Berning down the house!

[Trakar]

I'm for universal, government health insurance. Does that punch my ticket into the "progressive" club?

I have the distinct sense that there are a lot of people who self define as progressive who care more about the label than preventing Donald Trump, an obvious real and present danger.

Despite my concerns that the dems are determined to screw up in 2020 by nominating someone who won't play in the rust belt, I will wholeheartedly support the nominee no matter who it is. To any self styled progressive who is unable to say the same thing, so far as I'm concerned they're a Trump supporter and an enemy of progressive values.

As I've said before, liking, supporting, and even strongly advocating for a few progressive policies does not a Progressive make. Not that there is anything wrong with not being a Progressive. It is just (IMO), improper to claim to be Progressive, without acknowledging and at least, generally, leaning into Progressivism and Progressive economics.


As for standing behind the Dem. candidate, whoever they are, isn't that what the Republican party ended up doing in 2016? Is that really a well thought out and "best option" policy? There are several candidates on the Dem side that I would probably do a nose-hold vote for in 2020, but really only one (as of this moment) that I would actually support (donate to, advocate for, doorknock-march-makecallstostrangers for) and that is because he has changed his campaign's policy position in a crucial manner which removed the reason I ended up not being able to support him fully over in 2016.


Senator Sanders listed in the announcement of his 2020 Campaign his many reasons for running for the 2020 Dem. nomination to be president. Key among these was one point that I and others had strong reservations about in 2016 with regard to his policies. An issue that many of us pressed his campaign for a clear and unambiguous statement about:

...I’m running for president because we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics. We need a president who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy...

For those interested, while I have a strong interest in addressing climate change, my primary issue is this statement that "...we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics."

 

[kellyb]

No, I'm actually following the actual definition of "single payer".

By definition, "single payer" means that everything is funded by the government. No private insurance for "extra" care, no user fees. The U.K. allows people to buy private insurance. Canada does not. (Note: excluding a few areas like dental/eye care/drugs.) Therefore the U.K. is not a "single payer" system.

The problem is when you try to expand the definition to mean "government will cover people but you can still buy private insurance" then it is no longer "single payer".

I understand that, and you're still just being pedantic. 99% of people consider the NHS in the UK an example of a "single payer system", even though *technically* it's a multipayer one.

If Sanders is proposing a mixed public/private system like the U.K., then he is not proposing a true "single payer" system. He is proposing a mixed-public/private universal health care system.

Sure, in a pointlessly pedantic sense. Just go ask a Brit if they consider the NHS a "single payer" system.

Let me get this straight... People hated the individual mandate (which was basically a tax/penalty for people who didn't have health insurance.) It was unpopular (why? either they don't like extra taxes, or they don't like government control of their lives.)

Nobody wants to be taxed to not get healthcare. Poor people hated it because it's a poor tax for being unable to have healthcare, and other people thought the US gov mandating purchase of a private product was just insane and corrupt. Then there's are the "taxation is theft, always" libertarians, but whatever.

And now you are expecting people to agree with some sort of single payer health care (or private/public mixed system) that will also increase taxes on people?

"Free at the point of use" health care that everyone has access to that greatly reduces health care expenditures is something people like. It's why there are no grassroots efforts in Canada, the UK, and Oz to convert to the America system.

 

[Segnosaur]

So people like "free college"... would they still like it if they knew their taxes would go up to support it (keeping in mind that Sanders proposed increasing taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy)? They like "single payer health care"... will they be happy with they type of government control that would be required, and/or the waiting lists that might result? Would private insurance be completely outlawed?

Who knows? This is speculation. I'm interested in facts.

Ok, how's this for a fact?

From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/bernie-sanders-universal-healthcare-medicare-for-all
Since Barack Obama ran for president promising to reform the healthcare system, public support for single-payer has climbed. Where 46% of the public supported such a system in 2008 and 2009, a recent Kaiser poll found 53% now support the idea....But in a sign of the major political and policy fights that lie ahead, the same Kaiser survey found that when respondents were told that a universal healthcare plan might give the government “too much control”, or that it might increase taxes, support dropped sharply. In those instances, the number of Americans opposed to the proposal rose from 43% to 62% and 60%, respectively.

So, a poll showing people love Bernie's health care plan... unless it increase taxes, or gives more control to the government (both of which it would.)

If the GOP can just waggle their fingers and make the voters believe whatever they want, what's the point of even having a nomination? Whoever you nominate will lose anyway!

No, I don't think the GOP has some sort of magic mind-control ray that can automatically make people change their minds. But Sanders does have real skeletons in his closet, and there is a world of difference between someone who has never been attacked and one who is actually having to deal with various attacks.

Negative campaign ads do work. And there are a ton of them that could have been used against Sanders.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180604124913.htm

And if you don't agree, well, I'm glad you enjoyed having Dukakis as president. Oh, wait, you didn't. And why is that? He was ahead in the polls by double digits during the campaign! But he lost. And it is largely attributed to the "Willie Horton" attack ads.

 

[Segnosaur]

If Sanders is proposing a mixed public/private system like the U.K., then he is not proposing a true "single payer" system. He is proposing a mixed-public/private universal health care system.

Sure, in a pointlessly pedantic sense.

I got curious to see what exactly was in Sander's health care plan, so I wasn't relying only on memory.

You claim he's going to continue to allow private health care, but is that actually true?

From: http://fortune.com/2017/09/13/bernie-sanders-single-payer-analysis/
The current system of employer-sponsored health insurance would essentially be eliminated

From: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/13/16296656/bernie-sanders-single-payer
Sanders’s single-payer proposal would create a universal Medicare program that covers all American residents in one government-run health plan. It would bar employers from offering separate plans that compete with this new, government-run option.

Sounds to me like he's not going to allow private insurance, i.e. go to a Canadian "all government pays" system rather than a mixed system. (Maybe he's changed his mind or plans and I just haven't come across it.)

 

[kellyb]

I got curious to see what exactly was in Sander's health care plan, so I wasn't relying only on memory.

You claim he's going to continue to allow private health care, but is that actually true?

From: http://fortune.com/2017/09/13/bernie-sanders-single-payer-analysis/
The current system of employer-sponsored health insurance would essentially be eliminated

From: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/13/16296656/bernie-sanders-single-payer
Sanders’s single-payer proposal would create a universal Medicare program that covers all American residents in one government-run health plan. It would bar employers from offering separate plans that compete with this new, government-run option.

Sounds to me like he's not going to allow private insurance, i.e. go to a Canadian "all government pays" system rather than a mixed system. (Maybe he's changed his mind or plans and I just haven't come across it.)

I think the key word is "essentially", and for "bar employers from offering separate plans that compete with this new, government-run option".

In the UK, if you buy BCBS, you're still covered by the NHS, so they're not competing. Few people/companies opt to purchase private insurance when the national system is robust, though.

In the US, we also have lots of docs who are strictly pay out of pocket so they don't have to deal with any third party payers. Some function like little one-person insurance companies on their own, where you pay the doc a set free per month and have unlimited access to the doc. I don't think anyone's planning on banning that.

 

[Segnosaur]

I got curious to see what exactly was in Sander's health care plan, so I wasn't relying only on memory.

You claim he's going to continue to allow private health care, but is that actually true?

From: http://fortune.com/2017/09/13/bernie...ayer-analysis/
The current system of employer-sponsored health insurance would essentially be eliminated

From: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...s-single-payer
Sanders’s single-payer proposal would create a universal Medicare program that covers all American residents in one government-run health plan. It would bar employers from offering separate plans that compete with this new, government-run option.

I think the key word is "essentially", and for "bar employers from offering separate plans that compete with this new, government-run option".

So, where's your proof that private insurance will still be allowed in some form?

And yes, I do recognize that "essentially" and "compete" are vague words. But the devil is in the details.

In the UK, if you buy BCBS, you're still covered by the NHS, so they're not competing.

In the U.K., you can buy private health care insurance that allows people faster access to treatments that they could still get under the public plan.

Is that "competition"? I think it is. Its the same service that's offered publically, just delivered quicker under the private system.

https://www.internations.org/go/moving-to-the-uk/healthcare/private-health-insurance-in-the-uk

In the US, we also have lots of docs who are strictly pay out of pocket so they don't have to deal with any third party payers. Some function like little one-person insurance companies on their own, where you pay the doc a set free per month and have unlimited access to the doc. I don't think anyone's planning on banning that.

You don't think? Shouldn't you find out before you decide to support Sanders' health care plan?

 

[Trakar]

...Oh, and by the way, in the 2016 election:

From: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-tax-increases-220267
The top 0.1 percent would see their tax bills go up by more than $3 million, the report said, which would cut their after-tax incomes by almost half. But Sanders, going where few politicians dare, would also raise taxes on middle- and low-income families...

Now granted, that was the last election. But then, the U.S. now has billions more in debt that they have to contend with.

This was based upon the old M4A proposal presuming that it was enacted and in place in 2017. This was primarily a 2.2% increase in all ordinary income in all but the lowest income bracket between incomes of $10,065 and $49,250 and a Progressive capital gains/dividends tax starting at 17.2%.
Not an incredibly onerous bill for cradle to grave health care for people who are generally without any current health care options beyond using ERs or state/county indigent health services where they are eligible for such.

Link to actual report mentioned in Politico: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals/full

Of course the perspective of the Tax Policy Center has always been severely slanted towards the idea that taxes are bad and should generally always be reduced not increased. But I don't see how their analysis can or should be seen as a grossly negative appraisal, especially given their inherent "free-market neoliberal economics" bias:

Conclusion:
Senator Sanders’s tax proposals would modestly raise tax rates for most taxpayers but would raise them significantly for high-income taxpayers.
Repealing the AMT and the limit on personal exemptions and itemized deductions would simplify the tax code. By taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rates as other income and by eliminating the opportunity to avoid the tax on capital gains through gifts and bequests of appreciated property, the plan would reduce the incentives and opportunities to engage in some forms of wasteful tax avoidance and would simplify the calculation of taxes on gains.

The proposal includes two substantial new excise taxes: a financial transaction tax and a carbon tax. The FTT would improve financial markets in some ways — by discouraging flash trading and speculation — but it would also reduce liquidity and raise the cost of capital for businesses.
A carbon tax, in contrast, would make markets work better by putting a price on carbon emissions, thereby forcing households and businesses to take account of the environmental costs of their activities.

The Sanders tax proposals would increase federal revenues by $15.3 trillion between 2016 and 2026, or about 6.4 percent of GDP. By themselves, the tax increases could reduce the national debt substantially and might also reduce interest rates, but Senator Sanders has been quite explicit that the revenues are earmarked to finance an expansive set of new spending priorities. Thus, the plan is unlikely to do much, if anything, to reverse the currently unsustainable path for public debt. Moreover, there is a risk that spending might outstrip the significant new revenues and exacerbate the nation’s long-term financial imbalance.

At the same time, the higher tax rates would significantly reduce incentives to work and save, especially for high-income households, and would raise the cost of capital for businesses]

 

[kellyb]

So, where's your proof that private insurance will still be allowed in some form?

And yes, I do recognize that "essentially" and "compete" are vague words. But the devil is in the details.

Again, this is still in the "plan formulation" stage.

In the U.K., you can buy private health care insurance that allows people faster access to treatments that they could still get under the public plan.

According to people in the UK (there are several here you can ask) having the private insurance doesn't give much more benefit, so they generally choose to not get it.

Is that "competition"? I think it is. Its the same service that's offered publically, just delivered quicker under the private system.

It's not competition, because they're still covered under the NHS, too, even if they buy insurance.

You don't think? Shouldn't you find out before you decide to support Sanders' health care plan?

No, I trust his (and Warren's) economic advisers completely (it's the same group they're getting their policies from). There is absolutely no chance what they end up coming up with will be worse than what we have now. And completely banning all private health care would be sort of pointless when the goal is simply to have a high quality, robust public system.

 

[varwoche]

Even if Jeb Bush decided to run as a Democrat?

I didn't think that the "...within the actual realm of possibilities" qualifier was needed, but I'll tack that on retroactively.

 

[theprestige]

Even if Jeb Bush decided to run as a Democrat?

Trump was nominated to extend a middle finger to the GOP establishment, Bush included.

Trump was elected to extend a middle finger to the political establishment in general, and the DNC establishment in particular.

The sooner you internalize this truth, the sooner you will be on the path to defeating Trump's reelection.

 

[Trakar]

Trump was nominated to extend a middle finger to the GOP establishment, Bush included.

Trump was elected to extend a middle finger to the political establishment in general, and the DNC establishment in particular.

The sooner you internalize this truth, the sooner you will be on the path to defeating Trump's reelection.

The trouble has never really been about Trump, it is primarily about the lockstep GOP fealty to the Party above Nation and its current leadership regardless of who that leader is or what he proposes as long as they maintain control of the donation spigots that keep them in power. Trump, under a normal system of checks and balances would have still been corrupt, but the administration would have been largely stalemated by their own actions, incompetency, and inabilities to govern (as they largely have been even with the GOP rejection of their own constitutional responsibilities).

 

[Travis]

Why would anyone take Applecorp's (or anyone else's) word on anything without at least a healthy modicum of independent research and exploration?

I started here and then skimmed through the references that article provided, as well as a few other sources. But this isn't a major issue for me, and it literally would be unsurprising to me as this type of skullduggery is increasingly part and parcel of most modern mainstream US Politics. I'm more interested in supporting and promoting an alternative to this type of BS, than I am chasing rats down dark alleys and wasting time on their circular firing squad distractions.

Do you think it is okay that she, and the young lady that asked about his campaign's problems with sexual harassment, have been driven offline by wave after wave of attacks by Bernie supporters?


Is this going to happen to any citizen that dares to ask uncomfortable questions of Saint Bernie Hollowed-Be-His-Name?

 

[Trakar]

Do you think it is okay that she, and the young lady that asked about his campaign's problems with sexual harassment, have been driven offline by wave after wave of attacks by Bernie supporters?

Is this going to happen to any citizen that dares to ask uncomfortable questions of Saint Bernie Hollowed-Be-His-Name?

I haven't seen any indication that there has been any coordinated or dedicated ambition to do this, and wouldn't approve or join any such effort to do such. I don't think anyone should be forbidden to speak their minds for, or against, anything, nor, however, do I think that anyone should be protected from criticism regarding what they have said or done.

The problem in this issue, was the disingenuous attempted "gotchas" that were anticipated when these leading political operator's identities were concealed trying to make it seem like the issues they were raising were framed the way they were by ordinary people, not establishment Democratic party operatives with an (as far as I can tell) personal agenda, which doesn't involve promoting progressive public policy.

Regardless, feel free to promote your screed, my primary goal in this thread is to promote and discuss the policies and reforms offered by the Sanders' campaign and when appropriate, to discuss what I would consider as improvements to the positions they announce. I'm not going to waste time distracting from those goals by extended arguments and attacks on positions or people that are at best, peripheral to my above stated goals.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bernie's out there repeating his rallies today. CSPAN might as well have pulled old footage out.

 

[Trakar]

Trump was nominated to extend a middle finger to the GOP establishment, Bush included.

Trump was elected to extend a middle finger to the political establishment in general, and the DNC establishment in particular.

The sooner you internalize this truth, the sooner you will be on the path to defeating Trump's reelection.

As intimated before, I am not focused on defeating Trump (I'm more than willing to let him continue to defeat himself), I am focused on promoting a winning set of Progressive public policies and Progressive elected officials to promote and advance those Progressive policies into legislative accomplishments.

 

[Trakar]

Bernie's out there repeating his rallies today...

I expect to see those increasing and growing in popularity throughout the next decade. Public rallies are an integral part of an engaged democracy, and without an engaged and increasingly Democratic electorate, democracy quickly fades and blends into the types of oligarchical expansion we have seen over the last several decades where money, more than people, decide public policy.

 

[fuelair]

I'm for universal, government health insurance. Does that punch my ticket into the "progressive" club?

I have the distinct sense that there are a lot of people who self define as progressive who care more about the label than preventing Donald Trump, an obvious real and present danger.

Despite my concerns that the dems are determined to screw up in 2020 by nominating someone who won't play in the rust belt, I will wholeheartedly support the nominee no matter who it is. To any self styled progressive who is unable to say the same thing, so far as I'm concerned they're a Trump supporter and an enemy of progressive values.

I have lost any interest in those in the rust belt who support trumpf or any ******* like it. They are free to wither on their vines and stalks.

 

[The_Animus]

Bernie's out there repeating his rallies today. CSPAN might as well have pulled old footage out.

It's almost as if he is a man of integrity with a consistent message. What voter could possibly like that in a politician?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's almost as if he is a man of integrity with a consistent message. What voter could possibly like that in a politician?

Too bad that wasn't a winning political strategy in the last US election.

 

[Trakar]

It's almost as if he is a man of integrity with a consistent message. What voter could possibly like that in a politician?

For those interested in either Senator Sanders and/or the message and character of him and his campaign here is a link to the streamed rally so that you can judge for yourselves and compare to the rallies and information that his opponents hold, if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yg9MfgdbRg

Bernie, the Activist pretending to be a politician. Not me, Us!