Support NeoGAF

[A Human Becoming]

Bernie Sanders' campaign claimed single payer would save $324B more than a health economist projected with regards to prescription drugs. This is problematic since total prescription drug spending in the U.S. last year was $305B.... When pointed out that the savings Sanders was projecting was physically impossible, they just changed the number to the largest possible number that was physically possible.

Dear God, this man is the Paul Ryan of the left.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

Holy hell. That is just....wow.

Yeah, this isn't the universal health care plan the US needs.

That's a study by one dude who has an (understandably) less optimistic outlook than Sanders. He doesn't discredit universal healthcare altogether, being someone who laid out a single payer proposal for Vermont twice, more that the current plan has issues. I bet you three just took the most damning sections without actually looking at the critiques. Some are substantial while others are meerily differences in opinion.

Sanders assumes $438 billion more per year in administrative savings than Thorpe; Thorpe assumes that total health spending will fall by 4.7 percent because single-payer is simpler to administer, while the campaign has anticipated a reduction of 16 percent (changed in a later email to 13 percent).

That 4.7% is from his legislation work in Vermont. Not sure it's a perfect conversion to the national level.

Sanders assumes $216 billion more per year in savings because Thorpe thinks eliminating copayments and deductibles will lead to people using a lot more health care (10 percent more, to be exact), and Sanders's camp is more skeptical (they assume 6 percent more).

Opinion differences.

Sanders assumes $160 billion per year in savings relative to Thorpe because, they argue, he includes elective procedures like plastic surgery, which single-payer wouldn't cover. Thorpe disputes this: "Cosmetic surgery, really? That's $12 billion a year and in the second decimal of rounding." In other words: There's no way excluding plastic surgery can give you $160 billion of savings.

Seems like a fair criticism.

Sanders assumes that states will pay $100 billion more per year in Medicaid and SCHIP spending than Thorpe does, because they think states will keep paying in the exact same amount they currently pay into those programs. Thorpe is skeptical, noting that in the Supreme Court's 2012 Obamacare ruling, it "said in essence you cannot force states to make spending on a expansion of Medicaid —how is the world can you expect states to contribute toward the costs of programs that are eliminated?"

I've been skeptical for a while now about the power states have under his proposal. I think even an idealistic perspective is that amount of increase would take more than decade (if not two) to happen. It's really hard to say how the atmosphere will be ten years from now.

He concludes, just as UMass Amherst economist Gerald Friedman did in his analysis of Sanders's plan, that most households would benefit. Only 27 percent of total working households with private insurance would pay more according to Thorpe, with 72 percent paying less; young adult workers, workers in small businesses, and workers on Medicare would gain too.

The important part adam failed to highlight. Here is the huge detail he should have instead if he wanted to attack Bernie's plan:

The big exception is Medicaid. Thorpe finds that 72 percent of Medicaid workers would pay more under single-payer even under Sanders's lower tax rates. Medicaid currently has very limited cost sharing for families in poverty, mostly limited to prescription drug copays, and so single-payer would offer such families little in the way of health savings while making them pay an additional 6.2 percent in payroll taxes, even if most don't have taxable income that'd be hit by the 2.2 percent income-based premium.

Obviously I have my biases, but I can see that his current plan needs serious work. At the same time though, there's still plenty of time and for better and worse the campaign has responded when discrepancies were pointed out. The big idea is I don't think it's naive to believe making affordable single payer healthcare in the United States is possible. I would be very happy if Hillary came out with her own plan that surpassed Bernie's, because to me it happening is what's important not who does it, but she isn't going to.

It looks like tmarg pointed out things I said while typing this out.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If Trump really knew what was going to happen at that debate and managed to avoid it by doing all this then I'm just about ready to get down on my knees and call him my lord and savior.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Why was there so much more reaction for B.o.B talking about Flat Earth Theory recently instead of his promotion of Holocaust denial? Our priorities can be so strange sometimes...

 

[Basileus777]

Why was there so much more reaction for B.o.B talking about Flat Earth Theory recently instead of his promotion of Holocaust denial? Our priorities can be so strange sometimes...

The flat earth thing got Neil deGrasse Tyson involved and that's driven most of the reaction.

 

[User 463088]

. I bet you three just took the most damning sections without actually looking at the critiques.

Actually, I didn't, thanks. I posted a lot of the same things you did. We must have crossed posts.

Has anyone come out in favor of Bernie's plan? I don't mean that snarkily, I mean it as an actual question. I haven't heard of any group coming out and supporting it. I'm sure it hasn't gone through the CBO or anything like that yet.

I am not opposed to single payer. I would prefer some type of single payer system. I just don't believe that this plan is politically (or economically) feasible.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm really not sure how it's not naive to think such a proposal basically impossible, or I guess under the premise that anything is possible, so implausible as to be not really worth contemplating. Congress has, from recollection, attempted to repeal part or all of Obamacare some 60-odd times, while it's highly unlikely the Democrats regain the House.

Like, I'm sorry to be Debbie downer and I'm not trying to be harsh. But it's not happening.

 

[Suikoguy]

I'm really not sure how it's not naive to think such a proposal basically impossible, or I guess under the premise that anything is possible, so implausible as to be not really worth contemplating. Congress has, from recollection, attempted to repeal part or all of Obamacare some 60-odd times, while it's highly unlikely the Democrats regain the House.

Like, I'm sorry to be Debbie downer and I'm not trying to be harsh. But it's not happening.

People quickly forget all the compromises the Senate had to make with blue dog Democrats to get Obamacare passed.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

More research: Trump's voters hate women too!

https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/01/rand-kicks-off-2016-presidential-election-panel-survey.html

 

[Chichikov]

I'm really not sure how it's not naive to think such a proposal basically impossible, or I guess under the premise that anything is possible, so implausible as to be not really worth contemplating. Congress has, from recollection, attempted to repeal part or all of Obamacare some 60-odd times, while it's highly unlikely the Democrats regain the House.

Like, I'm sorry to be Debbie downer and I'm not trying to be harsh. But it's not happening.

Get enough public support for a single payer system and it's very much possible, like pretty much anything in a democracy.
And considering that I believe that a single payer system is vastly superior to what the US current have and that If properly explained, a whole lot of people would support it, I think what Sanders is doing is important, even if it won't result in passing of a single payer universal healthcare in the next congress (which I agree is unlikely).

Seeing Democrats argue so strongly against a single payer system is both disheartening and counter-productive.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Loved Trumps' move a few days back. Having a passionate affair with it now.

Cruz got pummeled. Rubio got body bagged. Jeb came out of his shell with a solid performance (Trump clearly owns him). Rand had a solid showing. Fox moderated the thing poorly and the ratings game is probably a loser. The infighting was so sweet.

Trump escaped big time. Fox simply lost . The man is gold I tell you.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I should probably note, I'm not really arguing against it. The US healthcare system is a mess. And I live in a country where I can see firsthand the benefits.

I'm really just stating the political reality.

EDIT: With regards to the below, while I recognise the concept behind "shoot for the moon, land among the stars" and haven't particularly looked into it, I'm not wholly convinced that the halls of power really work like a wage negotiation in Theme Hospital.

 

[dabig2]

I'm really not sure how it's not naive to think such a proposal basically impossible, or I guess under the premise that anything is possible, so implausible as to be not really worth contemplating. Congress has, from recollection, attempted to repeal part or all of Obamacare some 60-odd times, while it's highly unlikely the Democrats regain the House.

Like, I'm sorry to be Debbie downer and I'm not trying to be harsh. But it's not happening.

It's actually pretty simple and Bernie has explained this a few times and it's why he keeps harping on political revolutions: in the reality that he actually assumes the presidency, then the Congressional makeup will be drastically in his favor to pass this. That's the entire point of even talking about progressive agendas - hype up the people and motivate them to go to the polls and vote for the people that will make this far-off dream a reality.

Bernie's entire spiel is why would you start from a compromised position? Starting from $12 min wage likely gets you maaaaaybe $10 if you're lucky, but with Republicans in "fuck you" mode you won't even get that. Any fixes to the ACA will also be a battle and Hillary will already have to settle down from her already compromised position for anything needing to pass a Republican controlled congress.

This country is a lot more liberal than we give it credit for. People post that same Gallup poll about socialists being distrusted, but there's more polls out there showing a majority support for super progressive ideals. Work on that and maybe for once Democrats could find themselves in a position of strength on an issue. See the rapid change on gay marriage and soon to be rapid change on marijuana.

 

[thezerofire]

Why was there so much more reaction for B.o.B talking about Flat Earth Theory recently instead of his promotion of Holocaust denial? Our priorities can be so strange sometimes...

it was a little bit more hidden. Most people probably don't know who David Irving is

 

[Bowdz]

Cruz isn't dropping out before March 1st unless he's hit by a scandal or something. Iowa alone isn't going to get him to bow out. We're talking about Ted Cruz, he doesn't give a fuck about appeasing the party or helping consolidation behind someone else to oppose Trump.

Cruz doesn't need to bow out to lose. If Trump wins Iowa, he instantly becomes officially legitimate. This becomes real. Iowa falls. New Hampshire falls. South Carolina falls. And the game ends. Cruz will stay in to fight out the SEC primary, but Trump leads in most of those states. If he starts dominating, I doubt his lead will shrink.

It all comes down to Iowa and stopping the Trump train from leaving the station. Because once it gets going...

 

[ErasureAcer]

If Democrats nominate the "No We Can't" candidate...this party will definitely be heading towards its demise.

How will Bernie do much of anything? Here's one way.

Obamacare is going to become more unpopular in the years to come as the tax on the uninsured increases as well as rates for those insured. I don't expect a Sanders/Warren ticket to get Medicare for all passed until 2023(although I may be surprised)...in Sanders' second or Warren's first term.

In the meantime they'll be fighting what they can get accomplished like election reform, criminal justice reform, and other issues one would think would have strong bipartisan support. If not...there's always executive actions. A Bernie win means a more engaged populous. A Bernie loss and people will become more apathetic. Government oversight will crumble and the country will become a less stable place on all fronts.

 

[Suikoguy]

Cruz doesn't need to bow out to lose. If Trump wins Iowa, he instantly becomes officially legitimate. This becomes real. Iowa falls. New Hampshire falls. South Carolina falls. And the game ends. Cruz will stay in to fight out the SEC primary, but Trump leads in most of those states. If he starts dominating, I doubt his lead will shrink.

It all comes down to Iowa and stopping the Trump train from leaving the station. Because once it gets going...

There was a poll that came out not long ago that had something like 60% of republicans basically viewing Trump as an option. I don't think Iowa really matters as much as you make it out to be. I guess it could technically end things earlier.

 

[disastermouse]

Sure, I'm sure it would. Two things, though, I would think that would increase the cost to run the program. Maybe only marginally, but it would cost a bit more to implement. You then have the issue of what happens if a person can't pay. Again, these are solvable problems, but I think they would add a bit more to the cost of running this thing. (Costs which Bernie has already underestimated substantially.)

But, more importantly, it's another optics problem for his plan. You're now telling people that you're going to raise their taxes to pay for health insurance, even if they already have health insurance. You're going to tell them they're not allowed to keep what they have, even if they like it. Then, on top of that, you're going to tell them they may have to pay even more than John Q. Public because they make more money. At that point, it's no longer about being forced to pay for someone else's health care. It's now the government, literally, making you pay more for the same services because you make more money.



You may not have to deal with an insurance company denying something, but the only way that the government could keep costs down is to deny certain things. You'll be dealing with someone. Ezra Klein wrote a great article on this after the plan was announced. There is no way this can be affordable when the government rubber stamps everything doctors or patients want.

Yes, I'll be dealing with someone - but a bureaucrat has different motivations that a company actively trying to fuck you.

 

[Basileus777]

Cruz doesn't need to bow out to lose. If Trump wins Iowa, he instantly becomes officially legitimate. This becomes real. Iowa falls. New Hampshire falls. South Carolina falls. And the game ends. Cruz will stay in to fight out the SEC primary, but Trump leads in most of those states. If he starts dominating, I doubt his lead will shrink.

It all comes down to Iowa and stopping the Trump train from leaving the station. Because once it gets going...

He needs to bow out to drop out of the race, which is what Nate Silver is calculating.

 

[pigeon]

I mean, I think everybody pretty much wants single-payer and everybody agrees that, barring a political revolution OF SOME SORT, it won't happen right away. And generally everybody agrees that it's going to cost a lot of money and will raise taxes, which is fine because that's what taxes are for.*

It is interesting to hear that Sanders's plan may actually be worse for some Americans, but honestly given the rest of the discussion I chalk that up to Sanders's plan not really being thought out. But, I mean, maybe this is also an opportunity for people to recognize that Obamacare is actually a pretty good system that imposes meaningful limits on health-care providers, extends free health care to the very poor, and turns an abusive insurance system into a controlled near-utility?

Nah.



* That's not what taxes are for. MMT etc.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I blink and see a round, sweaty man with black hair and acne standing behind a podium.

Can the hard left quit insulting people based on their appearances? This writer dislikes Arthur Chu and so describes him as such. This writer has done months of attacking Huckabee's sons for being obese too. Whatever, annoying.

http://www.cafe.com/raoul-dig-fear-and-loathing-in-the-iowa-caucuses/

 

[Chichikov]

I mean, I think everybody pretty much wants single-payer and everybody agrees that, barring a political revolution OF SOME SORT, it won't happen right away. And generally everybody agrees that it's going to cost a lot of money and will raise taxes, which is fine because that's what taxes are for.*

It is interesting to hear that Sanders's plan may actually be worse for some Americans, but honestly given the rest of the discussion I chalk that up to Sanders's plan not really being thought out. But, I mean, maybe this is also an opportunity for people to recognize that Obamacare is actually a pretty good system that imposes meaningful limits on health-care providers, extends free health care to the very poor, and turns an abusive insurance system into a controlled near-utility?

Nah.

* That's not what taxes are for. MMT etc.

The ACA is an improvement, no doubt about it, but still, the state of US healthcare when compared to the rest of the developed world it's quite terrible.
It's only "pretty good" when you compare it to what came before it.

Also, if you want a single payer system, the bare minimum you can do is not to trash it, which is what I sadly see by many on the left.

 

[ErasureAcer]

which is fine because that's what taxes are for.*

* That's not what taxes are for. MMT etc.

Government's job is to protect the citizens. The whole idea of a nation is that life itself is something beyond your own egoistic mind...there's more important stuff than one's self including taxes paid. The people collectively form a government to serve the people, each other. I'd say tending to people's health is indeed government(the people's) responsibility. Take Flint, Michigan for instance. The government didn't protect the citizens. People's health is now ruined or worse, they're dead. Should we the people help our fellow people? Or should we turn away from the pale and downtrodden? Pink Floyd for President!

If you don't want to help your fellow man...I'd say you're not an American. If you don't believe in taxes to protect your fellow man...I'd suggest you form your own country or at the least join an anarchy group and quit all political forums.

 

[tmarg]

I'm really not sure how it's not naive to think such a proposal basically impossible, or I guess under the premise that anything is possible, so implausible as to be not really worth contemplating. Congress has, from recollection, attempted to repeal part or all of Obamacare some 60-odd times, while it's highly unlikely the Democrats regain the House.

Like, I'm sorry to be Debbie downer and I'm not trying to be harsh. But it's not happening.

I think it has an extremely low chance of happening in the near future (say next 10 years) and an extremely high chance of happening farther down the road (20-30 years from now, say).

Our health care system is too big a mess for it not to happen, and getting worse, but in the current political climate it's impossible. That's why it's good that Bernie has us talking about what the future of US health care could possibly look like, even if his plan isn't viable. I don't believe that tiny, incremental steps will ultimately get us where we need to be.

 

[pigeon]

Government's job is to protect the citizens. The whole idea of a nation is that life itself is something beyond your own egoistic mind...there's more important stuff than one's self including taxes paid. The people collectively form a government to serve the people, each other. I'd say tending to people's health is indeed government(the people's) responsibility. Take Flint, Michigan for instance. The government didn't protect the citizens. People's health is now ruined or worse, they're dead. Should we the people help our fellow people? Or should we turn away from the pale and downtrodden? Pink Floyd for President!

If you don't want to help your fellow man...I'd say you're not an American. If you don't believe in taxes to protect your fellow man...I'd suggest you form your own country or at the least join an anarchy group and quit all political forums.

I don't understand what any of this is responding to at all, so I'm guessing you didn't understand what I was saying either and have just projected some weird thing on me. One consistent irritation whenever I engage with Bernie fans is that they're apparently brand new to paying attention to politics and assume that I am a neocon or whatever whenever I post anything rather than paying attention to the actual things I say and realizing that I have been a socialist longer than they have.

Taxes don't exist to fund the government -- that's what the mint is for. Taxes exist to generate a demand for the government's currency, allowing it to maintain value.

 

[User 463088]

Also, if you want a single payer system, the bare minimum you can do is not to trash it, which is what I sadly see by many on the left.

See, this is an issue that I have. And I'm not calling you out specifically, it's something I've seen a few times both on here and other places I frequent.

Just because I do not support a specific plan does not mean I'm trashing the entire concept. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton is due my unwavering support on a policy issue simply because they're promising me something that we on the Left have wanted. I want universal healthcare, but I want it done in a realistic way. I don't want someone offering me things that they have no realistic chance of actually passing. We're not awarding gold stars for trying. A well meaning plan that accomplishes nothing still accomplishes absolutely nothing. Trying to pass a plan that has no intention of passing doesn't help. It can, in fact, stall out the possibility of actual reform (See Hillarycare).

For all the talk of Bernie only being able to do this if he holds the Senate and the House...well, ya. We had the House and (for a very short time) a Supermajority in the Senate. We still couldn't get a public option through because it had the appearance of a government take over of healthcare. For Bernie to get what he wants, he has to have support in the Senate and the House. No Senators have supported him (or co sponsored his other attempts at another health care debate). No Senators have endorsed him. The Democratic House leadership has signaled that his plan is a complete non-starter.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I don't understand what any of this is responding to at all, so I'm guessing you didn't understand what I was saying either and have just projected some weird thing on me. One consistent irritation whenever I engage with Bernie fans is that they're apparently brand new to paying attention to politics and assume that I am a neocon or whatever whenever I post anything rather than paying attention to the actual things I say and realizing that I have been a socialist longer than they have.

Taxes don't exist to fund the government -- that's what the mint is for. Taxes exist to generate a demand for the government's currency, allowing it to maintain value.

It seems like you were saying raised taxes should not be used for universal healthcare. Instead you're saying the mint should pay for it?

 

[Black Mamba]

It seems like you were saying raised taxes should not be used for universal healthcare. Instead you're saying the mint should pay for it?

He's saying taxes don't fund government. The government can fund the government as it wants without taxing anyone anything.

Taxes have another function, such as affecting income inequality or reducing the money supply.

 

[Chichikov]

Pink Floyd for President!

:scust
We didn't fight the redcoats to let that British filth into the white house.

 

[pigeon]

It seems like you were saying raised taxes should not be used for universal healthcare. Instead you're saying the mint should pay for it?

If you don't understand what I am saying in a post, it is okay to just not respond. You don't have to accuse me of being un-American.

Mamba's explanation is indeed what I was alluding to. I am not an economist and I won't propose to argue all the details of MMT -- when I put stuff in a footnote, it's usually an in-joke -- but I do think it is interesting and revealing to understand the role that taxes and fees play in ensuring a nation's currency remains a medium of exchange.

Edit: and of course there's taxes as Pigouvian moral action or as a redistributive lever, also

 

[tmarg]

I want universal healthcare, but I want it done in a realistic way. I don't want someone offering me things that they have no realistic chance of actually passing. We're not awarding gold stars for trying. A well meaning plan that accomplishes nothing still accomplishes absolutely nothing.

At present, all universal health care proposals are completely impossible to pass. In fact, if the ACA wasn't already established policy now, it would be impossible to pass it today. If we accept what you are saying, then we shouldn't discuss it at all, but the only way public opinion changes on the matter is if we get people talking about what it would realistically mean for our country.

That means we have to take down the bullshit Republican talking points about death squads and doctors living is poverty and research being halted and years long waiting lists for care, but it also means we have to stop liberals presenting magical pixie dust plans where it magically fixes every problem and nobody has to pay for it.

 

[ErasureAcer]

He's saying taxes don't fund government. The government can fund the government as it wants without taxing anyone anything.

Taxes have another function, such as affecting income inequality or reducing the money supply.

Thank you. I get what you're saying (as well as Pigeon) through this post.

The tax money collected goes where exactly or since the government is in constant debt...it is sent to a black hole?

 

[User 463088]

At present, all universal health care proposals are completely impossible to pass. In fact, if the ACA wasn't already established policy now, it would be impossible to pass it today. If we accept what you are saying, then we shouldn't discuss it at all, but the only way public opinion changes on the matter is if we get people talking about what it would realistically mean for our country.

That means we have to take down the bullshit Republican talking points about death squads and doctors living is poverty and research being halted and years long waiting lists for care, but it also means we have to stop liberals presenting magical pixie dust plans where it magically fixes every problem and nobody has to pay for it.

You're absolutely right. We couldn't get the ACA through this Congress. It's too big and too sweeping even if we had small majorities in both Houses. That's why I believe any thing we realistically want to do should be through making the ACA better. I doubt very much there would be too many Dem Senators and House Members who wouldn't be willing to make changes to the ACA. The pound of flesh has already been paid.

I believe we should have the conversation as to why universal, not for profit healthcare is better. Again, though, I don't think we do that by scraping what we've fought for. I've mentioned that I think a realistic path is to try and see if we could, with majorities in both houses, get a public option on the table. We can use that as our entrance point. Make it optional, at first Once that works, we could incentivize people to transition towards that and away from the for-profit plans on the Federal Exchange. We should make it so Medicare can negotiate drug prices. Lay the unsexy groundwork for what an American version of universal coverage will have to look like. We're on, like, Chapter 3 of what we need to do to make universal, not for profit coverage feasible. We need to work on it, definitely. What we don't need to do, is turn to Chapter 40 and pretend like everything's fine.

I've mentioned this a lot. I'm a realist. Bernie knows his plan is not going to happen. You know it. I know it. Anyone who follows politics knows it. So, basically, he's offering me absolutely nothing. I need to know what he'd actually do if he were elected. I know, without a doubt, this is what he wants, but what is he actually going to get? That's what I would like to know. I understand that he can't release his plan and then immediately release another one that's realistic. I also need to know where his political capital is to get this type of thing done, especially when there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to go to bat for him over this. (This critique extends beyond this one issue, to be honest.)

 

[Suikoguy]

Pretty much,

1.) Medicare Drug Price Negotiation
2.) Non-profit insurance and hospital incentives.
3.) Medicare Insurance Plan you can buy into like any other insurance plan, to be put on the marketplace.

Those are steps that have a chance of passing with a dem majority, and not a significant dem majority.

Edit: If efforts are not put in to get (edit: and keep) the ACA working well, then it will set back progress towards better things.
On a side note; The call I had tonight with the marketplace went really well.

 

[tmarg]

I've mentioned this a lot. I'm a realist. Bernie knows his plan is not going to happen. You know it. I know it. Anyone who follows politics knows it. So, basically, he's offering me absolutely nothing. I need to know what he'd actually do if he were elected. I know, without a doubt, this is what he wants, but what is he actually going to get? That's what I would like to know. I understand that he can't release his plan and then immediately release another one that's realistic.

Fair enough, but you are asking substantially more of him than we do of any other politician. Basically nobody talks about what they actually are going to do once their campaign proposals are shut down by their opposition. As I've said before, unless there is a massive shift in congress, all Sanders or Clinton will do legislatively is wear out their veto pen.

I would assume that, if elected, Bernie will work towards his goal of universal health care as best he is able, but fall extremely short.

I also don't think he has a real chance of being elected, and bringing actual progressive policy into the public view is one of the primary purposes of his campaign. And its working.

 

[User 463088]

Fair enough, but you are asking substantially more of him than we do of any other politician. Basically nobody talks about what they actually are going to do once their campaign proposals are shut down by their opposition. As I've said before, unless there is a massive shift in congress, all Sanders or Clinton will do legislatively is wear out their veto pen.

I would assume that, if elected, Bernie will work towards his goal of universal health care as best he is able, but fall extremely short.

I also don't think he has a real chance of being elected, and bringing actual progressive policy into the public view is one of the primary purposes of his campaign. And its working.

I don't mean to be asking more of him, honestly, but I can see how that is the face I'm presenting. My point is...I don't like being offered steak if all you can afford is hamburger. It might give me the warm and fuzzies, but it's not going to actually happen. So, get real with me. Again, my personality more than anything else. It's probably the same reason I rolled my eyes at "Hope and change" so hard in 2008. I was wrong then. Maybe I'm wrong now.

I guess my critique comes from the position in which Bernie actually does want (and can) win this thing. I look at Hillary's proposals on healthcare, and I see them as realistic. The Medicare drug negotiation thing, for example, is low hanging fruit with a Dem majority. I think she has the capital to get those votes. I think our leadership can get those votes.

Again, I'm obviously a huge Clinton supporter. However, there's a chance (albeit a small one) that Bernie could be our nominee. I think raising questions about his plan is a good thing, because it gives him and his campaign time to figure things out. Bernie's touched something in some people, even if some of it is pie in the sky type stuff and doesn't really appeal to me. To ignore it, though, would be completely stupid of me. And I try not to be completely stupid.

 

[Retromelon]

:scust
We didn't fight the redcoats to let that British filth into the white house.

Aren't you israeli tho? Add another incorrect chichikov opinion to the pile

 

[User 463088]

I don't know if this was posted anywhere, but there was a poll of Tennessee for the primary. Kinda. It's weird. It's asking who people would like to see as President, not who they plan on voting for. I'll post it anyway.

Trump 32.7%
Cruz 16.5%
Carson 6.6%
Rubio 5.3%
Christie 2.4%
Bush 1.6%
Don't Know 28.1%

Hillary 47%
Sanders 15.2%
Don't Know 25.8%

http://mtsupoll.org/

 

[Coriolanus]

Dear diary: today i realized that a massive part of the reason why i want hills as vp is in no small part to watch the panic that would ensue in the opposition when they tried to find a sacrificial lamb for the vp debate.

Hmm, wonder if cruz would try to have a go at it. Not that theyd want him.

Thank you. I get what you're saying (as well as Pigeon) through this post.

The tax money collected goes where exactly or since the government is in constant debt...it is sent to a black hole?

Consider: what need would you have for other people's dollars if you were the only person in the world that could print dollars?

Aren't you israeli tho? Add another incorrect chichikov opinion to the pile

To be fair, the british fought the british to keep the british out of the white house, and then went and installed a filthy brit.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Consider: what need would you have for other people's dollars if you were the only person in the world that could print dollars?

I'm not good at riddles. I'd differ to black mamba's quote of the need for taxation for control but that simply doesn't seem like a good enough answer. Obviously, you wouldn't need the tax dollars as you could create more.

 

[disastermouse]

I don't mean to be asking more of him, honestly, but I can see how that is the face I'm presenting. My point is...I don't like being offered steak if all you can afford is hamburger. It might give me the warm and fuzzies, but it's not going to actually happen. So, get real with me. Again, my personality more than anything else. It's probably the same reason I rolled my eyes at "Hope and change" so hard in 2008. I was wrong then. Maybe I'm wrong now.

I guess my critique comes from the position in which Bernie actually does want (and can) win this thing. I look at Hillary's proposals on healthcare, and I see them as realistic. The Medicare drug negotiation thing, for example, is low hanging fruit with a Dem majority. I think she has the capital to get those votes. I think our leadership can get those votes.

Again, I'm obviously a huge Clinton supporter. However, there's a chance (albeit a small one) that Bernie could be our nominee. I think raising questions about his plan is a good thing, because it gives him and his campaign time to figure things out. Bernie's touched something in some people, even if some of it is pie in the sky type stuff and doesn't really appeal to me. To ignore it, though, would be completely stupid of me. And I try not to be completely stupid.

Hillary has already let herself be bargained down, though, before she even starts. You don't win by compromising before you even start - especially not with the party that has been eating your lunch for 35 years.

You say 'I want a fucking pony'. And when they refuse, you settle for a dog. If you start with 'I want a dog!', you end up with sea monkeys.

Bernie Sanders: Because Fuck Sea Monkeys, That's Why!

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Hillary has already let herself be bargained down, though, before she even starts. You don't win by compromising before you even start - especially not with the party that has been eating your lunch for 35 years.

You say 'I want a fucking pony'. And when they refuse, you settle for a dog. If you start with 'I want a dog!', you end up with sea monkeys.

Bernie Sanders: Because Fuck Sea Monkeys, That's Why!

This isn't a fucking job offer that you're negotiating. Here's your scenario:

Hillary: I want $12 per hour minimum wage.
Republicans: No.

Bernie: I want $15 per hour minimum wage.
Republicans: No.

Yeah, aiming high really makes a big difference. You have to flip Congress to get either minimum wage passed and promising $15 per hour won't magically flip gerrymandered or swing districts. And frankly $15 per hour is too high of a minimum wage in some parts of the country. Why not let it be a local standard?

 

[ErasureAcer]

This isn't a fucking job offer that you're negotiating. Here's your scenario:

Hillary: I want $12 per hour minimum wage.
Republicans: No.

Bernie: I want $15 per hour minimum wage.
Republicans: No.

Yeah, aiming high really makes a big difference. You have to flip Congress to get either minimum wage passed and promising $15 per hour won't magically flip gerrymandered or swing districts. And frankly $15 per hour is too high of a minimum wage in some parts of the country. Why not let it be a local standard?

So the only candidate worth voting for is the one who can win the general which continues to be Bernie.

And it's a shame my "Hillary Can't Win in 2016" thread was closed(excuse given was there were too many political threads when 10 more have popped up in the past week after mine...none closed) because this video would be in there right now...so instead it is here.

 

[tmarg]

Why not let it be a local standard?

Because there are places in this country who's "local standard" would be to continue to exploit the working poor to a deplorable degree, and will only accept change if forced to by the federal government.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Because there are places in this country who's "local standard" would be to continue to exploit the working poor to a deplorable degree, and will only accept change if forced to by the federal government.

Do you really think the minimum wage in Kansas needs to be roughly $33k per year?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Do you really think the minimum wage in Kansas needs to be roughly $33k per year?

Maybe they could buy a few books, get the internet and learn something?

Spoiler

My apologies to Kansans. Your politics are horrible.

 

[Coriolanus]

Do you really think the minimum wage in Kansas needs to be roughly $33k per year?

Before we continue, do you think that the minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage?

 

[Clefargle]

So the only candidate worth voting for is the one who can win the general which continues to be Bernie.

And it's a shame my "Hillary Can't Win in 2016" thread was closed(excuse given was there were too many political threads when 10 more have popped up in the past week after mine...none closed) because this video would be in there right now...so instead it is here.

They can both win the general, there is nothing to suggest that either dem candidate would lose to trump. I'm for either Clinton or Sanders, they can both beat Trump.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Maybe they could buy a few books, get the internet and learn something?

What is the actual cost of living?

 

[Y2Kev]

Feedback on MORNING JOE seems to be that JEB won the debate and is SURGING. Rubio is tanking himself and Cruz bomba'd. If JEB!!! rises from the ashes and comes to be the establishment candidate, Donald may have shot himself in the foot!

 

[sprsk]

Feedback on MORNING JOE seems to be that JEB won the debate and is SURGING. Rubio is tanking himself and Cruz bomba'd. If JEB!!! rises from the ashes and comes to be the establishment candidate, Donald may have shot himself in the foot!

Que vine of Jeb! awkwardly downing a surge