Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

Donal said:
If we get a repeat of the 2000 election, you should reflect on comments like this. You won't, but you should.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you even remotely serious? You're going to catch a bout of indignity flu due to the comments of an anonymous poster on the internet?

Sniff. They teased us so we're gonna stay home. Sniff.

Frankly, I doubt you'd vote for Clinton regardless of what anyone says on a sparsely attended internet forum.

Why don't you give us your Trakar list. What would Hillary, the DNC, or the posters on this forum do that could make you change your mind?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
The House Democrats may live to regret their mistreatment of the well-respected Senator from Vermont. There is a growing group of unhappy individuals who are planning to do some booing themselves in a few weeks from now:

Occupy DNC Convention membership continues to rise, now reaching 31,127.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they save up their pennies for the Greyhound ticket! Or maybe mom & dad can loan them $20.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Apparently Sanders was booed by House Democrats and he blamed it on the fact they were always against him.
Click to expand...


Did you watch the interview with Wolf Blitzer?

BLITZER: You've heard the criticism, and maybe it came up with the House Democrats this morning in that closed-door meeting and some of them apparently booed you, what they say --

SANDERS: Well, let me just say, if I may.

BLITZER: Yes.

SANDERS: You know, by and large, the response was pretty good. There were some people who were not -- who were in disagreement.

BLITZER: Did you hear booing?

SANDERS: I don't know. There were a few people who were discontented. But most of the people were very friendly and I think very appreciative. And what the California people said, by the way, from a political perspective, is they were delighted that in California we'll end up with 46 percent of the vote, the turnout was so large, the Democrats won the first and second slot in the congressional primaries, meaning they don't have to worry about a Republican.
Click to expand...


Where is the blame? Where in the interview or in the article you provided did Sen. Sanders blame the House Democrats for "being against him?" Obviously, in a large group such as the House and Senate, not everyone will agree with everything. I just didn't hear him blaming them.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Here's a question for you...

If you really do believe in "evidence based policy", then why are you pushing for single-payer health care? Because the evidence shows that single-payer health care does not work!
Click to expand...
We obviously have different takes on what constitutes compelling "evidence-based, scientifically sound, public policy."

That said, you should probably not list as supporting evidence a source that contradicts your assertions:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror
Click to expand...
Well, lets take a look at the 'evidence' that you provided:
"Evidence supports single payer" - Physicians For a National Health Program
Click to expand...
First of all, it provides no real 'evidence', it is more or less an opinion piece that (incorrectly) uses data from the commonwealth survey.

Secondly, that particular makes the statement that the number 1 ranked U.K. system is "government owned/operated". That is not completely correct. In fact, a rather significant number of health care is provided using private insurance and private hospitals (12 million people in the U.K. have private insurance, and the care provided includes such things as heart surgery and cancer treatment.) So, it incorrectly tries to claim "Britain is the best and its single payer", ignoring the fact that it is not really single payer. Its mixed public/private.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118448/

So, to summarize... Britian... mixed private/public... ranked #1
Canada... single payer... ranked second last.

Which do you think is the better model to follow?

There are other parts of the article pointing out various faults of the American system (high costs, etc.). I have no fault with that, but that in itself doesn't mean that single payer is the best system, even if it does have the potential to alleviate some of the problems.
"The case for an improved Medicare for All" - http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/case_for_medicare_for_all_2015.pdf
Click to expand...
Not a very useful article.

It spends time pointing out the faults of the U.S. system (which I have no problem with). However, it provides absolutely no evidence that a single payer system would be better than a mixed public/private system, as is in use in, well, pretty much every other western country.

It makes the rather significant mistake of assuming that because one solution (single payer) could eliminate some problems that it is automatically the best alternative. It is not. At least the evidence shows that it is not.
But the PNHP is not alone in such assessments and considerations
Click to expand...
The fact that some organizations believe something does not make it fact. The evidence is on my side.
"Research ethics and health care reform"
- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6241/1325.2.full
Click to expand...
I cannot access that article (behind a paywall), so I cannot comment on it.
Now if you want to discuss health policy, we can have that talk, but attacking me and then throwing out wild assertions that disagree with the references you offer to support them is not an auspicious start to that process.
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, keep in mind that the reason I was annoyed was because I had previously pointed out (using the exact same reference) that single payer does not work. Now, admittedly it is a long thread, and maybe you had just overlooked the post (and if so my apologies), but if you did see the previous post would have been back then, rather than repeating an assertion.

I do have to wonder why you consider it an 'attack' when I pointed out the inconsistency of supporting both a single-payer health car system and evidence-based policy. In this case its a contradiction. Not sure how you think I could have pointed that out.

Here are a couple of more things to consider:

The Commonwealth survey is not the only evidence that single payer is sub-optimal. For example, the World Health Organization did a ranking of health care systems, and while Canada ranked ahead of the U.S., it still placed out of the top 25. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000). I didn't reference them, since the survey was done a lot longer ago than the Commonwealth survey

If single payer is supposed to be the best, why is no other country actually using it? Look at some of the other countries in the commonwealth fund study:
- U.K. Ranked #1... 12 million people with private insurance. Mix public/private. Not single payer
- Switzerland: ranked #2: actually uses private insurance to get universal coverage (closer to what the U.S. has). Not single payer
- Sweden: Ranked #3: Does rely largely on government funding, but patients do pay a fee for examinations, and roughly 1/2 million swedes have private insurance. Not single payer
- Australia: Ranked #4: Mixture of private and public insurance. Not single payer.
...
- Canada: Ranked 10 (i.e. second to last): Single payer health care (for basic medical, not counting dental or vision). Health services may be privately owned/run, but for the most part everything is covered by the taxpayer. Waiting lists are a huge problem, to the point where the Supreme court of Canada actually ruled that parts of Canada's health care act might be invalid because of wait lists. In most of the country, clinics and doctors are forbidden from charging fees.

If single payer is so great, why is the country that most closely matches the model (Canada) stuck near the bottom of the rankings, instead of being at the top? Why is no other country in the world looking at Canada and jumping on the single-payer bandwagon?
 
Maya22 said:
Did you watch the interview with Wolf Blitzer?




Where is the blame? Where in the interview or in the article you provided did Sen. Sanders blame the House Democrats for "being against him?" Obviously, in a large group such as the House and Senate, not everyone will agree with everything. I just didn't hear him blaming them.
Click to expand...
I watched the interview with Chris Hayes, not Blitzer.

Here's the link.

Bernie Sanders: This isn't about my ego
The Vermont senator says he's not worried about boos from House Democrats -- and confirms his campaign is in endorsement talks with Hillary Clinton. Duration: 7:06

"A few people booed me....You can boo me all you want....[insert stump speech]...[insert Hayes challenging Sanders at minute 5 and listen from there]...I walked into the room where 95% supported Hillary Clinton ....."
 
Be nice to the old man who fought hard for what he believed in, lost, and will now endorse his opponent. Many of you forget that Sanders could have made this a much more bitter fight by talking about her emails, and most politicians would have. The ammunition there must have been mighty tempting, but Sanders actually helped Clinton on that during one of their first debates: nobody wants to hear about your damned emails! He wanted to win, but he wanted one of them left standing, and so avoided getting too in the mud.

He made a positive impact on the Democrat Party. His supporters will support Hillary just as Hillary's turned out for Obama (about 85%), and it's the 15% who refuse who will be loudest.
 
I credited Bernie, and credit also has to be given to Clinton for not really going negative. She never unleashed her bull dogs on Sanders, and she could have, when Sanders had that surge and was winning 7 contests in a row. She chose to portray herself as the rational candidate (which is certainly not the worst attack you can make on an opponent), and that was kind of risky. I credit her for staying calm and not unloading on Bernie when he was surging and out-fundraising her and had that brief moment of possibility.
 
Fudbucker said:
I credited Bernie, and credit also has to be given to Clinton for not really going negative. She never unleashed her bull dogs on Sanders, and she could have, when Sanders had that surge and was winning 7 contests in a row. She chose to portray herself as the rational candidate (which is certainly not the worst attack you can make on an opponent), and that was kind of risky. I credit her for staying calm and not unloading on Bernie when he was surging and out-fundraising her and had that brief moment of possibility.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt she would have gone negative on him if she thought he stood a chance.
 
Bernie Sanders signaled a formal endorsement of Hillary Clinton is imminent, saying in an interview that Republican Donald Trump is “a pathological liar” and that he’ll throw his full support behind electing his rival for the Democratic nomination as president.

“We have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton,” the Vermont senator said in an interview Thursday with Bloomberg’s Albert R. Hunt for PBS’s “Charlie Rose” program. “I don’t honestly know how we would survive four years of a Donald Trump” as president.

...

Sanders indicated he would discourage his supporters from voting for a third-party candidate, be it Jill Stein of the Green Party or Libertarian Gary Johnson. “What I’m going to say to them is, this country faces enormous crises” and Trump would be a disaster as president.
Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...thing-possible-to-help-elect-clinton-iqckw7a5

GJ Bernie. To be honest, I was worried about him, but it seems he will do the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I watched the interview with Chris Hayes, not Blitzer.

Here's the link.

Bernie Sanders: This isn't about my ego
The Vermont senator says he's not worried about boos from House Democrats -- and confirms his campaign is in endorsement talks with Hillary Clinton. Duration: 7:06

"A few people booed me....You can boo me all you want....[insert stump speech]...[insert Hayes challenging Sanders at minute 5 and listen from there]...I walked into the room where 95% supported Hillary Clinton ....."
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link. Although Bernie Sanders stated that most of the House Representatives supported Hillary Clinton and only a few supported him, he did not "blame it on the fact they were always against him." Only a few members of the House booed him after a particular statement of his.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
He made a positive impact on the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...
Whether he made a "positive impact" depends on how you feel about his policies. If you're on the extreme political left, I'm sure you'll appreciate his attempts to drag the party to his proposed utopia of socialism. If you are a more moderate democrat (pragmatic and left wing, but not so far left that you feel like having your honeymoon in Lenin's tomb), you might view his "impact" less favorably.

And while he certainly energized a certain base of supporters, it remains to be seen whether those supporters will have any sort of long-term effects for the party, or are simply Berniebros who will disappear after the election. Certainly some of the more... inane... activities of the berniebros can be seen as a negative, as is his failure to withdraw and endorse Clinton once he was numerically eliminated (since the ongoing failure to close ranks is divisive and could harm the party in the next election).
 
Segnosaur said:
Whether he made a "positive impact" depends on how you feel about his policies. If you're on the extreme political left, I'm sure you'll appreciate his attempts to drag the party to his proposed utopia of socialism. If you are a more moderate democrat (pragmatic and left wing, but not so far left that you feel like having your honeymoon in Lenin's tomb), you might view his "impact" less favorably.

And while he certainly energized a certain base of supporters, it remains to be seen whether those supporters will have any sort of long-term effects for the party, or are simply Berniebros who will disappear after the election. Certainly some of the more... inane... activities of the berniebros can be seen as a negative, as is his failure to withdraw and endorse Clinton once he was numerically eliminated (since the ongoing failure to close ranks is divisive and could harm the party in the next election).
Click to expand...

That is a near perfect conservative-lite (aka "Liberal" perspective). They say that Reagan couldn't be elected in today's Republican party, Clinton is proof that he could easily be elected in the modern Democratic party.
 
Trakar said:
That is a near perfect conservative-lite (aka "Liberal" perspective). They say that Reagan couldn't be elected in today's Republican party, Clinton is proof that he could easily be elected in the modern Democratic party.
Click to expand...

I think both statements are exaggerations. Bernie really isn't off the deep end from a Socialist perspective. Most of the things he has been fighting for are common in Europe today. And if America is really the great nation people gIves lip suggest, I have to ask why can't we do that here?

But no way is Hillary a modern day Ronald Reagan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom