View Full Version : Democratic Party Debate
I saw part of the debate. Why do they hide them in holiday weekends? Do some party apparatchiks see that as helpful to Mrs. Clinton?
My reading as an ideological outsider was that Clinton failed to slow Sanders' momentum, although his hectoring, self-righteous tone did not help him.
rodeosweetheart
1-18-16, 9:44am
Did you find O'Malley vice presidential at all? I agree that these debates seem "hidden" in the difficulty in seeing them, and I did not even know about this one until 3 hours prior. Interesting theory!
I know! So true, and I am not a big conspiracy-theorist, but I do sense a vast Clinton-wing conspiracy in this election. I think they are wielding their power with the media to Hillary's benefit--there was a long article in the Daily News yesterday about Sanders being a "communist"--and the overall tone of the piece was totally out of the McCarthy era.
From what I've read, Bernie did slightly better than Hillary. I thought Hillary did her typical very competent job projecting her experience and knowledge of both domestic and international affairs, but I'm still hoping Bernie hold his own going forward.
I have actually wondered why the republican debates have only been available to cable subscribers and the democrats have been on regular broadcast TV for everyone to see. At least where I live.
I wonder why O'Malley hasn't done better. He seems well spoken, makes a good stage appearance, seems to hold his own against the big dogs. He's possibly a little intimidated by being in the shadows.
One of the questions that got my attention was how they would bring a divided Congress and country together. Hillary gave the standard political answer going on about her accomplishments, but mostly empty talk.. Bernie used it to further his broken record on the root cause of the connection between politicians and big money. As much as I like what Bernie says, realistically that rhetoric is probably not going anywhere against the old political guard from both parties. I see a lot of similarities in Bernie and Trump, the rebels who don't sing the same boring and veiled old school political songs. I think that is something the people want and have become disillusioned with the current state of affairs. Unfortunately I see either of them as having the right personality and tactics to further their causes. I'd love to see a debate between Bernie and Trump, but I doubt that will happen. I thought Clinton carried the debate with her political experience, middle of the road Democratic policy, and "relatively" pleasing stage personality.
Did you find O'Malley vice presidential at all? I agree that these debates seem "hidden" in the difficulty in seeing them, and I did not even know about this one until 3 hours prior. Interesting theory!
O'Malley seemed closer to Sanders than Clinton from a policy standpoint, but I'll admit I haven't given him much attention. This debate more than the previous ones seemed similar to the purity vs. pragmatism arguments we've seen on the Republican side. Clinton promised to "defend" the Obama legacy, while Sanders promised "transformation".
My reading as an ideological outsider was that Clinton failed to slow Sanders' momentum, although his hectoring, self-righteous tone did not help him.
True. Not that his response surprised me at all, but I was still glad to see that he didn't take the bait on the stupid "Is Bill such a sleazeball that Hillary wouldn't be a good president?" question.
Bernie used it to further his broken record on the root cause of the connection between politicians and big money. As much as I like what Bernie says, realistically that rhetoric is probably not going anywhere against the old political guard from both parties.
Other than politicians and big money are there really that many people in the "old political guard" to be a problem for him? Sure I expect that a few anonymous ten member superpacs with names like "Americans against the socialist nightmare"* will be created with big Wall Street money, but that's about it. My impression is that the reason Trump and Bernie are gaining as much traction as they are is because a significant number of at least moderately engaged voters agree with Bernie on this topic and any other related theme of out of touch Washington insiders. Bernie has just defined what he considers the root cause of the out of touchness. (and I happen to agree with him.)
*I can see the ridiculous ads now. [deep sinister voiceover] "Bernie Sanders may look as friendly as Santa Claus. [picture of Bernie standing next to Santa Claus with smiling children all around drifting across the screen] As a democratic SOCIALIST he has promised that every day will be like Christmas. That his democratic SOCIALISM will provide gifts for everyone. But WHO is going to pay for all these democratic SOCIALIST gifts???? Your children and grandchildren will!!!!" queue evil scary horror movie music. "Christmas is supposed to be for the children. But Bernie Sanders' democratic SOCIALISM is one gift they would be better off without." [in a soft, higher pitched, faster voice] "paid for by Americans against the SOCIALIST nightmare."
rodeosweetheart
1-18-16, 10:49am
Oh boy, I was flipping through youtubes because they kept pausing and I missed the Bill question! Darn, and I was waiting for it.
Was watching Larry David during the pauses, and it was disconcerting, as he is more Bernie than Bernie.
rodeosweetheart
1-18-16, 10:51am
JP1, I think his continued use of the word "revolution" is a tactical error. And I like him very much, and would vote for him.
JP1, I think his continued use of the word "revolution" is a tactical error. And I like him very much, and would vote for him.
I tend to flinch at that word also, despite my intention to vote for him (not that it will matter by the time we finally have our primary...) but I have to wonder if maybe it's intentional. If you're trying to tap into people's anger at the status quo the word revolution might be appropriate. But i'm not a highly paid political consultant so I have no idea what's the best choice of words for him to use.
I tend to flinch at that word also, despite my intention to vote for him (not that it will matter by the time we finally have our primary...) but I have to wonder if maybe it's intentional. If you're trying to tap into people's anger at the status quo the word revolution might be appropriate. But i'm not a highly paid political consultant so I have no idea what's the best choice of words for him to use.
I'm sure the choice of words is deliberate. How else can a career politician and long-time officeholder claim "outsider" status but to go a little over the top rhetorically?
Other than politicians and big money are there really that many people in the "old political guard" to be a problem for him? Sure I expect that a few anonymous ten member superpacs with names like "Americans against the socialist nightmare"* will be created with big Wall Street money, but that's about it. My impression is that the reason Trump and Bernie are gaining as much traction as they are is because a significant number of at least moderately engaged voters agree with Bernie on this topic and any other related theme of out of touch Washington insiders. Bernie has just defined what he considers the root cause of the out of touchness. (and I happen to agree with him.)
Maybe. I like Bernie and may even vote for him, but who ever is elected is going to have to work with a congress with strong republican and tea party representation. Congress already has a reputation for being strongly divided and ineffective. I can see things like universal health care and increased taxes going into long and time consuming political deadlocks. And Democrats have their own connections to "big money" and Goldman Sacks that might roadblock more radical reform. Bernie is the idealist I like, but I'm not sure he is the one to move the country forward rather than more gridlock.
rodeosweetheart
1-18-16, 11:32am
I thought his mentioning over and over the 650k speaking engagement monies from GS to Hillary was very effective. She certainly looked angry enough.
I saw part of the debate. Why do they hide them in holiday weekends? Do some party apparatchiks see that as helpful to Mrs. Clinton?
That's a fair question, one I think with several components to an obvious answer. When the debate schedules were being set up, months and months ago, Hillary Clinton was the hands-on favorite to win the nomination, although she was doing her best to maintain a low profile as long as her front-runner status could be maintained. It seems that DNC research found that the more she talked, the less people liked her, therefore it was imperative to limit the size and frequency of her appearances.
Secondly, her most troublesome adversary is an avowed Socialist, a label that the DNC embraces privately yet abhors publicly. There was perceived to be no utility in highlighting the party's alter-ego on a large scale. They even went so far as to bar the Sanders campaign access to the DNC database, forcing Sanders to sue them in order to regain access.
Make no mistake, Hillary is the DNC's preferred candidate and they will do everything in their power to make the nomination hers.
rodeosweetheart
1-18-16, 11:40am
"It seems that DNC research found that the more she talked, the less people liked her, therefore it was imperative to limit the size and frequency of her appearances."
Interesting! That doesn't bode well for her as a nominee, does it.
"It seems that DNC research found that the more she talked, the less people liked her, therefore it was imperative to limit the size and frequency of her appearances."
Interesting! That doesn't bode well for her as a nominee, does it.
I'm not sure. Once we get past the nomination stage, blind partisanship will kick in and I suspect the Democratic base will stand solidly behind her.
rodeosweetheart
1-18-16, 11:48am
I think you are quite right, but then there are the voters for her to worry about. . .
I'm not sure. Once we get past the nomination stage, blind partisanship will kick in and I suspect the Democratic base will stand solidly behind her.
Given the likely alternative I would guess that you've stated something fairly obvious.
Maybe. I like Bernie and may even vote for him, but who ever is elected is going to have to work with a congress with strong republican and tea party representation. Congress already has a reputation for being strongly divided and ineffective. I can see things like universal health care and increased taxes going into long and time consuming political deadlocks. And Democrats have their own connections to "big money" and Goldman Sacks that might roadblock more radical reform. Bernie is the idealist I like, but I'm not sure he is the one to move the country forward rather than more gridlock.
I suspect that gridlock is likely no matter who is president. I don't expect any of the potential presidents to be able to push through a majority of their agenda. But if we don't have someone who's at least pushing for the right things like getting big money out of politics so that politicians actually pay attention to voters rather than donors then we won't even have a remote chance of getting there. I'll take remote chance over no chance any day of the week.
I'm not sure the current situation doesn't at least partly refute the "big money" theory of politics. Otherwise Jeb Bush would be doing much better and President Romney would have just delivered his last State of the Union address.
I don't see the impending gridlock as a partisan issue so much as an economic one. The obvious best case for big money interests would be to have a president AND a congress both sympathetic to their cause. If that doesn't happen the best plan B might just be to have a president who is a polar opposite to the majority creating that gridlock. If policy is completely locked up then no new regulation (aka: reform) will be implemented and the status quo will keep chugging along. Its worked pretty well in the past eight years.
An interesting twist would be if enough Bernie supporters come out to actually get him elected and then STAY involved enough to shake up the mid-term election. Its a huge long shot without a real precedence that I know of, but hey, someone won the Powerball...
I'm not sure the current situation doesn't at least partly refute the "big money" theory of politics. Otherwise Jeb Bush would be doing much better and President Romney would have just delivered his last State of the Union address.
Obama had as much 'big money' as Romney so there wasn't really a big money vs. non-big money contest there. Maybe what we're seeing is that voters perceive Bernie and Trump as the first seemingly viable candidates speaking out against big money, hence their popularity.
I don't know. I keep liking Bernie the best and I am actually tempted to get out and do something political (besides vote). That is new for me.
An interesting twist would be if enough Bernie supporters come out to actually get him elected and then STAY involved enough to shake up the mid-term election. Its a huge long shot without a real precedence that I know of, but hey, someone won the Powerball...
My estimate is that Bernie would push campaign finance reform that would turn the election tides in favor of his issues. That would indeed be an interesting proposition, but like you say, a long shot.
gimmethesimplelife
1-18-16, 2:29pm
I'm going to fess up and admit I missed the debate. That is so unlike me to miss a Democratic debate! I did read online that Bernie held his own against Hillary and I'm glad. Bernie's overall message resonates with me and I'd love Medicare for all....but where does the money realistically come from to pay for it? I also like the anti Wall Street and big banks rhetoric and I'm not the only one out there that does. This is getting interesting now - Hillary vs. Bernie and also Trump period and his stubborn lead to date. I'm a bit disconnected from it all with the good things going on in my life but Sanders has my vote to date. No great surprise there for anyone familiar with my posts.
...I'd love Medicare for all....but where does the money realistically come from to pay for it?
Taxes. Since Obama practically had to sell his soul to get Obamacare, I don't think Bernie's single payer plan has a chance, but here's what the NYT says. Of course, with Berniecare people and companies would no longer have money out of pocket for company sponsored or private health insurance, co-pays or deductibles, and it would supposedly be more efficient by taking out the insurance middle men.
The program would be financed in part by a 2.2 percent health care premium, calculated under the rules for federal income taxes, and a 6.2 percent health care payroll tax paid by employers.
Sanders would impose an estate tax on the wealthiest Americans and revise the federal tax code to make rates more progressive.
Individuals earning $250,000 to $500,000 annually would be taxed at a rate of 37 percent. The top rate of 52 percent who apply to those earning $10 million or more annually.
gimmethesimplelife
1-18-16, 3:04pm
Roger, as I've said I'd love Medicare for all. There's a but coming though. But.....I look at this new tax upon businesses and I wonder how people like myself and my husband can even break even with side small businesses to bring in more income? Heaven forbid I sound like a conservative. But in the current race to the bottom many people don't have room in their margins for more taxes. Like I said, I'd love Medicare for all but I can see some issues with it, too. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-18-16, 3:15pm
I just googled Sanders plan and it does sound interesting.....but I can't see large businesses being willing to pay a new six percent plus tax per employee unless it came to less than the cheapest cost to cover under the ACA. Rob
I just googled Sanders plan and it does sound interesting.....but I can't see large businesses being willing to pay a new six percent plus tax per employee unless it came to less than the cheapest cost to cover under the ACA. Rob
It would certainly seem to bend the cost curve in favor of automation.
I just googled Sanders plan and it does sound interesting.....but I can't see large businesses being willing to pay a new six percent plus tax per employee unless it came to less than the cheapest cost to cover under the ACA. Rob
We'll just pass it along to our customers in the price of our products, plus an additional markup for our costs in dealing with it. No worries.
ApatheticNoMore
1-18-16, 3:51pm
I don't know if anything will be passed on at all. Companies ARE ALREADY paying a fortune for employee healthcare. In fact most companies say they can't compete in some cases with countries that have single payer because healthcare costs are killing them. 6% might be a blessing, they are often already paying more (kind of the problem with having one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world).
I don't know if anything will be passed on at all. Companies ARE ALREADY paying a fortune for employee healthcare. In fact most companies say they can't compete in some cases with countries that have single payer because healthcare costs are killing them. 6% might be a blessing, they are often already paying more (kind of the problem with having one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world).
Exactly. It would be interesting to see how the numbers play out if there is some financial genius out there who could present unbiased figures.
I don't know if anything will be passed on at all. Companies ARE ALREADY paying a fortune for employee healthcare. In fact most companies say they can't compete in some cases with countries that have single payer because healthcare costs are killing them. 6% might be a blessing, they are often already paying more (kind of the problem with having one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world).
If the big money theory is valid, couldn't they simply use their irresistible financial might to dictate such terms to their mindless minions in congress?
iris lilies
1-18-16, 4:36pm
Roger, as I've said I'd love Medicare for all. There's a but coming though. But.....I look at this new tax upon businesses and I wonder how people like myself and my husband can even break even with side small businesses to bring in more income? Heaven forbid I sound like a conservative. But in the current race to the bottom many people don't have room in their margins for more taxes. Like I said, I'd love Medicare for all but I can see some issues with it, too. Rob
ah, the irony.
It would certainly seem to bend the cost curve in favor of automation.
Or outsourcing. But the cost curve of having an employee in the US has been bending towards automation and outsourcing for a long time already.
But in the current race to the bottom many people don't have room in their margins for more taxes. Like I said, I'd love Medicare for all but I can see some issues with it, too. RobAre you saying that free stuff isn't really free? Oh My!
I just googled Sanders plan and it does sound interesting.....but I can't see large businesses being willing to pay a new six percent plus tax per employee unless it came to less than the cheapest cost to cover under the ACA. Rob
The premium for my employer provided insurance is already almost 6% of my salary at roughly $500/month for a single guy so my employer probably wouldn't much care. Employers who don't currently provide insurance are an issue that will have to be resolved so that they aren't put out of business. The devil is in the details but since we're already spending over $3 trillion every year economy-wide to provide healthcare, and doing so very inefficiently, I don't see this as necessarily resulting in a huge new expense to the economy. Maybe the solution includes capping the amount of salary that gets taxed for healthcare, not taxing the first $10,000 (or whatever) of a worker's income, a gradual role-in for small businesses as it is with the ACA, etc.
ApatheticNoMore
1-18-16, 4:53pm
If the big money theory is valid, couldn't they simply use their irresistible financial might to dictate such terms to their mindless minions in congress?
well the problem there is that their interest's in paying less for employees medical coverage, are opposed to the interests of the insurance companies and the rest of the medical industrial complex, which may be more powerful.
ApatheticNoMore
1-18-16, 4:56pm
Roger, as I've said I'd love Medicare for all. There's a but coming though. But.....I look at this new tax upon businesses and I wonder how people like myself and my husband can even break even with side small businesses to bring in more income?
if it's a payroll tax it will only apply if you have employees. If you have employees and planned to pay nothing for their healthcare costs otherwise (without this tax), well that sucks, especially as I have known small businesses that went out of their way to make sure their employees had coverage (of course it is getting more and more expensive - and that's the current system).
In my working days the cost of my health care coverage, which was shared between my employer and myself, was very roughly 10% of my income. Now that I no longer work in the traditional sense, my income is lower but the cost for continuing my healthcare with my previous employer is basically the same amount and a much higher percentage of my income. I might basically assume the Berniecare would save money in both my middle income case and my non-working case. I suppose much of the devil is in the details and would guess that the upper incomes would share more of the health cost burden. Whether it would be enough to cover the increased costs of covering the uninsured and unemployed might be the sticker.
Whether it would be enough to cover the increased costs of covering the uninsured and unemployed might be the sticker.
I'm not a health policy expert so I have no idea how much extra cost is associated with uninusred people either going to the ER for a non-Emergency situation, or worse, putting off going to the doc for a non-emergency and then eventually winding up in the ER when the condition worsens to that point and becomes an expensive hospital bill. But given the number of uninsured people in this country I suspect that the cost for these two situations is not insignificant.
I'm not a health policy expert so I have no idea how much extra cost is associated with uninusred people either going to the ER for a non-Emergency situation, or worse, putting off going to the doc for a non-emergency and then eventually winding up in the ER when the condition worsens to that point and becomes an expensive hospital bill.
I don't have the numbers handy, but I will tell you that my district is moving swiftly to a community paramedicine model to reduce the health and cost impact of waiting for situations to become dire enough that 911/helicopters/emergency rooms are involved.
http://communityparamedic.org/
iris lilies
1-18-16, 6:12pm
Are you saying that free stuff isn't really free? Oh My!
Its only free when YOU pay for it, buddy.
rodeosweetheart
1-18-16, 6:14pm
Its only free when YOU pay for it, buddy.
I thought we had reached a place of agreement where Alan paid for all our healthcare, all the time. Now we just need to tell Bernie, and his slogan can be,
"It's on Alan!"
Williamsmith
1-18-16, 6:25pm
We should agree.....Bernie Sanders has zero chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. And if he did....he has zero chance of beating the narcissistic blowhard or the hyper religious smirking maniac. Bernie has defined himself as a democratic Socialist. Clinton is the only one with the machine, the funding and the political wherewithal to win the Presidency and the electorate knows it. Sanders makes a nice story for the press and a good fantasy for liberals and progressives. But Sanders has one issue.....wealth inequality, he is grumpy, he relies on grassroots funding and he is a loser in the general election. We should agree......
We should agree.....Bernie Sanders has zero chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. And if he did....he has zero chance of beating the narcissistic blowhard or the hyper religious smirking maniac. Bernie has defined himself as a democratic Socialist. Clinton is the only one with the machine, the funding and the political wherewithal to win the Presidency and the electorate knows it. Sanders makes a nice story for the press and a good fantasy for liberals and progressives. But Sanders has one issue.....wealth inequality, he is grumpy, he relies on grassroots funding and he is a loser in the general election. We should agree......
I have to hope that the popularity and huge outpouring for the ideas that Sanders is talking about is going to force some people to really look at these things even if he doesn't win. If he does then I imagine he will be only be able to get minimal things done, but bringing these conversations into a national arena is so important. Some of us have been paying attention to income inequality and the effect for many years, whew, someone is not getting laughed off-stage to open that topic!
We should agree.....Bernie Sanders has zero chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. And if he did....he has zero chance of beating the narcissistic blowhard or the hyper religious smirking maniac. Bernie has defined himself as a democratic Socialist. Clinton is the only one with the machine, the funding and the political wherewithal to win the Presidency and the electorate knows it. Sanders makes a nice story for the press and a good fantasy for liberals and progressives. But Sanders has one issue.....wealth inequality, he is grumpy, he relies on grassroots funding and he is a loser in the general election. We should agree......
I seem to remember hearing a lot of similar comments predicting an easy Clinton win from the extreme pessimist crowd almost exactly 8 years ago. The reasons were different but the sentiment and predicted end result was the same. So, no, I don't agree.
Change is good. Yes, we can.
Oh wait, that was last time. >8) I love Bernie, but I'm seriously not running for that football again. Change is good, no we can't.
I thought we had reached a place of agreement where Alan paid for all our healthcare, all the time. Now we just need to tell Bernie, and his slogan can be,
"It's on Alan!"
Except that all the Alan's of the world never agreed to that. It was always just an expectation of the non-Alan's who all seemed to believe that it was free.
I've always paid taxes. As a single citizen with minimal deductions, I paid plenty. If anyone had asked me (they didn't), I would have said that I wanted my taxes earmarked to benefit the country--not bankers or munitions manufacturers or the grifters who off-shore their money and avoid paying taxes. I would gladly fund infrastructure, health care, clean energy--and I'm sure there are millions like me who feel the same way.
Our health care system is a disgrace--at least twice as expensive as it needs to be, dominated by big-money interests, it stinks of mediocrity and greed. We need to tear it down and start over.
gimmethesimplelife
1-18-16, 8:24pm
ah, the irony.IL, I thought of you when I posted what you responded too. Yes indeed I get what you mean and I get that there is irony here too. I spent a good part of today shipping books that I sold online and yes I'm aboveboard with claiming everything and yes I will have higher taxes that will mess with my margins if something like Berniecare comes to be. I thought about this a bit, as I've heard it said before that everyone is a Democrat until they have money. In my case it would be paying higher taxes on anything I make over $400 a year in a self employed endeavor. And here is my decision - tax me until the cows come home. I'm willing to be heavily taxed so the next Rob out there will not know the fear of the United States that I have known and lived with for goodly chunks of my life. It's worth it to me to not have others under this duress.
That said, however, and after having stated I'm ok with being taxed heavily, there is one caveat to this. Make the tax forms simple and not so hard to understand that you need an MBA in accounting to understand. That is my one bone to pick with taxes when they start getting the slightest bit complex - too much room to make mistakes and to misinterpret guidelines totally innocently. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-18-16, 8:36pm
I've always paid taxes. As a single citizen with minimal deductions, I paid plenty. If anyone had asked me (they didn't), I would have said that I wanted my taxes earmarked to benefit the country--not bankers or munitions manufacturers or the grifters who off-shore their money and avoid paying taxes. I would gladly fund infrastructure, health care, clean energy--and I'm sure there are millions like me who feel the same way.
Our health care system is a disgrace--at least twice as expensive as it needs to be, dominated by big-money interests, it stinks of mediocrity and greed. We need to tear it down and start over.Jane, I could not agree more with your last paragraph. That people still are leaving the country for procedures even under ObamaCare speaks volumes to me about what health care in America is all about. We had a transit strike here in Phoenix that end a few days ago and some religious leader here said that the transit company cutting the health care of the strikers while they were striking amounted to "economic terrorism". I'm really starting to see US health care as just that - economic terrorism - except for the very wealthy and those on Medicare or Medicaid. The health care system really does need to be torn down/collapse so that it can be about people over profits. Otherwise, get used to more and more people applying for passports so that they can travel to countries with affordable healthcare.
Unfortunately, though at least it's been progress, especially for the working poor on expanded Medicaid, people are still having to flee the US for health care due to unaffordable deductibles and copays and risks to their credit rating by remaining in the US for health care. Were I truly middle class I'd still be crossing the border for health care - I love and respect myself and am worth quality healthcare at an affordable cost. My fleeing the US to obtain this is true capitalism at work - voting with my feet for the better deal. For some reason, for many people it seems capitalism is just fine UNTIL capitalism creates situations such as this where the logical choice is to offshore health care - for some reason there is an expectation that one remain in the US and play the game with unaffordable copays and deductibles. I'll never understand this expectation, but to each their own I guess. Rob
We should agree.....Bernie Sanders has zero chance of becoming the Democratic nominee... Sanders makes a nice story for the press and a good fantasy for liberals and progressives. But Sanders has one issue.....wealth inequality, he is grumpy, he relies on grassroots funding and he is a loser in the general election. We should agree......
I'd agree. I'd give Bernie a few more percentage points and a couple more for Donnie, but the traditional party institutions are stacked against them. Their presence has probably gotten a lot of people on both sides interested in the issues and discussions, which is a good thing. I hope future politicians are listening to their popularity and why people are dissatisfied, which might make some difference.
Unfortunately, I'd give the chances for more health care reform at near zero. We pay a lot more money than most industrialized countries for health care and seem to get less back in terms of a healthy population. Our health care system is messed up and for a country with so many things going for it, that's not right. I have my own personal experience as witness and I have good insurance. Here in Colorado there is a grassroots initiative to go to single payer universal health that will probably be on the next ballot. It's the same issues. Better coverage and a different tax structure. Colorado is a little progressive, so it might get some traction. Maybe that is where health care reform belongs if it's not going to happen at the national level.
Williamsmith
1-18-16, 9:39pm
Having been a recent participant in the healthcare monster and still a victim of its mediocrity, I am fertile ground for sowing the seed of discontent with the system, it's greed, waste, fraud and indifference to suffering. Now you would think I would feel the opposite which is startling and shows how vulnerable the system is to radical change. I have the best healthcare money can buy and yet I suffer from incompetent medical care, long waits for appointments to specialists, indifference and lack of professionalism.
I was hospitalized one time in the last 30 years before I was injured three months ago. I could have cared less about healthcare inefficiencies......I didn't use or need the system. Well, things have changed. My eyes are opened and the fact is there are not enough doctors to go around. One has to take on a huge amount of debt to get into the profession and ObamaCare is an abomination to them. So good minds are opting out to other endeavors. I do not know the answer but our current system is an outrage. Is it better than third world....of course but it is not fitting the most powerful nation in the world.
I truly feel for the chronically ill. Because they are mostly seen as a golden opportunity to make money from medicating them to death. A slow death preferably so as to maximize the income.
IL, I thought of you when I posted what you responded too. Yes indeed I get what you mean and I get that there is irony here too. I spent a good part of today shipping books that I sold online and yes I'm aboveboard with claiming everything and yes I will have higher taxes that will mess with my margins if something like Berniecare comes to be. I thought about this a bit, as I've heard it said before that everyone is a Democrat until they have money. In my case it would be paying higher taxes on anything I make over $400 a year in a self employed endeavor. And here is my decision - tax me until the cows come home. I'm willing to be heavily taxed so the next Rob out there will not know the fear of the United States that I have known and lived with for goodly chunks of my life. It's worth it to me to not have others under this duress.
That said, however, and after having stated I'm ok with being taxed heavily, there is one caveat to this. Make the tax forms simple and not so hard to understand that you need an MBA in accounting to understand. That is my one bone to pick with taxes when they start getting the slightest bit complex - too much room to make mistakes and to misinterpret guidelines totally innocently. Rob
Ok, Im glad you have decided that being taxed u til the cows come home is ok.
I too would like to see the whole tax system simplified including forms.
I truly feel for the chronically ill. Because they are mostly seen as a golden opportunity to make money from medicating them to death.
I have a friend who has a chronic illness that is in the mystery area for treatment. As I understand his explanations, some of the good specialists that could help ask for cash up front and then let the patient deal with all the insurance negotiations and reimbursements. It gets them out of the whole insurance loop and he says it is becoming more common.
gimmethesimplelife
1-18-16, 10:48pm
I can't say I blame doctors for doing this Rogar. I see insurance companies as a big part of the problem. Rob
I can't say I blame doctors for doing this Rogar. I see insurance companies as a big part of the problem. Rob I don't know that I place blame with either. The quality specialists can charge what ever the market will bear regardless of what insurance will reimburse. It could, or does, make quality care more expensive than some people can afford. If it became a trend, it could affect a lot of us.
I know a number of people who say they could retire tomorrow but for health insurance. If this is "Medicare for all", and you receive benefits without being employed, might this push a significant exodus from the workforce? There might be both good and bad aspects to that, but I would thing that would include a drop in the payroll tax base as younger, less well compensated people replace more senior workers.
Williamsmith
1-20-16, 11:09am
I know a number of people who say they could retire tomorrow but for health insurance. If this is "Medicare for all", and you receive benefits without being employed, might this push a significant exodus from the workforce? There might be both good and bad aspects to that, but I would thing that would include a drop in the payroll tax base as younger, less well compensated people replace more senior workers.
High administrative costs already limits coverage, denies care and reduces payment amounts to providers who opt out of insurance programs and opt out of practice to join salaried hospitalist roles.
If an all in approach to go to universal health care were undertaken, cost could be kept low enough to make up for any of the "bad aspects". We can't keep going the way we are....and we can't go half way. That would be a disaster with all the higher risk people being dumped on the public healthcare system. Obamacare failed because of this. It might have been planned that way so that we have to adopt universal but its done now. Repeal is not going to happen.
High administrative costs already limits coverage, denies care and reduces payment amounts to providers who opt out of insurance programs and opt out of practice to join salaried hospitalist roles.
If an all in approach to go to universal health care were undertaken, cost could be kept low enough to make up for any of the "bad aspects". We can't keep going the way we are....and we can't go half way. That would be a disaster with all the higher risk people being dumped on the public healthcare system. Obamacare failed because of this. It might have been planned that way so that we have to adopt universal but its done now. Repeal is not going to happen.
Is he contemplating an "all-in" approach that prohibits insurers or providers from opting out of the system, or would it be like the UK system that provides a government-run system but allows private pay patients and doctors for those who don't wish to use it?
Williamsmith
1-20-16, 12:26pm
Is he contemplating an "all-in" approach that prohibits insurers or providers from opting out of the system, or would it be like the UK system that provides a government-run system but allows private pay patients and doctors for those who don't wish to use it?
Does it really matter? If you are well off enough to go outside the public system........then you could always travel to a different country or receive treatment from a doctor and pay under the table.
Does it really matter? If you are well off enough to go outside the public system........then you could always travel to a different country or receive treatment from a doctor and pay under the table.
I think it does matter. I might not necessarily want to leave the country or participate in a black market. Today, a doctor can elect to limit the number of Medicare patients he takes on. I'm curious to know if Bernie's plan would make medical people de facto government employees. I'm also curious if I might have the option of buying supplemental insurance or paying out of pocket if I thought that would get me better care.
Williamsmith
1-20-16, 12:55pm
I think it does matter. I might not necessarily want to leave the country or participate in a black market. Today, a doctor can elect to limit the number of Medicare patients he takes on. I'm curious to know if Bernie's plan would make medical people de facto government employees. I'm also curious if I might have the option of buying supplemental insurance or paying out of pocket if I thought that would get me better care.
As it stands only the very wealthy have that option now due to the high cost of medical treatment. Looking at my three day stay at the hospital, I could not afford to pay one time for an out of network doctor. I would be in debt.
iris lilies
1-20-16, 1:25pm
As it stands only the very wealthy have that option now due to the high cost of medical treatment. Looking at my three day stay at the hospital, I could not afford to pay one time for an out of network doctor. I would be in debt.
Not at all. Seeing a specialist for another diagnostic opinion is not very expensive.
I also like the way you are cavalier about travel for someone who may be feeling very ill.
if I have the means, and I do have the means, to spend $25,000 on elbow surgery using the best elbow guy in my region and who happens to have his shop 2 miles from me,
I want to do that. This describes DH's recent surgery, all of that was theoretically affordable for us. We did have insurance, however.
I have always said that its likely I would accept and even be content with The NHS or Canadian province delivered public health care, but I want an option in case I am not. Thats available in the UK but not in Canada.
As it stands only the very wealthy have that option now due to the high cost of medical treatment. Looking at my three day stay at the hospital, I could not afford to pay one time for an out of network doctor. I would be in debt.
I'm by no means a man of means, but I occasionally go out of network when I think it's indicated.
My question, however, was what the Sanders plan would allow in that respect. Is the plan to go the full socialist Monty, or would it just be a public option with private options still allowed? Like education, where you can opt out of the public school system (if not out of paying for it) if you can pay the freight.
I haven't seen much detail on that aspect of his plan.
My question, however, was what the Sanders plan would allow in that respect. Is the plan to go the full socialist Monty, or would it just be a public option with private options still allowed? Like education, where you can opt out of the public school system (if not out of paying for it) if you can pay the freight.
To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, you have to see the plan to know what's in the plan. Even among Democrats, I cannot imagine a plan that bars private transactions getting broad support. I wouldn't be comfortable with that, and I personally view universal healthcare as a top political priority. But it doesn't really matter what the plan is today of course, it will look how it looks when it makes its way through the sausage factory. I still remember the Obama/Clinton 2008 debates on healthcare and Obama arguing against the individual mandate.
I only watched a few minutes of the debate. The whole thing is just so depressing to me and I didn't really care what they had to say. And I am a hard-core political junkie to an unhealthy extent. I just didn't care. I am so disappointed in the quality of candidates. How could "we" have thought that Hillary Clinton was a good candidate? Martin O'Malley? Shaking my head. I love Bernie as much as the next guy but....Big bummer, to say the least. I'll vote for whoever the Democrats put out there but they/we need better candidates.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.