The Bernie Sanders Is Probably [Now Not] Going To Be The Nominee Thread (1 Viewer)

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

We have a running thread about the 2020 Democratic race at large, but 538 is now showing that Bernie Sanders has a nearly 50% chance of carrying a majority of delegates into the Democratic National Convention (with the current runner up being "no one has a majority" at close to 40%). At some point in the near future--maybe as soon as Super Tuesday next week when he wins California--it will be time to acknowledge that Sanders is the probable nominee and there is nothing Biden or Bloomberg or anyone else in the race now can do to stop it. So, what happens then?

I know that the Trump voters will say he's crazy and use that as their excuse for voting for Trump (who they were voting for anyway under any circumstance, let's all be clear and honest about that). But how does everyone else feel about it?

 

[Heathen]

And that's great. But out of curiosity, how are the rich soaking you?

Put one of many ways..How does increasing corporate welfare hurt everyday Americans?

I found this interesting: Opinion: America’s most successful companies are killing the economy

 

[MT15]

So, I don’t think anybody just has Medicare, right? They have to supplement because Medicare doesn’t cover everything. Thats the loss of benefits people are concerned about. How hard is it for Bernie to talk about that in a reassuring way? I haven’t heard it, though. All I ever here is ”people will have to get with the program” or “nobody really feels that way”. Both sentiments I heard directly from him, BTW. Also, I dont think people who think MFA is going to cover everything in the world have a realistic view of what it will do. Yes, it will be wonderful if you don’t already have insurance, but if you do there may be some compromises. We‘re talking about totally restructuring healthcare, which is needed, but it’s not going to be easy and it’s not going to be without compromise.

A transition period is needed, and that’s great. I have never heard it mentioned before.

Look, I’m not against MFA, I think we need to get there. I worry about Bernie’s ability to deliver, that’s all. And his attitude of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” doesn’t help matters at all. It doesn’t give me any reassurance that he will really listen and take valid criticism into account.

 

[SystemShock]

Is this sarcasm or sarcastic irony?

Our entire economy has been rigged to benefit the very richest of the rich for the past 40 or so years. The results are undeniable as wealth accumulation for the top has risen exponentially while every earning/wealth/prosperity measure shows the bottom and middle including the upper middle class having shrunk or grown weakly.

It's a direct result of tax policy and targeted regulation "reform" that has perhaps allowed rather than caused it, but without any doubt it's a bad thing for all, but those in the top 1/2% or earnings/wealth.

So I don't put words in your mouth, but rigging the economy, are you referring to tax codes?
If I am correct in my assumption, in your view, is this the only factor that have made the rich richer and the poor poorer?

If we are talking about tax codes, I am 100% behind everyone paying their fair share, but what's "fair" can be very subjective.

 

[Heathen]

I think Sanders has been more than consistent in getting across the point that MFA would not just all of the benefits you currently enjoy, but those usually covered in other individual plans like Dental and Vision care.

Think about it this way -- he's been getting slammed by both parties for 30+ years that doing this is 'radical', 'expensive' and 'won't work', yet he and others, even those who make it their prerogative to paint the proposal in a negative light -- see that it works in many other successful developed nations and most studies have shown it will be more fiscally responsible and sustainable. I just think he's cranky about it sometimes, honestly. And I understand why.

Could his delivery be better now and then? Of course.

To me what's going unsaid here is that we all know it won't pass for some time, though I do think it is inevitable. In that light, Sanders is sort of an ideologue who wants to get an idea that he believes in to public conversation knowing that it might not be an immediate implementation. I think this realization will give comfort to those who think it is all coming too fast and we haven't ironed out all of the if's. This will give us time to do that.

But to me, it's a much better choice than the alternative than sticking with the downward spiral of our dysfunctional, fragmented American HC system.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

This is the last reply from me about the subject.

Please point out where do I state "I don't get it".
If you haven't noticed from my posts on this site and/or the mothersite, I am Mexican, and México has a universal healthcare system in place. 3 actually, with a new one on the way replacing what's called "popular insurance". So I very much understand how it works. But thank you very much. Once I am there for good, I'm going private, though.


Hogwash... really? So, as I referenced before, is New York the same as Alabama? Hey, they both must be the exact same socially, culturally, and politically, right? They do things the exact same way..


We do? Good for us.


But that's not what's meant by "healthcare". That's just an extrapolation of a mercy law.

But you guys win. You know it all. Let's just collect the cash. Problem solved.

You keep repeating that you don’t see what Bernie’s plan is besides soaking the rich. So again, I will ask, have you even bothered to truly try? As it is very straight forward. It’s single payer, private delivery. More recently with a signal that he is likely going to compromise his vision in some capacity due to the realities of the political machine. But the framework of the system remains in tact.

And I will again note that if you can not identify what specifically it is that makes America incapable of implementing or transitioning to a certain type of healthcare delivery mechanism, your assertion has no merits. Of course countries have differences, the problem with your argument is you are not articulating or providing justification for how any of those differences directly and materially make a certain type of healthcare system incompatible. You present it as a fact while providing zero supporting evidence.

As to how to classify our current system, you missed the broader point. The current system is indefensible, it is inefficient, cruel, and even under the most idealistic version of Bernie’s plan, would be better for this country from dollars and cents and certainly a humanitarian perspective.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Yeah, you totally missed what I am saying. in fact your response illustrates the point, really. “Some short sighted unions” totally dismisses people who had some concerns.

What I don’t like about Bernie and his surrogates is the way they handle themselves. IMO, Bernie is not likely to be able to create a broad coalition and actually work with anyone who isn’t a true Bernie believer. Thus he isn’t likely to be an effective change agent, because he isn’t likely to have a Congress full of true believers.

He and his surrogates just dismiss criticism out of hand, or just deny that the criticism even exists. Thus their one response to the valid point (IMO) that people who do have really good insurance are going to be nervous about losing some benefits by force when he implements his plan is to just dismiss it. Mostly they just deny that people feel that way.

I wish that weren’t so, but it’s what I see.

The concern I was speaking to was whether unions will abandon Bernie and whether that slice of unions that are nervous on the grounds of healthcare will damage his candidacy in a significant way. I don’t think it will and I articulated why. Additionally, as the same concerns would and have been triggered even more strongly amongst unions and union workers by centrist candidates signaling much less enthusiasm toward defending labor rights. Hence Bernie leading in union endorsements and performing better amongst blue collar workers overall.

As to just the merits of their complaints, yeah, sorry, I don’t think they have any. Which is not say I don’t think there is a real political concern to be discussed and that Bernie needs to grapple with, but on the merits of their concern, no, they don’t really have any. As to whether Bernie is ignoring their concerns, well, you are always going to have opposition to facets of your platform. What you say can be applied to any candidate, including the concern of apathy for slices of a electorate. Bernie’s entire identity though is built on taking the right side of a position and authentically defending it and only compromising when necessary. If he just started bending to every poll tested audience, he would just be Pete Buttigieg. So far his approach is working better, and like I said, I think on the net, Bernie will perform better with unions and blue collar workers and the numbers bear that out. So while I think it is a true his approach is not going to satisfy everyone, it seems to satisfy more, and with more enthusiasm, than his rivals when it comes to support from labor.


As to Bernie’s governance, I would point you to basically Bernie’s entire career as demonstration that he is not some unmovable ideologue. In fact, in terms of just healthcare, he seems to be the only one with a willingness to truly compromise his vision. As it has only been Bernie that will stand in support of his ideal but openly and willingly defend the more moderate proposals. Even recently signaling through AOC a pragmatic approach if elected. Whereas his peers will actively sabotage their own arguments and expressed core values in efforts to avoid supporting the most holistic reforms that would dare harm critical stake holders. Under the guise of so called “pragmaticism” his peers have signaled the only pragmaticism they actually endorse are right turns.

 

[dtc]

So I don't put words in your mouth, but rigging the economy, are you referring to tax codes?
If I am correct in my assumption, in your view, is this the only factor that have made the rich richer and the poor poorer?

If we are talking about tax codes, I am 100% behind everyone paying their fair share, but what's "fair" can be very subjective.

Well, as a trained economist by education I see tax policy and economic policy as tools to be used to provide for the common good. The reduction in taxes for the rich have resulted in unprecedented wealth concentration at the top while simultaneously allowing for the stagnation of income and wealth accumulation by the middle and lower classes. We have historically low rates on corporations and high earners as actual costs of living have outpaced the rise in real wages.

Those results are not good for the economy or Americans as a whole.

While that is not the "only factor" that has led to the current state, it is one that is easily understandable and fixable. More importantly, it can easily be done without all the crazy fears propagated by the right on behalf of the rich coming to be. The rich do not have to be taxed enough to suppress their incentive nor do the lazy and shiftless need to be given cradle to grade luxury in order to improve the state of our current economy and make us stronger as we face the future.

 

[JimEverett]

Costs rose much faster before the ACA. Remember the GOP trying to piss on Obama’s point about bending the cost curve? Well, it did. It has also come in under projections consistently. Very few would, did, and certainly should have argued it was going to reduce overall spending relative to where costs were in 2008. Especially not once congress first and then Republicans got through gutting it’s most important cost control measures. Then Republicans used their sabotage as proof of concept to their argument that the ACA would fail to live up to the exaggerated promises they framed it with to poison the well. But ultimately, like reforms in the past, the oppositional rhetoric was wrong and we are better off from a total consumer cost perspective now than we would have been under the prior arrangement.

But gut perceptions like yours do illustrate how pervasive these myths can be.

No one is talking about the costs of ACA. I am not even talking about the total cost of health care.
If you followed the discussion it was about the cost to people who pay federal income tax - the top 55% of income earners. Perhaps there is evidence that the cost to that group has gone down? I doubt it, but that would be something that would change my perception of the debate.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

No one is talking about the costs of ACA. I am not even talking about the total cost of health care.
If you followed the discussion it was about the cost to people who pay federal income tax - the top 55% of income earners. Perhaps there is evidence that the cost to that group has gone down? I doubt it, but that would be something that would change my perception of the debate.

I think it's pretty clear that costs will go up for the top 55% of income earners. At least immediate direct costs. But I'm not sure it will go up as much as some people are fearing.

 

[SystemShock]

Going against my word, but what the heck

Y As it is very straight forward. It’s single payer, private delivery.

This is what we call in the business "very high level", something that we would tell to technology managers.

And I will again note that if you can not identify what specifically it is that makes America incapable of implementing or transitioning to a certain type of healthcare delivery mechanism,

For crying out loud: please, before you go into any more diatribes, do point to where I state that I don't think the U.S. is capable of implementing or transitioning to a certain type of healthcare delivery mechanism .

Of course countries have differences,

Oh, so the U.S. being different to other countries isn't hogwash after all. Watcha know?

the problem with your argument is you are not articulating or providing justification for how any of those differences directly and materially make a certain type of healthcare system incompatible.

Because, yet again, I am not arguing that, at all. I am really not arguing anything. What I want to know, is not the high level of the plan, I want in the business we call a deep dive.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Then why you replied to me in the manner you did?

Reply to you in the manner that I did? I said "I'm not sure it's as "ideal", ie theoretical, as you are supposing. We can see what happens in countries that implement universal healthcare, and that's basically what has happened. Why do you think the US will be different? "

What was out of bounds about that? I was quoting you where you were talking about having to live in the real world b/c you were expanding on my ideally comment. I was commenting that I think we are not exactly on the same page of how theoretical it is.

I expected much better from you. Frankly, that is a stupid analogy. Sex attraction cuts through every species, every ethnic group, every social stratus, every cultural fabric.


Oh, you noticed... good.

You really just seem to be itching for a fight. You were the one who just blankly stated what works in Europe won't work in Europe with no additional information. I was pointing out that some things work in Europe that also work here. It's up to you to back up your statement that what works in Europe in regards to healthcare won't work here if your goal is to actually have a discussion instead of just complaining, b/c clearly some things do work in both countries.

What? Who is saying anything about Europe doing anything????

We both were -- you said what was working in Europe wouldn't work here. You directly quoted me.

That has nothing to do with what I am saying. If you'd like to reply to DD, please do so.

He was the only one that gave a reason why Europe was different than America, I was using him as an example of what I was looking from you if you wanted to continue the discussion -- why do you believe what will happen in America is different than what happens in Europe, since, again, that was the example I gave that you dismissed with no further explanation.

It is more than that.

OK, explain.

No kidding.


For crying out loud...

You know what? You win. Let's just collect the money. We'll figure the rest as we go, a la me chingué.

This is really weird. You clearly don't seem to want to discuss this, but then you get all offended when people don't understand your point.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And it's funny because I don't even think Medicare for All is the best way to address health care in our country, but I also don't think it will be spectacularly bad either.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

No one is talking about the costs of ACA. I am not even talking about the total cost of health care.
If you followed the discussion it was about the cost to people who pay federal income tax - the top 55% of income earners. Perhaps there is evidence that the cost to that group has gone down? I doubt it, but that would be something that would change my perception of the debate.

No one is arguing tax costs or overall cost were or would be reduced, simply that the cost curve would be bent relative to the status quo. That, on a whole, in general, but not everyone, are and over the long term would be paying less than they would have under the prior arrangement. Private insurance growth has slowed, public costs have slowed. They are still increasing, but at a slower rate. Which means most people, on the whole, are paying less than they would have been before. Same would happen under further reforms.

A person has a set of expenses in a given year, taxes are a part of that. Are you financially better or worse off if you pay 10% more in taxes but save 15% in personal expenditures? All things being equal?

But critics love to play this game where they selectively only see one side of the ledger. That is not how anyone’s financial burden is totaled up. And perhaps the most frustrating part of this primary is the centrist Democrats abandoning intellectual honesty and integrity to crib that line of attack.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Going against my word, but what the heck


This is what we call in the business "very high level", something that we would tell to technology managers.



For crying out loud: please, before you go into any more diatribes, do point to where I state that I don't think the U.S. is capable of implementing or transitioning to a certain type of healthcare delivery mechanism .



Oh, so the U.S. being different to other countries isn't hogwash after all. Watcha know?


Because, yet again, I am not arguing that, at all. I am really not arguing anything. What I want to know, is not the high level of the plan, I want in the business we call a deep dive.

So what is the point you are trying to make by asserting America is different when people you are discussing Bernie’s plan with point you to other countries as examples of it working successfully? Do explain what it is I have misinterpreted from reading your discussions? Others seem to have the same interpretation as well.


As to wanting deep dives, Nothing is preventing you from attaining that. Frankly, I have grown tired of the sort of individuals that claim they want something(like details on a topic) but have demonstrated no actual effort to attain it while demanding others provide it for them.

The plan is out there, the research underlying the plan is almost unlimited. If you want to look at the relationship between private and public administration, their is mountains of data. If you want to cross examine single payer, private delivery in terms of general practitioner care vs. a Beveridge total government run model vs the Bismarck model that is under the umbrella of what Mexico has, you can do it. Dive as deep as you want, Bernie isn’t holding you back on this.

If I managed to put together near graduate level papers in college on healthcare economics across various systems, I assure you, the resources are out there. I question your sincerity though when you could have come to the table with something a little stronger than you have. For instance, you want to actually talk about the pitfalls in Bernie’s current legislation? It’s cost controls. Of course, if you are also being fair to Bernie, he has signaled the willingness to embrace such things. Which would go a long way to both aligning it closer with other single-payer countries and bringing the total cost down notably.

 

[Beach Friends]

Just wanted to throw this in: After 40 years of the rich soaking us, I'm totally fine with spending the next 40 years soaking them.

A desire for revenge seems to be a feature of Marxism. Careful, odds are that you will be considered "them."

 

[Heathen]

A desire for revenge seems to be a feature of Marxism. Careful, odds are that you will be considered "them."

I'll take 'revenge' , which essentially amounts to making sure the rich start to pay their fair share and receive no handouts over the 'keep our heads down and continue the status quo' mantra of the establishment.

I think we've been conditioned to be eshamed to question the successful. That's a problem when folks are getting tossed in jail for years over a dimebag.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

A desire for revenge seems to be a feature of Marxism. Careful, odds are that you will be considered "them."

In people? Sure, of all stripes. Especially in people that react negatively to cultural changes.

Marxism itself? I suspect the only Marx or Engels you have ever been exposed to was through the prism of some right-wing pundit‘s fear mongering. Otherwise, you would realize how silly that statement sounds on a number of levels.

 

[JimEverett]

No one is arguing tax costs or overall cost were or would be reduced, simply that the cost curve would be bent relative to the status quo. That, on a whole, in general, but not everyone, are and over the long term would be paying less than they would have under the prior arrangement. Private insurance growth has slowed, public costs have slowed. They are still increasing, but at a slower rate. Which means most people, on the whole, are paying less than they would have been before. Same would happen under further reforms.

Again, I don't think you are paying attention to what we are talking about.

A person has a set of expenses in a given year, taxes are a part of that. Are you financially better or worse off if you pay 10% more in taxes but save 15% in personal expenditures? All things being equal?

Where is the evidence that that is what would happen to people who pay federal income taxes? Which is what I am and have been talking about in relation to whether a Medicare-for-all system would be a boon to business

]But critics love to play this game where they selectively only see one side of the ledger. That is not how anyone’s financial burden is totaled up. And perhaps the most frustrating part of this primary is the centrist Democrats abandoning intellectual honesty and integrity to crib that line of attack.

Sort of like some people talking past others in an effort to appear to make a profound point.