Democrats 2020

[laughing dog]

Let me point out clearly - I LIKE the idea of universal government healthcare. I WANT it. I would support it with additional private health care add-ons for those who are wealthy - I’m fine with a two-tier system, as long as the first tier is as good as it should be.

It won't be. A second tier will ensure that. Doctors will go where the money is. If they can make more in the private system, that is where they will go, leaving substandard care for the rest of you. I say this as a Canadian who has been fighting here to keep this from happening here. No 2nd tier. It will hurt everyone.

What is your evidence that the possibility of private health add ons will mean substandard care under universal health care?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And candidly - I would happily support his efforts, but his efforts have not worked. And you still speak like he’s some saviour new to the scene gonna change everything. I have been watching him for most of his career, I have been reading about him even more, I even sent him money when he first started running in 2016. But he CAN NOT do it alone.

And that makes you NOT support him? I'd think it would make you want to do the opposite, and find him more support. This isn't going to happen if you sit on your hands.

He cannot do it with just us progressives. He never has done, and that is because he has never been willing to join with moderates.

Yes he has. He's running in the Democrat party and not third party. He's significantly shifted the party towards progressive policy. We've now seen Warren join in and AOC get elected and other big change happening, all having a lot to do with what Bernie has accomplished. His run in 2016 failed to get him the nomination, but it did get his movement and policies a lot of traction. He and Warren are now polling in the top 3 with Biden. Once Biden drops out, one of them will be the front runner. That would not have been imagined prior to 2016. Times are changing. Big change CAN happen. Yes We Can as Obama said.

It has grown, and it has shrunk, and it is growing again. AS they start getting themselves to the polls, it will help. But it was not big enough last time to nominate Bernie Sanders. It wasn’t yet enough to stop Trump. Wy the hell was it not enoough to stop Trump?

It would have been enough to stop Trump. It wasn't enough to stop Hillary, wit her name recognition overshadowing his a thousandfold and her insider levers with the DNC. This time around Bernie is much better known, his policies are much better known and much more popular, and Trump is much less popular than he was in 2016, after the nation, including many former Trump supporters have seen him as President.

Why THE FUCK those people didn’t vote for Clinton - after she added Sanders’ ideas to the platform!

Most of them DID! And more Hillary supporters didn't show up for Obama than Sanders supporters didn't show up for Hillary. This is not a great point to raise for Clinton and her supporters.

How did it work out. How did it work out? Did their behavior improve things?

The loss to trump does have an upside. It DID radically change the Democrat party (and no I won't say "Democratic" until they actually become democratic; and turf "superdelegates" altogether). Had Hillary managed to squeeze out a win, we'd be better off in the short term, probably similar to how things were under Obama, but with some more war hawkishness involved. But we'd not have seen the shift leftward in the longer term. Trump's win has accelerated that. It has also highlighted some abuse of power loopholes that should now be filled, but wouldn't otherwise have been.

Or is it that privileged, “i’m gonna burn it down, and people will die, but we’ll be better off in the end” tactic.

That's part of it, yes.

How many people have died and bankrupted because of Trump. You are okay with all of that? You seem to be.

Died and bankrupted? I think you may be surprised at the numbers. I'm sure a few have, but lets not pretend none did under past presidents. Obama's watch increased drone attacks and civilian deaths overseas. Trump has actually talked a lot of anti-war, and is trying to get along with Russia... be that for his own personal gain or not... its an attempt to be friendly rather than aggressive towards a powerful global opponent. Also, despite his tough talk against China, he's not been talking about war with them or anything remotely like that, and calls the Chinese leader a friend. He even made an effort to meet with Kim of North Korea, mostly for his own ego thinking he could solve that conflict, but still. He made the effort. He was maligned for it. As nasty as Trump is, he's been less pro-war than Hillary's speeches have been.

The centrist liberal is a HUGE population. It is not a lie to them. We have to lead them by demonstrating wins, not by threatening them.

But usually when you've actually won, it has been because of a bold vision for big change. Not because of talk of running rightward and "incremental change". That doesn't put butts in the voting booth.

There was a chance in 2016. A bunch of people blew that chance. hey are still thinking the same way as they did then. Intimating that if their one pure candidate doesn’t win, they stop helping.

People who were afraid of pushing for big change set it up so that 2016 was an election between more of the same system, or change for something new and terrible. People wanted something new so bad that they allowed the terrible. And there you have it. Now you again want to go back to that original broken mindset? Or how about something new and GOOD?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Whatever one might think about UBI, at least Yang has found a unique issue that defines his campaign. Compare and contrast with somebody like Kamala Harris.

You've got a good point there. Most of them have very little to separate them from each other. Yang has UBI. Gabbard has world peace. The rest are practically the same as each other with Warren campaigning on "vagina."

Your make a good point here. Warren though is running on more than just vagina. She's also running on a watered down version of Bernie. Klobuchar is running just on vagina. She's otherwise indistinguishable from Biden, Pete, KH, and the other politiciany people. Gabbard yes also stands out for being for non-conflict with other nations. There's also Steyer, who just stands out because he bought his way onto the stage (says something not so great about the political system).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I like Mayor Pete. I think he would make a great VP candidate for someone. Far from a great presidential candidate, however.

He definitely has the friendly demeanor and he is adorable with his husband. So there's that. He could make for an attractive VP. But I agree, hardly a great president.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC Slams Buttigieg for Adopting “GOP Talking Point” in Criticizing Tuition-Free College
AOC's warning to Pete Buttigieg (opinion) - CNN

"I believe we should move to make college affordable for everybody," Buttigieg says in the ad. "There are some voices saying, 'Well that doesn't count unless you go even further, unless it's free even for the kids of millionaires. But I only want to make promises that we can keep."

The mayor's critics have pounced on this line of attack. After all, some of the nation's most successful federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare and K-12 public education — have been available to all Americans regardless of their income. Surely, he doesn't think that these programs are also misconceived?

That video:
Alex Thompson on Twitter: "New Pete ad in Iowa taking aim at Warren and Bernie over college affordability/debt (but not by name), arguing they’d alienate half the country by insisting it be “free even for the kids of millionaires”. H/t @McCormickJohn https://t.co/SEAcOdHcAq" / Twitter
AOC's response:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is a GOP talking point used to dismantle public systems, & it’s sad to see a Dem candidate adopt it. Let’s talk about why Republicans are wrong on this. Just like rich kids can attend public school, they should be able to attend tuition-free public college. Here’s why. https://t.co/pWprP0qrhG" / Twitter
I'll quote it and her following tweets.

This is a GOP talking point used to dismantle public systems, & it’s sad to see a Dem candidate adopt it.

Let’s talk about why Republicans are wrong on this.

Just like rich kids can attend public school, they should be able to attend tuition-free public college.

Here’s why.

1. Universal public systems are designed to benefit EVERYBODY! Everyone contributes & everyone enjoys. We don’t ban the rich from public schools, firefighters, or libraries bc they are public goods.

2. Universal systems that benefit everyone are stronger bc everyone’s invested!

3. When you start carving people out & adding asterisks to who can benefit from goods that should be available to all, cracks in the system develop.

4. Many children of the elite want to go to private, Ivyesque schools anyway, which aren’t covered by tuition-free public college!

5. Lastly, and I can’t believe we have to remind people of this, but it’s GOOD to have classrooms (from pre-k through college!) to be socioeconomically integrated.

Having students from different incomes & backgrounds in the same classroom is good for society & economic mobility.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Let me point out clearly - I LIKE the idea of universal government healthcare. I WANT it. I would support it with additional private health care add-ons for those who are wealthy - I’m fine with a two-tier system, as long as the first tier is as good as it should be.

It won't be. A second tier will ensure that. Doctors will go where the money is. If they can make more in the private system, that is where they will go, leaving substandard care for the rest of you. I say this as a Canadian who has been fighting here to keep this from happening here. No 2nd tier. It will hurt everyone.

What is your evidence that the possibility of private health add ons will mean substandard care under universal health care?

The history of my own country, with more private care clinics being allowed and the public system getting worse for it. Talk to doctors actually in the system, or any other universal health care public system. They will tell you. We've got it bad enough with your country right next door, draining away our doctors with promises of big money. We don't need the same at home.

Your country is coming at it from the opposite direction. You may want to look to those of us who have already had universal single payer for many years and what our experiences have been. Do your research.

 

[fromderinside]

Unfortunately Republicans are supporting programs that remove lower income students from for profit Charter schools . They do this under the pretext that private income taken from public schools for generating for profit schools will do a better job of educating. They don't. All they do is select for particular low risk students. Oh, and since it's for profit many have already been closed because of dash for money by organizers and failures to perform as advertised. Who'd thunk.

 

[southernhybrid]

Let me point out clearly - I LIKE the idea of universal government healthcare. I WANT it. I would support it with additional private health care add-ons for those who are wealthy - I’m fine with a two-tier system, as long as the first tier is as good as it should be.

It won't be. A second tier will ensure that. Doctors will go where the money is. If they can make more in the private system, that is where they will go, leaving substandard care for the rest of you. I say this as a Canadian who has been fighting here to keep this from happening here. No 2nd tier. It will hurt everyone.

As for Hillary (your post mentioned her early history of championing universal single payer), you have a good point. She WAS all for it. And she did get raked over the coals for it by the Republicans. But unlike you, who thinks she's still for it but has been beaten down into wanting slow incremental change, I think she's come away with the experience thinking it cant be done and that she sold out somewhere along the line. I think a fresh and more modern take on it, from someone who hasn't been beaten down like that is in order. The public opinion on health care , as shown in poll after poll aftee poll has moved to support Universal single payer. You CAN have it now... If you will push for it.

I think you're wrong. We already have a two tier or maybe a three tier system. Almost all older adults and disabled adults have Medicare, while most working adults have private insurance. Private insurance does reimburse at a higher rate than the majority of private health insurance companies do, but the majority of doctors and hospitals take Medicare. The other tier is Medicaid. Medicaid is our public insurance for the poorest people. Medicaid pays the lowest rates of reimbursement, and there are many doctors who won't take Medicaid recipients. That was a problem for some of my former patients, but we could always find at least some doctors who would take our Medicaid recipients. One solution would be to increase Medicaid reimbursement.

Hospitals would likely be the biggest losers in an M4A system, as many of them are privatized and dependent on the much higher rates of reimbursement provided by private insurance companies, in addition to the much lower rates paid by Medicare. Imo, based on my many years of experience working as a health care professional who primarily cared for those on Medicare and Medicaid, going from what we have now to M4A would cause a tremendous amount of chaos. There are better ways, imo, of establishing UHC.

But, in any event, no matter which way we go, it's not going to be easy. Some people over use the system. We have a huge problem due to the obesity epidemic, which has caused many younger and middle aged adults to have medical problems that weren't nearly as common as they are now in younger populations. We have a lot of high tech medical procedures which are often over utilized, and expensive. Drug prices are often unaffordable. How do we change that? It's much more complicated than most people seem to realize. I just hope that we can find a way to offer better access to care to all citizens at an affordable cost.

 

[angelo]

There's a small problem that's ignored here about universal health care. Who will pay for it? Socialist like Sanders and Co, insist that only the top 1% of the highest salary earners will pay for it. That's a delusion. The tax hikes of the trillions of dollars it costs will be paid by ALL. In Scandinavian countries that are partly socialised, the tax rates they pay would never be accepted in a country such as the USA.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You want more government in health care?

I don't support it, but I would rather see it done well than done poorly. To do it well, the best way to do it is to divert money from being the world police into doing health care. The more money diverted, the better for everyone. I don't support world policing and I don't support government health care, but I can see one of them is less bad than the other.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A second tier will ensure that. Doctors will go where the money is. If they can make more in the private system, that is where they will go, leaving substandard care for the rest of you. I say this as a Canadian who has been fighting here to keep this from happening here. No 2nd tier. It will hurt everyone.

I think you're wrong. We already have a two tier or maybe a three tier system. Almost all older adults and disabled adults have Medicare, while most working adults have private insurance. Private insurance does reimburse at a higher rate than the majority of private health insurance companies do, but the majority of doctors and hospitals take Medicare. The other tier is Medicaid. Medicaid is our public insurance for the poorest people. Medicaid pays the lowest rates of reimbursement, and there are many doctors who won't take Medicaid recipients. That was a problem for some of my former patients, but we could always find at least some doctors who would take our Medicaid recipients. One solution would be to increase Medicaid reimbursement.

Why did you say you disagree with me? You just made my point for me. Yes, the poorest get some sort of medical care but as you wrote, many doctors and other medical professionals won't serve them because the pay is too low. They don't get the best and they don't get choice. That's not acceptable to me. In our current system here in Ontario, I can walk into any clinic and see any specialist (by asking for a referral to them). My options are not limited and I don't pay a penny directly (I pay for it via taxes). And if I was homeless and penniless, I would still have the same options.

Nor does it have any connection to my employer. I can change jobs and not worry about losing my health care benefits. I can open a business and not become responsible for the general health care of my employees except for specific workplace hazards causing health issues. The only big gaping holes are dental and prescription drugs. Dental is pricey. The drugs are cheap (compared to in the US).

Hospitals would likely be the biggest losers in an M4A system, as many of them are privatized and dependent on the much higher rates of reimbursement provided by private insurance companies, in addition to the much lower rates paid by Medicare.

Yes! I have seen some of your medical hospital bills and it can get absolutely insane. Everything is dramatically overpriced. The for profit hospitals are taking advantage of sick people and that disgusts me. They should be not for profit entities. Pay the doctors and nurses and staff well, but no profits for owners, and no insurance companies with their hands out, and with a profit motive to deny you proper care.

Imo, based on my many years of experience working as a health care professional who primarily cared for those on Medicare and Medicaid, going from what we have now to M4A would cause a tremendous amount of chaos. There are better ways, imo, of establishing UHC.

Forgive me. What is M4A? Do you mean universal single payer?

But, in any event, no matter which way we go, it's not going to be easy. Some people over use the system. We have a huge problem due to the obesity epidemic, which has caused many younger and middle aged adults to have medical problems that weren't nearly as common as they are now in younger populations.

So do we. We manage with universal single payer and our overall cost is less. Take out the profit seeking insurers and hospitals and that is bound to happen.

We have a lot of high tech medical procedures which are often over utilized, and expensive. Drug prices are often unaffordable. How do we change that?

Set regulations. Or better yet go universal single payer pharmacare. I have been pushing for that for years here, but it's much more in need there, where your drug companies charge ridiculous amounts. If they only have one buyer in the whole nation, under universal pharmacare, they cant exploit. The price will come down significantly.

 

[ZiprHead]

Let me point out clearly - I LIKE the idea of universal government healthcare. I WANT it. I would support it with additional private health care add-ons for those who are wealthy - I’m fine with a two-tier system, as long as the first tier is as good as it should be.

It won't be. A second tier will ensure that. Doctors will go where the money is. If they can make more in the private system, that is where they will go, leaving substandard care for the rest of you. I say this as a Canadian who has been fighting here to keep this from happening here. No 2nd tier. It will hurt everyone.

As for Hillary (your post mentioned her early history of championing universal single payer), you have a good point. She WAS all for it. And she did get raked over the coals for it by the Republicans. But unlike you, who thinks she's still for it but has been beaten down into wanting slow incremental change, I think she's come away with the experience thinking it cant be done and that she sold out somewhere along the line. I think a fresh and more modern take on it, from someone who hasn't been beaten down like that is in order. The public opinion on health care , as shown in poll after poll aftee poll has moved to support Universal single payer. You CAN have it now... If you will push for it.

I think you're wrong. We already have a two tier or maybe a three tier system. Almost all older adults and disabled adults have Medicare, while most working adults have private insurance. Private insurance does reimburse at a higher rate than the majority of private health insurance companies do, but the majority of doctors and hospitals take Medicare. The other tier is Medicaid. Medicaid is our public insurance for the poorest people. Medicaid pays the lowest rates of reimbursement, and there are many doctors who won't take Medicaid recipients. That was a problem for some of my former patients, but we could always find at least some doctors who would take our Medicaid recipients. One solution would be to increase Medicaid reimbursement.

Hospitals would likely be the biggest losers in an M4A system, as many of them are privatized and dependent on the much higher rates of reimbursement provided by private insurance companies, in addition to the much lower rates paid by Medicare. Imo, based on my many years of experience working as a health care professional who primarily cared for those on Medicare and Medicaid, going from what we have now to M4A would cause a tremendous amount of chaos. There are better ways, imo, of establishing UHC.

But, in any event, no matter which way we go, it's not going to be easy. Some people over use the system. We have a huge problem due to the obesity epidemic, which has caused many younger and middle aged adults to have medical problems that weren't nearly as common as they are now in younger populations. We have a lot of high tech medical procedures which are often over utilized, and expensive. Drug prices are often unaffordable. How do we change that? It's much more complicated than most people seem to realize. I just hope that we can find a way to offer better access to care to all citizens at an affordable cost.

As I've said before, this would be a big change. Reimbursement rates would certainly be part of that change. To think that wouldn't change is short-sighted at best, foolish at worst.

 

[Elixir]

... no matter which way we go, it's not going to be easy. Some people over use the system. We have a huge problem due to the obesity epidemic, which has caused many younger and middle aged adults to have medical problems that weren't nearly as common as they are now in younger populations. We have a lot of high tech medical procedures which are often over utilized, and expensive. Drug prices are often unaffordable. How do we change that? It's much more complicated than most people seem to realize. I just hope that we can find a way to offer better access to care to all citizens at an affordable cost.

Some people WAY overuse the system. For decades I have tried to think of a fair way to define "overuse of the system". It's an intractable problem as so many costly health outcomes (e.g. diabetes) can result from such choices, but can also be due to chemical imbalances, unavoidable external circumstances, genetic predispositions etc... or combinations of any or all of the above.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I remember thinking this when I was a kid first learning how our medical system works. I said but people smoke, drink, and play dangerous sports like football and hockey and I dont, so why should I have to pay for their health care?

I got over that fast when I realized how much less we pay when pooling together as a nation, and that a lot of health issues are completely out of anyone's control. Ask Canadian Conservatives, nevermind liberals, if they want to switch to the US system. Very few will say yes. It's a political non-starter here. Our politicians even on the right don:t advocate for something as weak as Obama care. So can it work? Yes. Does it have issues? Yes. Is it perfect? Not even close. But it's where you should be headed, if not leap frigging is to something even more inclusive and thorough. Pharma care and dental for example. I believe Bernie's plan covers them. Warren's may as well.

It isn't just a fanciful talking point when Bernie goes on about how medical care should be a human right. There is a moral aspect to this. Doctors and medical professionals should be paid well, and shouldn't have to chase patients who cant pay them what they deserve. Their minds should be entirely on prescribing the best treatment and remedy, and never influenced by what the customer can pay. Saving one life is not inherently more valuable than saving another just because one of them is attached to a rich person.

Do you get a bill from the fire department and police department if they rescue you? If not, the. Why should you get one from the ambulance and hospital?

 

[Toni]

Let me point out clearly - I LIKE the idea of universal government healthcare. I WANT it. I would support it with additional private health care add-ons for those who are wealthy - I’m fine with a two-tier system, as long as the first tier is as good as it should be.

It won't be. A second tier will ensure that. Doctors will go where the money is. If they can make more in the private system, that is where they will go, leaving substandard care for the rest of you. I say this as a Canadian who has been fighting here to keep this from happening here. No 2nd tier. It will hurt everyone.

As for Hillary (your post mentioned her early history of championing universal single payer), you have a good point. She WAS all for it. And she did get raked over the coals for it by the Republicans. But unlike you, who thinks she's still for it but has been beaten down into wanting slow incremental change, I think she's come away with the experience thinking it cant be done and that she sold out somewhere along the line. I think a fresh and more modern take on it, from someone who hasn't been beaten down like that is in order. The public opinion on health care , as shown in poll after poll aftee poll has moved to support Universal single payer. You CAN have it now... If you will push for it.

I agree that it is imperative that there is only one top tier of health care. The problem is that there will always be a market for private care for those who can pay enough, even if it means going out of country or importing your own. It’s teally not different than how richer women got abortions when they were illegal. But honestly there is too much money for insurance companies to make for there not to be private health insurance.

An essential first step in getting universal health care is to make university and professional schools such as medical school low cost or free elow a certain income level. Really level the playing field. One reason that medical students choose specialties that are higher paying is student debt. Student debt is crippling entire generations and making them delay home ownership and stating families.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In that case I would advocate a parallel system.

Have one system for the rest of you who actually think government does a good job, and you can get all the free shit you want. Have one system for people like me, only this time when we call it a private system it really actually is. Government is completely hands off in all respects. All the government protections that make our system a mostly government system instead of a private system, they no longer exist.

This is no harm to you, since you have all of the regulations you desire, all the safeguards you desire, all the licensing you desire, and all the rest of the hand holding and bureaucrats that you desire. All I ask in exchange is that the other system, the free market system, actually and honestly is instead of the mostly government mess we have today that you guys think is a free market system.

I'd even be willing to pay a little extra in taxes to support your system, calling it the price I pay for my freedom.

 

[Toni]

And that makes you NOT support him? I'd think it would make you want to do the opposite, and find him more support. This isn't going to happen if you sit on your hands.



Yes he has. He's running in the Democrat party and not third party. He's significantly shifted the party towards progressive policy. We've now seen Warren join in and AOC get elected and other big change happening, all having a lot to do with what Bernie has accomplished. His run in 2016 failed to get him the nomination, but it did get his movement and policies a lot of traction. He and Warren are now polling in the top 3 with Biden. Once Biden drops out, one of them will be the front runner. That would not have been imagined prior to 2016. Times are changing. Big change CAN happen. Yes We Can as Obama said.

It has grown, and it has shrunk, and it is growing again. AS they start getting themselves to the polls, it will help. But it was not big enough last time to nominate Bernie Sanders. It wasn’t yet enough to stop Trump. Wy the hell was it not enoough to stop Trump?

It would have been enough to stop Trump. It wasn't enough to stop Hillary, wit her name recognition overshadowing his a thousandfold and her insider levers with the DNC. This time around Bernie is much better known, his policies are much better known and much more popular, and Trump is much less popular than he was in 2016, after the nation, including many former Trump supporters have seen him as President.

Why THE FUCK those people didn’t vote for Clinton - after she added Sanders’ ideas to the platform!

Most of them DID! And more Hillary supporters didn't show up for Obama than Sanders supporters didn't show up for Hillary. This is not a great point to raise for Clinton and her supporters.

How did it work out. How did it work out? Did their behavior improve things?

The loss to trump does have an upside. It DID radically change the Democrat party (and no I won't say "Democratic" until they actually become democratic; and turf "superdelegates" altogether). Had Hillary managed to squeeze out a win, we'd be better off in the short term, probably similar to how things were under Obama, but with some more war hawkishness involved. But we'd not have seen the shift leftward in the longer term. Trump's win has accelerated that. It has also highlighted some abuse of power loopholes that should now be filled, but wouldn't otherwise have been.

Or is it that privileged, “i’m gonna burn it down, and people will die, but we’ll be better off in the end” tactic.

That's part of it, yes.

How many people have died and bankrupted because of Trump. You are okay with all of that? You seem to be.

Died and bankrupted? I think you may be surprised at the numbers. I'm sure a few have, but lets not pretend none did under past presidents. Obama's watch increased drone attacks and civilian deaths overseas. Trump has actually talked a lot of anti-war, and is trying to get along with Russia... be that for his own personal gain or not... its an attempt to be friendly rather than aggressive towards a powerful global opponent. Also, despite his tough talk against China, he's not been talking about war with them or anything remotely like that, and calls the Chinese leader a friend. He even made an effort to meet with Kim of North Korea, mostly for his own ego thinking he could solve that conflict, but still. He made the effort. He was maligned for it. As nasty as Trump is, he's been less pro-war than Hillary's speeches have been.

The centrist liberal is a HUGE population. It is not a lie to them. We have to lead them by demonstrating wins, not by threatening them.

But usually when you've actually won, it has been because of a bold vision for big change. Not because of talk of running rightward and "incremental change". That doesn't put butts in the voting booth.

There was a chance in 2016. A bunch of people blew that chance. hey are still thinking the same way as they did then. Intimating that if their one pure candidate doesn’t win, they stop helping.

People who were afraid of pushing for big change set it up so that 2016 was an election between more of the same system, or change for something new and terrible. People wanted something new so bad that they allowed the terrible. And there you have it. Now you again want to go back to that original broken mindset? Or how about something new and GOOD?

Rhea is correct: Bernie cannot do it alone and he is absolutely uninterested in working with anyone else, except perhaps AOC. That's not nothing but it's not nearly enough.

Looking at the Senate and at Congress, even if I liked Bernie, ( I agree with many of his ideas--which, btw, did not originate with Bernie Sanders but I don't care much for the man at all.) Frankly, if he had an ounce of integrity or half the leadership skills needed to be an effective POTUS, he'd form his own party. As Congressman and as Senator, he's simply not been that successful. As POTUS, I would be hard pressed to see how he would manage to do a damn thing. Any good that he is able to do, he is better able to do it in the Senate. The POTUS does not legislate. And Bernie does not lead very many except a lot of people who frankly prefer a grumpy old man to a woman of any flavor. I listen and read a lot of Bernie supporters and frankly, it's more a cult of personality than it is an actual belief that he would be able to affect any of the change that those who actually care about change are interested in seeing. We already have a cult of personality and it doesn't work well and only leads to corruption. Sure, even with his declining health and abilities, Bernie is much sharper than Trump has ever been, but then, so is what comes out of my dog's hind end. Bernie is at his most effective as provocateur. Let him be that.

 

[J842P]

Let me point out clearly - I LIKE the idea of universal government healthcare. I WANT it. I would support it with additional private health care add-ons for those who are wealthy - I’m fine with a two-tier system, as long as the first tier is as good as it should be.

It won't be. A second tier will ensure that. Doctors will go where the money is. If they can make more in the private system, that is where they will go, leaving substandard care for the rest of you. I say this as a Canadian who has been fighting here to keep this from happening here. No 2nd tier. It will hurt everyone.

As for Hillary (your post mentioned her early history of championing universal single payer), you have a good point. She WAS all for it. And she did get raked over the coals for it by the Republicans. But unlike you, who thinks she's still for it but has been beaten down into wanting slow incremental change, I think she's come away with the experience thinking it cant be done and that she sold out somewhere along the line. I think a fresh and more modern take on it, from someone who hasn't been beaten down like that is in order. The public opinion on health care , as shown in poll after poll aftee poll has moved to support Universal single payer. You CAN have it now... If you will push for it.

I agree that it is imperative that there is only one top tier of health care. The problem is that there will always be a market for private care for those who can pay enough, even if it means going out of country or importing your own. It’s teally not different than how richer women got abortions when they were illegal. But honestly there is too much money for insurance companies to make for there not to be private health insurance.

An essential first step in getting universal health care is to make university and professional schools such as medical school low cost or free elow a certain income level. Really level the playing field. One reason that medical students choose specialties that are higher paying is student debt. Student debt is crippling entire generations and making them delay home ownership and stating families.

Yes, medical school costs need to be addressed somehow. I'm not sure what the solution is.

 

[J842P]

There's a small problem that's ignored here about universal health care. Who will pay for it? Socialist like Sanders and Co, insist that only the top 1% of the highest salary earners will pay for it. That's a delusion. The tax hikes of the trillions of dollars it costs will be paid by ALL. In Scandinavian countries that are partly socialised, the tax rates they pay would never be accepted in a country such as the USA.

No, Bernie Sanders has stated that it will be payed for by general taxation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There's a small problem that's ignored here about universal health care. Who will pay for it? Socialist like Sanders and Co, insist that only the top 1% of the highest salary earners will pay for it. That's a delusion. The tax hikes of the trillions of dollars it costs will be paid by ALL. In Scandinavian countries that are partly socialised, the tax rates they pay would never be accepted in a country such as the USA.

No, Bernie Sanders has stated that it will be payed for by general taxation.

That's a good answer for each of his proposals in isolation, but not for the sum of this proposals.