And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[drogulus]

     The purpose of government is to increase the effective freedom of citizens by making the best tradeoffs. We always do this and no fancy ideological footwork will make it a new threatening thing. We lived through the 20th century innovations, it's not a new proposition to test.

     Sanders' bullying is not different in kind from standard issue left/right bullying, and not all that much in degree from progressives that don't fly the socialist flag. The name hasn't got additional bullying in it.

     Oh no, it's a "socialist" thingamagig! Flush the whole Welfare State before it goes too far!!

     Nothing is at stake in the "government is bullying" proposition as baldly stated. Everything government does is a regulation, a spend or a tax. You define as government the authority to do these things, OK? Lovers of abstract liberty want to attack the host, kind of Big Anti-Government.

      The philosophical nihilists operate the same way, making arguments that rationally prove that it would be better if humans didn't exist "for their own good". It's an argument from high principle. We shouldn't want what we want because we're wrong from a point of view that doesn't admit of practical considerations and lived experience.

[staxomega]

I guess Bernie does not convince/motivate them.  Faults on both sides, I am sure.

Gen Z as a whole are the most fiscally conservative generation and small government minded, they see how inefficient big government is now. I've read this from right, left and centrist leading news outlets. I'm sure if you focus only on very far right or very far left only news outlets it will seem to only skew one way or another.

The thought of a Libertarian president in my life time seems pretty unreal Probably more so that more millenials will become more conservative as they get older, it happens with every single generation.

[Marc]

And you are not the only offender here.

Let's carry on offending then.
It's fun, isn't it?

[drogulus]

     Perhaps Sanders has a problem because of his hectoring style. I not so fondly remember it from my misspent youth.

[71 dB]

I guess Bernie does not convince/motivate them.  Faults on both sides, I am sure.

I think the system demoralizes them more than Bernie can motivate them.

Speaking of which:  Poju, I have not always addressed you with the polite equanimity and mutual respect which you deserve.  I earnestly apologize, and assure you that I shall endeavor to do better by you in future.

(* typo *)

Thank You Karl and I should apologize You because I have said some pretty nasty things to You. I have respected You on this forum from day one and kept in high esteem, but something weird happened a couple of years ago between us. I try to tread You and others here better. I have had really bad years and my left wing political beliefs make it difficult ot cope with the World as it is. Trump's presidency has been astonishedly detrimental to my mental health... 

[drogulus]

The thought of a Libertarian president in my life time seems pretty unreal

    I would extend that to all lifetimes. We won't have an UnPresident of the ungovernment.

[drogulus]

     The value of high principle formulations is that it allows people to "imagine a vain thing" without bothering to notice they are doing it, and argue for its propositions as though it was a question of how many post offices should remain open.

[71 dB]

A simplistic analysis. Millions of people who don't have insurance and can't afford it don't have any choice whatever about their health care, unless you count the choice between eating and dying. Moreover, private insurers in the middle of the equation between hospitals, doctors, pharma, medical testing and devices and those who use their services and products allows for enormous waste and gouging. The system also negates any potential collective power to negotiate prices downward. Then there is the whole moral hazard question associated with an industry whose profits can depend on denying care to those who need it.

Thanks for posting this. I feel it corroborates what I have been writing here. 

[drogulus]

     "Choice" is a purely adversarial gambit. It concerns no actual ability to choose. I have more choice under Med. Advantage than I had under private insurance incarceration. Who goes to their employer and unfurls a "right to choose" flag? Go ahead, try it.

     If you accept this argument in all its glory, does that mean you think additional choice will just pop out of the private insurance market? It will reward you for defeating "socialized medicine" with real choices you don't have now?

[71 dB]

Obama seems to have been a once in a lifetime thing, in terms of charisma, smarts and temperament (maybe his temperament was too good).

Before starting to follow US politics some three years ago I thought Obama was a brilliant president, but I didn't know better. It was devastating to learn about the truth. The truth about a mixed bag presidency. He campaigned as a progressive but governed as a centrist. While ObamaCare was a step to the right direction and got millions of people covered, Obama got an originally Republican healthcare plan passed during supermajority. Charisma gets you elected, but it doesn't automatically translate into good policy.

[drogulus]

Before starting to follow US politics some three years ago I thought Obama was a brilliant president, but I didn't know better. It was devastating to learn about the truth. The truth about a mixed bag presidency. He campaigned as a progressive but governed as a centrist. While ObamaCare was a step to the right direction and got millions of people covered, Obama got an originally Republican healthcare plan passed during supermajority. Charisma gets you elected, but it doesn't automatically translate into good policy.

     I only differ with you on the question of how Obama initially presented himself. I saw him as a center-left Dem with flashes of progressivity, and he governed pretty much as advertised. It was the electorate that changed. More of them are nonwhite than ever before and the White Panther party is as hostile to them as they are to it. That doesn't make Obama radical in a programmatic sense, though in a larger sense it indicates one of the most profound changes in U.S. history.

[Marc]

     I only differ with you on the question of how Obama initially presented himself. I saw him as a center-left Dem with flashes of progressivity, and he governed pretty much as advertised. It was the electorate that changed. More of them are nonwhite than ever before and the White Panther party is as hostile to them as they are to it. That doesn't make Obama radical in a programmatic sense, though in a larger sense it indicates one of the most profound changes in U.S. history.

I agree... I think Obama was a very inspiring politician, but I always thought that the Clintons were more progressive.
Besides that, there are more causes and reasons for the fact that promises can't be delivered. There's a Congress, for instance, that has to approve with many plans and decisions. And its composition changes during one's presidency. This is something every president has to face.

[71 dB]

Joe Biden was in 2007 for Medicare for All (Before the health industry bought him)

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

[JBS]

A simplistic analysis. Millions of people who don't have insurance and can't afford it don't have any choice whatever about their health care, unless you count the choice between eating and dying. Moreover, private insurers in the middle of the equation between hospitals, doctors, pharma, medical testing and devices and those who use their services and products allows for enormous waste and gouging. The system also negates any potential collective power to negotiate prices downward. Then there is the whole moral hazard question associated with an industry whose profits can depend on denying care to those who need it.

The "public option" takes care of those millions of people.
Drogulus's experience with Medicare is, based on the experiences of my family (some of whom live, like Drogulus, in Massachusetts), neighbors and co-workers (in Florida), not typical. Medicare patients have about the same access/lack of access as most private insurance patients.  Medicaid seems to be worse. Medicare may not have the profit motive, but it does have the bureaucrats tasked with spending as little money as possible and denying any care outside the routine, so the end result for the patient is no better, and sometimes worse, and the same moral hazard transformed into "keeping to the budget".

[JBS]

     "Choice" is a purely adversarial gambit. It concerns no actual ability to choose. I have more choice under Med. Advantage than I had under private insurance incarceration. Who goes to their employer and unfurls a "right to choose" flag? Go ahead, try it.

     If you accept this argument in all its glory, does that mean you think additional choice will just pop out of the private insurance market? It will reward you for defeating "socialized medicine" with real choices you don't have now?

The argument is the reverse. Medicare means even less choice than what we have now, as limited ss that is.

As I said in my prior post, your experience of Medicare is not typical of the experiences if my family, neighbors, etc.

I do think Medicare works best for the people who least need it, those who just needed periodic cholesterol checks,  yearly flu vaccines, a GP who can prescribe antibiotics for their sinus infections, etc. The more you need it, the more the problems display themselves.

[71 dB]

We don't know the total delegate count of Super Tuesday. Four states, 3 of them strong to Bernie have delegates to allocate:

California: 73 delegates => Sanders should get 42 and Biden 31 in my estimation.
Colorado: 27 delegates => Sanders should gets 13 and Biden 9 in my estimation. The rest 5 goes to drop outs.
Tennessee: 1  delegates =>  Sanders should gets 0 and Biden 1 in my estimation.
Utah: 13 delegates => Sanders should gets 6 and Biden 3 in my estimation. The rest 4 goes to drop outs.

So, if that's the case, the delegate count would be:

Biden: 696 (652 as of now)
Sanders: 634 (573 as of now)

So, the situation isn't as good for Bernie as I previously estimated (election math is unpredictable!) but what can you do? Bernie has to do the right things and it seems he is doing that. We progressives can only hope it works...  0:)

[71 dB]

Public option leads to cherry picking where the private sector takes care of the most profitable healthy people and public sector has to deal with the rest. Public option is just another way to protect the profits of insurance companies and when the public sector collapses (because it has to take care of the sickest people) corporates can say public sector doesn't work making real single payer system politically even more difficult (that's why incrementalism in healthcare works so badly). Public option is better than ObamaCare, but far form how good medicare for all is because of the healthy risk pool as everyone are in it.

[JBS]

Public option leads to cherry picking where the private sector takes care of the most profitable healthy people and public sector has to deal with the rest. Public option is just another way to protect the profits of insurance companies and when the public sector collapses (because it has to take care of the sickest people) corporates can say public sector doesn't work making real single payer system politically even more difficult (that's why incrementalism in healthcare works so badly). Public option is better than ObamaCare, but far form how good medicare for all is because of the healthy risk pool as everyone are in it.

Actually, it will be the reverse.  Employers will cut down on health benefits because employees will be able to sign up for public option.

[71 dB]

Actually, it will be the reverse.  Employers will cut down on health benefits because employees will be able to sign up for public option.

I don't know what you mean by this. Public option wouldn't be "free". It's just a public option for private companies.

[JBS]

I don't know what you mean by this. Public option wouldn't be "free". It's just a public option for private companies.

I have no idea of what you mean by this, in my turn.
Public option means making Medicare available to people who can't get insurance for one reason or another. It will allow employers to drop health benefits with the excuse that their employees will be able to get the public option insurance.  They already do this with Obamacare.