proposal and the prospect of higher taxes. Warren promised, as she has in the past, that "not one penny in middle-class tax increases” is necessary to finance the effort.

[Cha]

140. Gracias for this report, Goth..

What a mess we have to get through to get our best nominee to beat trump like we beat the repubs in the Blue Wave House Victory in 2018!

Joe Biden True Blue Dem candle:

[Gothmog]

142. The math for Warren's health-care plan adds up if you accept its ludicrous premise

Link to tweet

The bad news is that Warren’s assumptions are crazier than keeping a pet rhinoceros, after which, who cares that her calculator works? This is to actual policymaking as the plastic noodles in a ramen-bar window is to lunch.

To wit: Warren says she can deliver a generous Medicare-for-all plan with only $20.5 trillion in additional federal spending. That’s a quarter to a third less than any serious estimate of the plan from outside her campaign. How will she get there? Why, by slashing administrative costs and then mandating that everything else cost less. Warren is not exactly the first progressive reformer to have this same idea, and if she pushes forward with it, she will be but the next in a long line to discover that she can’t make it work, politically or economically. As Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner dryly noted, Warren could just as well have written that Mexico was going to pay for her big, beautiful plan.....

The best you can say for all of this is that none of it will happen. If Warren makes it to the White House, and tries to pass a plan, the Congressional Budget Office will eventually attach more reasonable numbers, with more defensible assumptions, sparking an even more spectacular political blowback than the one that greeted Friday’s announcement. Outside of the progressive Twitterati, there isn’t necessarily an enormous constituency for spending $20.5 trillion to herd every American into a national health insurance program; there would be even less support for spending what Warren’s plan would actually cost
.
And even if she somehow pushed her program through, there’s a good chance that courts would strike it down, because so many of the revenue-raisers may be unconstitutional. Between the problems with her wealth taxes (Article I, Section 9), her plan to divert employer premiums to the government (ex post facto taxation of health benefits) and her requirement that state and local governments toss $3 trillion into the kitty (anti-commandeering doctrine), Warren would be a couple of adverse court decisions away from a $15 trillion hole in her $20 trillion plan.

Stripped of the Warren plan’s math-like veneer and the unreasonable reasoning, this is all rather embarrassing — or to steal a phrase, more of a slogan than a plan. It’s certainly not one of the highlights of Warren’s campaign.

[Cha]

143. Thanks, Goth.. I don't know

what they're thinking with this.

[betsuni]

145. Ugh.

[ismnotwasm]

153. Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

Sigh.

[Cha]

160. Yeah.

[BootinUp]

154. What would be even crueller...is

the traumatic shift from and to whatever happens going Bernie's route.

[aikoaiko]

155. If the system allows for millions to be uninsured or people to go bankrupt from medical bills...

...then yes that system is cruel.


You can like it or not, but it is cruel.

[melman]

157. +1

It's interesting how those that endlessly bump this don't seem to care about the substance.


Just how exactly is this supposed to make him look bad? It doesn't.

[Uncle Joe]

161. +2

[Cha]

168. That's not the point.. the Dems want to change it

so they're NOT for it.

BS is Wrong.

[Cole483rn13]

164. Thank you

Thank you Bernie for having the courage to speak up

[Cha]

167. BS is Wrong.

[karynnj]

171. The needed response is that ALL DEMOCRATS HAVE WORKED FOR BETTER HEALTH COVERAGE AND ARE

PROPOSING IMPROVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE. None defend problems in getting health care.

They all agree on the goal. Where they differ is on the solution. As to the proposed solution, there are many proposals. The differences arise out of genuine disagreement about what is doable and the best way to get there. I think none of the Democrats dispute that every other first world country has a version of a mostly single payer system and get health care at least as good for far less - often at half price.

There are several things to consider that make alternatives to Bernie Sanders' immediately trying to go to MFA.

1)In 2009, when the Democrats had 60 Senators, Bernie publicly said that there were at most 10 Senators who would vote for MFA. At most if we are very lucky we will have 50 in 2021 - and as whole the Senate is not more liberal.

2) Many people who are on our side place a huge value on their union negotiated or company given health care. I suspect that the majority of these people are people comfortable with their plan because they have not had large medical needs that forced them to spend hours talking to billing offices and insurance companies! They fear that they will lose something of great value for something they (probably incorrectly) think is inferior. We can not afford to lose this entire group.

This actually explains why the US ended in a different place than the rest of the world. Many of our candidates want to allow people the choice to stay on these plans. Most (if not all) want a public (MFA type) public option to be added to the exchange. This would allow people buying insurance on the exchange to choose the public option. If, as expected, the public option has far lower administrative costs it will either be cheaper or provide more at the same price.

I hope that they would also pass legislation (if needed) to allow companies the option to replace buying policies for employees with using that money to give vouchers that could be used like the government subsidies on the exchange. If the company gets the same tax treatment for the cost of vouchers as the cost of insurance, this might be acceptable to them. (Small businesses might prefer this as it would eliminate complicated human resource tasks) As to people, they would have more choice than they typically have with company insurance. Note - One thing rarely spoken of is that employer provided health insurance is significantly subsidized by the government. The company gets to count the payment as a cost - so it is removed from the profit they pay taxes on. The recipient of insurance does not pay taxes on the money the company paid on their insurance. I am reasonably sure that some economist has made the complicated estimations on the cost to the government.

I understand that a "mixed" system will have not allow the full gains of a single payer system, but something like this could be a first step in transitioning away from employer provided health insurance.

It is interesting that after Warren came out with a very detailed analysis of how she would fund a single payer plan, a few weeks later she retreated to a plan that made that the long term goal. This really puts her in the place that Biden, Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, and several other candidates already were. Sanders, as far as I know, has not migrated to a plan that moves to MFA gradually.

Sanders does deserve credit for moving the conversation, but given that even in 2009, there was a strong effort to have a public option that was defeated when conservative Democrats, like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman, said they would vote against the ACA if it were in. I have heard MANY arguments that suggest that had Obama started at a more progressive point - public option would have happened. Having watched HELP and especially Finance Committee hearings, it is clear to me that Reid and Baucus fought to get 60 votes for ACA and it passed by the skin of its teeth. (In fact, the House had to pass the Senate bill as is because shortly after the Senate vote, the Senate only had 59 Democrats and NO Republican was willing to vote for anything. Only relatively moderate size changes could be made in the second bill passed under reconciliation. Obama's COS Rahm Emmanuel actually argued for backtracting and going small after Scott Brown was elected. )

[Cha]

173. Kick

[ehrnst]

175. False dilemma fallacy, Senator Sanders. YOUR MFA is not the only humane or progressive path to UHC

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Unfortunately, a binary worldview makes one prone to those kinds of statements.

https://medium.com/hennepindave_75991/the-problem-with-binary-thinking-92bc4a138da1



He doesn't have the corner on health care reform, and never has. There are other progressive ways to get to UHC some that are way more politically possible than his version of single payer:

Similarly, progressives should work in concert with the diverse payers of health care to promote moderation of fast-rising health care costs while improving quality of care. Our objectives should include:

Paying for quality, rather than quantity, of health care: Our nation’s fee-for-service model — used in private as well as public health coverage — is extraordinarily wasteful and does not beget high-quality outcomes. Much experimental and analytic work still needs to be done to determine how we should most effectively and efficiently pay for quality of care. But progressives should push to hasten the testing and deployment of the most promising new models.

Reducing prescription drug prices: One out of every 10 dollars spent on health care now pays for prescription medicines, and the proportion is growing. Drug prices rose by more than 11 percent in 2016 and are projected to rise by almost 12 percent this year. PhRMA’s lobbying clout remains prodigious, but fast-rising drug prices are creating a public and health-sector backlash. The time may be ripe for ending the prohibition that prevents Medicare from bargaining for lower drug prices.

Remedying anti-competitive health system market domination: Geographic areas with near-monopolistic concentrations of health systems result in comparatively high health care prices. Public policy should strive to end such concentrations. It’s a goal that both progressives and conservatives can embrace.

Promoting a “public option”: In too many locations across the country, the ACA marketplaces only have one insurer. This lack of choice has been roundly criticized by Republicans, deservedly so because the lack of insurer competition tends to result in higher premiums. To correct this problem, progressives should continue their quest to allow a public plan to be established in such low-competition areas.

[Cha]

180. Far from it.. why would BS act like

his mfa is the only one?

Thank you for all this research, ehrnst!

[ehrnst]

181. Branding. It's a very status quo political marketing strategy. (nt)

[Cha]

182. lol.. how status quoish of him..

[Cha]

183. KICK!

[betsuni]

184. Uh, every Democrat wants universal healthcare.

Republicans do not want universal healthcare.

[Cha]

189. But BS is the

"uniter" or so I read on some OP around here.

[UniteFightBack]

191. These gripes need to be directed at FUCKING RUSSIAPUBLICANS, for fucks sake. nt

[Cha]

193. Exactly.. Kinda what Charles Gaba was saying.. No way

should BS be dragging on the Dems.. except that's what he does..

Link to tweet

[UniteFightBack]

194. I don't think that is a wise strategy if he would like Democrats to vote for him. nt

[Cha]

195. And, someone called him a "untier" in this OP..

which is more gaslighting..

Democratic Strategist urges quick Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren win

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287398561

[UniteFightBack]

192. Can someone please remind which voters Mr. Sanders is trying to court? IT AIN'T FUCKING DEMS

that's for damn sure.

[betsuni]

196. +1