21
   

Bernie Sanders 2020

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 12:02 pm
Some heart attacks are worse than others. If Bernie's is among the latter I hope he doesn't kill himself trying to satisfy the fanatical hopes of people like Lash and edgar

hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I was thinking something similar. If people cared about him they'd want him to drop out.
edgarblythe
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 02:05 pm
The only reason for Sanders to drop out would be his own personal choice. He is the only progressive running and we need his programs to turn things around.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 04:41 pm
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/09/massachusetts-unions-vote-to-vet-presidential-candidates-on-medicare-for-all-breaking-with-labors-top-brass/

MEMBERS OF THE Massachusetts AFL-CIO recently passed a unanimous resolution to endorse a presidential candidate only if that candidate supports Medicare for All, marking a break from the labor federation’s national leadership, which has equivocated on the question of whether to support universal health care.

The resolution, which was passed at a late September convention in Massachusetts attended by delegates from AFL-CIO constituent unions across the country, comes after months of comments from labor leaders criticizing Medicare for All, despite support for the measure among their members. In August and September, Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (an AFL-CIO member union), said publicly that they do not currently support universal health care, despite assurances from Sen. Bernie Sanders, who authored the Medicare for All plan, that a single-payer option would not sacrifice hard-won benefits for union members.

“The Massachusetts AFL-CIO urges the national AFL-CIO to endorse a presidential candidate with a demonstrated commitment to the pro-worker agenda that this body has previously endorsed, including but not limited to a $15-dollar federal minimum wage, ending Right to Work nationwide, and a Medicare for All system that recognizes health care as a human right,” reads the resolution, which was put forward by Beth Kontos, the president of the American Federation of Teachers in Massachusetts.

———————
Wooooohooooooo!!
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:07 am
This Is the Strongest Argument Against Medicare for All

A deep-blue state’s failure to enact a single-payer system shows why a national version is unlikely to succeed.

Quote:
It was in Vermont that Senator Bernie Sanders learned to love single-payer health care — what he now calls Medicare for All — and it was in Vermont that American single-payer faced its greatest test so far.

Under Gov. Pete Shumlin, a Democrat and avowed supporter of single-payer health care, the state worked to create a groundbreaking plan, called Green Mountain Care, to cover all its citizens. Following the Affordable Care Act’s 2010 passage, state lawmakers enacted legislation intended to put Vermont “on a path to a single-payer system.” No state-based single-payer effort ever made it as far, and Mr. Shumlin positioned the plan as a test case for the nation.

Yet despite strong support from the legislature and the governor’s office, not to mention Mr. Sanders himself, the effort failed.

That failure demonstrates why any similar project undertaken at a national scale is unlikely to succeed as well. In fact, it is the strongest argument against Mr. Sanders’s single-payer plan.

The first problem for any single-payer push would be political support: Mr. Shumlin campaigned on a promise to build a single-payer system in Vermont, but the public never quite bought in. An April 2014 survey showed 40 percent support, 39 percent opposition and 21 percent undecided — a lukewarm result for such a major undertaking. That year, Mr. Shumlin barely won the popular vote against an anti-single-payer Republican. As John E. McDonough of Harvard wrote in a perceptive New England Journal of Medicine analysis of the plan’s collapse, “a clear public mandate” for Mr. Shumlin’s health care agenda “was nowhere in evidence.”

One reason the plan lacked strong support was lawmakers were cagey about how to pay for it. The 2011 proposal included no specific financing mechanism, because Mr. Shumlin’s team worried that might kill its chances.

Initial cost estimates were far too optimistic. A 2011 study led by William Hsiao of Harvard found that single-payer could reduce state health care spending by 8 percent to 12 percent immediately and more in later years, resulting in about $2 billion in savings over a decade. But by the time Mr. Shumlin ditched the plan, internal government estimates showed a five-year savings of just 1.6 percent.

The reduced savings were partially a result of several decisions, made under political pressure, to expand the offered benefits by paying for a larger share of an individual’s average costs and covering out-of-state workers.

Lower savings, in turn, meant higher tax rates. Initial estimates foresaw that businesses would have to pay additional taxes equal to 9.4 percent of payroll, and families would pay a little more than 3 percent of income, supposedly costing a typical household $370 less per year overall.

Yet by 2014, Mr. Shumlin’s own estimates found that employers would have to pay taxes equal to about 11.5 percent of payroll, while families would have to pay as much as 9.5 percent of their annual income to make the financing work. The plan would have nearly doubled the size of the state’s budget. For both political and economic reasons, the cost was deemed too high.

There were other complications: Public outreach was weak. And in 2013, the state started an online insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act that was plagued by technical failures, which the state struggled to fix. As the Cornell Policy Review noted in a 2017 post-mortem, the mix of higher-than-expected costs and administrative problems “fostered an atmosphere of uncertainty and distrust in the state government, turning a politically steep climb into a politically insurmountable one.”

And so, at the end of 2014, Mr. Shumlin admitted defeat. “I have learned that the limitations of state-based financing, the limitations of federal law, the limitations of our tax capacity and the sensitivity of our economy” make single-payer “unwise and untenable at this time,” he said. “The risk of economic shock is too high.”

The Vermont plan was done in by high taxes, distrust of government and lack of political support. Any effort by a Sanders administration to enact a single-payer system at a national level would probably be doomed by similar problems.


Like Mr. Shumlin, Mr. Sanders is a devout single-payer supporter who has campaigned aggressively on the idea. And like Mr. Shumlin, Mr. Sanders has so far declined to lay out a plan for fully financing his Medicare for All system.

But while some polls show majority public support for single-payer, that support declines substantially when faced with trade-offs like the elimination of most private coverage or higher taxes — two components of Mr. Sanders’s plan.

Similarly, Medicare for All supporters argue that single-payer would reduce the nation’s overall health spending. But savings are heavily predicated on the assumption that the new government-run system could pay Medicare rates, which are typically lower than those of private insurance, to providers across the board.

Legislators in Washington State started with the same assumption when they attempted to design a state-managed insurance plan, and it proved wrong. The plan passed only once rates were increased. Yet even a plan with lower rates would still represent an enormous increase in total government spending.

A Sanders presidency would have to overcome a deep trust deficit born of both lingering frustrations with Obamacare and the generalized cynicism and ineptitude of the Trump administration and the current Congress. And unlike Mr. Shumlin, Mr. Sanders would be faced with both a public and a legislature that is not nearly as friendly as in left-leaning Vermont. Even if Democrats somehow took both chambers of Congress, influential Democrats in the Senate, where legislative details would be hashed out, are still wary of pursuing a full-fledged single-payer system.

It’s true, of course, that there are differences between state and federal budgeting, and true that the president has political clout no state governor could ever hope to match.

But if it couldn’t work in Vermont, with a determined governor, an accommodating legislature and progressive voters, Mr. Sanders will have a tough time explaining why it will somehow succeed on a vastly larger scale. Vermont represents a practical failure on friendly turf, and that is what makes it such a powerful counter to Mr. Sanders’s proposal.

“If Vermont can pass a strong single-payer system and show it works well, it will not only be enormously important to this state, it will be a model,” Mr. Sanders said in 2013.

As it turns out, it was a model. But instead of showing us how it would work, it showed us why it would fail.

nyt/suderman
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:17 am
@hightor,
So then, let's learn from experience: a single-payer system may in fact prove inferior to a system where a public option is available to all and competing against private insurance companies.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:34 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
It's a good point, finn.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:39 am
@hightor,
Lash and Ed are fake Bernites. They pooed on Bernie as soon as he conceded defeat to Hillary in 2016. If they don't care for his political views and approach, why would they care for his health?
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:45 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier is a 67 year old farm wife in Iowa who is currently cheating on her climate-change denying husband with Mr Drucker, owner and proprietor of the town’s General Store.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:54 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Yes, I must let Bernie out of the basement.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 04:11 am
I've thought that Sanders' statements post operation have been admirably honest. He's a good guy.

One implication of those statements is that people will be understandably cautious in supporting him now. Certainly more so than previously. Kudos to him for that.

Given how the polls have been developing over the last three months or so, and given this recent event, I think his chances of gaining the nomination are quite weak.

So now it is time to watch his followers to see how they behave.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 04:26 am
@blatham,
I’m watching idiots who would vote for Soup for Brains Biden or Warren who lies constantly.

Bernie will be the nominee.
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 04:49 am
@Lash,
Better in the original

Я смотрю идиотов, которые будут голосовать за суп для мозга Байдена или Уоррена, который лежит постоянно.

Берни будет кандидатом.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 05:07 am
@blatham,
Oh for **** sake. Now this...
Quote:
Bernie Sanders backpedaled Wednesday on statements suggesting he would curtail his presidential campaign after a recent heart attack.

“I misspoke the other day; I said a word I should not have said, and media drives me a little bit nuts to make a big deal about it,” Sanders said on the “NBC Nightly News.” “We’re going to get back into the groove of a very vigorous campaign. I love doing rallies, and I love doing town meetings.”
Politico

"I misspoke the other day" (which was yesterday). That's not honest.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 05:16 am
Quote:
...or Warren who lies constantly.

While not my first choice — I don't have one — "constant lying" doesn't seem like an accurate assessment of her campaign.
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 07:20 am
@hightor,
Interesting article.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 10:50 am
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 11:02 am
@blatham,
Well, it's completely on him now. If he drops dead between now and November 2020, it won't be because of his supporters.
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 11:09 am
@edgarblythe,
A very good video Edgar, he looks so calm and he makes such rational sense. I hope he can remain calm above all when he gets back on the campaign trail.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 11:20 am
@edgarblythe,
An excellent speech.

The problem is that he is so full of **** his pasty post-heart attack flesh is turning brown.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bernie Sanders 2020
  3. » Page 20
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 05:41:02