Democrats 2020

[Rhea]

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

One workable solution is to have medical school reimbursed for years serving under-served communities. Spend a year serving a poor community in a government facility, get a year’s tuition paid. If all health care proofessionals spent their first 7 years serving poor communities, we would bring great care to those communities, and society would get good value for their educaiton bucks.

People already embrace this with the GI bill.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

One workable solution is to have medical school reimbursed for years serving under-served communities. Spend a year serving a poor community in a government facility, get a year’s tuition paid. If all health care proofessionals spent their first 7 years serving poor communities, we would bring great care to those communities, and society would get good value for their educaiton bucks.

People already embrace this with the GI bill.

Your GI Bill is about people being compensated for risking their lives and doing horrible things, following orders from those they hope aren't using them for ill. Are you sure you want to compare a doctor gong to work In an underserved area the same way, reinforcing stigma against these communities as doctors feel generous and like they are owed something for healing these people instead of those people over there? Not to mention the stigma that'd be attached to new doctors in underserved areas, presumed to only go there for the money.

 

[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.

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

In other words, a huge hike in the tax rate! I'm sorry to have to inform you, but there's no such thing as free lunch! Someone always has to pay!

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

In other words, a huge hike in the tax rate! I'm sorry to have to inform you, but there's no such thing as free lunch! Someone always has to pay!

So you'd prefer to pay $600 a month to a health insurance company as opposed to $200 a month in taxes?

 

[ZiprHead]

Bullock is out.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not to mention the stigma that'd be attached to new doctors in underserved areas, presumed to only go there for the money.

That potentially seems a somewhat spurious concern to me. People generally take better-paid jobs of all sorts partly because of the extra money. I can't think why they would be any more stigmatised just because they want and get more money for something like helping the underserved, especially as they might also get at least some separate credit for helping the underserved in this hypothetical example.

Also, I think your Political mask is slipping again. You're now trying to raise objections to purely socioeconomic special assistance measures to counter inequalities, despite having on previous occasions advocated for them.

 

[angelo]

In other words, a huge hike in the tax rate! I'm sorry to have to inform you, but there's no such thing as free lunch! Someone always has to pay!

So you'd prefer to pay $600 a month to a health insurance company as opposed to $200 a month in taxes?

Before I dropped my private health insurance, I was paying around $400AUD per month for two adults for basic hospital cover, which is a lot of money for someone living off an aged pension to pay. We have a universal public health system in Australia, paid for by a tax surcharge on salaries, which of course only covers a small percentage of the true cost of this black hole called " public health, or Medicare. "
But the waiting list for elective surgery can and does stretch into years. My partner had to wait 2 years for a knee replacement for example.
At the present time, around 40% of people are also covered by private health insurance, and this number is slowly but surely diminishing. The day of reckoning isn't too far away if as it seems likely the number of privately insured people drops to unsustainable levels. Especially the younger people. Then it will either be a substantial increase in taxes, or the dismantling of Medicare forcing every one to either takes pot luck with their health, or 're join a private health insurance company.
Like I keep saying, there's no such thing as a free lunch!

 

[Harry Bosch]

In other words, a huge hike in the tax rate! I'm sorry to have to inform you, but there's no such thing as free lunch! Someone always has to pay!

So you'd prefer to pay $600 a month to a health insurance company as opposed to $200 a month in taxes?

Before I dropped my private health insurance, I was paying around $400AUD per month for two adults for basic hospital cover, which is a lot of money for someone living off an aged pension to pay. We have a universal public health system in Australia, paid for by a tax surcharge on salaries, which of course only covers a small percentage of the true cost of this black hole called " public health, or Medicare. "
But the waiting list for elective surgery can and does stretch into years. My partner had to wait 2 years for a knee replacement for example.
At the present time, around 40% of people are also covered by private health insurance, and this number is slowly but surely diminishing. The day of reckoning isn't too far away if as it seems likely the number of privately insured people drops to unsustainable levels. Especially the younger people. Then it will either be a substantial increase in taxes, or the dismantling of Medicare forcing every one to either takes pot luck with their health, or 're join a private health insurance company.
Like I keep saying, there's no such thing as a free lunch!

Actually, you are correct. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It gets paid by someone. And UHC will cost more. However, it's a higher expense that I'm willing to pay for, for the following reasons: It would give me personal satisfaction knowing that the people in the area where I live all have access to heath care; I would know that if I failed at something, that there would be additional safety net for me to help get back on my feet; having all people treated would lower the chance of an untreatable communicable disease could spread; US companies would be stronger if they didn't have to provide for their workers healthcare; entrepreneurship would be easier if people didn't have to worry about their health care; and having all people treated would increase the number of health care positions, increasing jobs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just imagine the insanity of being able to have a profession of your choosing based on what you want to do for a living, not what provides health care for you and your family.

It'd be crazy!

 

[ZiprHead]

In other words, a huge hike in the tax rate! I'm sorry to have to inform you, but there's no such thing as free lunch! Someone always has to pay!

So you'd prefer to pay $600 a month to a health insurance company as opposed to $200 a month in taxes?

Before I dropped my private health insurance, I was paying around $400AUD per month for two adults for basic hospital cover, which is a lot of money for someone living off an aged pension to pay. We have a universal public health system in Australia, paid for by a tax surcharge on salaries, which of course only covers a small percentage of the true cost of this black hole called " public health, or Medicare. "

You have it much better in upside-down land than we do in the US. The $600 I noted above is not unusual here. My brother-in-law pays that for his "employer provided" health insurance. He's a single man that just turned fifty.

What is, in your opinion, the true cost of your medicare system?

 

[ruby sparks]

Actually, you are correct. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It gets paid by someone. And UHC will cost more. However, it's a higher expense that I'm willing to pay for, for the following reasons: It would give me personal satisfaction knowing that the people in the area where I live all have access to heath care; I would know that if I failed at something, that there would be additional safety net for me to help get back on my feet; having all people treated would lower the chance of an untreatable communicable disease could spread; and having all people treated would increase the number of health care positions, increasing jobs.

Well said, imo, and indeed not a bad rationale. I tend to agree, especially about the potential wider aspects of any cost/benefit analysis, and would be happy to pay more taxes if they went in this direction.

Another potential situation is that the government as main healthcare provider might be in a good position to negotiate lower prices for American drugs and indeed those from other countries. As you may know, Trump has called our NHS a 'foreign freeloader' in regard to this, although there are also reports that UK government Health Ministers, including the current one, are pandering to Big Pharma by easing in the recommendation of more expensive drugs that are apparently no more effective than cheaper alternatives, and of course everything is already on the table as regards higher drug prices being part of any trade deal between the UK & the USA if there's a hard Brexit.

Do you know what the relevant ballpark comparison figures might be, or what estimates (I'm almost sure not everyone will agree on them) have been put forward? I mean the hypothetical extra for UHC per individual as compared to the average current cost of equivalent private cover? Some figures were suggested a few posts back by ZiprHead, but I'm not sure where they come from.

 

[Elixir]

There is no such thing as a free lunch ... UHC will cost more.

Well said, imo, and indeed not a bad rationale.

Huh? More than WHAT? And why? Do you want health care for lunch, or would you like rampant sickness, preventable deaths and failure to heal from injuries for your lunch?
Which has the greater cost at the end of the day?
I think health care is cheaper. MUCH cheaper.
In fact, so much cheaper that the difference can more than compensate for those who over-use the system, a certain number of outright cheats, and those who truly do require extreme medical interventions.
YMMV, but if you contend that health care costs more overall than health neglect, I'd like to see some supporting facts.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It boggles my mind how anyone could think that a profit oriented medical insurance system would somehow cost LESS. Profit seeking health insurance companies don't make it somehow cheaper. *scratches head*

Moreover, when we're all in it together via univeral single payer, we gain reason to push other health programs and encourage healthy living for the whole community. Everything from fitness to pollution to preventative medicine becomes relevant in a way it just isn't in a "I've got mine" sort of system.

 

[lpetrich]

Thank you. - Steve Bullock - Medium

Thank you for your belief, your trust, and your support.

Today, I announced that I’m suspending my campaign for President. While there were many obstacles we could not have anticipated when entering into this race, it has become clear that in this moment, I won’t be able to break through to the top tier of this still-crowded field of candidates.

Who might be next?

 

[Derec]

Who might be next?

¿Hulian?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I can toss her on the heap of failed primary predictions by Jimmy Higgins. Let's see... 2016 was Harris, 2008... well I got Obama right, 2004, Bill Richardson kind of didn't make it and that was after Gore in '04.

Oh! And Trump won't make it to Iowa in '16.

 

[Derec]

I am really surprised at Kamala quitting now. She qualified for the 6th debate in her back yard. I'd think she would hold out at least until that home game, hoping for a 2nd wind. In any case, she is doing much better than a number of other candidates. I mean ¡Hulian! and Corey must be hurting for money even more than Kamala, and they are certainly doing worse in polls.

Maybe somebody (Bloomberg?) promised her the Veep slot if she quit now.

 

[lpetrich]

Or else she didn't want to get into too much debt.

Can The Black Left Stop Biden? | FiveThirtyEight

There is no official “black left.” What I’m describing here is a bloc of people who have gained power and prominence since the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, that turned Black Lives Matter into one of the most important civil rights movements of the past decade. This bloc is distinct from what I would describe as the black establishment, which includes powerful black institutions and people: longtime civil rights activists and ministers like Jesse Jackson Sr. and Al Sharpton; veteran members of the Congressional Black Caucus; groups like the National Urban League and the NAACP; and President Obama and his close allies.

The black left includes:

• The activists and groups who either were involved in protesting the 2012 killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, went to Ferguson two years later or subsequently organized in opposition to police practices that they felt were discriminatory against black people.
• Black leaders of prominent liberal groups, such as Maurice Mitchell of the Working Families Party.
• Left-leaning black academics and intellectuals who have big followings, such as authors Ta-Nehisi Coates and Roxane Gay and regular MSNBC contributor and Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude.
• New generation civil rights organizations such as Color of Change and Dream Defenders.
• More liberal black elected officials, such as Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

Reminds me of something I saw somewhere that some Congressional Black Caucus members defended taking corporate money by saying that their districts are too poor for anyone to give very much. Also about some members accepting money from private-prison companies.

The black left objects to Joe Biden for familiar reasons: he's too centrist and establishment.

“Joe Biden shouldn’t be president,” Coates said in an interview on “Democracy Now!” back in July, noting that Biden “wanted more people sentenced to the death penalty, wanted more jails,” in earlier stages of his career.

What’s different for the black left — as opposed to the white left — is that its views are very deeply in tension with the broader black Democratic electorate, at least so far.

A problem with the black left is that it is very decentralized. There isn't any "Black Lives Matter" central organization, for instance.

It has had a little bit of success, however, in electing reform-minded prosecutors in various places, like San Francisco.

“The church doesn’t have the power and influence it used to,” Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, a San Francisco-based group created in 2018 that is focused on motivating liberal women of color, told me. (Allison’s group has not endorsed a candidate but Allison herself expressed wariness about Biden during my interview with her). “There are new and powerful people and networks that are being activated,” she added.

So black people are becoming more secular also.

 

[southernhybrid]

These guessing games are pretty funny. I read an article yesterday about how black primary voters might help get Biden nominated. I showed it to a black friend of mine who believes that Biden is the best candidate. She really, really likes Biden and has no positive feelings for any of the other candidates.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-delegates.html

Southern states and urban areas to help him accrue the 1,990 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

It might work. That’s because an overwhelming majority of delegates are awarded from areas more racially diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire. If Mr. Biden retains his strength with black voters, he’d have a structural advantage in the nomination race that is greater than his uneven lead in national polls suggests.

Think of it this way: Candidates gain delegates based on voting in both states and districts, which are Congressional districts in all but a few places. While Iowa and New Hampshire may generate political momentum for a winner because they vote first, the two states award very few delegates. By contrast, a candidate who is popular in California, Texas and predominantly black districts in the South could pick up big shares of delegates.

A recent poll shows Mr. Biden at 44 percent among black voters in South Carolina, the early voting state with a majority-black Democratic electorate, and a historic harbinger for how the South will vote. The same poll had Mr. Biden’s next closest competitor, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, trailing him by more than 30 percentage points among black voters.

I really don't think anyone has a clue as to who will be the Democratic nominee. Some people aren't even paying attention yet, and won't until a few weeks before the primaries. Lots of people keep changing their minds and some can't decide who they might want. I'm not making any predictions.

There are a small percentage of black voters who aren't religious, but I don't see that as important. Every single black person I know personally has told me that they will vote for whoever becomes the nominee. I have one black friend who has changed her mind three times already. First she wanted Booker, then Biden and the last time I asked her, she was thinking of supporting Warren. If I see her tomorrow, I'll ask her who she supports this week. .