And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[SimonNZ]

I don't recollect reading any Time piece on Sanders.

It's possible the "better" stuff is behind paywalls and I never see it, but I can't spend money on this. I have to pay rent and food to stay alive!

I meant: now that I've put a link to it in my post could you please read it and see if your preconceived notion about "corporate hit pieces" is challenged. Or if you consider it a fair portrait of the man, as those close to him did, even though the article is often critical.

Considering your obsession with him you should have no reason not to.

So here it is again:

https://time.com/longform/bernie-sanders-2020/

[JBS]

Your examples are meaningless because patent laws can be changed and patent laws don't mean you have to price gouge.

I hate to say this, but that is rank imbecility. It has no correspondence to anything in the real world.

Patent laws give Big Pharma its ability to price gouge. They need to be changed, Bernie's plan has nothing about changing patent laws. Biden's plan is rather vague but at least correctly identifies the problem and what needs to be done. In fact, Biden is a lot harder on Big Pharma then Bernie.

[JBS]

I have tried to be nice and respectful here recently.
People have keep attacking me in ways that make me feel not welcome here.
All I want is better life for Americans and this is what I get for it.
Ok, deal with your problems then. Elect Biden or Trump and deal with the consequencies.
I listen to Elgar. UK fucked up with Brexit, but at least it's not a total oligarchy and
has one of the best healthcare systems in the World.

I am truly shocked about what kind of people classical music fans are. I am beginning to understand I AM NOT A "NORMY" CLASSICAL MUSIC FAN!! I am not such elitist "corporate" hack. I am someone who just happens to enjoy a lot of classical music, but otherwise I am a lefty, a humanist and what I have experienced on this forum has really shaken my beliefs about the classical music community.

I don't know where I belong to. Who am I and what is my place? I am so confused. Elgar's music helps. That's a paradise where want to be, not on this planet of 2020 when everything is so wrong...

This may shock you, but most of the people who express political opinions here are on the leftist side of the political spectrum.  I am center-left, for heaven's sake, and yet most of them are to my left.
You are not nearly as unique as you think you are.

[JBS]

I don't answer to your accusations. I don't have to. I am entitled to my opinions. Coronavirus...

Trump does not. Handle. imcompetence. Bernie is competent!!!
Good luck Americans. 1 MILLION Americana can die because of corona. That's your beloved PRIVATE healthcare.
Maybe now single payer sounds good?

I am wrong? I hope I am...

No. It's British. "corporate hit pieces" are more of an American thing.

Actually, the big problem so far is government caused: not planning far enough ahead to make sure anything near the necessary number of test kits are available.  And it doesn't matter who pays for a test if the test is not available. So don't blame private healthcare for something the federal bureaucracy caused.

[Karl Henning]

I am wrong? I hope I am...

Here, your hope is well founded:

Actually, the big problem so far is government caused: not planning far enough ahead to make sure anything near the necessary number of test kits are available.  And it doesn't matter who pays for a test if the test is not available. So don't blame private healthcare for something the federal bureaucracy caused.

Which also emulates why we are shy of more govt interference per Bernie's Big Plans.

[71 dB]

I meant: now that I've put a link to it in my post could you please read it and see if your preconceived notion about "corporate hit pieces" is challenged. Or if you consider it a fair portrait of the man, as those close to him did, even though the article is often critical.

Considering your obsession with him you should have no reason not to.

So here it is again:

https://time.com/longform/bernie-sanders-2020/

Thanks! I read some of it (sorry, I can't consentrate reading right now). Not ALL is "corporate hit pieces" , Writen is better, but people watch tv. That's the problem. Not all. 20 % good. How many read TIME? Don't know?
"corporate hit pieces" washington post. I am so tired SORRY!! Sleep! Maybe later tomorrow. The article takes time (pun intented) to get to the point! Long! So Bernie is right, but need to change? Yes! Need to get OLD VOTE!! AGREED!!!!!! Kulinski agrees! Everybody agrees. Most people want medicare FOR All (polls are those facts) They want it but they vote for Biden because of ELECTABILITY LIE/narrative ON TV and people watch tv after long day at work. Few people read long TIME articles or watch progressive channels for pro-Bernie stuff Understand? Bernie tries to win this election. There is time. Half of States have not voted.

Corporate hot pieces-claim of mine is oversimplification. OF course corporate media has also good stuff and I have ADMITTED it MANY times. However, the TONE of corporate media is to hate Bernie because he is against the rigged system

Sorry, so nervous and tired. Pointless...

[71 dB]

This may shock you, but most of the people who express political opinions here are on the leftist side of the political spectrum.  I am center-left, for heaven's sake, and yet most of them are to my left.
You are not nearly as unique as you think you are.

So why disagreements?

[JBS]

So why disagreements?

The disagreement is on three interrelated things
1] You think Kulinski gives a reliable presentation of the facts, and that the corporate media does not. Both of those ideas are wrong, especially the reliance on Kulinski.  Assume Kulinski lies, distorts, manipulates,  as much as anyone else. The very fact that you like his policy proposals should be a reason to distrust him, because you need to battle confirmation bias.
2] You think Bernie's plans to impose massive regulation on major sectors of the economy are more popular than they are. They aren't, and they involve a lot more than health care. If Bernie was to limit himself to health care, I wouldn't mind him. But he wants to do it to a lot more.
3] Bernie and Progressivism base themselves on giving bureaucrats control of major areas of life. That is merely another form of elitism. Oligarchs running things and bureaucrats running things are just two sides of the same coin.  Under Bernie, the system would remain rigged.

[71 dB]

This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.

Bernie wants to improve peoples LIVES!! It's that simple! Who the fuck cares about bureaucrats? Hospitals are FULL of bureaucrats right now Because of the INSANE profit system! One doctor moved to UK, because in the US he spent 40 hours a week to fight with insurance companies to get paid on top of working 50 hours a week with patients. Crazy! Single payer DOES NOT HAVE THAT!

[André]

This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.

Bernie wants to improve peoples LIVES!! It's that simple! Who the fuck cares about bureaucrats? Hospitals are FULL of bureaucrats right now Because of the INSANE profit system! One doctor moved to UK, because in the US he spent 40 hours a week to fight with insurance companies to get paid on top of working 50 hours a week with patients. Crazy! Single payer DOES NOT HAVE THAT!

Single payer is not the panacaea you think it is. We have that in Canada. Yes, expensive drugs  or fancy surgeries are free. But there's a bottleneck to get there. No matter how urgent your condition, you cannot visit or be treated by a specialist right away. You must first visit your GP (that's quite fast, the delays are short) who will give you a prescription to see a specialist. Depending on the specialty, waiting time varies from 2 months if you're lucky to over a year. A hip or knee replacement takes 6-12 months in most cases. The main reason for that is that the Health Ministry gets a budgetary envelope every year, and the whole system must function within this allocated envelope. No matter how rich you are, money will not buy you a place in the fast lane. BUT: because the system cannot accommodate both the basket of services AND reasonable waiting time, many people with money go to the private sector and pay for faster service. Single payer is for the bottom tier, private care is for the well off. Long delays is what you have to pay to get treated free).

[SimonNZ]

Single payer is not the panacaea you think it is. We have that in Canada. Yes, expensive drugs  or fancy surgeries are free. But there's a bottleneck to get there. No matter how urgent your condition, you cannot visit or be treated by a specialist right away. You must first visit your GP (that's quite fast, the delays are short) who will give you a prescription to see a specialist. Depending on the specialty, waiting time varies from 2 months if you're lucky to over a year. A hip or knee replacement takes 6-12 months in most cases. The main reason for that is that the Health Ministry gets a budgetary envelope every year, and the whole system must function within this allocated envelope. No matter how rich you are, money will not buy you a place in the fast lane. BUT: because the system cannot accommodate both the basket of services AND reasonable waiting time, many people with money go to the private sector and pay for faster service. Single payer is for the bottom tier, private care is for the well off. Long delays is what you have to pay to get treated free).

Pretty much true for New Zealand, too.

[drogulus]

Actually, the big problem so far is government caused: not planning far enough ahead to make sure anything near the necessary number of test kits are available.  And it doesn't matter who pays for a test if the test is not available. So don't blame private healthcare for something the federal bureaucracy caused.

      Not causing the government to do the right thing can be construed as "government caused". My concern is how ideology is used to cause "government caused" bad outcomes.

      If you want the government to cause better things you'll need the federal bureaucracy to function the way you want. The ideology of impairing it, then blaming it for its impairment is unsafe in a crisis when you finally see that it's a life and death matter, possibly even for you.

     I never thought it was a good idea to make it policy to defund the undeserving, or even to imagine we need an undeserving class of people to make our lives better. I figured things would work better for everyone if we didn't do that. There's even a moral component, though I rely more on efficiency as the base argument.  A poor class, no matter how expertly chosen, is a drag on economic performance.

[71 dB]

CNN's Coverage of Sanders Was 3X More Negative Than Biden Following Their Big Primary Wins

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22354/cnn-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-media-spin-candidates-negative-mentions

Single payer is not the panacaea you think it is. We have that in Canada. Yes, expensive drugs  or fancy surgeries are free. But there's a bottleneck to get there. No matter how urgent your condition, you cannot visit or be treated by a specialist right away. You must first visit your GP (that's quite fast, the delays are short) who will give you a prescription to see a specialist. Depending on the specialty, waiting time varies from 2 months if you're lucky to over a year. A hip or knee replacement takes 6-12 months in most cases. The main reason for that is that the Health Ministry gets a budgetary envelope every year, and the whole system must function within this allocated envelope. No matter how rich you are, money will not buy you a place in the fast lane. BUT: because the system cannot accommodate both the basket of services AND reasonable waiting time, many people with money go to the private sector and pay for faster service. Single payer is for the bottom tier, private care is for the well off. Long delays is what you have to pay to get treated free).

Unfortunately care has to be rationed some way or another. There is no way around it. Long delays are nasty, but at least there is care at some point, and urgent cases are treaded fast, prioritized.

[André]

Yes, urgent care is always provided for, fast and free. So is everything related to maternity. OTOH only an attempted suicide will get you the service of a psychologist, for a short time (less than 2 days in most cases, after that it's off on the street). Mental health conditions are the worst cases, by far. Successful suicides, homelessness and domestic violence are often the consequence of the system not taking care of these persons.

Another reality is that the system functions not just with doctors, but with nurses, technicians, secretaries, maintenance people - a whole army of people. Because the budget is stretched to its limit, any unforeseen event becomes an obstacle for getting tests (even for urgent cancer conditions), elective surgeries (cataracts, knee replacement). For example if the anesthetist is sick, or a couple of nurses leave on mat leave, or a busload of injured people floods the ER, or the cleaning crew is behind in the preparation work, operating rooms are impacted. The rule for an elective surgery is 2 or 3 deferrals, sometimes more. The number of people on deck cannot be increased, only reduced. Operating rooms are often empty because a shortage of key people shut them down even if the surgeon is available.

None of that happens in the private sector. They are for profit, and charge enough $ to get everything shipshape and everyone ready to greet you with a smile. Private insurance often pays a portion of the costs, and all medical bills are tax deductible, so people with upfront money can afford to wait for a partial refund. That's not the case with the majority of people, who live from one paycheck to another.

I am 100% for single payer in principle, but the reality is what it is, not what we'd like it to be.

[drogulus]

CNN's Coverage of Sanders Was 3X More Negative Than Biden Following Their Big Primary Wins

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22354/cnn-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-media-spin-candidates-negative-mentions

Unfortunately care has to be rationed some way or another. There is no way around it. Long delays are nasty, but at least there is care at some point, and urgent cases are treaded fast, prioritized.

     I think single payer will always involve the same tradeoffs, free primary care and superior outcomes and longer waits for specialist care. It makes sense to me.

     We are not in the panacea business, we are in the best choices for public policy business.

[drogulus]

Yes, urgent care is always provided for, fast and free. So is everything related to maternity. OTOH only an attempted suicide will get you the service of a psychologist, for a short time (less than 2 days in most cases, after that it's off on the street). Mental health conditions are the worst cases, by far. Successful suicides, homelessness and domestic violence are often the consequence of the system not taking care of these persons.

Another reality is that the system functions not just with doctors, but with nurses, technicians, secretaries, maintenance people - a whole army of people. Because the budget is stretched to its limit, any unforeseen event becomes an obstacle for getting tests (even for urgent cancer conditions), elective surgeries (cataracts, knee replacement). For example if the anesthetist is sick, or a couple of nurses leave on mat leave, or a busload of injured people floods the ER, or the cleaning crew is behind in the preparation work, operating rooms are impacted. The rule for an elective surgery is 2 or 3 deferrals, sometimes more. The number of people on deck cannot be increased, only reduced. Operating rooms are often empty because a shortage of key people shut them down even if the surgeon is available.

None of that happens in the private sector. They are for profit, and charge enough $ to get everything shipshape and everyone ready to greet you with a smile. Private insurance often pays a portion of the costs, and all medical bills are tax deductible, so people with upfront money can afford to wait for a partial refund. That's not the case with the majority of people, who live from one paycheck to another.

I am 100% for single payer in principle, but the reality is what it is, not what we'd like it to be.

     This squares with what I've read about how single payer systems function. But it's good to keep in mind that governments have long operated under the assumption that there is something very wrong in devoting the largest portion of government spending to the welfare state. Almost without exception no guidance is given on what the largest share should be instead. We don't build Pyramids any more, and unless a divine being shows up, necessitating a vast increase in the military budget, it's hard to imagine how the money the economy needs gets in there.

[JBS]

This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.

Bernie wants to improve peoples LIVES!! It's that simple! Who the fuck cares about bureaucrats? Hospitals are FULL of bureaucrats right now Because of the INSANE profit system! One doctor moved to UK, because in the US he spent 40 hours a week to fight with insurance companies to get paid on top of working 50 hours a week with patients. Crazy! Single payer DOES NOT HAVE THAT!

Bernie may want to improve people's lives, but some of us think his ideas won't improve people's lives, and will probably make some problems worse.

Since single-payer is run by bureaucrats, the number of bureaucrats under Berniecare would increase, not decrease.

Single payer depends on government budgets, which will cause the same problems the for profit system has.

[Karl Henning]

CNN's Coverage of Sanders Was 3X More Negative Than Biden Following Their Big Primary Wins

Fine, but that doesn't faze those of us who do not consider CNN a very reliable source: I know I don't watch CNN.

[Karl Henning]

This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.

Nobody expects you to ride this thread, but when you're refreshed, go back and consider JBS's post, it's straight talk, and he's more patient with you (frankly) than I am inclined to be.

[71 dB]

Fine, but that doesn't faze those of us who do not consider CNN a very reliable source: I know I don't watch CNN.

Good for you Karl not considering CNN a very reliable source, but you are not the only person voting. Millions of people not as informed/smart as you watch CNN and many of those people take the channel seriously.