2016 Postmortem

kaleckim

(651 posts)

150. Sure, they may want it within 8 years

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 12:44 PM

Mar 2016

and they may get it (you don't know what the outcome will be any more than I do), but they'll fight for it regardless, and set us on that path. It doesn't happen, ever, if we don't talk about, analyze and debate it. I also think you think that people in this country have far more time to wait on this (and meaningful action on global warming). That slow, gradual "pragmatism" will result in how many more deaths from this health care system, how much more waste, how many more bankruptcies? I don't see how waiting a generation makes sense, it certainly doesn't have to take that long, and waiting that long comes with a gigantic social cost. If you think that is the best solution, you should address that social cost.

It happened in Canada in about decade, I'd say that is about the right timeline. Clinton has no path towards that what so ever, has no interest in single payer and never has. Her managed care debacle wasn't anything close to single payer, and she seems to have moved to the right on the issue since as far as policy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

174 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"the Sanders campaign is simply pulling numbers out of the air." [View all] geek tragedy Mar 2016 OP

"21"? daleanime Mar 2016 #1

42 JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #129

Why does the other founder of the American Prospect... GeorgiaPeanuts Mar 2016 #2

He is looking for a better job, Sanders is his only hope. Hoyt Mar 2016 #61

And this is why Single Payer failed in Vermont. DanTex Mar 2016 #3

This is why he shouldn't be President. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #4

But... but... but... cui bono Mar 2016 #6

So am I. I still find his campaigning dishonest Recursion Mar 2016 #31

Examples? cui bono Mar 2016 #98

"We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on earth" Recursion Mar 2016 #107

Actually, we do spend twice as much, and sometimes more SheilaT Mar 2016 #152

We spend twice the OECD average, but not "twice as much as any other industrialized country" Recursion Mar 2016 #165

No you aren't. kristopher Mar 2016 #120

He gets my vote and my money; what else do you want? Recursion Mar 2016 #121

5thC kristopher Mar 2016 #127

Uhh, the cost doesn't matter scscholar Mar 2016 #27

on planet earth, the cost always matters. That's why we pay taxes nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #32

So if we don't raise taxes, who will be paying for health care? DemocracyDirect Mar 2016 #111

Except of course when it comes to war, then the wars pay for themselves Fumesucker Mar 2016 #119

Is that how you rationalize the privatization of Social Security? And ending food stamps? rhett o rick Mar 2016 #48

LOL, been in a supermarket line lately? ucrdem Mar 2016 #55

Neither of those things will happen with Hillary. With the Republicans-probably redstateblues Mar 2016 #66

On Kenneth Thorpe’s Analysis of Senator Sanders’ Single-Payer Reform Plan think Mar 2016 #63

Please reread the part of the OP in bold and tell me geek tragedy Mar 2016 #67

Where did Dylan Matthews get these numbers? I can't find them anywhere other than in these think Mar 2016 #109

Matthews article geek tragedy Mar 2016 #112

So now you claim Freidman is a quack? You're entitled to your opinion but in case you haven't notice think Mar 2016 #113

You think it's just wonderful that people failed to notice that their current premiums would-- eridani Mar 2016 #5

You think he's a Democrat? HERVEPA Mar 2016 #7

He's far closer to Dem party platform positions thqn his opponent eridani Mar 2016 #10

Not talking about Bernie. Check the last line of your previous post. HERVEPA Mar 2016 #17

Is math a personality thing or a policy thing? nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #18

It just changes if you are getting the right kickback maybe? Tiggeroshii Mar 2016 #110

That is not what they said. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #9

The price tag was lower than the total cost of health insurance premiums n/t eridani Mar 2016 #11

Why did it fail in Vermont? geek tragedy Mar 2016 #15

So I take it kaleckim Mar 2016 #68

It can work if done right, but to do it right you have to do the math right. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #73

Give me a break kaleckim Mar 2016 #87

Which country did an overnight transition from a system like ours geek tragedy Mar 2016 #88

Again, you say "overnight" kaleckim Mar 2016 #91

I agree it will take a long time. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #93

Nonsense kaleckim Mar 2016 #95

So what is he planning to do in office, hold teach-ins? nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #97

What is your argument? kaleckim Mar 2016 #101

Presidents aren't protest leaders. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #102

They can lead by inspiring the public using the bully pulpit n/t eridani Mar 2016 #116

bully pulpit doesn't work in a polarized country geek tragedy Mar 2016 #149

The country isn't polarized on the issues kaleckim Mar 2016 #155

Everything wrong with your party kaleckim Mar 2016 #147

So you hate Democrats, okay I don't care what you think then Bye nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #148

No, I hate your argument, mindset... kaleckim Mar 2016 #151

Taiwan and South Korea n/t eridani Mar 2016 #115

Yes, by about 10 percent at the most... that's not enough savings to tear shit up uponit7771 Mar 2016 #16

The savings grow over time--especially for the 55-65 age demographic eridani Mar 2016 #24

Unnnn, still not worth tearin shit up... that's what the national SP plan would do too. uponit7771 Mar 2016 #29

Tearing shit up gets rid of useless parasitic insurance companies eridani Mar 2016 #33

and keeps the the overtly parasitic doctors, pharma and hospital corporations. So instead of paying uponit7771 Mar 2016 #38

Insurance companies don't provide health care. Doctors do. End of story. eridani Mar 2016 #43

Too many coulds and ACA would be ended by inertia uponit7771 Mar 2016 #51

It will not end until replaced by something better n/t eridani Mar 2016 #59

Where is it that you got that $200...out of thin air? Sheepshank Mar 2016 #70

From an estimate by a couple of UW professors on the Washington Health Security Trust n/t eridani Mar 2016 #114

which differs significantly from the article in the op Sheepshank Mar 2016 #141

You want a copy of the Fox Report for WA State? eridani Mar 2016 #167

I just wanted to read the details of the info you had and where it came from Sheepshank Mar 2016 #171

I'll post a couple of items from my slide show eridani Mar 2016 #174

Horse shit. phleshdef Mar 2016 #21

None of those excuses make any sense. DanTex Mar 2016 #128

Other entire countries have pulled it off phleshdef Mar 2016 #159

Those countries have much higher taxes than what Bernie is proposing. DanTex Mar 2016 #161

More economic diversity typically means more incomes to pull from. phleshdef Mar 2016 #163

You guys rationalize why Goldman-Sachs should rip us off and dare pretend that you care. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #22

he knows he isn't going to win the nomination JI7 Mar 2016 #8

he is saying the opposite nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #13

+1, Magic asterisks, conciliatory GOP congress's, ponies, unicorns and podium bird.. uponit7771 Mar 2016 #12

Dust sprinkled by the Indictment Fairy nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #14

This is the reason I think he's staying in, Tad Devine has a Reddit account and someones convinced uponit7771 Mar 2016 #19

They really are Clinton in 2008. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #20

+1, they're even winning nearly the same constituency Hillary lost with in 2008... lol on "whitey uponit7771 Mar 2016 #23

Nothing, other than objective reality kaleckim Mar 2016 #77

I disagree with your first statement IE the Sanders camp discontent with Obama. Overnight is relativ uponit7771 Mar 2016 #142

Sure, they may want it within 8 years kaleckim Mar 2016 #150

And you are willing to turn your backs on the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #25

Let's first use honest math. RandySF Mar 2016 #28

Don't pretend you care about honesty. You side with those that want money over everything. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #36

Oh, you can reads minds now? RandySF Mar 2016 #45

Those that bow before the golden calf are easy to read. Greed uber alles. nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #52

Why do you think she has to bust her ass raising more millions? ucrdem Mar 2016 #46

She pockets a lot of it. $150,000,000 while pretending she cares about the peons. I guess you rhett o rick Mar 2016 #50

According to Alex Jones or HA Goodman? ucrdem Mar 2016 #53

How do you rationalize siding with those that would kill SS and other safety nets. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #56

I answered above. Go to any supermarket and observe. nt ucrdem Mar 2016 #58

BSS propaganda-Those things will only happen if the Republicans win redstateblues Mar 2016 #75

You are mistaken if you think the Class War is between Democrats and Republicons. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #164

$230 billion to $541 billion dollars over the next decade. k8conant Mar 2016 #47

It's the damn bird, it's his MATH source, not good....n/t blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #26

PNHP math is quite good, actually eridani Mar 2016 #30

I know, they are, such a good source. Those Sander cultists... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #34

What is sad is your rationaliziations to give all our resources to the wealthy and the hell with rhett o rick Mar 2016 #54

They cite Thorpe's study nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #35

Former Clinton senior advisor Paul Starr has issues with Sanders' plan? opiate69 Mar 2016 #37

Did he force Sanders to lie about the prescription drug savings? geek tragedy Mar 2016 #41

Apparently, neither Mr. Starr, nor yourself, are familiar with the concept of "forecasting". opiate69 Mar 2016 #60

No, what happened was that Sanders claimed he could save $325 billion per year geek tragedy Mar 2016 #65

It is 100% possible to save that much. The actual savings will of course depent on-- eridani Mar 2016 #124

Yes, but he does it well, and the general electorate seems to like that Recursion Mar 2016 #39

lying about the numbers always catches up with them in the end though geek tragedy Mar 2016 #42

My question is...why don't Sanders and Clinton compromise with the public option? JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #57

Because nobody really believes providers would accept it Recursion Mar 2016 #62

Sigh...so single/multi payer (where the math doesn't currently add up) is the only option? JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #64

Structurally our system is similar to the Netherlands' and Germany's already Recursion Mar 2016 #72

Great post, thanks. I'm reading into the SGR now. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #90

I'm afraid you're exactly right about the independent board Recursion Mar 2016 #92

Clinton's plan includes the public option. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #69

No, it does not. Prove it to me. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #71

From her campaign website: geek tragedy Mar 2016 #76

How long term? She's not campaigning on it, she mentions protecting/expanding ACA JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #82

That is why she has a backup plan in case Congress does not cooperate. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #86

Yes, but the candidate has to campaign on that! Sanders would no doubt fall back to what she wants JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #89

It's on her website, but she sure the hell isn't campaigning on it eridani Mar 2016 #117

Any one of these guys could "cost out" eg. the Canadian single payer plan. delrem Mar 2016 #40

We pay twice what most other developed countries pay n/t eridani Mar 2016 #44

A shitload of Dems agree with Hillary Clinton. For profit private insurance is forever. delrem Mar 2016 #49

Nobody worries about money for the military, cluster bombs etc. Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2016 #74

Plenty of people worry about the Pentagon costing too much. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #79

It's not the first untruth BS campaign has touted. Sheepshank Mar 2016 #78

Wrong on many significant levels: Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #80

I didn't see anywhere in there support for the claim that geek tragedy Mar 2016 #83

Then by all means, carry on with your hit piece. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #85

that cost $305 Billion..... AlbertCat Mar 2016 #143

!applauds! Warren Stupidity Mar 2016 #132

Thank you, the OP is such a dishonest and terrible representation of Bernie's plan. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #133

Sorry that you think everyone outside the Bernie Bubble geek tragedy Mar 2016 #136

I'm not the one looking at partisan critics and relying on them. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #140

they cite the Thorpe study nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #146

When I put in the numbers for me it told me that I would pay more in taxes. LiberalFighter Mar 2016 #81

This election season Aerows Mar 2016 #84

KNR Thank you! Lucinda Mar 2016 #94

Tad Devine wants that money coming in cosmicone Mar 2016 #96

One question: how do all those other countries do it? dchill Mar 2016 #99

They built their systems over decades without ever relying on employers to provide geek tragedy Mar 2016 #100

OK. So, it's too late for that here? dchill Mar 2016 #103

Taiwan implemented single payer in about a year n/t eridani Mar 2016 #118

Taiwan's not strictly single payer (there are copays), but we should emulate their system Recursion Mar 2016 #122

Copays or no copays have nothing to do with whether a system is single payer or not eridani Mar 2016 #123

Well, except that a system with copays has multiple payers Recursion Mar 2016 #125

OK--verbal technicality. n/t eridani Mar 2016 #126

What did Taiwan have in place before that? nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #138

Brief history at link eridani Mar 2016 #166

Paying for Hillary's Tax-Credit-Palooza TheDormouse Mar 2016 #104

Hillary panders with unrealistic tax promises TheDormouse Mar 2016 #105

Hillary's tax credit sweepstakes--there's one for u & u & u ... TheDormouse Mar 2016 #106

Clinton is being up front about how much her proposals would cost. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #108

"free" is the wrong word to use treestar Mar 2016 #130

Krugman- Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan Gothmog Mar 2016 #131

Article is old and debunked. thesquanderer Mar 2016 #134

Friedman is a quack. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #135

Krugman and the Gang of 4 Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #137

Romer and Romer eviscerated Friedman's nonsense. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #139

James Galbraith Describes Major Forecast Failure in Model Used by Romers to Attack Friedman on Sande Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #144

That's gibberish from Galbraith geek tragedy Mar 2016 #145

Gibberish? Galbraith is one of the leading experts on income inequality. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #158

Galbraith breezily ignored the substance of Romer's critique geek tragedy Mar 2016 #160

PNHP disputes it and Starr's wiki page doesn't change a thing, anyone Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #162

Sad day when so called liberals are supporting arguments AGAINST single payer. Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #153

I am not attacking single payer, rather saying that the math has to work geek tragedy Mar 2016 #154

Yeah but he didnt fudge the numbers, at least not on purpose. Figuring out how to do it Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #156

yes, but he had to have the math worked out right in order geek tragedy Mar 2016 #157

Really interesting discussion, even though Demnorth Mar 2016 #168

A cost increase of 7% per year over 3 years is not an unreasonable estimate. baldguy Mar 2016 #169

Ha ha! Did you see the post of the 179 top economists who endorsed Bernie's plan? pdsimdars Mar 2016 #170

''When Wall Street firms lie about their finances, the legal term that applies is 'fraud.''' Octafish Mar 2016 #172

After being elected Bernie and his team can work out the details- there will be time andym Mar 2016 #173