What if it’s not a ‘collapse of a sector’ but a legitimate redistribution of resources? Why should shareholders profit from healthcare? They’re arguably transferring wealth from those unfortunate enough to fall ill. — Wayfarer

It WOULD be a "legltimate distribution of resources" in the long run, and that's why I'm not opposed to it in principle. Regardless of that, there are severe, short term risks.

Why should shareholders profit? Note that I pointed out that this may affect stocks generally, not just health care stocks. If all shareholders were billionaires, few would care if their wealth were dramatically reduced. But they aren't. Stocks are owned by pension funds, affecting firemen, policemen teachers union members,...and they are owned by many on their IRAs and 401Ks. Some retired people live off this. Many people have worked hard all their lives, sacrificed to save for retirement so that they have enough of a nest egg to live on, and then you cavalierly suggest they should suffer. Please.

Do not forget that this isn't simply a choice between status quo and medicare for all. A public option gets healthcare for everyone, without the huge disruption. Furthermore, it has a chance of passing, while an imposed medicare for all does not. I will vote for Bernie, if he's nominated, but many won't because they fear the consequences of a plan that will never be implemented. So whether or not you accept anything I've said, know that it's a fear that will lose some votes. Trump won swing states by only a few thousand votes - it's these margins that will make the difference.

March 4th is my guess: the day after Super Tuesday (unless, of course, she emerges with the most delegates, then Bernie should "clear the way" for her ...)
— 180 Proof

At this point, given that she's come in a pretty abysmal 4th place in Nevada, it would be prudent for her to drop out and endorse Sanders. Her polling is terrible in South Carolina and every Super Tuesday state save for her own (Massachusetts), which she's projected to lose to Sanders. And she doesn't have the money for ad spending across 14 states to turn it around. — Maw

(The “cut-to-the-chase” summary, aka TLDR: Sanders and Warren should unite quickly before their opponents can swallow their distaste for each other, and form a formidable and frightening foe).

(Live commentary from the world championship of political chess, USA division... )

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if it would be better for BOTH Sanders and Warren, for her to join Bernie RIGHT NOW. Before the South Carolina primary. Because Joe Biden is showing signs in Nevada of thawing out after his long winter nap. He might actually have a pulse (though the spin doctors opinions differ). One would imagine that his general strategy would be to keep his leaky yacht afloat until the democratic national convention. Then Obama will rise from the tropical seas like a giant Neptune, drown his opponents, and guide the righteous ship into safe harbors where glory awaits. (yawn... )

Anyway, for Warren and Sanders to join forces now would swamp the good ship SS Biden His Time. He could not gain any momentum if he is completely torpedoed by the USS ElizaBernie. (Sorry, I’ll stop this boat metaphor now, lol). A possible Sanders-Warren merger seems to be a remarkably fair quid pro quo. Warren gets an excellent chance at a being the next VP, the first woman to do so, of course. And she would definitely not be a trophy VP, like the current chair warmer. (Sorry Mike Pence. You’re probably a decent chap.) She would get very involved, as active as her rechargeable lithuim batteries will allow. (By which I mean she is quite energetic). Bernie would get at least as much out of the deal. He gets Warren’s primary votes first of all, which are crucial to achieving a quick and decisive majority. (He could feasibly have an insurmountable lead by St. Paddy’s day). And he would have a top-notch VP, who could well become POTUS sooner or later. (Unless, of course, Bernie wants @Bitter Crank to be his VP. :wink: )

But all of this speculation (and it is all speculation on my part obviously) hinges on actually defeating the Incumbent once the nomination is secured. Ahh... the details, lol. My crystal ball at this point does the “spinning beachball” thing my computer does when I’ve asked it to do something too difficult before its coffee break. (I’d consult the I Ching for some timely wisdom, but it appears not possible ATM because of the China trade situation). In other words... flip a coin (remember those?). Anyone who breathlessly tells me that they know EXACTLY what would happen in a Sanders-Trump heavyweight bout is either guessing/speculating, lying/clickbaiting, wishful thinking, or has just flown in from the future in nuclear-powered Lambo. (Sorry, DeLoreans were out of style even in the 80’s). I think-hope-wager that Sanders would win. Just as I’m guessing that DT has plateaued, and the novelty and shock value has worn off. Maybe he could change tactics, appear to need sympathy. Say that he feels our pain; and plead for a kinder, gentler MAGA. Say that orange people have been an oppressed minority, too. He could be tender, and show us his soft, great-white underbelly. (Eww).

Where were we going with this again? Oh yes... imagining a united front of Sanders And Warren, (SAW for short). They could chop through the DNC red tape, cut the crap, and beat the others to the punch bowl. Before the moderates can figure out who’ll be the presidential nominee and who’ll be the VP. (BTW, Pete Buttigieg appears very vice-presidential. If Biden or Bloomberg offer him that spot, it might be worth a gamble. Not a bad potential job for anyone, let alone at age 38... ) So c’mon Elizabeth and Bernie... you both know you want it, lol.

Why is medicare for all a bad idea? — frank

I actually believe there needs to be a major change to the hacked up private health insurance situation. Obamacare was dying and Trump killed whatever was left.

Whether Medicare for all is a solution is a question of expense, amount of increased taxes, and whether it will curb or increase out of control health care costs. I question whether it'll work, but most anything at this point would be better than what we have. The Republican response of ignoring this issue is a major failing.

To me, it's all pragmatics.

Ideologically, I'd suspect opponents would think it violates free market dictates, and the ideologues control

Ideologically, I'd suspect opponents would think it violates free market dictates, and the ideologues control — Hanover

The whole point of medical insurance is a lot of people are on the plan. No one really "picks" their insurance. Their employers pick for them. If you are going to come back and say that people can change jobs to get a different insurance plan, you are living in a dream-land where people can just change jobs like they change their clothes.

I'm not saying that's your thoughts, but the people you were addressing with those views in that quote. Oh and don't forget jobs which are otherwise good, but don't provide health insurance (but perhaps a stipend). All people have are exchanges at this point, or a very high individualized rate. Oh and don't forget simply jobs that don't have insurance- period.

So....pride. You can't let those rich assholes win. — BitconnectCarlos

It’s not about them winning or not, it’s about me not losing; and not in the sense of some social competitive kind of “losing” but in the sense of actually being deprived of something.

Attributing this to pride is really, really offensive in a way I can’t seem to get through to you. A systemic injustice makes it nearly impossible for tens of millions of people to secure the right to continue living where they’ve always lived without constantly paying someone else for that privilege, something that an ever-growing number are increasingly unable to do. And your suggestion is “live somewhere else then”. Just give up and accept the hardship that’s being forced upon you instead of fighting it.

It’s like if a black person were complaining about the systemic difficulties of black people getting hired at any decent jobs and you tell him “then work somewhere else. Why would you want to work for someone who wouldn’t hire you anyway? Just saying, that’s what I would do.”

Even if you had the money required for a down payment you'd basically be draining your entire savings for that down payment, right? — BitconnectCarlos

I have a year’s expenses in cash set aside besides my down payment fund IRA, so no.

EDIT: If you want to tough it out I would definitely try to get a side hustle going. This could mean filling out surveys for money, dog walking, opening credit cards and getting the bonuses, and others. — BitconnectCarlos

I think you misapprehend how absolutely trivial something like this is in comparison to the scales pf money we’re talking about. Earlier you mentioned how I could “eat out whenever I want” if I lived elsewhere. I already can do that. I have absolutely no financial hardships whatsoever outside of the enormous long-term project of saving for a house, and taking on more hardships like you suggest to save or make more money would make such an absolutely trivial dent in that project that it’s ridiculous to even bring them up. It’s like those blowhards who say if millennials ate less avocado toast they could afford a house. Yeah, if I can somehow cut a few thousand dollars a month out of my nonexistent avocado toast budget, that’ll free the money right up.

Why is medicare for all a bad idea? — frank

It's not. The main arguments against it involve costs, as if it is too expensive to implement. That cost objection fails to consider that it is done already by every major industrialized nation in the world, and those citizens costs - per capita - are about half. So, it is neither financially impossible nor reasonably doubtable. Just because our current system doesn't do it, does not mean it could not and should not change so that it does. Taxes will go up, but the amount is directly offset by the savings in premiums, prescriptions, and co-pays. It will save the overwhelming majority of people money.

And taxes - in general - are much better understood as user fees.

Just because two countries are considered “industrialized nations” doesn’t make them equal when considering the needs and merits of a healthcare system. Especially when considering monetary costs associated with such.

The quality of care and the efficiency of services is also a major concern to some opponents of Bernies Medicare for All proposal.

The question you ask is, what is the evidence that I think makes the DNC screwing Bernie the most likely outcome. Well, the same people did the same thing to him in 2016. And they changed the rules to let Bloomie in the debate, while Tulsi, who has grassroots support, remains shut out. — fishfry

That's fair, but all of that is minor compared to '16. Sanders was a relatively unknown candidate at the beginning, came out of nowhere, and so they didn't quite know how to handle him. They thought they could just sweep him aside without much backlash. They were obviously wrong.

It's four years later and almost everyone knows what happened. You have Trump tweeting about it at this point. And Sanders is now the clear frontrunner, so there's no excuse of "Well Hillary won fair and square, the so-called Revolution didn't show up!" and so forth. It's very different -- this time, the DNC is aware that everyone is watching closely and will be livid if there are any shenanigans. The media is slightly better at covering it as well this time around, as they can't ignore Sanders' numbers. They aren't stupid, they must see this.

You could be right, in the end. But I both think and hope that you're wrong.

If I thought Sanders could win, then I would be really hopeful. But unfortunately, I think it's going to be a replay of Johnson vs Corbyn, or Nixon vs McGovern. — Wayfarer

There are many rational people, like you, in exactly this camp. They like Bernie, or at least agree more with him than other candidates, or at the very least would prefer him over Trump -- but don't think he can win. That's OK, for now.

Bernie's grassroots support will carry him, and he will therefore continue to build steam. When that happens, and he gets the nomination, and people like yourself see the passionate base of support for him, I think you'll change your mind. Unlike, say, with Clinton, who did not have a large base of enthusiastic, grassroots support. She was a boring, mediocre, establishment centrist. I imagine people like you either held their nose and voted for her anyway because the Republicans put up the likes of Trump, or else stayed home. I just don't see that happening with a Sanders nomination.

A systemic injustice makes it nearly impossible for tens of millions of people to secure the right to continue living where they’ve always lived without constantly paying someone else for that privilege

It. Is. Not. Your. Land.

There is no right to someone else's land. There is no right to a $500k house in California. The quicker you're able to move past this, the quicker you'll be able to actually find a solution to your problem. There are cheaper ways of living and there are ways to cut costs, but ultimately you can't just walk on to someone's land or property and demand that you be able to live there for free just as no one can knock on your door and demand the sofa. This is just basic property rights.

And by the way I have lived in places for free. If you join the military you'll get access to the barracks free of charge. Nice, right? I would wake up to dozens of rats scurrying above the ceiling when I lived there. Walls were also paper thin. But I didn't have to pay. I'm not a landowner by the way.

I have a year’s expenses in cash set aside besides my down payment fund IRA, so no.

Nice. You have a little more breathing room then.

It’s like those blowhards who say if millennials ate less avocado toast they could afford a house.

An extra $1k/month is an extra $12k/year that could go directly to your down payment on top of your savings from your salary. Additionally, by cutting costs at home whether or food or insurance or elsewhere even if it's only $500/month that ends up at $6k/year. If you want to ignore this and dismiss it as irrelevant than that's on you.

Once again ass hole, once again, being on a spectrum and approaching that threshold is not trying to reach an ideal. Are you familiar with engineering or systems analysis and design? You don't just make a component as big as possible, you have to make it a more (more) precise shape (taper the edges and such) to get it to work (better) (not perfect). — christian2017

And, once again, you miss the point. I'll make it as concrete as I can: the very idea of a free market is nonsense. It hasn't happened, it won't happen, it won't come close to happening, we shouldn't be trying to make it happen in any way. It's a fantasy. It's not on a spectrum, it's not approaching a "threshold," or whatever other vague nonsense you want to use. We should abandon any talk about it because it is, and always has been, complete nonsense. Useful nonsense, yes -- keeping people confused with this concept keeps the status quo, which is a state-capitalist system favoring concentrations of power.

Your a very simple guy at this point in your life. Just about every concept can be applied to a spectrum. — christian2017

There it is again, the magic word: spectrum. Brilliant. How complex you are.

Your finger nail was designed over billions of years through evolution and its development could be mapped on a spectrum. Perhaps randomness (intentional or not) could be shown to have some engineering insight as to how the finger nail got to the way it is. But like any engineer, you can't even begin to do your job if you don't understand spectrum. Absolutely everything can be applied to engineering (or systems analysis and design).principles. Part of the problem many scientists and "professionals" divorce themselves from mathematics and engineering and in all practicality these people should be called witch doctors. — christian2017

What a bunch of bullshit. Why is it always the most simpleminded people who attack others for being simple?

You're the only one sounding like a witch doctor here. If you want to bore us with an explanation of what the hell you mean by "spectrum" and how this applies to free markets, go ahead. Otherwise you're comments are irrelevant.

So I'll repeat, again: free markets don't exist, nor have they ever existed. Interjecting engineering gibberish, without any explanation or elaboration, just shows who the "witch doctor" is.

Say something relevant or peddle your busllhit somewhere else.

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand.

It. Is. Not. Your. Land — BitconnectCarlos

It is. This is the land I was born and raised on and have already spend many many tens of thousands of dollars over decades to remain on, yet WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR THAT legally speaking. I’m not going to bother explaining how the rich assholes’ claims to it trace back ultimately to theft of it from the public domain or how rental contracts are an exploitative overreach of government power in favor of the wealthy because it’s clear you have an unquestioning faith in capitalist dogma and would just dismiss those. As I suspected, rather than offering actual solutions, you’re just denying the problem exists.

Also...

There is no right to a $500k house in California. — BitconnectCarlos

I’m not asking for a $500k house specifically, I’m asking for housing in California to be affordable to people who live and work in California. I make significantly more money than most people who live here yet housing still isn’t affordable for me. That indicates a systemic problem of some kind of another. I think the problem isn’t that the people here don’t make enough money, but that a house that isn’t actually worth $500k costs that much. And it’s not that there isn’t enough housing built either, because there’s more unoccupied housing than homeless people, and building more housing on the overpriced land doesn’t help the poor people who can’t even afford an empty piece of land to begin with: it just creates even more unaffordable housing that only helps rich people from elsewhere, not the poor people who are already here.

One of the underappreciated positives of Bernie's front-runner status is how it is completely melting the brains of so many liberals who lack the conceptual tools that explain his momentum and appeal. — Maw

lol

Right-wing Dem neo-libs are what is termed on this side of the pond "conservatives".

One of the underappreciated positives of Bernie's front-runner status is how it is completely melting the brains of so many liberals who lack the conceptual tools that explain his momentum and appeal. — Maw

I accidently ended up watching some CNN today. An analyst pointed out that a high percentage of Bernie supporters don't remember anything about the Cold War. They remember 911, the 2008 crisis, Obama and Trump, but nothing about the Berlin Wall or anything like that.

I think that probably is part of the divide. It's a different set of fears.

I actually believe there needs to be a major change to the hacked up private health insurance situation. Obamacare was dying and Trump killed whatever was left.

Whether Medicare for all is a solution is a question of expense, amount of increased taxes, and whether it will curb or increase out of control health care costs. I question whether it'll work, but most anything at this point would be better than what we have. The Republican response of ignoring this issue is a major failing.

To me, it's all pragmatics.

Ideologically, I'd suspect opponents would think it violates free market dictates, and the ideologues control — Hanover

Yes. I completely agree with all of that.

As I suspected, rather than offering actual solutions, you’re just denying the problem exists.

Get a side hustle, make a budget, and maybe look into the tiny house movement. I'm also not sure what your IRA is invested in, but the S&P is a decent option. Do not go for mutual funds which often have higher fees and tend to underperform the S&P. I have given you considerable real-life, practical advice which is directly applicable to your situation.

But clearly instead of this advice the better solution here - one which would clearly directly help you - would be if I were to agree with you in theory and tell you "sure lets go kill those capitalist pigs."

I rescind all of my earlier advice and declare that my solution now is to cause a worker's uprising and send all the disenfranchised capitalists to Madagascar. How's that.

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand. — Xtrix

I am looking, and I do not understand how his "position on climate change" the "policies enacted under his administration" are an "existential threat". Can you explain?

That cost objection fails to consider that it is done already by every major industrialized nation in the world, — creativesoul

I don't think this is true. Other countries don't fund military establishments sufficient to defend themselves. The US has unique problems. And Europe, for instance, doesn't do a Medicare-for-all type arrangement. It's universal healthcare, which is what Pelosi is pushing for.

That said, Medicare is already a powerful tool which could be used to limit the rise of healthcare costs. l know somebody who's getting ready to do fundraising to help people with COPD buy medications that would keep them out of the hospital. Many of the target people already have health insurance, it just won't pay for all their meds. It's ridiculous and it's something Medicare could easily help with.

I imagine people like you either held their nose and voted for her anyway because the Republicans put up the likes of Trump, or else stayed home. I just don't see that happening with a Sanders nomination. — Xtrix

Well, I’m starting to hope that Sander’s turnout is going to be a factor, and that a large number of would-be Trump voters will stay home because even they can’t stomach his corruption.

So it is not the end of civilization in 2024 after all, then? — Nobeernolife

Western civilization - the Western liberal democratic social order - could feasibly collapse as a consequence of environmental disaster, overpopulation, and resource depletion running up against hard limits of sustainability. Apart from Trump's obvious malfeasance, he’s also completely dismissive of environmental action and simultaneously running up unsustainable levels of government debt. So in every sense he's contributing to the problems, rather than solving them.

I do not understand how [Trump's] "position on climate change" the "policies enacted under his administration" are an "existential threat". — Nobeernolife

Trump's Presidency has been relentless in undoing climate and environmental protections and fostering the interests of fossil fuel corporations. He has dismissed climate science as a hoax, taken the US out of the Paris Agreement, and overturned protections against drilling in environmentally-sensitive national parks, amongst many other things.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

https://news.trust.org/packages/trump-and-climate-change/

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122019/trump-climate-policy-record-rollback-fossil-energy-history-candidate-profile

Trump's Presidency has been relentless in undoing climate and environmental protections and fostering the interests of fossil fuel corporations. He has dismissed climate science as a hoax, taken the US out of the Paris Agreement, and overturned protections against drilling in environmentally-sensitive national parks, amongst many other things. — Wayfarer

Even if I accepted all your claims about climate change and what evil Trump is doing, that is still a non-sequitur. You could erase the US from the map, eliminating ANY influence that Trump or any other president could have, and fossil fuel consumption, environmental pollution, overpopulation, and climate change would still occur.
So where is the dotted line between your much-hated Trump and the end of civilization?

Get a side hustle, make a budget, and maybe look into the tiny house movement. I'm also not sure what your IRA is invested in, but the S&P is a decent option. — BitconnectCarlos

I have a full time job already making significantly more than most people in my area never mind the country as a whole, I only spend a quarter of my take home income disposably and most of that is split between food and gas, I already live in what is effectively a tiny house (which doesn’t solve the problem of needing land to park it on), and my IRA is mostly in a S&P tracking index fund. None of this is new advice, though it would be good advice for someone who wasn’t doing it. My point is that I’m already doing every right, doing better than a supermajority of people, and I’m still facing an impossible uphill battle, which is a sign that something is systematically wrong that I personally am not responsible for single-handedly overcoming or else helplessly succumbing to.

My point is that I’m already doing every right, doing better than a supermajority of people, and I’m still facing an impossible uphill battle, which is a sign that something is systematically wrong that I personally am not responsible for single-handedly overcoming or else helplessly succumbing to.

From the picture you've been painting you seem to be doing generally alright. Sure, maybe a 600k house is a little out of your range but you seem to be financially secure with a nice emergency fund and decent savings. You mentioned you have disposable income and you're able to go out to eat whenever you want which is really nice.

I understand you want the house but you know the mortgage on that thing is going to be a constant stressor and much more than what you're paying now for the land ($800ish?) I live in a 1 bedroom apartment so I figure we probably live in similarly-sized areas and I'm honestly perfectly happy with mine. I think even if I had a partner 700 square feet is fine for me. Your insistence to get a house is a matter of your personal psychology, not a failure of the system. It's just hard to me to try to sympathize with you when you're able to go out to eat whenever you want. I mean sure the rent is annoying but it's only 1/4 of your income.

You could erase the US from the map, eliminating ANY influence that Trump or any other president could have, and fossil fuel consumption, environmental pollution, overpopulation, and climate change would still occur. — Nobeernolife

Now *there's* a non-sequiter.

Now *there's* a non-sequiter. — Wayfarer

How?