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?

 

[wardorican]

In an ideal world, sure. But you can't plan on ideal worlds. And there's more to hospitals than just emergency rooms. I live in a relatively small city. The metro area has about 600,000 inhabitants. There are 2 large hospitals here in constant construction. There's another one about 30 miles from here, in constant construction as well. You go get a minor medical procedure, and it is like being on a medical conveyor belt.

I get a full physical (or what amounts to a full physical these days) every 1-2 years. Every year, it takes longer to get an appointment to see a doctor.

And that is with our current exorbitant health care prices and half the country not going to see doctors.

So, yes, before the flood gates are opened, I want to hear a plan about expanding infrastructure.

And again, I reiterate, I am not against universal healthcare, on the contrary, I am in favor of it. I just want to hear an actual plan. "Healthcare for everyone, the rich are paying for it" is not a plan.

And I probably should stop saying "the rich are paying for it" since Sanders already said middle class taxes are going up too.

In a way, you're already seeing it. There has been a rise in Physicians Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. You have CVS minute clinics all over, offering cheaper walk in options. You have Urgent Care centers (some are cheap, some are expensive) all over. You're seeing it, due to the Boomers aging out. They're going to suck up a bunch of Medical care anyway.

One of the issues with some insurance, especially Medicaid, is the need for Referrals. I'm not sure if Bernie's plan would still require referrals, or the same red tape version of referrals that they are. Those suck, and those slow things down. Whereas, PPO plans, you can just go straight to the specialist, regardless of your Primary giving you the ok. I know other county public health options are referral machines.

However, I hear what you're saying. You want more policy details and the "how's".

 

[wardorican]

Yes, we will, I think there will definitely be some resistance there.

The only insurance I love is my wife's, but we'll be out of that in a few months anyway when she leaves her job and goes back to grad school.. that's going to suck. It's the one thing the State of Florida does well..

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

In an ideal world, sure. But you can't plan on ideal worlds. And there's more to hospitals than just emergency rooms. I live in a relatively small city. The metro area has about 600,000 inhabitants. There are 2 large hospitals here in constant construction. There's another one about 30 miles from here, in constant construction as well. You go get a minor medical procedure, and it is like being on a medical conveyor belt.

I get a full physical (or what amounts to a full physical these days) every 1-2 years. Every year, it takes longer to get an appointment to see a doctor.

And that is with our current exorbitant health care prices and half the country not going to see doctors.

So, yes, before the flood gates are opened, I want to hear a plan about expanding infrastructure.

And again, I reiterate, I am not against universal healthcare, on the contrary, I am in favor of it. I just want to hear an actual plan. "Healthcare for everyone, the rich are paying for it" is not a plan.

And I probably should stop saying "the rich are paying for it" since Sanders already said middle class taxes are going up too.

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?

Also, I'm not sure that a good health care solution is hoping people can't pay for physicals so they don't get them. If you have faith in the free market, increased demand would spur investment to create more supply, right? We currently have 8.5% of Americans who are uninsured, so we're looking at potentially increasing demand for physicals by 8.5%.

I'm assuming you believe that physicals will provide you with a health benefit, correct? And that health benefit is presumably to prevent more serious issues in the future right? So, wouldn't it stand to reason that more people getting physicals will prevent more serious issues for more people, right, and that in turn will free up resources for people who really need more serious care.

 

[JimEverett]

So, I think I'd rather try a different method to achieve universal healthcare than Medicare for all, however, I'm not sure the situation is quite as bad you are laying out. If we have single payer, then companies will no longer be paying for healthcare for their employees - which would be a savings for them (the average is something like $15K per employee, and each employee pays an average of $7k for their premiums).

Right now companies and citizens pay around $3 trillion per year for healthcare. So, I'm not sure why you think Sanders plan represents a net loss in disposable income... it is shifting when the money is paid, and probably the amount each person pays will change (richer people might pay more than they are now, and poorer people might pay less than they are now).

As I said, it's not my preferred method to achieve universal healthcare, but it's not taking $3 trillion of purchasing power away, since that $3 trillion is already being spent on healthcare.

If it is universal coverage then millions of people will be added to what is covered. I think coverage is right around maybe a little more than, 90%. Going to universal coverage will add 30-35 million people. And not only that, the coverage many people receive right now, for example - Medicaid - is not as good as the employer-based insurance and costs less. In addition, you have tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of medical debt that goes unpaid - which presumably will be paid with universal coverage.
Will use go up? Its hard to imagine that once a service is offered as completely "free" that use will not increase substantially. How much, I do not know - but I imagine it will amount to a significant increase in cost.
Those additional costs are not being paid right now, or at least all but a small portion are not. And the additional costs will be paid primarily by those who most consume goods and services provided by American business: the 50% or so of the population who ern enough to pay federal income taxes.

Or, you could triple (or more) payroll taxes - which would probably offset most, if not all or more, the gains any business would see from dropping employee health care coverage.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If it is universal coverage then millions of people will be added to what is covered. I think coverage is right around maybe a little more than, 90%. Going to universal coverage will add 30-35 million people. And not only that, the coverage many people receive right now, for example - Medicaid - is not as good as the employer-based insurance and costs less. In addition, you have tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of medical debt that goes unpaid - which presumably will be paid with universal coverage.
Will use go up? Its hard to imagine that once a service is offered as completely "free" that use will not increase substantially. How much, I do not know - but I imagine it will amount to a significant increase in cost.
Those additional costs are not being paid right now, or at least all but a small portion are not. And the additional costs will be paid primarily by those who most consume goods and services provided by American business: the 50% or so of the population who ern enough to pay federal income taxes.

Or, you could triple (or more) payroll taxes - which would probably offset most, if not all or more, the gains any business would see from dropping employee health care coverage.

So, you quoted a $3 trillion number, I was pointing out that is what we're already spending, so based on the number you used (which came from Sander's budget proposal), there won't be less disposable income.

I'm assuming you're not discounting the possibility that preventive care will save costs right? How does that figure into your calculations? So, isn't it possible that by increasing people getting preventive care, we will see a decrease in more expensive care later? Also, I don't think it's a good thing to have sick people walking around infecting other people b/c they can't afford care, or vaccines - right? Getting people care quicker and earlier, it seems likely that will prevent the spread of disease which means lower costs.

Further, we're already paying for uninsured people -- they still get sick. If they get sick enough to require care, and if they can't pay out of pocket, two things happen, the hospital or care provider writes it off, and we pay for it b/c it gets built into their cost models, and they declare bankruptcy, which results in a number of cascading issues.

 

[JimEverett]

So, you quoted a $3 trillion number, I was pointing out that is what we're already spending, so based on the number you used (which came from Sander's budget proposal), there won't be less disposable income.

I'm assuming you're not discounting the possibility that preventive care will save costs right? How does that figure into your calculations? So, isn't it possible that by increasing people getting preventive care, we will see a decrease in more expensive care later? Also, I don't think it's a good thing to have sick people walking around infecting other people b/c they can't afford care, or vaccines - right? Getting people care quicker and earlier, it seems likely that will prevent the spread of disease which means lower costs.

Further, we're already paying for uninsured people -- they still get sick. If they get sick enough to require care, and if they can't pay out of pocket, two things happen, the hospital or care provider writes it off, and we pay for it b/c it gets built into their cost models, and they declare bankruptcy, which results in a number of cascading issues.

I am unsure of what the $3t a year we are spending now counts. I am fairly sure it is counting the 7%-10% of total health care costs that are spent by nonprofits which presumably will be transferred to taxpayers. Does it count the state and local government payments? Does it count unpaid medical debt? I really don't know the numbers all that well, I was using the $3T a year earlier based on some of the estimates I had seen of additional costs for Sanders' proposals.

I said earlier that I assume there would be cost savings. I think Medicare does a decent job on that end. But - we were promised significant cost savings from preventative care when Obamacare went online 10 years ago and I really don't see much effect from that, even though we increased coverage. In 2008, for instance - healthcare costs were 16.6% of GDP while in 2019 they were 17.9% - despite the presumed increase in preventive care (more insured, free wellness visits per year).

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I am unsure of what the $3t a year we are spending now counts. I am fairly sure it is counting the 7%-10% of total health care costs that are spent by nonprofits which presumably will be transferred to taxpayers. Does it count the state and local government payments? Does it count unpaid medical debt? I really don't know the numbers all that well, I was using the $3T a year earlier based on some of the estimates I had seen of additional costs for Sanders' proposals.

I said earlier that I assume there would be cost savings. I think Medicare does a decent job on that end. But - we were promised significant cost savings from preventative care when Obamacare went online 10 years ago and I really don't see much effect from that, even though we increased coverage. In 2008, for instance - healthcare costs were 16.6% of GDP while in 2019 they were 17.9% - despite the presumed increase in preventive care (more insured, free wellness visits per year).

Yeah, I don't know the numbers that well either. From what I've read, medicare for all will cost about $2-4 trillion per year. We are currently spending about $3.5 trillion dollars per year on health expenditures. So, the estimates and the current costs are roughly equal right?

Your point about Obamacare is well taken though.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, just an additional point on Obamacare. It was passed in 2010, when healthcare costs were a bit under 18% of GFP, so basically the same as in 2019, while having 20 million more people... and an aging population. So that doesn't seem too bad.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm not sure it's as "ideal", ie theoretical, as you are supposing.

You used the term "ideally", not me.

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?

Again, we are not other countries. Imagine me asking you, "why would you think the New York mentality and the Louisiana mentality be any different?". That's basically what you are asking.

Also, I'm not sure that a good health care solution is hoping people can't pay for physicals so they don't get them.

What does this have to do with anything I said?

If you have faith in the free market, increased demand would spur investment to create more supply, right? We currently have 8.5% of Americans who are uninsured, so we're looking at potentially increasing demand for physicals by 8.5%.

First, where did you get that number?
Second, how many people do you think have inadequate insurance with exorbitant deductibles and bad coverage, and therefore use it merely as prevention from bankruptcy when things get really bad?

So, wouldn't it stand to reason

For Christ's sake... look around you.

 

[The moose]

I guess we will find out if the oil and gas industry likes the Green New Deal too. I suspect not.

All this talk about Bernie taking Texas in November-does not seem likely.

Yep that is right Bernie is gonna kill the plastics industry.

Bernie wins we can't have cars anymore!

Heck no red meat either cuz they fart a bunch.

Come on dude.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Yep that is right Bernie is gonna kill the plastics industry.

Bernie wins we can't have cars anymore!

Heck no red meat either cuz they fart a bunch.

Come on dude.

All the while there’s a defacto president doing actual, pernicious, long term damage but they’d rather argue hyperbolic hypotheticals
It’s confounding

 

[Dadsdream]

Again, we are not other countries. Imagine me asking you, "why would you think the New York mentality and the Louisiana mentality be any different?". That's basically what you are asking.

France, Britain and Italy each have GDPs less than that of California.
Germany has a GDP roughly equivalent to that of Texas + New York.
Canada and Russia each have a GDP that is slightly smaller than that of New York.
Sweden's GDP is less than that of Virginia.

Remember this whenever people start comparing us to other countries.
Also remember this when people start crying that we've acted unilaterally without consulting our allies.
Never forget, without us, the whole world would be goosestepping under the swastika banner.

Comparison between U.S. states and sovereign states by GDP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Beach Friends]

Yep that is right Bernie is gonna kill the plastics industry.

Bernie wins we can't have cars anymore!

Heck no red meat either cuz they fart a bunch.

Come on dude.

Just going off of what the man is saying he is going to do. If you think what he (and his campaign surrogate AOC) has been saying is ridiculous, you are not alone.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

France, Britain and Italy each have GDPs less than that of California.
Germany has a GDP roughly equivalent to that of Texas + New York.
Canada and Russia each have a GDP that is slightly smaller than that of New York.
Sweden's GDP is less than that of Virginia.

Remember this whenever people start comparing us to other countries.
Also remember this when people start crying that we've acted unilaterally without consulting our allies.
Never forget, without us, the whole world would be goosestepping under the swastika banner.

Comparison between U.S. states and sovereign states by GDP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What does this tangential information and chest puffing have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Dadsdream]

What does this tangential information and chest puffing have to do with the topic at hand?

Killjoy.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

And again, I reiterate, I am not against universal healthcare, on the contrary, I am in favor of it. I just want to hear an actual plan. "Healthcare for everyone, the rich are paying for it" is not a plan.

Have you, like, tried using the Google machine to actually see if Sanders or anyone else has ever said anything about the topic other than "I'm Crazy arse Bernie, Soak The Rich!!!!111!!!" and then critiqued those proposals? Like maybe

How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans? | Bernie Sanders Official Website

We are taking on powerful interests who will do and spend whatever it takes to stop us. Change never happens from the top down. Chip in to join the political revolution today.

berniesanders.com

Or

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

Or

Understanding the Medicare for All Act of 2022 - PNHP

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has introduced substantive single-payer legislation in the U.S. Senate. The Medicare for All Act (S.4204), which…read more

pnhp.org

You can give reasoned approaches for why it is all so terrible and awful and teh dumb and impossible (even though many other countries less exceptional than the US believes itself to be pull it off). There are plenty of studies paid for by health insurance lobbyists for sure which can guide you to the conclusion you want to reach that I could also link for you. But not even looking for a plan and therefore concluding there is no plan at all doesn't seem productive.

 

[Taurus]

So, just an additional point on Obamacare. It was passed in 2010, when healthcare costs were a bit under 18% of GFP, so basically the same as in 2019, while having 20 million more people... and an aging population. So that doesn't seem too bad.

Especially considering the ongoing GOP efforts to cripple it and the various Republican states that never opted in.

 

[Farb]

Does this apply to illegal aliens or just US citizens? I know Bernie has stated several times that all people in the US, legal or not deserve healthcare so are these numbers baked into the cake or is that something that Bernie is still working on?