US Presidential Election 2020

Water John

Someone mentioned early polling in some Super Tuesday States. Those voters will be immune to the result in SC. Similar to Warren's good debate not having an impact.
There is no equivalence between Trump and Sanders. That's just nonsense.

Joe_ Public

Bobtheman wrote: »

Bernie is more extreme than Trump just in the other direction. Both parties need to revamp their primary systems to stop Johnny come latelys
My heart is with Bernie but he needs to moderate or he will bern out !

Bernie is more extreme than trump but yet your heart is still with him. I find that statement difficult to process tbh. I think sanders is quite open to criticism on several levels but the notion that he is some kind of dubious radical extremist is to my mind a product of the gaslighting we saw against labour before the uk election. I've yet to see any hard substance put behind it, unless people think stuff like the castro comment qualifies as extreme. It helps to know where people think the boundaries are.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Biden is obviously going to win South Carolina, but on closer inspection the exit polls don't look as great for him with a view to other states.

From 538:
Sanders won 45 percent of white voters aged 17 to 44 while Biden won only 8 percent, but among black voters, Biden actually edged Sanders 41 percent to 29 percent under 45.

Obviously Biden was always going to do very well with black voters in an older, more conservative southern state given his association with Obama.

But that figure of just 8% of white voters aged 17-44 has to be alarming for him - not just for states with whiter electorates in the primaries, but in terms of his ability to win in November, whereas the black vote would fall heavily for Sanders if he makes it to November.

It should be remembered that in 2016, Hillary Clinton won South Carolina by a margin of 51.42% over Sanders.

Biden's margin of victory tonight is projected to be 24%. It looks Sanders will take second place with around 20%.

Where are you getting the assumption that the black vote would fall heavily in line behind Sanders in November more than the youth vote would fall behind Biden?

I'd argue the opposite is much more likely, as the young white vote will be out to do anything to stop Trump, whereas the broader black vote could be squeezed down, like it was in 2016.

Foxtrol

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I'm sick and tired of people in the American media making out Bernie Sanders to be some kind of dangerous radical, yes his policies are somewhat to the left but he's made out to be far radical than he actually is. Another that he's an ideologue, a politician with actual policies..the horror!! I couldn't name off the top of my head any of Joe Biden's policies or what he actually stands for.

But anyway, the scaremongering appears to be working and Biden's big win in South Carolina is bound to give him some momentum going into super Tuesday. I think Bernie will still end up with the most delegates but if he heads into the convention without a majority and Bloomberg or Biden on his coattails then I think he lose on the superdelegates. That would be a great result for Donald Trump.

I'm sick of people that appear to be uninformed of US society outside of TV and social media making comments on things they don't understand.

Bernie is an ideologue not because he has policies, it is because for decades he has shown that he is incapable of finding common ground and actually move his agendas forward. You're either 100% with him or you're all the same. He believed JFK and Nixon were the same and wanted to primary Obama, which would have hurt him going into 2012. For his decades in politics he has shown little leadership to actually get things done, mostly enjoys shouting from the sidelines.

It isn't incorrect to call his policies radical, many are much further on the left than anything we have in major parties in Ireland. I'll quote my response a few days ago to a similar moan from someone about how Bernie is portrayed by 'clueless people' regarding his healthcare policies

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think that is a quite lazy and ignorant view of the situation.

Most understand and would welcome the concept of it if they could click their fingers and have it tomorrow with the 'savings' now being claimed by Bernie. What most are wary of is the potential for it to be incredibly expensive and the risks of ending up far worse off than they are with their current plans.

What Bernie is promising is moving a country from basically no public healthcare for those of working age to something beyond what even Slaintecare is aiming for, in a country of 65 times the population and one that has to deal with states having their own rules and systems.

Having concerns about such a dramatic shift isn't a sign that they are clueless, if anything it is the opposite. It is made worse by the fact the person that is promising it has repeatedly struggled with how he is going to bring it about.

Michelinextra.

The old fox Biden made a great move

"This is your campaign"

DreamsBurnDown

Foxtrol wrote: »

It isn't incorrect to call his policies radical, many are much further on the left than anything we have in major parties in Ireland. I'll quote my response a few days ago to a similar moan from someone about how Bernie is portrayed by 'clueless people' regarding his healthcare policies

Once they understand that all private health insurance will be eliminated, there is barely a majority of Democratic voters in many states who support Bernie's medicare for all, before factoring in independents who lean Democrat, a vital group for the Democratic candidate to win. A hell of a lot of people like their health care plan, even though they might complain about it's expense.

One of the most misunderstood things about American workers in general is that income taxes are significantly lower than Europe (12% for a married couple up to $78,950 and 22% up to $169,400) which offsets much higher health insurance costs. However, a huge number of people have health insurance plans where their employer pays a significant portion, often well above 50%. These people are very concerned about giving their plans up and trusting the government to replace it with something better (Congress at a 20% approval rating doesn't help).

Biden's plan to expand Obamacare to more low income workers, protect those with pre exisitng conditions, and regulate the insurance companies, is a lot more sensible imo. Especially given that there is extreme skepticism that Bernie could ever get his plan through Congress.

briany

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Once they understand that all private health insurance will be eliminated, there is barely a majority of Democratic voters in many states who support Bernie's medicare for all, before factoring in independents who lean Democrat, a vital group for the Democratic candidate to win. A hell of a lot of people like their health care plan, even though they might complain about it's expense.

One of the most misunderstood things about American workers in general is that income taxes are significantly lower than Europe (12% for a married couple up to $78,950 and 22% up to $169,400) which offsets much higher health insurance costs. However, a huge number of people have health insurance plans where their employer pays a significant portion, often well above 50%. These people are very concerned about giving their plans up and trusting the government to replace it with something better (Congress at a 20% approval rating doesn't help).

Biden's plan to expand Obamacare to more low income workers, protect those with pre exisitng conditions, and regulate the insurance companies, is a lot more sensible imo. Especially given that there is extreme skepticism that Bernie could ever get his plan through Congress.

I don't think the lower taxes thing is misunderstood at all. The question is what you get for your money. If you pay lower taxes, but end up offsetting that gain by paying out the @rse in private insurance, then it raises the question as to whether you're better off.

But even at that, there appears to be this constant rebuttal to Bernie's plans by saying that his plan is going to cost the average tax payer more, but Bernie's tax plans appear to advocate for stronger taxes on the most wealthy, not the middle class.

And another thing he has long been critical of is America's military spending. Is it an extreme position to ask why they have all the money in the world to bomb countries a good deal of its citizens have trouble pronouncing, but always act like they're hard up when it comes to health and education? Such a question has always seemed like a taboo for a mainstream candidate.

Foxtrol

briany wrote: »

I don't think the lower taxes thing is misunderstood at all. The question is what you get for your money. If you pay lower taxes, but end up offsetting that gain by paying out the @rse in private insurance, then it raises the question as to whether you're better off.

But even at that, there appears to be this constant rebuttal to Bernie's plans by saying that his plan is going to cost the average tax payer more, but Bernie's tax plans appear to advocate for stronger taxes on the most wealthy, not the middle class.

And another thing he has long been critical of is America's military spending. Is it an extreme position to ask why they have all the money in the world to bomb countries a good deal of its citizens have trouble pronouncing, but always act like they're hard up when it comes to health and education? Such a question has always seemed like a taboo for a mainstream candidate.

His policy is that everyone above $29k will pay more taxes but for most that amount in increased taxes will be less than how much they currently pay for healthcare. The problem is that there is no guarantee in quality of the service that will be there, which scares people who have good plans currently.

Lowering military intervention isn't taboo at all, it is a pretty common thing for candidates to say. I don't think one democrat is proposing more of it and even Trump was calling for less in 2016 (though more military spending in general). The difference with Bernie is that his sweeping changes would see 'free' college for all and 'free' healthcare for all, which both come with astronomical costs to be taken on by the government and would gut the military if they just tried to shift costs (I'm not sure current military spending would even cover both).

AllForIt

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I'm sick and tired of people in the American media making out Bernie Sanders to be some kind of dangerous radical, yes his policies are somewhat to the left but he's made out to be far radical than he actually is. Another that he's an ideologue, a politician with actual policies..the horror!! I couldn't name off the top of my head any of Joe Biden's policies or what he actually stands for.

But anyway, the scaremongering appears to be working and Biden's big win in South Carolina is bound to give him some momentum going into super Tuesday. I think Bernie will still end up with the most delegates but if he heads into the convention without a majority and Bloomberg or Biden on his coattails then I think he lose on the superdelegates. That would be a great result for Donald Trump.

Hard left socialists are always talking about 'changing society'. My that measure they deserve to be called 'radical'. In recent times the term radical is associated with extreme radicalism but that's not the version of radical that's intended in relation to Bernie's socialism.

I don't share you confidence re your latter comments. Biden's win in SC couldn't be more timely. I just have a hunch Biden will swing it. Frankly Bernie doesn't look 'presidential' but on the other hand Biden does. Americans care about that sort of thing despite the current anomaly in the White house.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUVuRlYeC4g

Hillary Clinton in Germany promoting "Hillary", jump to 9 minutes in for interview.
Still blaming the Russians.

Reporter: Are you going to find out who you are going to endorse?
Hillary Clinton: Oh I'll leave that to the voters, winks and moves on.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Once they understand that all private health insurance will be eliminated, there is barely a majority of Democratic voters in many states who support Bernie's medicare for all, before factoring in independents who lean Democrat, a vital group for the Democratic candidate to win. A hell of a lot of people like their health care plan, even though they might complain about it's expense.

Who exactly "likes" shelling out thousands for health insurance or having massive deductibles which could leave you broke or a plan you could easily lose if you lose your job?

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

Who exactly "likes" shelling out thousands for health insurance or having massive deductibles which could leave you broke or a plan you could easily lose if you lose your job?

People who recognize that heath care is very expensive and don't expect it to be free? Most employee sponsored plans are not outrageously expensive and do not have "massive" deductibles. People who lose their jobs legally get Cobra insurance for a year and if they are truly in need qualify for Medicare.

As I said it's a trade off. People who pay 12% income tax don't like the idea of paying 40%. We already pay towards Medicare/Medicaid through a separate payroll tax, most people would have no issue paying a bit more to cover more people who are uninsured or under insured.

Everyone who can afford to should pay health insurance or contribute towards health care costs imo. It needs to be dedicated to health care though, increasing income tax doesn't cut it because government will always find a way to spend the added revenue on something else.

DreamsBurnDown

briany wrote: »

I don't think the lower taxes thing is misunderstood at all. The question is what you get for your money. If you pay lower taxes, but end up offsetting that gain by paying out the @rse in private insurance, then it raises the question as to whether you're better off.

Yes, but most people have choice when it comes to private health insurance. A younger person might choose a high deductible plan which is quite cheap, a married couple with kids a higher premium plan with lower deductibles, etc.

I think the majority of people are agreed that improvements need to be made, mainly in the area of insuring the uninsured, making sure pre existing conditions are covered, tackling costs and protecting people from bankruptcy. Expanding Obamacare and/or Medicare basically.

Godot.

Biden win please. We need an Irish-American in the White House in case the Brits attempt to go for No Deal and effectively tear up the GFA by implementing a border.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

People who recognize that heath care is very expensive and don't expect it to be free? Most employee sponsored plans are not outrageously expensive and do not have "massive" deductibles. People who lose their jobs legally get Cobra insurance for a year and if they are truly in need qualify for Medicare.

As I said it's a trade off. People who pay 12% income tax don't like the idea of paying 40%. We already pay towards Medicare/Medicaid through a separate payroll tax, most people would have no issue paying a bit more to cover more people who are uninsured or under insured.

Everyone who can afford to should pay health insurance or contribute towards health care costs imo. It needs to be dedicated to health care though, increasing income tax doesn't cut it because government will always find a way to spend the added revenue on something else.

But you're telling us that people like paying all this money towards health insurance plans which are usually crap.

The story about the Culinary Union in Nevada and their supposed fantastic healthcare plan was framed in this way. Well guess what, their members overwhelmingly sided with Sanders, which is entirely unsurprising because he's offering them something that's far and away superior than they would ever get even under union-negotiated health insurance.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Yes, but most people have choice when it comes to private health insurance. A younger person might choose a high deductible plan which is quite cheap, a married couple with kids a higher premium plan with lower deductibles, etc.

You mean lack of choice in reality?

The word "choice" is a classic corporate, right-wing canard.

It's designed to frame a disastrous system in the clothes of positivity.

Water John

Pete is dropping out. Thought all the rest would wait until after Super Tuesday.

sid waddell

Corporate Pete is withdrawing from the race, to help Biden no doubt.

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

You mean lack of choice in reality?

The word "choice" is a classic corporate, right-wing canard.

It's designed to frame a disastrous system in the clothes of positivity.

No, I mean choice, as in I personally and most people I know would like to have some decision making over their health care, rather than the government deciding for me. Nothing right wing about it.

Obamacare takes care of the affordable aspect of health insurance. Under a certain level of income the government pays some or even all of your health care premiums. It is perfectly reasonable to build upon something that was working and make it better. Expand medicare to a higher income threshold and expand Obamacare to cover more people.

All very achievable, as most of it was done already under Obama/Biden 2008-2016. A lot more realistic than a grand plan that was tried in Bernie's home state Vermont and was abandoned after four years due to the tax burden it placed on both employees and employers.

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

But you're telling us that people like paying all this money towards health insurance plans which are usually crap.

The story about the Culinary Union in Nevada and their supposed fantastic healthcare plan was framed in this way. Well guess what, their members overwhelmingly sided with Sanders, which is entirely unsurprising because he's offering them something that's far and away superior than they would ever get even under union-negotiated health insurance.

You're entitled to your opinion. My opinion is expanding Medicare and Obamacare is a better and more realistic way to go.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

No, I mean choice, as in I personally and most people I know would like to have some decision making over their health care, rather than the government deciding for me. Nothing right wing about it.

Obamacare takes care of the affordable aspect of health insurance. Under a certain level of income the government pays some or even all of your health care premiums. It is perfectly reasonable to build upon something that was working and make it better. Expand medicare to a higher income threshold and expand Obamacare to cover more people.

All very achievable, as most of it was done already under Obama/Biden 2008-2016. A lot more realistic than a grand plan that was tried in Bernie's home state Vermont and was abandoned after four years due to the tax burden it placed on both employees and employers.

What's "choice"? Most people have no choice. You're using the corporate framing of the word, not the real one.

You might want to read this thread.

https://twitter.com/wendellpotter/status/1206623259698974724

When I worked in the insurance industry, we were instructed to talk about “choice,” based on focus groups and people like Frank Luntz (who wrote the book on how the GOP should communicate with Americans). I used it all the time as an industry flack. But there was a problem.

As a health insurance PR guy, we knew one of the huge *vulnerabilities* of the current system was LACK of choice. In the current system, you can’t pick your own doc, specialist, or hospital without huge “out of network” bills. So we set out to muddy the issue of "choice."

As industry insiders, we also knew most Americans have very little choice of their plan. Your company chooses an insurance provider and you get to pick from a few different plans offered by that one insurer, usually either a high deductible plan or a higher deductible plan

Another problem insurers like mine had on the “choice” issue: people with employer-based plans have very little choice to keep it. You can lose it if your company changes it, or you change jobs, or turn 26 or many other ways. This is a problem for defenders of the status quo

Knowing we were losing the "choice" argument, my pals in the insurance industry spent millions on lobbying, ads and spin doctors -- all designed to gaslight Americans into thinking that reforming the status quo would somehow give them “less choice.”

An industry front group launched a campaign to achieve this very purpose. Its name: “My Care, My Choice.” Its job: Trick Americans into thinking they currently can choose any plan they want, and that their plan allows them to see any doctor. They've spent big in Iowa

This isn't the only time the industry made “choice” a big talking point in its scheme to fight health reform. Soon after Obamacare was passed, it created a front group called the Choice and Competition Coalition, to scare states away from creating exchanges with better plans

The difference is, this time *Democrats* are the ones parroting the misleading “choice” talking point. And they're even using it as a weapon against each other. Back in my insurance PR days, this would have stunned me. I bet my old colleagues are thrilled, and celebrating.

The truth, of course, is you have little "choice" in healthcare now. Most can’t keep their plan as long as they want, or visit any doctor or hospital. Some reforms, like Medicare For All, *would* let you. In other words, M4A actually offers more choice than the status quo.

So if a politician tells you they oppose reforming the current healthcare system because they want to preserve "choice," either they don't know what they're talking about - or they're willfully ignoring the truth. I assure you, the insurance industry is delighted either way

sid waddell

Let me also quote a few replies to the previous thread I quoted.

Yep, I have the "choice" of any plan sold on the market right now for my little family of 4. My "choices" all cost well over $1900 a month for minimal coverage. My husband is self-employed. We are by no means rich yet this is the monthly price of insurance for us. That's insane.

There is one reason for employers to control healthcare. It artificially depresses the wage. Choice to change jobs or retire or start a business are completely removed. #M4A

I had a choice. the choice of paying over $500 a month with an over $6K annual deductible or paying over $2K a year for a mandate penalty.

That was my choice, it felt like being robbed at gunpoint.

530,000 people go bankrupt each year in the US because of medical bills. I guess they "love" their healthcare plans.

Democratic congresswoman Katie Porter had her apppendix burst when campaigning in 2018. This was not a poor person, but somebody who had been a tenured professor at the University of California, and California's chief bank regulator. She had health insurance, but didn't call an ambulance because she was worried about the cost. She had someone drive her not to the closest hospital, but to the closest in-network hospital. Big difference. And then, even with the hospital in-network, the surgeon who treated her was not. She got a bill for $3,000.

If somebody like that is refusing to call an ambulance because they fear the bills, and driving to hospitals which are further away because of the network system, then the whole health insurance system in the US is an utter joke.

But hey, that's "choice".

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

What's "choice"? Most people have no choice. You're using the corporate framing of the word, not the real one.

You might want to read this thread.

https://twitter.com/wendellpotter/status/1206623259698974724

I'm basing my opinion on living in the US and having had experience of several different insurance plans, talking to hundreds of fellow Americans who have had different experiences of health care plans, etc. I also know plenty people working in health care and the insurance industry, so would have a good grasp of the realities on the ground so to speak.

How about yourself? With respect it sounds like you base your opinions on a Twitter feed, and one that supports your opinion so confirmation bias.

Obamacare gives tremendous relief to lower income workers. You are aware that on average the upper income limit for Obamacare for a family of 3 is $85K. Someone earning $85K and paying 12% income tax can afford to buy health insurance and Obamacare makes it very affordable.

What makes you think people would have more choice under Bernie's plan? Because Bernie says so? The same Bernie who's Medicare for all plan in his home state of Vermont was abandoned after four years? or you believe more choice because the government is running it? If you live in Ireland have a good hard think about that.

Every western European country to my knowledge has a two tier system where people pay towards a government plan and also can buy private insurance. It makes perfect sense to me, and that's the type of choice I'm referring to. People who can afford to should purchase health insurance, and certainly should be free to do so.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I'm basing my opinion on living in the US and having had experience of several different insurance plans, talking to hundreds of fellow Americans who have had different experiences of health care plans, etc. I also know plenty people working in health care and the insurance industry, so would have a good grasp of the realities on the ground so to speak.

How about yourself? With respect it sounds like you base your opinions on a Twitter feed, and one that supports your opinion so confirmation bias.

Did you read the thread and the replies to it?

Because you haven't addressed any points raised in it. It's coming from somebody who worked at a high level within the health insurance industry.

You can throw around "confirmation bias" accusations all you like. I can do just the same to you, especially given your continued use the corporate framing of the word "choice". But it won't get us anywhere.

markodaly

Sid, you need to calm down.
It is true to say that most Americans who avail of Health Insurance do not want to give it up.
You can have any opinon you want about how bad/great the health care system is in the US, but at the end of the say, Bernie will have to convince the majority of Americans about this, when every single polls says they are not in favour of a Medicare for all, replacing private Insurance.

markodaly

Pete dropping out, I wonder will Warren follow suit?
After Super Tuesday, we will be left with Sanders, Bloomberg and Biden.
Its going to get ugly fast.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

Sid, you need to calm down.
It is true to say that most Americans who avail of Health Insurance do not want to give it up.
You can have any opinon you want about how bad/great the health care system is in the US, but at the end of the say, Bernie will have to convince the majority of Americans about this, when every single polls says they are not in favour of a Medicare for all, replacing private Insurance.

I'm perfectly calm, but thanks for the "concern" gaslighting.

You're looking at this the wrong way. How many Americans who have Medicare want to give it up?

Sanders plan doesn't ban private health insurance, it makes it obsolete. Private health insurance will still be available for anything not covered under Medicare For All.

But given that Medicare For All is far more comprehensive than pretty much all existing health insurance plans, why would you need to have health insurance then? And you get greater choice in who you want to treat you.

This comes down to one central fact: the insurance companies are ****ting it. They've seen how the NHS works in Britain (even with the Tories and New Labour trying to destroy it for the last 30 years plus), and they know that people like it, and they know that public healthcare delivered free at the point of delivery is far more efficient than anything the private sector can ever come up with.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

I'm perfectly calm, but thanks for the "concern" gaslighting.

You're looking at this the wrong way. How many Americans who have Medicare want to give it up?

Sanders plan doesn't ban private health insurance, it makes it obsolete. Private health insurance will still be available for anything not covered under Medicare For All.

But given that Medicare For All is far more comprehensive than pretty much all existing health insurance plans, why would you need to have health insurance then? And you get greater choice in who you want to treat you.

This comes down to one central fact: the insurance companies are ****ting it. They've seen how the NHS works in Britain (even with the Tories and New Labour trying to destroy it for the last 30 years plus), and they know that people like it, and they know that public healthcare delivered free at the point of delivery is far more efficient than anything the private sector can ever come up with.

That is all well and good. However, I will repeat. Most americans with private health insurance are happy with it and DO NOT want to give it up for a medicare for all scheme.

You can say, they are wrong, stupid, ignorant or that they dont just 'get it' but these are the people who Bernie needs to convince to vote for him, which I think is a big big ask.

If you cannot even see the basic concern about Bernies hard nosed strategy when it comes to this topic, then I am afraid you wont get it when/if he loses the nomination or against Trump in November.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

That is all well and good. However, I will repeat. Most americans with private health insurance are happy with it and DO NOT want to give it up for a medicare for all scheme.

You can say, they are wrong, stupid, ignorant or that they dont just 'get it' but these are the people who Bernie needs to convince to vote for him, which I think is a big big ask.

If you cannot even see the basic concern about Bernies hard nosed strategy when it comes to this topic, then I am afraid you wont get it when/if he loses the nomination or against Trump in November.

Which is superior? A comprehensive public health system or a costly insurance plan which leaves you vulnerable to bankruptcy?

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

Which is superior? A comprehensive public health system or a costly insurance plan which leaves you vulnerable to bankruptcy?

It doesnt matter what I think about it. I am not voting.
Perhaps this is your problem, you are so sure of yourself and Bernie that you cannot fathom people of a differing opinion, thus alienate them.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

It doesnt matter what I think about it. I am not voting.
Perhaps this is your problem, you are so sure of yourself and Bernie that you cannot fathom people of a differing opinion, thus alienate them.

Are you telling me you've no opinion? Why not answer? It's a very simple question.

You've replied to me a few times here over the past 24 hours by the way. All of those replies have had a thinly veiled insult inserted into them. That isn't very persuasive.

sid waddell

What's the primary difference between for profit healthcare and Medicare For All?

The clue is in the names.

For profit healthcare has profit as it's primary aim, not the health of the patient. That means patients get screwed because they are an afterthought, very much secondary to profit.

Public healthcare has the health of the patient, no matter their means, as its explicit aim, the only aim. And that means everybody involved the system has a vested interest in making the system work.

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

Did you read the thread and the replies to it?

Because you haven't addressed any points raised in it. It's coming from somebody who worked at a high level within the health insurance industry.

You can throw around "confirmation bias" accusations all you like. I can do just the same to you, especially given your continued use the corporate framing of the word "choice". But it won't get us anywhere.

Yes, I read the thread, not that I really need to. I am very familiar with how the insurance industry works in the US, and know several people who work in senior management roles in the insurance industry. Also I know many people working in various levels of the health care system, including doctors and administrative managers.

So yeah, lots of opinions to draw on, including my own experience of living and working in the US.

AllForIt

sid waddell wrote: »

Who exactly "likes" shelling out thousands for health insurance or having massive deductibles which could leave you broke or a plan you could easily lose if you lose your job?

If everyone paid health insurance noone would have to fork out that much. It's because in socialist leaning countries that ppl don't pay insurance that the ppl that do pay insurance pay a lot, and those that don't pay pay nothing besides general taxation.

Socialist countries are having financing problems with there 'free at point of use' health care systems, not least because noone takes responsibility for their health.

And when ppl suggest a sugar tax, which is causing huge health problems, socialist's go ballistic. It's hit's the poorest hardest they say.

It's not mis-management of the HSE that is the problem in this country, it's the whole ethos of it that is the problem.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

Are you telling me you've no opinion? Why not answer? It's a very simple question.

My opinion and yours doesnt matter.

What matters are votes and winning elections.
Bernie is trying to advocate for something that is unpopular with middle America.
Good luck to him because he will need it.

sid waddell

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Yes, I read the thread, not that I really need to. I am very familiar with how the insurance industry works in the US, and know several people who work in senior management roles in the insurance industry. Also I know many people working in various levels of the health care system, including doctors and administrative managers.

So yeah, lots of opinions to draw on, including my own experience of living and working in the US.

If one was to be be cynical, or perhaps even realistic, they might say they that drawing so heavily on the views of senior managers in the insurance industry would lead to a view of the healthcare system that is biased in favour of the insurance industry.

Canada prohibits health insurance for anything already covered under the public plan. Seems to work pretty well there.

But you don't hear many people in the US media say that. I wonder why.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

My opinion and yours doesnt matter.

What matters are votes and winning elections.
Bernie is trying to advocate for something that is unpopular with middle America.
Good luck to him because he will need it.

But surely you have an opinion on the subject? I mean you've gone to the trouble of actually wading in here on it.

Yet from what you say, you seem to have no opinion on it at all, or seem afraid to voice one. I find that baffling.

What matters is making ordinary people's lives better.

If it doesn't matter, politics and elections become completely meaningless.

sid waddell

AllForIt wrote: »

If everyone paid health insurance noone would have to fork out that much. It's because in socialist leaning countries that ppl don't pay insurance that the ppl that do pay insurance pay a lot, and those that don't pay pay nothing besides general taxation.

Socialist countries are having financing problems with there 'free at point of use' health care systems, not least because noone takes responsibility for their health.

And when ppl suggest a sugar tax, which is causing huge health problems, socialist's go ballistic. It's hit's the poorest hardest they say.

It's not mis-management of the HSE that is the problem in this country, it's the whole ethos of it that is the problem.

The US has the most costly and inefficient health system in the world. That's because insurers cream off profits and the insurance system involves massive overheads. The patient sufffers as a result. You say if everybody paid health insurance nobody would have to pay much. That's actually the whole point of a public healthcare system. Everybody pays something towards it in taxes so you don't have to pay at the point of delivery. And you don't get the vast inefficiency of the private sector because there are less administration costs. And nothing can push down the cost of drugs like the massive bargaining power of a national public system.

What happened when the NHS introduced the internal market, which was an ideological attempt to run the system on free market principles? Inefficiency and bureaucracy massively increased, there were bizarre unintended consequences including falsifying of records, and outcomes for patients got worse. The NHS internal market is widely acknowledged as a disaster.

Your idea that under a national public system, "nobody takes responsibility for their health" is laughable nonsense.

In the US, people routinely neglect their health to a dangerous degree because they fear the financial consequences.

DreamsBurnDown

sid waddell wrote: »

If one was to be be cynical, or perhaps even realistic, they might say they that drawing so heavily on the views of senior managers in the insurance industry would lead to a view of the healthcare system that is biased in favour of the insurance industry.

I don't work in the insurance industry so have no bias towards it.

Do you think senior managers in the insurance industry when they are out for a few beers or at an house party wax lyrical about how great the insurance industry is? They are well aware of the problems in the health care system, and recognize many of the problems in their own industry. Remember the insurance industry are the ones who negotiate down bills from hospitals, etc. Recognizing problems and solving them are quite different.

Expanding Obamacare and Medicare will solve the great majority of issues with the US health care system, and people who earn decent salaries and pay very little income tax should have no problem funding it. Once again, a married couple on $80K pay 12% income tax and pay roughly 2% towards Medicare/Medicaid. It's not expecting a lot to ask them to pay a bit more for the good of society.

Nobody should go bankrupt because of an unforeseen medical emergency. that's what catastrophic health insurance is for, and it's quite cheap. People buy car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, what's so hard about the concept of buying insurance against the unlikely event you get a catastrophic disease?

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

But surely you have an opinion on the subject? I mean you've gone to the trouble of actually wading in here on it.

Yet from what you say, you seem to have no opinion on it at all, or seem afraid to voice one. I find that baffling.

What matters is making ordinary people's lives better.

If it doesn't matter, politics and elections become completely meaningless.

You want to go down the policy discussion as if it matters on an Irish internet forum.

Im telling you, it doesnt.

I am discussing the electoral reality of Bernies medicare for all policy. The fact you dont even want to discuss that, says alot.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

You want to go down the policy discussion as if it matters on an Irish internet forum.

Im telling you, it doesnt.

I am discussing the electoral reality of Bernies medicare for all policy. The fact you dont even want to discuss that, says alot.

You're "telling me". Thanks for that attempt at a lecture.

So what you're telling me is policy doesn't matter a jot while at the same time saying it does matter, and then you point blank refuse to discuss the actual policy in question, perhaps because you have no opinion on it, but we know that's not true, because it's very clear from your posts that you have a very negative view of it. But why, we don't know. You won't tell us.

That's a very weak response indeed, reminiscent of an amateur political spin doctor, a very amateur one.

Hande hoche!

markodaly wrote: »

Pete dropping out, I wonder will Warren follow suit?
After Super Tuesday, we will be left with Sanders, Bloomberg and Biden.
Its going to get ugly fast.

Warren really has no excuse. Probably trying to limp to her home state.
Wednesday will be an interesting one.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

You're "telling me". Thanks for that attempt at a lecture.

So what you're telling me is policy doesn't matter a jot while at the same time saying it does matter, and then you point blank refuse to discuss the actual policy in question, perhaps because you have no opinion on it, but we know that's not true, because it's very clear from your posts that you have a very negative view of it. But why, we don't know. You won't tell us.

That's a very weak response indeed, reminiscent of an amateur political spin doctor, a very amateur one.

You want to have a big argument on the policy specifics on a medicare for all program vs private health insurance.

I.does.not.matter.

This is the same problem Bernie has as you do, to comprehend basics.
Many many people are happy with private health insurance and don't want medicare. Many of these people are democrats and liberal middle-class folk.
You can argue till you are blue in the face that your scheme is better, but it will be hard to convince them.

The issue is the electability of someone who is so dogmatic about their own virtue and who will not move to compromise.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

The issue is the electability of someone who is so dogmatic about their own virtue and who will not move to compromise.

What a thoroughly stupid thing it would be to compromise, even from a negotiation standpoint.

You remain resolute on what you want. They remain resolute what they want. You meet somewhere in the middle.

So for Bernie, let's say worst case scenario he gets some Opt-in option, why on earth, or any other planet, would he start his negotiation from this middle ground?

Children know this basic negotiation tactic.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

You want to have a big argument on the policy specifics on a medicare for all program vs private health insurance.

I.does.not.matter.

This is the same problem Bernie has as you do, to comprehend basics.
Many many people are happy with private health insurance and don't want medicare. Many of these people are democrats and liberal middle-class folk.
You can argue till you are blue in the face that your scheme is better, but it will be hard to convince them.

The issue is the electability of someone who is so dogmatic about their own virtue and who will not move to compromise.

You say you don't want to want to argue policy, yet then you do argue policy.

You're saying that private heath insurance would be superior on a comprehensive public system.

What evidence is there to suggest that?

Again, your liberal use of thinly veiled insults and deliberate trigger words to mask a lack of argument is noted.

You talk about electability.

Why then is Bernie winning and doing better than any other candidate in polling in the key swing states?

moon2

markodaly wrote: »

You want to have a big argument on the policy specifics on a medicare for all program vs private health insurance.

I.does.not.matter.

Are you suggesting this is the case:

If I were to sit down with someone and provide them with all the information they need, in a form which they find completely believable and irrefutable, then they would choose to maintain their current health insurance system even if they 100% without a shadow of a doubt understand the new system will be better from both a financial and health perspective?

That's the only reason I can think of that would make discussions irrelevant. I also find it difficult to believe that a majority of people given clear and believable information would choose the option which worsens their health and wealth outcomes.

My own opinion is that there's sufficient FUD being spread about public health systems that Americans in particular are unclear what the benefits are. If a clearer message could be made about the overall impact then it would absolutely get people on board.

sid waddell

moon2 wrote: »

Are you suggesting this is the case:

If I were to sit down with someone and provide them with all the information they need, in a form which they find completely believable and irrefutable, then they would choose to maintain their current health insurance system even if they 100% without a shadow of a doubt understand the new system will be better from both a financial and health perspective?

That's the only reason I can think of that would make discussions irrelevant. I also find it difficult to believe that a majority of people given clear and believable information would choose the option which worsens their health and wealth outcomes.

My own opinion is that there's sufficient FUD being spread about public health systems that Americans in particular are unclear what the benefits are. If a clearer message could be made about the overall impact then it would absolutely get people on board.

The whole American system is rigged in favour of corporations like insurance providers. Massive marketing and advertising and no regulations on such, corporate ownership of media, the influence of right-wing think tanks (which are lobby groups) with their endless "studies", the tabloid and Orwellian framing of language (the demonisation of "socialism", calling public healthcare "communism"), the wholesale buying of politicians, the mass effort to persuade people that there is no alternative, ever.

And every person who argues against a comprehensive public healthcare system argues through that above framework.

In the same way that Trump tries to flood the media with so much bull**** that people get confused, so does the for profit health insurance industry.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

What a thoroughly stupid thing it would be to compromise, even from a negotiation standpoint.

You remain resolute on what you want. They remain resolute what they want. You meet somewhere in the middle.

So for Bernie, let's say worst case scenario he gets some Opt-in option, why on earth, or any other planet, would he start his negotiation from this middle ground?

Children know this basic negotiation tactic.

Well what would be thoroughly stupid is running a campaign for president like it is a negotiation rather than running to win an election. I'd argue most children know the difference between the two.

If his starting position turns off moderate democrats and independents, not even getting to moderate republicans who might be looking for an option other than 4 more years of Trump, then Bernie is never going to be in a position to be president and find a middle ground.

I'd also question if you know much about Bernie and his negotiation skills or ability to find compromise. Can you also provide a few examples where Bernie led legislation to 'the middle ground' during his decades in politics ? Aside from legislation to name a few post offices in Vermont, he has led basically nothing due to being an ideologue. If you aren't pure like him then you're the same as the republicans, be you even JFK or Obama.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well what would be thoroughly stupid is running a campaign for president like it is a negotiation rather than running to win an election. I'd argue most children know the difference between the two.

If his starting position turns off moderate democrats and independents, not even getting to moderate republicans who might be looking for an option other than 4 more years of Trump, then Bernie is never going to be in a position to be president and find a middle ground.

I'd also question if you know much about Bernie and his negotiation skills or ability to find compromise. Can you also provide a few examples where Bernie led legislation to 'the middle ground' during his decades in politics ? Aside from legislation to name a few post offices in Vermont, he has led basically nothing due to being an ideologue. If you aren't pure like him then you're the same as the republicans, be you even JFK or Obama.

What Bernie is saying now, JFK was saying 60 years ago.

Red for Danger

So long pete... did he ever get to use his Norwegian?
Imagine if he couldn't actually speak Norwegian, and it was just something that his team thought would influence naive voters.
Going by his farewell speech, he went full retard on Barack Obama and he cant get outta character.


Biden is skint, all his would be donors went with pete, Super Tuesday is all about work rate and campaigning so we're about to see if there's any truth to this "sleepy joe" stuff. Word is, those states haven't seen much of him lately and he's hopeing cnn, msnbc and the gang, are gonna carry him from south Carolina primary all the way over the finish line while he takes his afternoon naps.
Little does he know they've already shot themselves in the foot and have about as much influence as fox news.