Always disregard experts. They know nothing
Oh, and disregard everything that works in other countries. US is exceptionally so different to anywhere else
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Oh, and disregard everything that works in other countries. US is exceptionally so different to anywhere else
I have yet to see official numbers that show that. In fact, even in the last debate, Bernie was attacked from not releasing the numbers (as was Tina Turner asked), right?
The closest I got was that Bernie calculator (posted a few days back here) which shows that my taxes (and health insurance) would go up considerably for me (close to five-digit difference) which would suck on the personal level, but it is the right thing to do in the grand scheme of things. So, I am not buying this oh it is gonna be both cheaper and better. Nope, it is gonna be more expensive, the taxes will be up, but it is the right thing to do which is all that matters.
In any case, at the moment it is an academic discussion, chances for his plan to be implemented are 0, though hopefully parts of it get implemented and essentially we get a better Obamacare.
yeah hopefully we get a better obamacare. 60,000 deaths is too much but 0 is not enough if my taxes go up. how about like 15,000? that's just a negotiating stance by the way. id settle for 10,000 if it came down to it.
This is pretty reductive but it's starting to look like the Democrats are out of ideas before the election is close to beginning. Once again they are going to let the person who finished runner-up in the Primaries years ago, like Hillary who was beaten by Obama, run against Trump. He must be loving it! Watch how Sanders gets painted as a Corbyn like figure in the run-up to the elections to the point where it will seem like such a foregone conclusion there will be voter apathy and a low turn-out.
In this article there is the link to the study. but you will need to pay (not for the link that talks about the study) for the study
https://www.iflscience.com/health-a...50-billion-every-year-according-to-new-study/
analysis from a libertarian think tank shows it saves 2tn over 10 years.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report
meta-analysis:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013
new study:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-save-450-billion-68-232211541.html
With a *flat tax*, only people in the top ~15% would have to pay more for it: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/10/30/how-to-approach-medicare-for-all-financing/
I said I would be happy on paying an extra 10k in taxes to see this plan implemented. I just see no chance of it happening though. GOP controls the senate, and the best projection gives Democrats a 50-50 senate. Joe Manchin has already said that he would vote against M4A, Sinema almost surely is gonna vote against, and Klobuchar said that 2/3 of Democrat senators are against it. Even if we assume that the majority of them will change their mind, still you need 50 votes, and there is no forecast which makes it possible. The best case would be for it to happen in 2022, where Democrats hopefully get the Senate, but they also need to keep the House, and you need almost every Democrat being united towards that plan.
Like it or not, it is not gonna happen. An Obamacare+ has some chance to happen (you need still to flip the Senate, but every Democrat would support that), which is the next best thing.
I get some may have a heavier tax burden, I get healthcare provision may have to narrow at the top to help provide for the bottom, I get the insurance industry may take a hit. I even get the apprehension of the taken-care-of fearing what they may have to give up. I don't get feck up the country as if the lower income brackets exist outside of society, clinging onto like some parasite bleeding the country of all it's goodness.
Thank for this. I will read later in detail.
I am surprised then why Bernie is not releasing the projected numbers. If the most generous healthcare plan in the world is actually going to cost less money (which I think it is a contradiction in itself but anyway), why the numbers are not released?
But you wouldn't have health insurance under Sanders' plans. No insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. You get that, right? Or are you so American now that higher taxes are unacceptable even if your overall costs are lower?
As I said, in total it would be a net negative of 10k for me (or close by, dependent on the calculations). Even if I get really sick and I have to pay the highest deductible, it will still be several thousand dollars cheaper than what I would pay under that plan. I also said it is totally acceptable for me, in fact, a great idea, considering that I think M4A should be implemented and in all my life I have lived in countries that you didn't need to get worried if you get sick.
I also said that the current climate makes it impossible to be achieved.
If those Dems cared about their political careers they better wisen up and serve their constituents. Otherwise they’re getting yeeted from congress.
No, they are not. For example, Manchin won in a state that Trump won by 40 points (and likely is gonna win even by a larger margin this time). Democrats in blue states will eventually unite around Bernie's plans, but those in purple, red and deep red states are going to reject it.
Governing is harder than being in opposition. Just ask Republicans who bitched for 8 years about Obamacare being the root of all evil, but then couldn't repeal it even when they controlled everything.
And if you say that if Manchin is a Republican in disguise, so it doesn't matter if it is him or some Republican in the senate, you are wrong. If some Republican was in his place, Obamacare would have been repealed. At times (especially for the big issues), the margins are so thin that you need Democrat senators from the Red states, even if they are unreliable voters (especially for divisive laws). The alternative is a senate fully controlled by GOP, and good luck of implementing anything in that scenario.
Surely even you can imagine some Democrats losing out because their constituents are more to the left than they are?
Though frankly Revan, if this thread had been around in the sixties, you'd probably be telling us that the Republicans have absolutely no chance of getting those southern states from the Democrats, no matter how much they oppose civil rights legislation. It seems like you have difficulty with the concept of political trends changing.
Not really. I just think that change is incremental. And while M4A should be the target, I don't expect it to happen under Bernie's presidency. For that, I think that a concrete target should be an improvement in Obamacare, while slowly (but steadily) make the necessary conditions to go for a M4A plan.
Not long ago (in 2008) the Democrats had 60 votes in the senate and were quite unified (actually Bernie was one of the biggest opponents of Obamacare from the Democrats). With those numbers, you can make drastic changes like M4A. Until that is possible (and that should be obviously the plan), try to have a better Obamacare.
I also was obviously talking about Democrats in deep-red states who won't go for M4A. Those senators are mostly elected from people who love Trump and vote GOP for all other elections. Most of the people who vote them are to the right of them, not to the left.
I cannot make this simpler than that.
wow thanks
Are you indirectly trying to brag about how much money you make?
.I really don't believe it would be net negative for a middle class family under Bernie's plans based on what I've read.None of that means that Democrats who continue going against their own voting base on policy won't be in danger because of that. Just like how Republicans who dared to criticise Trump about anything are losing elections all over the place because, entirely unsurprisingly, the core Rep voters love Trump.
Are you indirectly trying to brag about how much money you make?
What does a middle class family make in your mind? I don't think Revan is wrong here. Considering all said and done, there maybe a few who pay more but it's the right thing to do.
What bernie suggest, while good in theory, means you have to rip off the whole American system on healthcare, and nobody knows what it'll take. Nobody knows what will happen, nobody can correctly predict or even reliably predict any sort of prediction since there's too many variables.
What if the current pharmaceuticals refuse to reduce their price? What if suddenly the cost of this medicare for all explodes beyond control (it did happened in Indonesia btw, we have medicare for all. It's a good system, but the burden on the fiscal is something else)? What if there's sabotage from the inside trying to undermine Sanders?
And alot of what ifs.
This is not something that many seasoned politicians would want to be a part of, not everyone is a purist.
Look, I'm not a trumpist, I champion equality and knows how fecked up the American Health system is, but that doesnt mean I'm not skeptical on bernie sanders' proposition.
Don't tell me, Trump got elected didn't he?
Not everyone who participates in voting are crooked, I don't know where you get that notion of.
I only have 1 if
What if everything continues like now having thousands of people every year dying because they can't afford having medical care and many other thousands bankrupt in order to get medical care?
No, I am refering at all those politicians that only care of 10 years and poor them, they would feel threatened and better not to break the status quo. Apparently you recognize that the system is rigged but is better continue like that
Trump finally fills a stadium for a campaign rally.
Wait? What?
So I can't question Bernie's Grand plan now? So if I have any reservation on Bernie Sanders I'm crooked? I'm missing your point? What's your point here?
Legitimate sources on something that's yet to be implimented, gotta love americans. They have a study for everything you can name
Oliver said it better than I'll ever will, but at this rate I wouldn't blame anyone if they have a tiny doubt on what lies ahead under Bernie
No man, you can question whatever you want but you said this
And correct me if the US system is not a majority system. if most of them are corrupt, how you plan to change the system if it perpetuates with the same kind of politicians?
For what you express you don't want bernie because the change that he proposes might fecked up the current system...But at the same time you recognize that the system is already fecked up
You know already the saying: "trying the same over and over and expect different results is stupid (or crazy, or etc...)"
Good on you, we shall we where we are 10 years down the road.
Look mate, no need to get edgy. I too will vote for Bernie sanders if I'm a US citizen. Just saying.. you know.. that Bernie plan is a territory unknown.
i prefer a positive with unknown risks that a negative reality
Presidential nominees are often people who ran previously unsuccessfully, it has nothing to do with running out of ideas. For lots of them it’s about name recognition and getting their message across to enough people to make them a serious contender next time.
Well played - I stand corrected. Maybe it was referring to primaries, where those three states were the first ones to vote. Nevada appears to have been later in the case of Al Gore in 2000. And he was only up against a single opponent it seems, so that obivously make it easier.
perfect example of his point, a video is going around today of bloomberg giving a speech to MIT. He says the answer to "schooling problems" is fire half the teachers and double the pay of the rest.
A billionaire isn't inherently intelligent. Bloomberg is good at selling terminals to companies and that's generally it. He hasn't studied teaching, education, child psychology. The more people start to understand that their collective decision making via educated professionals in their field (and electing the politicians that would listen to said educated professionals) is how a liberal-social democracy is supposed to work, the quicker the "billionaire savior" entitlement and delusion will die. The rule-via-billionaire model and those that want politicians that are controlled by said people ALWAYS ends poorly.
Last edited:
Now they are trying to get Bernie on his Castro comment.
Just circulate the feck out of the Obama video saying exactly the same.
It’s not the older Cubans who internalize that propaganda that’s a worry in Florida, it’s the retirees and ex-Midwesterners in exurban areas who were decisive for Trump in 16 and Rick Scott in 18. Contrary to common wisdom, Clinton did run by traditional metrics an excellent organisation there and drove turn out as much as possible, but that new pool of voters were a big problem. I don’t think there’s enough votes in Broward and Miami-Dade to overcome that if inroads can’t be made into that community. There are also the ex-felons who are now eligible to vote but we simply don’t know enough to gauge their voting behaviour.
Scarborough and his crew were bricking it this morning - as if Sanders has never been "vetted" in the past. Anyone who grew up in the US with a mild interest in politics has known about him for decades and its not as if he wasn't comprehensively covered in 2015/16.
Why is the media, the Democratic party establishment and all the rich people like Warren Buffet, Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs CEO etc trying to bring down Bernie Sanders?
I suppose this is a rhetorical question, since anyone that has paid any attention to this thread surely must know the answer?
Just don't mention the drones
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/14/obama-secret-kill-list-disposition-matrix
Last edited:
- Status