And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[71 dB]

Am I the only one who finds it a little silly that the most partisan mass-poster on these US politics topics has probably never even been in the US as a tourist, let alone a citizen?

As a EU denizen (who has lived in the US long time ago) I am fully aware that if Trump or any other US prez decides to blow up the planet the rest of the world will feel some itch, too.

However, the US elections are a matter of US voters and there is plenty going on in various other parts of the world to het exercized about, it's just (giggle alert coming!) that the corporate media don't spend as much time on the political problems in Ukraine (only in sofar US pols are involved), Hungary, Britain, France, Spain, the entire world is engulfed in shit, but people are only watching the friggin' US.

It's rather weird, too, that our correspondent from Finland told us some months ago that he should not get involved in topics about US politics because it upset him too much and here we are....

I have been to Florida back when I was 11. I don't see why I should be living in the US, when I have this thing called the internet bringing practically any information to me. I can hear and see what Americans say, what problems they have and so on. As I have said a million times, my advantage of being an outsider is the way I can see through the lies/smears/bias of corporate media. A lot of americans apparently can't and I am baffled about how brainwashed many on this board are regurgitating corporate talking points like they were news anchors of CNN.

For me following US politics is easy, because I understand English. Following the politics of say France would be a lot more difficult. Also, the politics of the US is endlessly fashionating. I got hooked because of Trump's victory in 2016. So much so, that I don't follow anymore even Finnish politics nearly as much as US politics. I have the right to follow the politics of whatever country I want. I enjoy following American politics for all of it's overblown crazyness, but witnessing the corporate mindset people here have and how little they think about my understanding makes me angry.

[71 dB]

The point is that single-payer is merely one way of getting everyone covered. There are a number of countries which manage that without resorting to single payer.

What countries and systems are you talking about?

What it boils down to is this
Single payer means everyone is covered , but the quality of health care goes down for almost everyone.
Public option means everyone is covered, but there's no impact on the quality of health care.

I am yet to understand why single payer means lower quality of care. If that was the case then in other countries with single payer healthcare the quality of care would be lower than it is in the US, but we have already agreed this in not the case. I have pointed out that the doctors do not become worse doctors in a single payer system, so WHAT causes this drop in quality exactly? Do you have substance to your claims or are you just parroting corporate talking points? You seem to refer to some problem in medicare program, but surely you understand someone like Bernie Sanders isn't suggesting a system where the problems (underfunding) of medicare are copied to the medicare for all system? Medicare for all would be properly funded (taxes rise!!!) and hence would be free of the underfunding problems of Medicare. Even with these problems Medicare is very popular program among Americans. Just imagine how popular Medicare for all would be! That's the reason why the insurance companies and Big Pharma are so scared and spend millions on anti-medicare for all adds on TV.

Medicare for all doesn't change providers of care (who are responsible of the quality). It changes how the care is funded, from where does the money come from. That matters a lot, because private insurers being the ones funding healthcare creates insane incentives.

[Herman]

I have been to Florida back when I was 11. I don't see why I should be living in the US, when I have this thing called the internet bringing practically any information to me.

I was trying to suggest that spending that much time is not very useful as you'll never get a chance to vote, which is what politix is about.

For me following US politics is easy, because I understand English. Following the politics of say France would be a lot more difficult. Also, the politics of the US is endlessly fashionating.

Making a joke about 'fashionating' would be too easy, so I won't.
However, in case you really meant 'fascinating', I have to disagree.
American politics are just plain awful and dispiriting.
The biggest news is about who netted the most donations per month, so they can buy time for stupid tv ads, etc.
It's not about ideas; it's about people writing checks. Sorry, make that checks being written.
The media turn it into a stupid horse race.

Last night I seriously heard / saw people debating about which candidate would tackle Trump best in a debate as a sort of gladiator sport.
It was never mentioned (these were professional pundits) that Trump is going to forego debates. Why on earth would he do a debate? He's the incumbent. He'll sooner release his tax returns than go and debate.
The mix of uppers and downers he'd need for that performance would be just too complicated, medically.
Just ask Todd. Does he need a debate or two, or will he just look at his bank statements before pulling the lever?
These pundits know this, obviously, but they are just filling tv time.

[71 dB]

I was trying to suggest that spending that much time is not very useful as you'll never get a chance to vote, which is what politix is about.

Well, listening to music isn't very "useful" either, but I enjoy doing to just as I enjoy following and commenting US politics.

Making a joke about 'fashionating' would be too easy, so I won't.
However, in case you really meant 'fascinating', I have to disagree.
American politics are just plain awful and dispiriting.
The biggest news is about who netted the most donations per month, so they can buy time for stupid tv ads, etc.
It's not about ideas; it's about people writing checks. Sorry, make that checks being written.
The media turn it into a stupid horse race.

Last night I seriously heard / saw people debating about which candidate would tackle Trump best in a debate as a sort of gladiator sport.
It was never mentioned (these were professional pundits) that Trump is going to forego debates. Why on earth would he do a debate? He's the incumbent. He'll sooner release his tax returns than go and debate.
The mix of uppers and downers he'd need for that performance would be just too complicated, medically.
Just ask Todd. Does he need a debate or two, or will he just look at his bank statements before pulling the lever?
These pundits know this, obviously, but they are just filling tv time.

Fascinating! Thanks! I knew something was wrong with fashionating.    American politics might be awful and dispiriting to YOU, but that's part of the appeal to me.

[JBS]

What countries and systems are you talking about?

You can do your own research.  Perhaps along the way you will learn some of the things the Young Turks don't tell you.

I am yet to understand why single payer means lower quality of care. If that was the case then in other countries with single payer healthcare the quality of care would be lower than it is in the US, but we have already agreed this in not the case. I have pointed out that the doctors do not become worse doctors in a single payer system, so WHAT causes this drop in quality exactly? Do you have substance to your claims or are you just parroting corporate talking points? You seem to refer to some problem in medicare program, but surely you understand someone like Bernie Sanders isn't suggesting a system where the problems (underfunding) of medicare are copied to the medicare for all system? Medicare for all would be properly funded (taxes rise!!!) and hence would be free of the underfunding problems of Medicare. Even with these problems Medicare is very popular program among Americans. Just imagine how popular Medicare for all would be! That's the reason why the insurance companies and Big Pharma are so scared and spend millions on anti-medicare for all adds on TV.

Medicare for all doesn't change providers of care (who are responsible of the quality). It changes how the care is funded, from where does the money come from. That matters a lot, because private insurers being the ones funding healthcare creates insane incentives.

The sentence I bolded describes something that is so improbable that it can be classified as fantasy.  Bernie proposes, but Congress disposes. And since Medicare for All will be chronically underfunded,  all the current problems with Medicare  will remain.   And because of that, people will find that they can't visit the doctor as often as they want, or see the specialist they are told to go, or get the procedure or prescription they need.   And because doctors will be paid less, they will have see more patients and therefore spend less time per patient.  [FYI,  paperwork will not decrease.  It will just change the forms and the address they are mailed/emailed to.]  Some doctors will decide it's not worth it and retire.   Bureaucrats will have just as much incentive to limit spending as the private insurers do now.

Basically, I see no reason to think the problems with Medicare now will not be emulated in Medicare for All. 

BTW, when you said

but we have already agreed this in not the case

that was incorrect.  I have not agreed to that.  I mentioned Finland, but you're assuming Finland is typical of all single payer countries.  I'm not.   

And comparing health care quality in the US to other countries is not apples to oranges.  We have three parallel systems
--private insurance
--Medicare for those 65 and over
--Medicaid (and related programs) for those who qualify because of low income and meager assets

You can think of the people who don't have insurance as a fourth category.

A true comparison would break down the differences among them.  I've gone looking for statistics, and not found very much.  What I have found is fairly incidental.  For instance, one study found that those on public insurance have better access to get heart conditions diagnosed, but those on private insurance are more likely to get the procedures necessary to resolve their heart problem.  Which sounds like a result more favorable to private insurance but not it's a clearcut  advantage.  Most discussion lumps them all in a mix, which distorts the results.   But general experience has shown me that those on public plans get worse care.

Also, while I've seen plenty of punditry and expertry writing against Medicare for All, I've seen absolutely no commercials by anyone on the issue.

[71 dB]

I think I am done with your MfA smears JDS. You bend backwards to defend the corporate anti-MfA propaganda. Aetna should hire you!  0:)

As I have told you, your opinion is dangerous, because people millions of people NEED medicare for all.

I am done. DONE!!

[SimonNZ]

Please let that be true.

[JBS]

I think I am done with your MfA smears JDS. You bend backwards to defend the corporate anti-MfA propaganda. Aetna should hire you!  0:)

As I have told you, your opinion is dangerous, because people millions of people NEED medicare for all.

I am done. DONE!!

Millions of people need health insurance here.  That you think the only possible solution is MfA, and that the arguments against it are corporate propaganda,  simply demonstrates the blinders your political biases have imposed on you.

[71 dB]

Please let that be true.

I'm done with JBS's MfA smears. Otherwise I'm not going anywhere.

[SimonNZ]

They're not "smears" - you should really stop misusing that word.

[71 dB]

MSNBC Host CUT OFF LIVE For PRAISING Bernie Sanders! (MUST WATCH)

https://www.youtube.com/v/L1Jki_zdSi8

[Karl Henning]

I don't think your idea of MUST WATCH matches mine.

You're the only one here who gives the shade of a damn about MSNBC, and you only mention it when you're flogginging your tired yada yada....

[SimonNZ]

MSNBC Host CUT OFF LIVE For PRAISING Bernie Sanders! (MUST WATCH)

I just did a Youtube search for "MSNBC Bernie Sanders" and it all looks pretty supportive to me. It seems clear that Morning Joe in particular likes him. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=msnbc+bernie+sanders

Also:MSNBC would have some very talented technicians and talented editors and producers. If they really wanted to be anti-Sanders it wouldn't come in the form of a mic malfunction. That game would be played at a much higher level.

That guy made Kyle Kulinsky look professional by comparison.

[71 dB]

I don't think your idea of MUST WATCH matches mine.

You're the only one here who gives the shade of a damn about MSNBC, and you only mention it when you're flogginging your tired yada yada....

The MUST WATCH was in the original title of the video. I copy-pasted the title faithfully. You are entitled to disagree with the title. MSNBC has some viewership (half of that of the Fox News I believe) so it matters what they do and even if it didn't, this demonstrates their ridiculous bias against senator Bernard Sanders. You are more interested of what I do on this board than in what shape he corporate media in your country is. It baffles me. People here are not the kind of intellectuals I expected people on a classical music forum to be. Frankly 15-25 year old millenials hanging on pop music forums have better grasp of things. They get their information from the internet instead of the corporate media. That's why Bernie is overhelmingly popular among young people while older people think it's 1992. Well, in 1992 even Hillary Clinton was for medicare for all. Not so much in 2016 when she ran for president. Insurance companies and Big Pharma bought her and she became the hated corrupt politician she is. The Dems have been moving right and struggling to keep their base, because their policies don't help regular people much. Now the Dems are as right as the Reps used to be a few decades ago. Regular people don't have a party to represent them anymore. Both parties, the Reps and the Dems serve the top 1 %. The only difference is you can choose from socially conservative and liberal options. Third parties exists, but the system is totally rigged against them. I'm just telling how it is. I didn't brainwash you. Please don't blame me for your cognitive dissonance.

[71 dB]

I just did a Youtube search for "MSNBC Bernie Sanders" and it all looks pretty supportive to me. It seems clear that Morning Joe in particular likes him. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=msnbc+bernie+sanders

Also:MSNBC would have some very talented technicians and talented editors and producers. If they really wanted to be anti-Sanders it wouldn't come in the form of a mic malfunction. That game would be played at a much higher level.

Yes, even the corporate media has positive coverage of Bernie, but the overall policy is to be against leftists. Only occationally you have lefties in the panels and so on. Do you really believe a mic has a malfunction exactly on the second the person is about to say something positive about Bernie? That's some serious odds if you ask me!

[Florestan]

People here are not the kind of intellectuals I expected people on a classical music forum to be.

You know, there are lots of things so stupid that only an intellectual would believe.

[drogulus]

Millions of people need health insurance here.  That you think the only possible solution is MfA, and that the arguments against it are corporate propaganda,  simply demonstrates the blinders your political biases have imposed on you.

     The problem of universal health care is one of ends, not means, and this is true of all forms of economic improvement. The "howyougonna" discussions are diversions from the underlying reality that what we can do is limited by the availability of resources, not the means to deploy them. There is no reason to run out of dollars in advance of running out of resources for dollars to put to work.

     The point, the whole point of "howyoiugonna-payforit" is not to figure out how the pay for should work. It's to prevent the end by fantasizing about the impossibility of the means. This gambit shouldn't work, since the advanced countries demonstrate that a variety of means can work for the same end.

     

[Karl Henning]

     The problem of universal health care is one of ends, not means, and this is true of all forms of economic improvement. The "howyougonna" discussions are diversions from the underlying reality that what we can do is limited by the availability of resources, not the means to deploy them. There is no reason to run out of dollars in advance of running out of resources for dollars to put to work.

     The point, the whole point of "howyoiugonna-payforit" is not to figure out how the pay for should work. It's to prevent the end by fantasizing about the impossibility of the means. This gambit shouldn't work, since the advanced countries demonstrate that a variety of means can work for the same end.

     

I don't see the U.S. Electorate going in for the "It'll get paid for, somehow, Trust-Me play."

[Karl Henning]

For one recent thing, that appears not to have happened with the ACA.

[drogulus]

I don't see the U.S. Electorate going in for the "It'll get paid for, somehow, Trust-Me play."

     That's a different thing. I'm discussing the use of "howyougonna" as a blocking tactic. When someone who isn't me asks how are you going to pay for a program, they are not really expecting an answer, they are registering their opposition to the goal itself. Now if I ask how, I violate regular order by treating the question literally as a request for information about a particular means to an end. I treat the end as so obviously desirable that a blizzard of howyougonnas is needed to keep it from enactment. Otherwise it would be necessary to come up with argument that it's in the public interest to inflict deprivation of the unworthy. That's hard work, and I'm too lazy to even try.