The Bernie Sanders Is Probably [Now Not] Going To Be The Nominee Thread (2 Viewers)

[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?

 

[Beach Friends]

I know during the Obama years there was a lot of talk of a civil war in the Republican party. Now we hear similar discussions about the Democratic party, but this is quite extreme.

Greenwald points out how the Democrats constant hyperbolic claims about Trump ring hollow if this article is accurate. I'm guessing the big donors and special interests are scared about what a Sanders's presidency would do to their profits, the economy, and their power.

I think a split in the Democratic party would be good for that party and the nation. The radicals have been infiltrating that party and ruining it from within. Let them run under their own banner.

 

[wardorican]

So, do any of the folks here thinking of voting for Bernie have retirement accounts?

I wonder what the news of a Bernie election would do to the stock market?

Yes. A pretty substantial one. Currently less substantial....

But Bernie isnt my first choice.

I think the market will react poorly, but it isn't the dire reaction some think it will be.

Again, there is a case to be made that universal healthcare is actually a boon to business.

 

[JimEverett]

Yes. A pretty substantial one. Currently less substantial....

But Bernie isnt my first choice.

I think the market will react poorly, but it isn't the dire reaction some think it will be.

Again, there is a case to be made that universal healthcare is actually a boon to business.

Not sure how you could turn it into a boon for business. By pretty much any estimate - the overall cost of healthcare will not change much. Presumably, we will see lower drug costs and perhaps lower procedure costs coming from a single-payer, but the increase in coverage will either come close to offsetting that gain or will exceed it.

At a cost of basically $3 trillion a year you are looking at increasing the federal budget by 60%. That means tripling payroll taxes or doubling ALL taxes. That is a lot of loss of purchasing power from working people - the people who provide the most consumption of businesses.
Even if you offset the cost to middle class earners through an even larger progressive system of tax, the hit will still be enormous, certainly more so than the current premiums and deductibles given that almost half of the population (who would be receiving the coverage) don't pay federal income taxes, and perhaps a quarter do not pay payroll taxes (not sure about that, maybe lower).

 

[Beach Friends]

Yes. A pretty substantial one. Currently less substantial....

But Bernie isnt my first choice.

I think the market will react poorly, but it isn't the dire reaction some think it will be.

Again, there is a case to be made that universal healthcare is actually a boon to business.

Yeah, I would need a lot more convincing to keep my money in healthcare than there is "a case to be made."

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that, just off hand, the energy and healthcare sectors will take a beating if Bernie goes through with his revolution.

 

[coldseat]

Not sure how you could turn it into a boon for business. By pretty much any estimate - the overall cost of healthcare will not change much. Presumably, we will see lower drug costs and perhaps lower procedure costs coming from a single-payer, but the increase in coverage will either come close to offsetting that gain or will exceed it.

At a cost of basically $3 trillion a year you are looking at increasing the federal budget by 60%. That means tripling payroll taxes or doubling ALL taxes. That is a lot of loss of purchasing power from working people - the people who provide the most consumption of businesses.
Even if you offset the cost to middle class earners through an even larger progressive system of tax, the hit will still be enormous, certainly more so than the current premiums and deductibles given that almost half of the population (who would be receiving the coverage) don't pay federal income taxes, and perhaps a quarter do not pay payroll taxes (not sure about that, maybe lower).

People are paying those cost currently, so it's not an loss of purchasing power at all, just a shift in where that money is going too.

Universal heath care offers the potential for health savings all over the board, once established. The initial stages may be more expensive because of the number of people that are getting health care for the first time, but over time those cost go down significantly. Overtime, people start to receive health care when they need it, not when they can afford it or it's an emergency. That reduces the number of more serious and costly illnesses/procedures. It also allows the ability to standardize care over the industry, removing wasteful spending on unnecessary and ineffective treatments and procedures. You also remove the middle men and profiteering in the medical/insurance industry. It also removes the ever increasing health care premiums and lowering health care coverage with a more standardized tax that easier to accommodate and plan for in business. And you still get to pick your doctor.

And all of that didn't include the positive of not having people go bankrupt because of medical bills.

 

[JimEverett]

People are paying those cost currently, so it's not an loss of purchasing power at all, just a shift in where that money is going too.

Universal heath care offers the potential for health savings all over the board, once established. The initial stages may be more expensive because of the number of people that are getting health care for the first time, but over time those cost go down significantly. Overtime, people start to receive health care when they need it, not when they can afford it or it's an emergency. That reduces the number of more serious and costly illnesses/procedures. It also allows the ability to standardize care over the industry, removing wasteful spending on unnecessary and ineffective treatments and procedures. You also remove the middle men and profiteering in the medical/insurance industry. It also removes the every increasing health care premiums and lowering health care coverage with a more standardized tax that easier to accommodate and plan for in business. And you still get to pick your doctor.

And all of that didn't include the positive of not having people go bankrupt because of medical bills.

I don't think the costs are going to be the same, as I pointed out. There are still a substantial number of people who do not pay for healthcare coverage, for example. There are also nonprofits that pay for a small - but still significant - amount of the total healthcare costs in the country (roughly 10%, probably slightly less). That would be added.

The details matter, of course. For example, would there be some requirement that states continue to pick up the tab in areas, like Medicaid?
And I think there would certainly be cost savings, but at the same time there has to be a shift toward making workers and/or businesses pay more. I have yet to see anything credible that suggests otherwise.

 

[dtc]

Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more | US elections 2016 | The Guardian

amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Key Democrat Leaders Have Pocketed Millions From Pharma

The top House Republican also received more than $1 million from drugmakers since 2007.

www.thedailybeast.com

Fortune 500 companies giving the most money to Republicans, Democrats

These Fortune 500 companies' employees donated a ton of money to Republicans and Democrats over the past decade.

www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org

I think you might have a timber piling in your eye. It's too big to be a splinter.

 

[SystemShock]

Universal heath care offers the potential for health savings all over the board, once established. The initial stages may be more expensive because of the number of people that are getting health care for the first time, but over time those cost go down significantly. Overtime, people start to receive health care when they need it, not when they can afford it or it's an emergency. That reduces the number of more serious and costly illnesses/procedures. It also allows the ability to standardize care over the industry, removing wasteful spending on unnecessary and ineffective treatments and procedures. You also remove the middle men and profiteering in the medical/insurance industry. It also removes the ever increasing health care premiums and lowering health care coverage with a more standardized tax that easier to accommodate and plan for in business. And you still get to pick your doctor.

And all of that didn't include the positive of not having people go bankrupt because of medical bills.

That sounds really good, but exactly how is all of that going to be accomplished? Simply taxing everyone (including the middle class, as Sanders has stated) and declaring "[not really] free healthcare for all!!!" is not magically going to implement all the policy changes, law enactments, infrastructure, etc that are going to be needed to reach healthcare utopia.

 

[coldseat]

That sounds really good, but exactly how is all of that going to be accomplished? Simply taxing everyone (including the middle class, as Sanders has stated) and declaring "[not really] free healthcare for all!!!" is not magically going to implement all the policy changes, law enactments, infrastructure, etc that are going to be needed to reach healthcare utopia.

Nobody has that answer in totality right now, least of all me. I know that doesn't inspire confidence, but it's the honest truth and I understand why that scares the hell out of people. Having said that, just because nobody has the answer to that in totality, it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of knowledgeable people that have a much better understanding of the whole of our health care industry who can map a path for us to get there. It's something that is going to take some time, it's going to be hard and mistakes are going to be made. There's going to be necessary tweaking along the way to make the industry work more cohesively and make sure both patient and doctors needs are met.

Universal health care is not a utopia, it's not free and it won't be easy to implement. I wish people (mostly it's detractors) would stop framing it that way because it prevent's a lot of honest conversation from taking place. But when looked at on an industry level, it's the only answer to how we can obtain a functioning and long term health care industries that meets the needs of all Americans as a whole. One question that's never asked when discussing universal health care is, "how is the current health insurance and health care system sustainable and able to meet our needs going forward?" The reason that's never discussed is because the only answer to that is that it's not. We need to transition to something more comprehensive, equitable, cost effective and sustainable, and the only known health care system that is proven to deliver those promises when implemented correctly is universal health care.

 

[CoolBrees]

There are so many obstacles on so many fronts to
Just throwing the emergency brake on private healthcare. The outcome of such would be not ideal, especially in its first iteration. That is putting it mildly. There has to be a bridge, even if said bridge is explicitly only temporary.

That’s why, imo, the compromise would come down somewhere with a Government option and overall Medicare expansion. Basically what Obama ran on but couldn’t get through.

 

[SystemShock]

Nobody has that answer in totality right now, least of all me. I know that doesn't inspire confidence, but it's the honest truth and I understand why that scares the hell out of people. Having said that, just because nobody has the answer to that in totality, it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of knowledgeable people that have a much better understanding of the whole of our health care industry who can map a path for us to get there. It's something that is going to take some time, it's going to be hard and mistakes are going to be made. There's going to be necessary tweaking along the way to make the industry work more cohesively and make sure both patient and doctors needs are met.

Universal health care is not a utopia, it's not free and it won't be easy to implement. I wish people (mostly it's detractors) would stop framing it that way because it prevent's a lot of honest conversation from taking place. But when looked at on an industry level, it's the only answer to how we can obtain a functioning and long term health care industries that meets the needs of all Americans as a whole. One question that's never asked when discussing universal health care is, "how is the current health insurance and health care system sustainable and able to meet our needs going forward?" The reason that's never discussed is because the only answer to that is that it's not. We need to transition to something more comprehensive, equitable, cost effective and sustainable, and the only known health care system that is proven to deliver those requirements is universal health care.

For the record, I am not a detractor. And universal healthcare isn't necessarily the only answer. Surely we need to transition to a better system, but again, screaming "[not really] free healthcare!!!" and "tax the rich to pay for it!!!" (even though is not going to be enough) without a comprehensive plan for such a transition, doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy. And more importantly, it doesn't give a warm and fuzzy to the armies of lawyers the healthcare and insurance industries have on retainers.

In that, I though Obama had it right... start within the system, then over time pare it down to as close to optimal as possible.

 

[coldseat]

I understand your hesitation (if that's the right word) with supporting this, it's not misplaced. I've personally had enough with our health care system. I've been looking for the better part of 12 years for something that I could support that I honestly feel would address all of the deficiencies in our current system. I don't know that it exist in totality, but this is as close as we could come.

I think regardless of who is in charge, there is going to have to be a transition. We're not going to go from one day private health care to universal health care the next day. Groups of people will have to be phased into the program over time. There's also going to be Congress that has it's say. And none of this will matter unless Mitch McConnell is out of the way. If we had passed the public option when the ACA went through, it sure would make transitioning to a full universal health care a lot easier now. All we did by scraping that is set our country back 10 years.

 

[wardorican]

Yeah, I would need a lot more convincing to keep my money in healthcare than there is "a case to be made."

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that, just off hand, the energy and healthcare sectors will take a beating if Bernie goes through with his revolution.

Well, I didn't say to stay invested in those sectors. Actually, energy will be a boon, just not oil. I agree that healthcare could take a beating depending on how this manafests.

But, overall business could boom. More predictable costs (taxes) vs yearly heathcare premiums rising.

 

[wardorican]

Not sure how you could turn it into a boon for business. By pretty much any estimate - the overall cost of healthcare will not change much. Presumably, we will see lower drug costs and perhaps lower procedure costs coming from a single-payer, but the increase in coverage will either come close to offsetting that gain or will exceed it.

At a cost of basically $3 trillion a year you are looking at increasing the federal budget by 60%. That means tripling payroll taxes or doubling ALL taxes. That is a lot of loss of purchasing power from working people - the people who provide the most consumption of businesses.
Even if you offset the cost to middle class earners through an even larger progressive system of tax, the hit will still be enormous, certainly more so than the current premiums and deductibles given that almost half of the population (who would be receiving the coverage) don't pay federal income taxes, and perhaps a quarter do not pay payroll taxes (not sure about that, maybe lower).

I gave some reasoning in post 43.

But I do think cost control is key to making any plan work.

 

[SystemShock]

If we had passed the public option when the ACA went through, it sure would make transitioning to a full universal health care a lot easier now. All we did by scraping that is set our country back 10 years.

Yes.


There is nothing in Sanders' plan that tells me healthcare corporations are not going to become government contractors or big pharma government suppliers. And we know how that works. That alone should give everyone pause.

And if everyone has access to free healthcare, do we even have the infrastructure to support that many more people efficiently? We already are pushing the limits of capacity, even though a large portion of the population (if not the majority) do not seek healthcare. What happens when people sneeze, and because they have free healthcare, they rush to the emergency room?

There is also the part where corporations are not going to be allowed to offer other health plans to employees. Why? First, why am I not allowed to get a different plan if I work for X company? And second, isn't the Sanders plan supposed to be not a plan? Why would I need to sign for a plan if it is universal and paid through taxes?

I need to know much more. That snippet on his website tells me nothing.

 

[Farb]

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article240626672.html

Bernie could win in Cuba.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Not sure how you could turn it into a boon for business. By pretty much any estimate - the overall cost of healthcare will not change much. Presumably, we will see lower drug costs and perhaps lower procedure costs coming from a single-payer, but the increase in coverage will either come close to offsetting that gain or will exceed it.

At a cost of basically $3 trillion a year you are looking at increasing the federal budget by 60%. That means tripling payroll taxes or doubling ALL taxes. That is a lot of loss of purchasing power from working people - the people who provide the most consumption of businesses.
Even if you offset the cost to middle class earners through an even larger progressive system of tax, the hit will still be enormous, certainly more so than the current premiums and deductibles given that almost half of the population (who would be receiving the coverage) don't pay federal income taxes, and perhaps a quarter do not pay payroll taxes (not sure about that, maybe lower).

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.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And if everyone has access to free healthcare, do we even have the infrastructure to support that many more people efficiently? We already are pushing the limits of capacity, even though a large portion of the population (if not the majority) do not seek healthcare. What happens when people sneeze, and because they have free healthcare, they rush to the emergency room?

Why do you think that would happen? There are other countries with universal healthcare, is that what happens there? Looking at numbers of doctor visits and procedures per capita in Europe, that isn't what is happening. Rate of care is roughly equal to what is happening in the US.