• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bernie Sanders Plan

It just assumes "Medicare-for-all." That is the slogan isn't it?

As I have said before, you interpret this far too literally.

Second, with respect to the extent of Bernie's proposed SP coverage (featuring peripherals such as full dental, vision, long term/palliative care, etc), I'm actually agreement that it's probably too ambitious; this is something that I can forgive however as a starting point as such coverage would likely not survive the legislative process in totality. When negotiating, you initially aim high. However, this does not forgive ridiculous assumptions on behalf of these estimates which amount to de facto hatchet jobs and egregiously overstate costs by presuming both the excessive current cost of care, and rates of medicare inflation with little adjustment in perpetuity.

As for the rest of your post, in summary it amounts to essential defeatism on the issue of SP: namely the belief that bloated and disproportionate spending on health care (even when we consider healthcare outcomes!) in the United States vs the remainder of the first world should be tolerated and must be tolerated (for the sake of healthcare industry and insurers vs constituents), and that no material progress can be made in this regard (expansion of the ACA is not material). If you were merely of the view that the transition to SP should be graduated, and that instantaneous savings cannot be arrived at, that's a sentiment I could appreciate and it's actually one I agree with and hold personally; as mentioned I would much rather phase in healthcare deflation over a period of time until OECD levels are reached in order to minimize destructive upheaval and to permit realignment of the economy. Unfortunately, you are of the position that such an endgame is not merely difficult but impossible and that resignation on the matter by embracing disinflationary measures of questionable value via expansion of insurer subsidies such as Hillary's proposal is the only viable way forward; this is a position I find completely untenable and that I cannot and will not ever agree with.


I don't imagine there is much left to discuss here.
 
Last edited:
As I have said before, you interpret this far too literally.

Then I suppose it would be helpful if the candidate would offer a proposal that consisted of more than slogans. Until then the slogan is all I have to go on.

However, this does not forgive ridiculous assumptions on behalf of these estimates which amount to de facto hatchet jobs and egregiously overstate costs by presuming both the excessive current cost of care, and rates of medicare inflation with little adjustment in perpetuity.

Ten years is not "in perpetuity." And asking what Sanders' dream system would cost over the next decade is not a "hatchet job." You seem to be under the false assumption that instituting price controls means medical cost trend goes away. It doesn't. Ask the OECD nations.

Healthcare costs unsustainable in advanced economies without reform - OECD
24/9/2015 - Healthcare costs are rising so fast in advanced economies that they will become unaffordable by mid-century without reforms, according to a new OECD report.

Fiscal Sustainability of Health Systems: Bridging Health and Finance Perspectives finds that going over budget on health spending remains endemic in most OECD countries. Maintaining today’s healthcare, and funding future medical advances, will be difficult without major reforms that will require health and finance ministries to work together, it says.
Health spending has risen faster than economic growth in all OECD countries over the past 20 years, and public funds still account for around three-quarters of health spending. Many countries remain heavily reliant on payroll taxes, which will decline as their populations age.

Upward pressure on health spending comes from new technology in medical services, rising incomes driving higher expectations, and the growing needs of ageing populations.

There are many redeeming features of the single-payer concept (though many of them can be achieved in a multi-payer environment), but ultimately it's the magical thinking of most of its adherents that keeps me from moving in that direction. It's the same magical thinking that would lead to Sanders vastly underfunding his own program--or having to take a page from his home state's book and scrap it entirely when it came time to figure out how to pay the bill.

There are, believe it or not, drawbacks to that system and problems that aren't solved just by instituting it. And there are drawbacks to a hasty transition to it, particularly when we're talking about dropping the equivalent of 10 NAFTAs on the industry that's about to overtake retail as America's largest employment sector because we think wages in that sector are too high relative to international peers or too many people work in it. That should make anyone more than a little nervous.

You know, when Massachusetts passed its groundbreaking health reform bill in 2006, Senator Kennedy was there at the signing. Despite not being a state official, he had been heavily involved in the process due to his intense interest in expanding coverage and reforming health care. Yet when Vermont attempted to become the first state to try and implement a single-payer system (going so far as to pass legislation but ominously leaving the finances to be worked out later), Senator Sanders seems to have been quite disconnected from his state's attempt to pioneer one of his own signature issues. He still doesn't appear to know what happened there or to have learned anything from the experience. He's not alone in this.
 
Then I suppose it would be helpful if the candidate would offer a proposal that consisted of more than slogans. Until then the slogan is all I have to go on.

He offers a proposal that is certainly not 'medicare for all' in any literal sense.

Ten years is not "in perpetuity." And asking what Sanders' dream system would cost over the next decade is not a "hatchet job." You seem to be under the false assumption that instituting price controls means medical cost trend goes away. It doesn't. Ask the OECD nations.

Healthcare costs unsustainable in advanced economies without reform - OECD

Whoa, aging demographics (in part actuated by the success of those healthcare systems) in the OECD mean that revenues and preventative care (which I've always been a proponent of and should form the foundation of every SP initiative) need to be raised to cope with the increased burden? Who would have thought? Such a bulletproof indictment against singlepayer!

And yes, assuming what amounts to essentially fixed current rates of cost and cost inflation per the current healthcare system with minor disinflation over an entire decade is most certainly a hatchet job; at best it's deeply flawed.

There are many redeeming features of the single-payer concept (though many of them can be achieved in a multi-payer environment), but ultimately it's the magical thinking of most of its adherents that keeps me from moving in that direction. It's the same magical thinking that would lead to Sanders vastly underfunding his own program--or having to take a page from his home state's book and scrap it entirely when it came time to figure out how to pay the bill.

There are, believe it or not, drawbacks to that system and problems that aren't solved just by instituting it. And there are drawbacks to a hasty transition to it, particularly when we're talking about dropping the equivalent of 10 NAFTAs on the industry that's about to overtake retail as America's largest employment sector because we think wages in that sector are too high relative to international peers or too many people work in it. That should make anyone more than a little nervous.

As stated, ideally, SP would be transitioned to via an orderly process of healthcare deflation; I'm not sure if that's how it would be rolled out under a Sanders administration assuming he were able to pass the requisite legislation, but given the choice between not having SP, and having SP albeit at the cost of economic upheaval in the healthcare sector, I would pick the latter every time; this is long overdue.

I do not believe there is an iota of magical thinking in the premise of SP, its proven avenues of its cost savings, and the possibility of transition to SP that would result in massive per capita savings and increases in coverage. The only regard in which magical thinking might factor is in the conviction of some that cost savings will be realized immediately, as opposed to be being necessarily graduated over a period of years. Naturally I would expect any excess of optimism to be tempered by the legislative process, even in the event of a Dem House/Senate majority.

You know, when Massachusetts passed its groundbreaking health reform bill in 2006, Senator Kennedy was there at the signing. Despite not being a state official, he had been heavily involved in the process due to his intense interest in expanding coverage and reforming health care. Yet when Vermont attempted to become the first state to try and implement a single-payer system (going so far as to pass legislation but ominously leaving the finances to be worked out later), Senator Sanders seems to have been quite disconnected from his state's attempt to pioneer one of his own signature issues. He still doesn't appear to know what happened there or to have learned anything from the experience. He's not alone in this.

State level SP != national level SP. It's not even in the same ballpark, particularly for a state as small as Vermont which makes it entirely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
He offers a proposal that is certainly not 'medicare for all' in any literal sense.

Can you point me to where in his Medicare-for-all plan he articulates whatever differences from Medicare-for-all you're suggesting exist? The only difference I see is that he's promising substantially more generous coverage than Medicare offers.

Whoa, aging demographics (in part actuated by the success of those healthcare systems) in the OECD mean that revenues and preventative care (which I've always been a proponent of and should form the foundation of every SP initiative) need to be raised to cope with the increased burden? Who would have thought?

Those assuming a negative medical cost trend when deciding how much revenue is needed, perhaps? You've spent most of the thread arguing that a one-time reduction in administrative overhead is somehow the answer to rising cost trends driven by factors that have nothing to do with administration. It's good to see you realize that isn't so.

And yes, assuming what amounts to essentially fixed current rates of cost and cost inflation per the current healthcare system with minor disinflation over an entire decade is most certainly a hatchet job; at best it's deeply flawed.

They assume growth rates 0.5% below current Medicare projections. Medicare already incorporates price controls (and Medicare price updates over the next decade are already constrained by federal law under the ACA and MACRA). And of course it already enjoys a degree of administrative simplification. So the factors you're suggesting would slow growth under single-payer are already baked into those growth projections.

I do not believe there is an iota of magical thinking in the premise of SP, its proven avenues of its cost savings, and the possibility of transition to SP that would result in massive per capita savings and increases in coverage.

Again, the "proven avenues of cost savings" are slashing wages, shedding workforce (either through layoffs or attrition), and decreasing infrastructure investments. All of those are going to be a tough sell--evidenced by the fact that Bernie hasn't even acknowledged that this is where the savings would come from. If he wants to start a national discussion on whether those are appropriate and desirable things to do, he's running out of time to do so.

State level SP != national level SP. It's not even in the same ballpark, particularly for a state as small as Vermont which makes it entirely irrelevant.

I've seen the right argue many times that single-payer can't be scaled up to large, heterogeneous states. This may be the first time I've seen the left argue it can't be scaled down to small, homogeneous states. Anyway, should I take from this that you oppose Colorado's current ballot initiative on this?
 
If you can't make rich people spend money, then the upper class will accumulate wealth in some form (assuming they're not all losers and success is measurable). In a socially accountable society, you can ask them to redistribute their wealth and use taxation to generate a source of increased government revenue. That means the government has more cash to spend. In principle, this is like making the rich the patrons of the people.

Birds of a feather flock together.

I'll just leave this here.
 
Can you point me to where in his Medicare-for-all plan he articulates whatever differences from Medicare-for-all you're suggesting exist? The only difference I see is that he's promising substantially more generous coverage than Medicare offers.

Better yet, you show me how his plan is actually medicare-for-all without any innovations or initiatives beyond coverage since you made the assertion.

To humour you though, as a singular point, it is stated in the synopsis that for starters, systemic reform will involve renegotiation of drug and provider prices and most certainly at better rates than Medicare at present given the expanded economy of scale.

Those assuming a negative medical cost trend when deciding how much revenue is needed, perhaps? You've spent most of the thread arguing that a one-time reduction in administrative overhead is somehow the answer to rising cost trends driven by factors that have nothing to do with administration. It's good to see you realize that isn't so.

Utterly disingenuous, both because I have been very clear in arguing that eliminating administrative overhead is merely a component of cost reduction, however substantial, and that there is a lot of room for costs to go down in the States vs in countries with SP which have relatively little bloat and have already realized most of the savings inherent to SP.

They assume growth rates 0.5% below current Medicare projections. Medicare already incorporates price controls (and Medicare price updates over the next decade are already constrained by federal law under the ACA and MACRA). And of course it already enjoys a degree of administrative simplification. So the factors you're suggesting would slow growth under single-payer are already baked into those growth projections.

Yes, they assume an absolute pittance of disinflation which their own estimate has expressed doubts about, where the probable outcome of any true SP implementation is deflation. At no point during the entire ten years of their estimate has even minor deflation been assumed; obviously if your operating assumption is that SP will fail to bring down Medicare costs, then your blind extrapolation of an estimate won't. Further, again, there is a substantive difference between Medicare and a wholesale migration to SP.

Again, the "proven avenues of cost savings" are slashing wages, shedding workforce (either through layoffs or attrition), and decreasing infrastructure investments. All of those are going to be a tough sell--evidenced by the fact that Bernie hasn't even acknowledged that this is where the savings would come from. If he wants to start a national discussion on whether those are appropriate and desirable things to do, he's running out of time to do so.

In otherwords, shedding superfluous administration, and getting labour, pharmaceutical and supply costs in line with other countries that have better or comparable healthcare outcomes; that doesn't sound like a hard sell to me at all in light of the gains. The only point of uncertainty is how quickly to move ahead with deflation.

I've seen the right argue many times that single-payer can't be scaled up to large, heterogeneous states. This may be the first time I've seen the left argue it can't be scaled down to small, homogeneous states. Anyway, should I take from this that you oppose Colorado's current ballot initiative on this?

Because it can't? Because SP is predicated on supreme negotiating power and economy of scale and islands of such policy are doomed to fail in light of the highest healthcare costs on the face of the planet which they are powerless to reform?
 
Better yet, you show me how his plan is actually medicare-for-all without any innovations or initiatives beyond coverage since you made the assertion.

He's calling it Medicare-for-all. If that's a misrepresentation, that's fine. Perhaps it is! But there's nothing to go on beyond the name. If it's Medicaid-for-all it might be worth updating the slogan.

Yes, they assume an absolute pittance of disinflation which their own estimate has expressed doubts about, where the probable outcome of any true SP implementation is deflation.

Are you saying Bernie is calling for prices to go below current Medicare prices? I'd love to see where he's suggested that. It may be the case that this assumption is the only way the math can even remotely look like it works, but if so that's a good sign you're proposing something wildly impractical.

In otherwords, shedding superfluous administration, and getting labour, pharmaceutical and supply costs in line with other countries that have better or comparable healthcare outcomes; that doesn't sound like a hard sell to me at all in light of the gains. The only point of uncertainty is how quickly to move ahead with deflation.

Wage cuts and layoffs (to go along with massive tax increases) don't sound like hard sells to you? Good luck with that.

Because it can't? Because SP is predicated on supreme negotiating power and economy of scale and islands of such policy are doomed to fail in light of the highest healthcare costs on the face of the planet which they are powerless to reform?

Vermont already has "supreme negotiating power," the Green Mountain Board has rate-setting authority. The state government can set prices administratively. They're even in the process of getting an all-payer waiver that will allow them to set prices for Medicare. They don't need to ask nicely.

But I'm still curious: do you oppose Colorado's initiative because "it can't" work? You sound like me!
 
He's calling it Medicare-for-all. If that's a misrepresentation, that's fine. Perhaps it is! But there's nothing to go on beyond the name. If it's Medicaid-for-all it might be worth updating the slogan.

It's not a misrepresentation, it's an informal summation. Again, the description you just linked me to does not at all support the idea of literal medicare for all.

Are you saying Bernie is calling for prices to go below current Medicare prices? I'd love to see where he's suggested that. It may be the case that this assumption is the only way the math can even remotely look like it works, but if so that's a good sign you're proposing something wildly impractical.

That seems to be a fundamental implication yes, particularly given the savings quoted, and no, in an environment where he would be in a position to pass such legislation (i.e. House and Senate flip), this would not be wildly impractical.

Wage cuts and layoffs (to go along with massive tax increases) don't sound like hard sells to you? Good luck with that.

When properly executed and framed against the massive benefits? No, not at all.

Vermont already has "supreme negotiating power," the Green Mountain Board has rate-setting authority. The state government can set prices administratively. They're even in the process of getting an all-payer waiver that will allow them to set prices for Medicare. They don't need to ask nicely.

But I'm still curious: do you oppose Colorado's initiative because "it can't" work? You sound like me!

There is no basis of comparison whatsoever between the negotiating power of a tiny state and the negotiating power of the federal government, nor is there in ability to effect systemic deflation in medicare prices which is equally critical.

And no, I do not think SP initiatives on the state level can ever be effective for all the reasons mentioned earlier; it needs to be drafted at the national level.
 
... he is allowed to use any campaign funds which are remaining as he withdraws for his own personal use.

Right, as if Bernie needed that.

And how about a few mindless intimations about his Jewish faith?

You berning the Bern .... ?
 
He's calling it Medicare-for-all. If that's a misrepresentation, that's fine. Perhaps it is! But there's nothing to go on beyond the name.

Who cares about the name?

All over the world it is called a universal National HealthCare System (NHS). It is cradle to grave, and the NHS pays all costs whilst negotiating on behalf of the payer (Uncle Sam) a mandate of all prices both for Services and Pharmaceuticals.

And more than 500 million people in the EU benefit from just such a system since the 1950s, whilst 300 million have just got a "whiff" of what exactly what such a system might look like in the US.

Because were the US to adopt exactly the same, then its total Health Care costs would not be wildly exaggerated and the life-span of the Average Joe just might increase.

See what I mean in this infographic:
Average HC costs versus Life Span.jpg

Wouldn't most Americans be better off with a proper universal NHS? You know, like "live longer" and spend the savings (in the hundreds of billions of dollars) on free postsecondary education (which they need to obtain decent jobs at decent wages) ...
 
Right, as if Bernie needed that.

And how about a few mindless intimations about his Jewish faith?

You berning the Bern .... ?

I suggest that Bernie needs the money just as much as the Clinton's do.

It is about financing a "Dynasty" for his children, and not for daily living expenses. And the longer he stays in the race while collecting contact information from supporters, the more valuable his database becomes.

This is his final swan song.

And, in regards to his "Jewishness" .... it never entered my mind. Jewishness only becomes a consideration for me when discussing the Middle East situation.

Calm
 
Last edited:
Right, as if Bernie needed that.

I think an explanation is needed:

As you would note from my profile, I am a Canadian and thus can't vote in the election. So, I got no dog in this fight.

I follow American politics moreso than Canadian politics and have done so since I was a kid because during my youth 95% of Canadian media was owned/produced by America.

And, since I am a "Socialist" at heart, If I could vote I would vote for Sanders.

I am only expressing a view of the current situation .... not the "Biased Politics".

I admire the guy .... he speaks my political language.

But that does not change my view of the facts .....

He is gonna lose and he knows it and is only remaining in the race to raise funds for his retirement.

If he really wanted to win, he would run as an independent, but his heart is with the "Establishment".

He (an Independent) has made a deal with the Democrats ..... The Democratic party promises to not finance an opposing candidate in his district so long as he tows the Democratic Party line.

Calm
 
Last edited:
Who cares about the name?

All over the world it is called a universal National HealthCare System (NHS). It is cradle to grave, and the NHS pays all costs whilst negotiating on behalf of the payer (Uncle Sam) a mandate of all prices both for Services and Pharmaceuticals.

And more than 500 million people in the EU benefit from just such a system since the 1950s, whilst 300 million have just got a "whiff" of what exactly what such a system might look like in the US.

Because were the US to adopt exactly the same, then its total Health Care costs would not be wildly exaggerated and the life-span of the Average Joe just might increase.

See what I mean in this infographic:
View attachment 67201398

Wouldn't most Americans be better off with a proper universal NHS? You know, like "live longer" and spend the savings (in the hundreds of billions of dollars) on free postsecondary education (which they need to obtain decent jobs at decent wages) ...

Also countervailing professional criticisms of the inane Urban Institute estimate by David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler that are basically in line with my own: The Urban Institute's Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates
 
Also countervailing professional criticisms of the inane Urban Institute estimate by David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler that are basically in line with my own: The Urban Institute's Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates

The Reactionary Right in America will go to any length to discredit key elements of a Social Democracy. The central facts about Universal National Healthcare Systems all around the EU, presently catering to 500 million people since the 1960s, are well known. Such systems work well!

For instance, studies show they deliver some of the best HealthCare on this planet. See here: World Health Systems - World Health Organizatoin Ranking, 2000. I live in France, No. 1 in the ranking, you live in the US (?), No. 31.

Of the top-15 countries ranked, the EU counts for 12 of them, and they are all single-payer NHSs.

Yes, the study is getting old - it was performed more than 15-years ago, but I maintain that it broadly authenticates what most "developed nations" think about National Healthcare Systems. They work, and do well the job of providing first-class health-care to large populations.

What more do a people want ... ?

Caveat: The study, when published raised a lot of critical debate. See here. Also, with the adoption of ObamaCare, the US would likely rank somewhat higher today. The key criticism of pre-ObamaCare America was the fact that 16% of the population were left without any healthcare recourse whatsoever. Emergency Rooms (ERs) are not an adequate healthcare mechanism - they are reactive and not preventive.
_____________________________________
 
Last edited:
WAKE UP, AMERICA!

... with respect to the extent of Bernie's proposed SP coverage (featuring peripherals such as full dental, vision, long term/palliative care, etc), I'm actually agreement that it's probably too ambitious; this is something that I can forgive however as a starting point as such coverage would likely not survive the legislative process in totality.

I disagree that it is too ambitious; besides, if we do not do it "all at once", it will never get "done". That is, the companies will fight the process tooth-'n-nail all the way to end because pricing is at the heart of the monstrous profits they make.

For Whole Coverage, the process is the same. That is the way it was done in Europe since the 1950s, and it will work in the same manner in the US. That is, it is "All, or Nothing At All and for All!"

Hillary's proposal is the only viable way forward

Agreed.

Where did Hillary go to get a notion of what a National HealthCare System (NHS) should look like back in 1993?

Perhaps she was influenced back then by Sanders' (in the HofR at the time) insistence upon a single-payer government-system, as had existed already in Canada. (And I suspect Canada came to Europe when planning its own Universal Coverage National Health System, established way-back in 1966.)

So, yes, adapting ObamaCare into a government-scheme HillaryCare would be the most sensible option for the US.

Moreover, there is one additional extremely important component of any NHS-plan. It is the fact that the government must mandate the cost-pricing of practitioner-services and pharmaceutics. (Which is a "horror" to the latter because they "put up" with negotiating low-prices it in Europe, where they don't make all that much profit, but employ "rip-off" pricing in the US!)

Also, you make a political-point that is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:
--Hillary has seen how the HofR (under Replicant control since 2010 - when 37.8% of we, the sheeple, handed it to them on a platter) literally cut-off Obama's spending you-know-whats. Which forced him to make the HealthCare Deal based upon privatized-insurance. He had wanted originally a Canadian or European-style NHS*.
--If we, the sheeple, do not give both chambers of Congress back to the Dems, it will take another 20/30-years for us to wake up to the monumental mistake made as regards Healthcare (and Tertiary Education btw) compared to other developed nations.

Wake up, America! The destiny of your children is in your hands. Let's not screw it up as we did in 2010 by staying away from the poll-booths!

*Whazat, a "European-style NHS? It's a health-system that consists of both private and government-employed doctors. The latter are paid by the NHS in NHS-owned hospitals. The former accept the fees established by the NHS and ditto the pharmaceutical compnaies. Both are "key concepts" of far less-expensive European health-systems.
_________________________________
 
Last edited:
He knows he has no chance of winning.

He intends to carry on in order to build up his Rolodex of new "young" democratic voters (contact addresses) and which he will sell to the highest bidder after the convention.

And finally; he is allowed to use any campaign funds which are remaining as he withdraws for his own personal use.

Calm

And I thought he would be in a nursing home crapping his pants by Nov. :lamo
 
WAKE UP, AMERICA!



I disagree that it is too ambitious; besides, if we do not do it "all at once", it will never get "done". That is, the companies will fight the process tooth-'n-nail all the way to end because pricing is at the heart of the monstrous profits they make.

For Whole Coverage, the process is the same. That is the way it was done in Europe since the 1950s, and it will work in the same manner in the US. That is, it is "All, or Nothing At All and for All!"



Agreed.

Where did Hillary go to get a notion of what a National HealthCare System (NHS) should look like back in 1993?

Perhaps she was influenced back then by Sanders' (in the HofR at the time) insistence upon a single-payer government-system, as had existed already in Canada. (And I suspect Canada came to Europe when planning its own Universal Coverage National Health System, established way-back in 1966.)

So, yes, adapting ObamaCare into a government-scheme HillaryCare would be the most sensible option for the US.

Moreover, there is one additional extremely important component of any NHS-plan. It is the fact that the government must mandate the cost-pricing of practitioner-services and pharmaceutics. (Which is a "horror" to the latter because they "put up" with negotiating low-prices it in Europe, where they don't make all that much profit, but employ "rip-off" pricing in the US!)

Also, you make a political-point that is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:
--Hillary has seen how the HofR (under Replicant control since 2010 - when 37.8% of we, the sheeple, handed it to them on a platter) literally cut-off Obama's spending you-know-whats. Which forced him to make the HealthCare Deal based upon privatized-insurance. He had wanted originally a Canadian or European-style NHS*.
--If we, the sheeple, do not give both chambers of Congress back to the Dems, it will take another 20/30-years for us to wake up to the monumental mistake made as regards Healthcare (and Tertiary Education btw) compared to other developed nations.

Wake up, America! The destiny of your children is in your hands. Let's not screw it up as we did in 2010 by staying away from the poll-booths!

*Whazat, a "European-style NHS? It's a health-system that consists of both private and government-employed doctors. The latter are paid by the NHS in NHS-owned hospitals. The former accept the fees established by the NHS and ditto the pharmaceutical compnaies. Both are "key concepts" of far less-expensive European health-systems.
_________________________________

Where are you getting this "Wake up sheeple" BS? I love it. If your vote is your voice, isn't abstention actually a form of peaceful protest in a legal system which not only lacks good alternatives, but good outcomes? Watch out for the upcoming identity crisis when you fail to properly administer representative democracy in the DNC.
 
VOX POPULI

If your vote is your voice, isn't abstention actually a form of peaceful protest in a legal system which not only lacks good alternatives, but good outcomes?

The American people have yet to understand that politics is not something you observe either on TV or debate in a forum ... as much as one makes in a poll-booth on voting-day.

And, in that regard, we are generally very lazy voters: History, Voter Turnout, US - look for the US at the very bottom.

Also, from Pew Research, Voter Turnout Most Developed Countries

Given that we think ours is the Greatest Democracy in the World, in fact, we have nothing to crow about compared to the rest of the world.
____________________________
 
VOX POPULI



The American people have yet to understand that politics is not something you observe either on TV or debate in a forum ... as much as one makes in a poll-booth on voting-day.

And, in that regard, we are generally very lazy voters: History, Voter Turnout, US - look for the US at the very bottom.

Also, from Pew Research, Voter Turnout Most Developed Countries

Given that we think ours is the Greatest Democracy in the World, in fact, we have nothing to crow about compared to the rest of the world.
____________________________

I can't argue with that. I'll review your links.
 
He (an Independent) has made a deal with the Democrats ..... The Democratic party promises to not finance an opposing candidate in his district so long as he tows the Democratic Party line.

I can't imagine that Democrats would be willing to make any deal with him. His petulant unwillingness to concede defeat to Clinton will cost her time, money, and effort better utilized toward the general election. The contested convention that Sanders promises to bring will inflict irreparable harm on Democratic unity in November. Young voters will not gravitate toward Clinton. They will either vote for Sanders as a write-in, or not vote at all. This could make a crucial difference in swing states.

Why would Democrats want to keep Sanders in the fold, post-election, when he could be doing so much more right now to help the party win in November? It's almost as if he wants Clinton to lose.
 
Maybe this is the problem when it comes to voting and politics in general ....

Only about half of the prescription drugs and other newly emerging contaminants in sewage are removed by treatment plants.
----
Prescription meds get trapped in disturbing pee-to-food-to-pee loop
New irrigation methods mean veggies and fruits serve up used pharmaceuticals.
----
"A vast array of pharmaceuticals -- including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones -- have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans,...."
....
-- Officials in Philadelphia said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.

-- Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.

-- Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.

-- A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.

-- The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.

-- Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson, Ariz.
----
"U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water - contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked, according to an Associated Press investigation."
----
"Male minnows exposed to a small dose of the drug in laboratories ignored females. They spent more time under a tile, so their reproduction decreased and they took more time capturing prey, according to Rebecca Klaper, a professor of freshwater sciences who spoke about her findings at a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry conference last fall. Klaper said the doses of Prozac added to the fishes’ water were “very low concentrations,” 1 part per billion, which is found in some wastewater discharged into streams.
----
The immediate concern was for fish swimming in this pharmaceutical soup. And over the last decade, scientists have proven the drugs are creating "intersex" fish, with males developing eggs in their testes, putting the survival of some species in jeopardy.

"How many voters does it take to change a light bulb?
None. Because voters can't change anything."

--William Blum, Some further thoughts on American elections and democracy, October 02, 2012--

"I watched 21 Marines in full dress uniform with rifles, fire a 21-gun salute to the President. It was then that I realized how far America's military had deteriorated. Every one of them missed the bastard."
The Anti-Empire Report #90 – February 3rd, 2011 – William Blum

"America has always been ruled by its aristocracy, Democracy in America is not about whether the elite is going to rule or not, it's about which section of the elite is going to rule."
-George Will, This Week With George Stephanopoulos, October 2009--
Chomsky: In swing states vote Obama

“If you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up, well, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain... I, on the other hand, who did not vote, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain, as loud as I want to, about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with...”
--George Carlin--

Wizard Of ID
BLANCHE: "Shouldn't Voters Have To Pass An Intelligence Test?"
THE WIZARD: "You Don't Have To Be Intelligent To Vote"
BLANCHE: "What If There Are More Stupid People Than Intelligent People?"
THE WIZARD: "Then The Best Liar Wins".
By Brant Parker
The Wizard of Id - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calm
 
I can't imagine that Democrats would be willing to make any deal with him. His petulant unwillingness to concede defeat to Clinton will cost her time, money, and effort better utilized toward the general election. The contested convention that Sanders promises to bring will inflict irreparable harm on Democratic unity in November. Young voters will not gravitate toward Clinton. They will either vote for Sanders as a write-in, or not vote at all. This could make a crucial difference in swing states.

Why would Democrats want to keep Sanders in the fold, post-election, when he could be doing so much more right now to help the party win in November? It's almost as if he wants Clinton to lose.

When I mentioned "The Deal" .... I was referring to how he was "Allowed" to run unopposed as an independent in these past years (not this year only). However; that could change on a dime if he shakes the tree too much.

Calm
 
Back
Top Bottom