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?

 

[Taurus]

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?

It'd be impossible to get firm numbers, since illegals don't currently take part as much in the 'normal' healthcare channels. What we can say is that such healthcare as they get is usually the most expensive possible (ER visits).

From a cynical pure-politics perspective, none of the Dems should've raised their hands when asked if illegals would get benefits. The answer should've been "No, only citizens who pay into the system will get benefits." Then later on you clarify that of course you're not going to let human beings die in the gutter, they'll get treatment the same as US citizens get when traveling abroad.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

It'd be impossible to get firm numbers, since illegals don't currently take part as much in the 'normal' healthcare channels. What we can say is that such healthcare as they get is usually the most expensive possible (ER visits).

From a cynical pure-politics perspective, none of the Dems should've raised their hands when asked if illegals would get benefits. The answer should've been "No, only citizens who pay into the system will get benefits." Then later on you clarify that of course you're not going to let human beings die in the gutter, they'll get treatment the same as US citizens get when traveling abroad.

“Well we know that when non-resident aliens use the healthcare system it’s as a last resort in emergency rooms - we would want to research if there is a more cost effective model. I think if we can fix both the health care and immigration issues, this problem takes care of itself “

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

In both of the two largest states -- which vote in only four days -- a candidate needs 15% of the vote to be awarded any delegates at all. If these numbers hold up, the "probably" in the thread title may be understating the case a bit.

 

[SystemShock]

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?

I thought you would had given me the benefit of quoting my entire post, or at the very least not omit the part that said "And I probably should stop saying "the rich are paying for it" since Sanders already said middle class taxes are going up too."

But anyway, from your link

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

College for All and Cancel Student Debt: It is fully paid for by a modest tax on Wall Street speculation...
Expanding Social Security: It is fully paid for by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans...
Housing for All: It is fully paid for by a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent ...
Universal Childcare/Pre-K: It is fully paid for by a wealth tax on the top 0.1 percent...
Eliminating Medical Debt: It is fully paid for by establishing an income inequality tax on large corporations that pay CEOs ...

Maybe is it that teh Ingleesh is my 3rd language and I am too stoopid, a but that surely reads and sounds like "soak the rich" to this spic.

As for Medicare, the only thing I see is a lot of talk about money, but money alone is not a plan of implementation.

When you go on a vacation, you don't think "my vacation is going to cost me $5000 and I am taking the money from my savings account" and leave it at that. You figure out the days, the airline, the hotel, what are you going to do...

You can give reasoned approaches for why it is all so terrible and awful and teh dumb and impossible

That is not what I am saying, at all ... I have never spoken against social programs. What I am doing, is questioning the implementation of it, beyond money collection. Collecting money is just one part of it, and we are not even sure that money is going to be available to make such radical changes.

(even though many other countries less exceptional than the US believes itself to be pull it off).

Perhaps those other countries aren't less exceptional like you think, but anyway, again, it is the mentality. You just need to look at guns and drugs to see how different the U.S. is from other countries. Our Constitution is different. Our legislative process is different. Even within the U.S., you go to Texas, then cross into Louisiana, and mentalities are different.

Just look at guns and drugs for a good barometer.

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.

And what conclusion is it that you think I want to reach?

But not even looking for a plan and therefore concluding there is no plan at all doesn't seem productive.

The only thing I see in the plan, is talk of money and where to get it.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

I thought you would had given me the benefit of quoting my entire post, or at the very least not omit the part that said "And I probably should stop saying "the rich are paying for it" since Sanders already said middle class taxes are going up too."

And in exchange for their taxes going up, their private health insurance premiums (and their employers' payment of their private health insurance premiums) go away. And employees no longer remain dependent on the benevolence of their employers to not die in the street. Obviously the calculations will matter but at least in theory I'm fine with it.

Maybe is it that the Ingleesh is my 3rd language and I am too stoopid, a but that surely reads and sounds like "soak the rich" to this spic.

Not sure how to even respond to that. If I've somehow offended you by challenging your post it wasn't my intent.

As for Medicare, the only thing I see is a lot of talk about money, but money alone is not a plan of implementation.


That is not what I am saying, at all ... I have never spoken against social programs. What I am doing, is questioning the implementation of it, beyond money collection. Collecting money is just one part of it, and we are not even sure that money is going to be available to make such radical changes.

I do understand this sentiment, and it's fair, but I can just imagine what things would be like if past generations decided not to implement Social Security or Medicare because it was going to be complicated for them in the beginning.

And what conclusion is it that you think I want to reach?

That we should not implement universal single payer healthcare in the U.S.

The only thing I see in the plan, is talk of money and where to get it.

Not sure that the bureaucratic part is that interesting but I also think it's incorrect that no one has ever considered how to do it. There is already HHS which currently provides manages Medicare coverage to 44 million people, including lots of especially frail and elderly people. Would it be difficult to scale that up to 7 times the size? Probably, but not impossible. I'd imagine a lot of the employees of the current private health insurance bureaucracy would be available if it's a staffing issue.

The current private health insurance system isn't working. The premiums have increased more than wages have increased year over year over year. I've had the fortune of good health and recently went to the doctor after being under my current health insurance for more than five years, and the very first thing they did was deny my claim...because I hadn't proven to them beforehand that I didn't secretly have some second expense health insurance coverage that should have paid for it. My wife and I fought on the phone with morons for countless hours after the births of each of my two children while the "non-profit" hospital charged $65 for band-aids. My brother, whose wife is a Canadian citizen who went home to give birth to their child, had a better experience. I don't know why anyone would fight to keep our current system in place.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

You used the term "ideally", not me.

True, I think it's going to be closer to reality than not though.

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.

If I wanted to attract a bunch of 18-24 year old males to a club and I pointed out that in Europe, they bring in a bunch of really attractive scantily clad women into that club and that attracts young men into that club. Are you going to say, well that works in Europe, but the US is completely different?

Yes, of course there are cultural differences, but you aren't explaining, and I'm not seeing what is it about Europe that is going to make our rates of primary care physician usage higher than ours.

DD points out that GDP is different, and maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing how that addresses your concern that Europe uses their medical care at a lower rate than we would. How does GDP effect that rate?

What does this have to do with anything I said?

Your concern is that more insured people will mean longer wait times, right?

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?

First

Breaking A 10-Year Streak, The Number Of Uninsured Americans Rises - KFF Health News

Census officials said most of the drop in health coverage was related to a 0.7% decline in Medicaid. The number of people with private insurance remained steady.

khn.org

Second, well, it's a non-zero number for sure. I don't have an exact number though, do you?

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

I'm not following you. You don't think more preventative care will lead to fewer emergency care situations?

Key Facts about the Uninsured Population | KFF

This issue brief describes trends in health coverage in 2022, examines the characteristics of the nonelderly uninsured population, and summarizes the access and financial implications of not having coverage.

www.kff.org

 

[Heathen]

Again, if you want to debate the virtues of Fidel Castro's regime, we can do that. But the point is not how we feel about Castro, the point is how Cubans living in the U.S. feel about Castro, and how they feel about people exalting his virtues.

Anyway...

Who exactly is 'exalting his virtues'?

 

[Taurus]

I thought you would had given me the benefit of quoting my entire post, or at the very least not omit the part that said "And I probably should stop saying "the rich are paying for it" since Sanders already said middle class taxes are going up too."

But anyway, from your link

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

Maybe is it that teh Ingleesh is my 3rd language and I am too stoopid, a but that surely reads and sounds like "soak the rich" to this spic.

As for Medicare, the only thing I see is a lot of talk about money, but money alone is not a plan of implementation.

When you go on a vacation, you don't think "my vacation is going to cost me $5000 and I am taking the money from my savings account" and leave it at that. You figure out the days, the airline, the hotel, what are you going to do...


That is not what I am saying, at all ... I have never spoken against social programs. What I am doing, is questioning the implementation of it, beyond money collection. Collecting money is just one part of it, and we are not even sure that money is going to be available to make such radical changes.


Perhaps those other countries aren't less exceptional like you think, but anyway, again, it is the mentality. You just need to look at guns and drugs to see how different the U.S. is from other countries. Our Constitution is different. Our legislative process is different. Even within the U.S., you go to Texas, then cross into Louisiana, and mentalities are different.

Just look at guns and drugs for a good barometer.


And what conclusion is it that you think I want to reach?


The only thing I see in the plan, is talk of money and where to get it.

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.

 

[SystemShock]

True,

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

If I wanted to attract a bunch of 18-24 year old males to a club and I pointed out that in Europe, they bring in a bunch of really attractive scantily clad women into that club and that attracts young men into that club. Are you going to say, well that works in Europe, but the US is completely different?

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.

Yes, of course there are cultural differences,

Oh, you noticed... good.

but you aren't explaining, and I'm not seeing what is it about Europe that is going to make our rates of primary care physician usage higher than ours.

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

DD points out that GDP is different, and maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing how that addresses your concern that Europe uses their medical care at a lower rate than we would. How does GDP effect that rate?

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

Your concern is that more insured people will mean longer wait times, right?

It is more than that.

I'm not following you.

No kidding.

You don't think more preventative care will lead to fewer emergency care situations?

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.

 

[SystemShock]

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.

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

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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.

You stating “I just don’t get it” is hard to understand. As it is not very difficult to spend a few hours and understand the broad ways in which a single payer system works vs our current system and to find a copy of Sanders most recent bill. Or, to supplement that research and find examples of countries that use that type of mechanism to provide healthcare.

Also, I hear you latching onto the trued and true conservative attack of “America is just different.” Which is hogwash. If one can not articulate in specifics what it is that makes another country different, statements such as that are really rather worthless to a conversation or argument.

It’s also worth pointing out that we already have basically every type of healthcare system operating in this country either via the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, or in states like Hawaii.

Finally, in one sense, it is a false narrative to state that we don’t have universal healthcare, we do. We just do it in the most inefficient, cruel way possible. If you show up at the ER we have to treat you by law. But it is the most expensive way to deliver care, and often if you are using the ER for care, it is because you have put off treatment that was likely cheaper and could have been implemented earlier at a primary or specialty center. Which is why even Sanders most idealistic version of his plan saves America and consumers money on the whole.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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).

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.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

And the only answer I’ve ever seen Bernie or a surrogate give when that is brought up is to just dismiss it outright. Bernie said nobody likes their health insurance. I suppose we will find out.

Most blue collar workers in the mid west or elsewhere are not union workers(unfortunately). Furthermore, of the unions there are, more endorse Bernie than any other candidates and most will endorse him over Trump.

So I am not really sure the issue here? Some short sighted unions like the culinary union will gain headlines for bucking the trends, but Sanders is about the most demonstrably pro-labor candidate in our lifetimes. Possibly ever. And it is going to be hard for Trump to escape that contrast when Bernie forces Trump into the opposition position toward expanding labor rights and defending the Republican position of trust busting unions, that Bernie will not shy away from contrasting unlike other candidates would.

 

[MT15]

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.

 

[dtc]

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

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.

 

[dtc]

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.

I enjoyed this far-fetched bit of fantasy.

Thomas Friedman: Democrats, here’s the sure-fire way to defeat Donald Trump

If this election turns out to be just between a self-proclaimed socialist and an undiagnosed sociopath, we will be in...

www.palmbeachpost.com

 

[Heathen]

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.

You've made it clear time and again that you don't like how you view that Bernie supporters act. That's your opinion, and I'm not dismissing it, but I think that you shouldn't let that dictate how you view all people who support him.

In kind, your view that he won't be able to work with anyone may be based off your current view of his supporters or distaste for Sanders himself.

I think there are plenty of examples in which Sanders worked with the other side to get things done.

One such recent example is his working with one of my own Senators, Mike Lee of Utah (R) to push for blocking any possible unauthorized military intervention in Iran:

Sanders and Lee Call for Vote in the Senate for No War Against Iran Act

And here's one from a bit earlier that helped us cede our assistance in the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen, which has resulted in countless deaths of innocent civilians:

Senate Passes Sanders' War Powers Resolution on Yemen

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.

I think he and his 'surrogates' as you say deny the claim that people are in love with their insurance companies. Some people do love their benefits, or their doctors or primary care providers. In a MFA, you'd be able to not only stay with your current PCP, but choose out of network providers as you wished, not have to worry about switching jobs for fear of losing your health benefits, etc.

Also, this 'by force' verbiage you're using is a bit deceptive. I suppose if offering you a different card and a plethora of extra benefits including literally zero out of pocket expenses at the point of care is this forceful, terrible thing -- then sure, maybe it will be. I don't know how many people each year rail against Medicare as an oppressive system, but i'd be interested to see the numbers. One tidbit worth mentioning is that there would be a 4 year transition period as both a trial and to ease into the system, so it wouldn't be this sudden mass loss of insurance, similar to the narrative the Republicans were pushing about Obamacare.

 

[SystemShock]

You stating “I just don’t get it” is hard to understand. As it is not very difficult to spend a few hours and understand the broad ways in which a single payer system works vs our current system and to find a copy of Sanders most recent bill. Or, to supplement that research and find examples of countries that use that type of mechanism to provide healthcare.

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.

Also, I hear you latching onto the trued and true conservative attack of “America is just different.” Which is hogwash. If one can not articulate in specifics what it is that makes another country different, statements such as that are really rather worthless to a conversation or argument.

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..

It’s also worth pointing out that we already have basically every type of healthcare system operating in this country either via the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, or in states like Hawaii.

We do? Good for us.

Finally, in one sense, it is a false narrative to state that we don’t have universal healthcare, we do. We just do it in the most inefficient, cruel way possible. If you show up at the ER we have to treat you by law.

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.