Does Bernie Sanders understand what Democratic Socialism is?

[SonOfDaedalus]

This is what I got from the Democratic Socialists of America website:

At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people. For example, we support reforms that:

• decrease the influence of money in politics
• empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy
• restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable.

We are activists committed to democracy as not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism — a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/

So it seems the DSA don't believe in capitalism but they don't want to get rid of capitalism "tomorrow." They want to gradually get rid of capitalism.

If this is what Bernie believes he should say so.

Personally, I don't think capitalism has a long term future but that's just my opinion, not an ideological position I subscribe to.

 

[Myview]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

But when Bernie talks about "Democratic Socialism" he describes a Social Democracy NOT Democratic Socialism.

He does say "What Democratic Socialism means to me" but then he goes ahead and defines ordinary democrat principles that have been around since FDR. And the other countries around the world he describes are Social Democracies.

So is it that Bernie doesn't understand Democratic Socialism or is he being incredibly dishonest about what this means? In Democratic Socialism there is NO CAPITALISM. The government controls EVERYTHING not just health care.

Bernie is associated with the American version not a textbook version as given in Wikipedia. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/constitution/

 

[Mr Person]

Few people understand much of anything, let alone "socialism". Government ownership of the means of production shouldn't be so tough, but then, there you go....Obamacare is "socialism" to many.

That said, it borders on miracle that matter and energy interacted in ways creating a self-sustaining systems, and nearly-infinitely moreso that these resulted in the possibility of such a system worrying about that question. There's always that...

Shame what most of the lot did with it.

That's ok.

I'm pleased by your vote of confidence.

:thinking

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I don't see any value in debating terminology. Read Sanders' website if you want to know what policies he advocates.

I agree to an extent but what if I called myself a "Socialist Fascist" wouldn't you be concerned about the "fascist" terminology that I identify with? I do think words matter. I also think it's important to be honest about what you believe even if it's unpopular.

It seems you're saying that Bernie is not technically a Democratic Socialist but that's something I would like to hear him say. What I hear him saying is more like he believes in a gradual transition towards Democratic Socialism.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

He does say "What Democratic Socialism means to me" but then he goes ahead and defines ordinary democrat principles that have been around since FDR.

I've probably exhausted every available Bernie thread on DP to say the same thing...
When Bernie was a young man, doing carpentry and odd jobs, and giving the occasional impassioned speech or doing the occasional sit-in, social democracy or democratic socialism was a very romantic thing for an intellectual Jewish transplant from Brooklyn to do in the wilds of Vermont.

Imagine it for a moment...

Your young bespectacled sweaty face plastered across the front page of the local paper, taking the town of Burlington by storm, your impassioned rhetoric swelling the bosoms of erudite young coeds, winning the local election and trying to make good on a few erstwhile and yet earnest entreaties to fair wages and decently affordable tuition.

Yep, democratic socialism or social democracy, whichever it was, must have been a huge rush for the young Bernie Sanders, because for a guy like that, being a regular old Democrat in 1971 meant you were a lot more like the past candidates of the Democratic Party, which meant you were a lot more like Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern, which meant that you were like one of the guys who lost to Richard Milhous Nixon. It meant that you were like one of the establishment, and in early 1970's Vermont, where it was still very much The Sixties, that wasn't something you wanted to be.

The fact is, Bernie Sanders stopped being a social democrat or democratic socialist the day he first set foot on Capitol Hill.
It's not because he became a sellout or a hypocrite, it's because the Democratic Socialists of America have never allowed themselves to field candidates for the House, the Senate or the White House. It's just not in their DNA for some reason.

Directory of U.S. Political Parties

And as you just pointed out, Bernie has been an FDR style liberal New Deal Democrat his entire life in the House and Senate.
That is what he is. But Bernie clings to old romantic notions and sentimental trappings.
A lot of ex-hippies underwent much more radical transformations, and found themselves on Wall Street as financial consultants, or in Silicon Valley, or in the halls of neocon think tanks the way former campus radical Elliot Abrams did.
And yet despite their three piece suits, many of them left one tiny tuft of long hair tucked under their collar to remind them every so often that they can still "let their freak flag fly".

They still want to be nonconformist, just not in a threatening or scary way.
And for Bernie, refusing to join the Democratic Party and running around pronouncing himself a democratic socialist means that he can tell himself that he's still the brash iconoclastic non-conformist...and not a sentimental old fool, because only a sentimental old fool would pass up repeated opportunities to completely overturn and rebuild the Democratic Party in his own image, literally making the DNC "HIS BITCH".
And if anyone doubts that is possible, I might remind them that Mr. Sanders raised almost 300 million dollars with zero corporate funding, purely through grass roots techniques at a time when everyone else said it was impossible.

Flipping the DNC and making the party his own would have been a walk in the park, given his considerable mojo and charisma, and given the fact that he could have started the effort all the way back in 2008, after another young and brash nonconformist with the funny name of Barack Hussein Obama did much the same to Hillary Clinton.

And had he bothered to do so, Bernie Sanders would have BEEN the Democratic candidate for POTUS in 2016 and Hillary would have been munching on popcorn in upstate New York.
And Donald Trump would have been a minor footnote in history, because Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.

So, as much as I love Bernie Sanders, I am forced to reckon with the fact that Bernie, despite some of his good ideas, is a sentimental old fool. And I voted for him and supported him right from the very first day he announced, so this is not a hate piece against him, it is more of a mournful revelation about what might have been and was not meant to be, all because of the need to cling to silly notions of the past, which is what we must stop doing if we intend to win in 2020.

Good-bye Bernie.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think "free stuff" is a simplistic view.

The notion of calling it "free stuff" is a dishonest view, because in every single instance, that free stuff pays off dividends which dwarf the original cost of the investment. A well educated, literate and highly trained workforce pays off in the form of more taxpayers who must contribute and who cheerfully do so. A healthy populace costs less than an increasingly stressed out sick one that can barely make ends meet, and a robust infrastructure can make an economy scream at redline with just the flick of a few switches.

Free stuff my rosy red ass, it's an investment in the future. And if one does not invest in the future, the future goes instead to whichever society does invest in it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This is what I got from the Democratic Socialists of America website:



https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/

So it seems the DSA don't believe in capitalism but they don't want to get rid of capitalism "tomorrow." They want to gradually get rid of capitalism.

If this is what Bernie believes he should say so.

Personally, I don't think capitalism has a long term future but that's just my opinion, not an ideological position I subscribe to.

Nope, because the night Sanders announced his candidacy on Bill Maher I was there at Canter's Deli with a few very surprised early birds.
The crowds for Bernie would never be as small again.



The next day I went to the Democratic Socialists of America to read the responses:

"Yawn, what a sellout..."

"Not a real socialist..." and so on and so on.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The next day I went to the Democratic Socialists of America to read the responses:

"Yawn, what a sellout..."

"Not a real socialist..." and so on and so on.

lol, I imagine DSA members might consider him a sellout. I'm still not sure why he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

The biggest weapon conservatives use is when they try to equate Democrats with Chavez and Castro like socialists. It doesn't help when you identify yourself with a label that's defined as being the same beliefs as that of Hugo Chavez.

To defend Bernie we have to argue that although he calls himself a Democratic Socialist he's has his own personal definition of what that means that differs from the DSA's stated beliefs.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

lol, I imagine DSA members might consider him a sellout. I'm still not sure why he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

The biggest weapon conservatives use is when they try to equate Democrats with Chavez and Castro like socialists. It doesn't help when you identify yourself with a label that's defined as being the same beliefs as that of Hugo Chavez.

To defend Bernie we have to argue that although he calls himself a Democratic Socialist he's has his own personal definition of what that means that differs from the DSA's stated beliefs.

I learned a lot being a Sanders supporter.
I mistakenly thought that the DNC would see the justice in putting him up front and center because it was the right thing to do.
A friend of mine sat me down and asked me:

"Can you ever imagine the RNC taking an outsider candidate like, say for instance, Ross Perot, and ceremoniously putting aside all their party rules and just crowning him as the Republican candidate despite him being with The Reform Party? The Democratic Party would have to break all kinds of rules and suffer massive lawsuits in order to sweep legitimate Democratic candidates aside for Bernie. No DNC donor would ever trust them again."

He had a point, but I then asked him about why they crowned Hillary without even giving OTHER DNC candidates a fair shake, was that moral or legal.

"I'm not saying what the DNC did for Hillary was fair, or moral, or legal, but what happened to other DNC candidates, happened between DNC candidates, not between DNC candidates and someone from outside the party. What they did to Bernie, they did because he WAS outside the party. And they would do it to ANY outsider, because they have to."

The point he was making is that if you're "running as a Democrat", that is nothing even remotely like "running as a MEMBER OF the Democratic Party" and that if you're outside the party, the party doesn't give a damn that you're "running as" because since you're outside the party, their duty is to always protect and defend candidates picked from WITHIN the party.

And it's the same with the GOP.

Simply put, POTUS elections are football games. You have the Redskins playing the Cowboys.
You are NEVER going to see a member of the SF 49-ers suddenly run onto the field and hear the announcer say that one of the 49-ers is "playing as a Redskin". They have to be drafted and hired AS a member of the team and be an employee of the team.

Too many people seem to think that POTUS elections are marathon races where another runner suddenly decides to help an injured runner complete the race, or that POTUS elections are beauty contests. Primaries are beauty contests but again, if you did not register to be IN the beauty contest as a candidate for Miss America, any notion that you, as Miss Spain will suddenly be crowned Miss America is absurd.

Hillary did not run "as if she was a Democrat."
She WAS a Democrat, and Bernie was NOT and refused to be. And in all likelihood if he runs again, he will probably try the same stunt, with the same results. And if he was going to join the party he should have already done so immediately after the 2016 elections, now it is too late.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why would I do that? He's never claimed to be a communist. He claimed to be a "Democratic Socialist."

By the way, David Hume is one of my favorite philosophers.

I always took Bernie at his world regarding the definition of Democratic Socialism. It's not something I'm familiar with. But some right-wing YouTuber was arguing that Bernie's definition is wrong. I looked into it and it is wrong. Bernie is describing a Social Democracy where socialist institutions exist alongside capitalist enterprises.

That is one way to put it, and not entirely a bad one either. The tricky part is to get those capitalist (and non-profit?) enterprises to accept operating on whatever funds can be extracted (or borrowed?) from themselves and other capitalists after Berine and other Social Democrats are paid to implement the income redistribution system. The downfall of the Social Democracy idea is that it offers nothing except redistribution of that which was taken (by force?) from 'others'. It is essentailly "from each according to their ablility (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more public assistance)".

The savings promised can come from only one place - the reduction of private profit by clever schemes to decide (dictate?) who shall be maker of profit and how much they can keep of that profit (often called excess or unearned income). In essence its aim is to convert for-profit entities into non-profit (or at the least limited profit) entities.

https://www.healthcare-management-degree.net/faq/are-non-profit-or-for-profit-hospitals-better/

https://insight.kellogg.northwester...when-nonprofit-hospitals-take-a-financial-hit

 

[Surrealistik]

...if you did not register to be IN the beauty contest as a candidate for Miss America, any notion that you, as Miss Spain will suddenly be crowned Miss America is absurd.

Hillary did not run "as if she was a Democrat."
She WAS a Democrat, and Bernie was NOT and refused to be. And in all likelihood if he runs again, he will probably try the same stunt, with the same results. And if he was going to join the party he should have already done so immediately after the 2016 elections, now it is too late.

So what about the lack of any real opposition from candidates within the party? How the other candidates that did show up got basically steamrolled? Do you really believe for a second that it was all or even mostly a question of (not) identifying as a Dem, and not so much that his positions were anathema to the major donors and powers that be of the party? The dominant center right neoliberal positions of establishment Democratic leadership? Or the fact that Hillary had more or less bought out the DNC by tending to its debts? That she had firm allies in key positions throughout the DNC? C'mon, the idea that all the skulduggery leveled against him was singly or even mostly reducible to the fact that he didn't really identify as a Dem is crazy, nevermind the wagon circling that happened after 2016. Team politics is a big part of it, but other factors were more persuasive and significant.

That is one way to put it, and not entirely a bad one either. The tricky part is to get those capitalist (and non-profit?) enterprises to accept operating on whatever funds can be extracted (or borrowed?) from themselves and other capitalists after Berine and other Social Democrats are paid to implement the income redistribution system. The downfall of the Social Democracy idea is that it offers nothing except redistribution of that which was taken (by force?) from 'others'. It is essentailly "from each according to their ablility (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more public assistance)".

The savings promised can come from only one place - the reduction of private profit by clever schemes to decide (dictate?) who shall be maker of profit and how much they can keep of that profit (often called excess or unearned income). In essence its aim is to convert for-profit entities into non-profit (or at the least limited profit) entities.

https://www.healthcare-management-degree.net/faq/are-non-profit-or-for-profit-hospitals-better/

https://insight.kellogg.northwester...when-nonprofit-hospitals-take-a-financial-hit

I mean for starters with respect to your links, virtually any hospital in an SD model country is vastly more efficient than any for profit hospital in the States. Yes, you're right, a lot of that efficiency comes from private profits that feature no value added, don't actually encourage or promote a leaner, more efficient system (as every free market fundamentalist loves to argue) and would otherwise be essentially made on the misery, sickness and bankruptcy of a populace as healthcare features a captive consumer base with a lack of demand elasticity, riddled with perverse incentives where societal good is at direct odds with individual interests. It also comes from the elimination of very real inefficiencies and redundancies in a private healthcare system where you have a fragmented payer-base that requires considerable administrative bloat to tackle the Byzantine myriad of different plans, coverages, riders and so on, along with a nice chunk of profit margin to said payers that again, features no added value.

Second, SD offers more than simply 'redistribution'. In fact every advanced country, including the States, is actually somewhere on the sliding scale of SD, but for the sake of differentiation/argument, if we assume this to be Northern European/Scandinavian nations, we generally see people live longer, happier, better, better educated lives on the whole with more vibrant democracies, and this is largely because they have an allocation of resources that better serves the public interest, versus the rarefied interests of an elite few... while still allowing the rich to live phenomenally well, and with more money than they know what to do with.

I mean yeah, if you're rich, America is probably the greatest country on earth, otherwise not so much: you've got rule of law, elite unis and schools are great for the kids, the population is educated though wages remain repressed, you own the politicians, the system is fundamentally rigged in your favour by laws and tax codes written by and for people like you, and it's getting more venal and corrupt in this way all the time. Unsurprisingly, plutocracies are pretty great for the plutocrats.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So what about the lack of any real opposition from candidates within the party? How the other candidates that did show up got basically steamrolled? Do you really believe for a second that it was all or even mostly a question of (not) identifying as a Dem, and not so much that his positions were anathema to the major donors and powers that be of the party? The dominant center right neoliberal positions of establishment Democratic leadership? Or the fact that Hillary had more or less bought out the DNC by tending to its debts? That she had firm allies in key positions throughout the DNC? C'mon, the idea that all the skulduggery leveled against him was singly or even mostly reducible to the fact that he didn't really identify as a Dem is crazy, nevermind the wagon circling that happened after 2016. Team politics is a big part of it, but other factors were more persuasive and significant.




I mean for starters with respect to your links, virtually any hospital in an SD model country is vastly more efficient than any for profit hospital in the States. Yes, you're right, a lot of that efficiency comes from private profits that feature no value added, don't actually encourage or promote a leaner, more efficient system (as every free market fundamentalist loves to argue) and would otherwise be essentially made on the misery, sickness and bankruptcy of a populace as healthcare features a captive consumer base with a lack of demand elasticity, riddled with perverse incentives where societal good is at direct odds with individual interests. It also comes from the elimination of very real inefficiencies and redundancies in a private healthcare system where you have a fragmented payer-base that requires considerable administrative bloat to tackle the Byzantine myriad of different plans, coverages, riders and so on, along with a nice chunk of profit margin to said payers that again, features no added value.

Second, SD offers more than simply 'redistribution'. In fact every advanced country, including the States, is actually somewhere on the sliding scale of SD, but for the sake of differentiation/argument, if we assume this to be Northern European/Scandinavian nations, we generally see people live longer, happier, better, better educated lives on the whole with more vibrant democracies, and this is largely because they have an allocation of resources that better serves the public interest, versus the rarefied interests of an elite few... while still allowing the rich to live phenomenally well, and with more money than they know what to do with.

I mean yeah, if you're rich, America is probably the greatest country on earth, otherwise not so much: you've got rule of law, elite unis and schools are great for the kids, the population is educated though wages remain repressed, you own the politicians, the system is fundamentally rigged in your favour by laws and tax codes written by and for people like you, and it's getting more venal and corrupt in this way all the time. Unsurprisingly, plutocracies are pretty great for the plutocrats.

The SD model is much like the moroninc cut the taxes (starve the beast?) model touted by some "conservatives" in that they both seek to force "perfect efficiency" by reducing the funding provided (made available?) to the "system". While both SDs and conservatives seek to arrive at a more efficient "system" they have no clue how to actually manage (reform?) that "system" to achieve that (ideal and perfect level of?) efficiency and see it only as being a wasteful and inefficient "system". The idea that $X/year is the ideal level of spending for that "system" and that the system will be forced to manage (reform?) itself into to a more perfect and efficient "system" if simply constrained to operate on the ideal sum of $X/year.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The SD model is much like the moroninc cut the taxes (starve the beast?) model touted by some "conservatives" in that they both seek to force "perfect efficiency" by reducing the funding provided (made available?) to the "system". While both SDs and conservatives seek to arrive at a more efficient "system" they have no clue how to actually manage (reform?) that "system" to achieve that (ideal and perfect level of?) efficiency and see it only as being a wasteful and inefficient "system". The idea that $X/year is the ideal level of spending for that "system" and that the system will be forced to manage (reform?) itself into to a more perfect and efficient "system" if simply constrained to operate on the ideal sum of $X/year.

You speak as if universal health care hasn't been working fine for decades in many countries. You speak as if the people in those countries are not overwhelmingly happy with their system.

We ran the experiment. It works. I'm sorry that the results don't fit your ideology. Please don't resort to dishonesty and denial.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You speak as if universal health care hasn't been working fine for decades in many countries. You speak as if the people in those countries are not overwhelmingly happy with their system.

We ran the experiment. It works. I'm sorry that the results don't fit your ideology. Please don't resort to dishonesty and denial.

I understand that argument but one must look at all of the systems in place because economies and governmental structures are not comprised of individual independent entities. Based on the timeline chart in the following link, the US medical care spending (as a percetage of national GDP) seems to have deviated from (risen above?) the single payer pack in about 1982 and again in about 2000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

I have no idea what events, policy changes or market forces caused that to happen. If that cause could be determined then it could very likley be addressed. It seems that all single payer nations (included in the link's timeline chart) experienced a 100% increase in medical care spending (relarive to national GDP) from 1970 to 2015 while the US experienced a 200% increase over that time period.

My point is that a system must be changed from within. Much like giving folks SNAP, scholarship grants or rent subsidies does not effect the cost of food, college or housing - paying (or subsidizing) their medical care costs will not automagically redice those costs.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Much like giving folks SNAP, scholarship grants or rent subsidies does not effect the cost of food, college or housing - paying (or subsidizing) their medical care costs will not automagically redice those costs.

You do realize that part of the reason that these single payer systems have lower costs is that they can negotiate with suppliers for lower prices?

Why Are Canada’s Prescription Drugs So Much Cheaper Than Ours?

Because Canada, like virtually every other wealthy industrialized nation, offers comprehensive universal health-care coverage, Canadians generally pay much lower prices for medicines overall than their southern neighbors. US consumers, who are locked in Big Pharma’s captive market, pay brutally inflated costs through insurance or out of pocket—for drugs that Canadians can buy at a fraction of the price.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So what about the lack of any real opposition from candidates within the party? How the other candidates that did show up got basically steamrolled? Do you really believe for a second that it was all or even mostly a question of (not) identifying as a Dem, and not so much that his positions were anathema to the major donors and powers that be of the party?

All you have to do is go and read the rules of the Democratic National Committee, it's all there. And by the way, it's pretty much the same rules in the RNC as well. Don't you think the football analogy makes any sense?

If I was an engineer at Ford, and you worked for GM, do you think I would be allowed on the assembly floor and allowed to make command decisions with respect to the way GM cars are put together? Do you think for one minute that a Ford executive would be allowed to look at the engineering blueprints for a Chevy Malibu?

Political parties have membership for a reason. It's a question of being on the team or not being, it's incredibly straightforward and quite clear.
One cannot expect to get the kind of help reserved for members if one is NOT a member.
I can't make it much clearer than that.

And again, I am not cheerleading for what they did to other members. You should know that South Carolina's Republican Party is floating the idea of SKIPPING the 2020 PRIMARIES ALTOGETHER in order to lock out any challengers to Trump!

So if you think what the Democratic Party did to Bernie was egregious, ponder what will happen if all the other state Republican parties decide to do what South Carolina is planning to do to protect Trump.

Now again, imagine that an outsider, say perhaps from the Libertarian Party announces that they will "run as if they were Republican".
Do you think for a single second that the GOP will suddenly step aside and dump Trump? Hell, they're thinking of skipping the primaries altogether!
So even other MEMBERS aren't getting access, so it's hard to imagine outsiders getting a leg up.

This isn't democracy, I get where you're coming from, but it is not hard to understand a party reserving help for members only. What's hard is when they "coronate" someone and lock out other members. That doesn't make sense.

I'm just saying that by refusing to join, it was as if Bernie was driving in the Indy 500 with "the parking brake on", that's all. He didn't NEED to leave the parking brake on, he could have joined way back in 2008 and used his crowdfunding and charisma to turn over the Democratic Party in order to run in 2016.

PS:
If you look back, that is clearly what Hillary did starting in 2012, because "Obama for America" wasn't giving much help to other Democrats down the line in state House and Senate or even state legislature and gubernatorial races. That is HOW Hillary leveraged her position in the 2016 DNC, she filled the VACUUM left by Obama for America.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You do realize that part of the reason that these single payer systems have lower costs is that they can negotiate with suppliers for lower prices?

Why Are Canada’s Prescription Drugs So Much Cheaper Than Ours?

OK, so change the drug patent laws and/or tax any drug "price gouging" mark-ups. If the federal government has the power to take over control of 17% of the US economy then they surely have the power to remedy drug pricing anomalies.

 

[Surrealistik]

I understand that argument but one must look at all of the systems in place because economies and governmental structures are not comprised of individual independent entities. Based on the timeline chart in the following link, the US medical care spending (as a percetage of national GDP) seems to have deviated from (risen above?) the single payer pack in about 1982 and again in about 2000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

I have no idea what events, policy changes or market forces caused that to happen. If that cause could be determined then it could very likley be addressed. It seems that all single payer nations (included in the link's timeline chart) experienced a 100% increase in medical care spending (relarive to national GDP) from 1970 to 2015 while the US experienced a 200% increase over that time period.

My point is that a system must be changed from within. Much like giving folks SNAP, scholarship grants or rent subsidies does not effect the cost of food, college or housing - paying (or subsidizing) their medical care costs will not automagically redice those costs.

I'd say SOD has addressed most of the points I wanted to make in response, but beyond that, no, SP doesn't automagically reduce costs; of course not. It does however provide the fundamental mechanisms you need to do so, by leveraging the bargaining power and economy of scale of the single payer and government to control expenses at every level of input: suppliers (medical equipment, drugs, supplies), payers (no administrative bloat; billing is simple, quick and easy), and providers (compensation/labour prices are reasonable, procedures costs aren't inflated to exorbitant sums, no 'paymaster' system, etc).

The root of the disease in the States is obvious: a largely unchecked profit incentive meets a captive audience paying for a good that has fairly inelastic demand (everyone must have healthcare), with regulatory capture and govt influence keeping things that way, or even worsening the situation (for example Medicare can't negotiate drug prices). If you want to go deeper still, money in politics issues combined with an until recently sufficiently indifferent public lie at the root of it all.

 

[Surrealistik]

All you have to do is go and read the rules of the Democratic National Committee, it's all there. And by the way, it's pretty much the same rules in the RNC as well. Don't you think the football analogy makes any sense?

If I was an engineer at Ford, and you worked for GM, do you think I would be allowed on the assembly floor and allowed to make command decisions with respect to the way GM cars are put together? Do you think for one minute that a Ford executive would be allowed to look at the engineering blueprints for a Chevy Malibu?

Political parties have membership for a reason. It's a question of being on the team or not being, it's incredibly straightforward and quite clear.
One cannot expect to get the kind of help reserved for members if one is NOT a member.
I can't make it much clearer than that.

And again, I am not cheerleading for what they did to other members. You should know that South Carolina's Republican Party is floating the idea of SKIPPING the 2020 PRIMARIES ALTOGETHER in order to lock out any challengers to Trump!

So if you think what the Democratic Party did to Bernie was egregious, ponder what will happen if all the other state Republican parties decide to do what South Carolina is planning to do to protect Trump.

Now again, imagine that an outsider, say perhaps from the Libertarian Party announces that they will "run as if they were Republican".
Do you think for a single second that the GOP will suddenly step aside and dump Trump? Hell, they're thinking of skipping the primaries altogether!
So even other MEMBERS aren't getting access, so it's hard to imagine outsiders getting a leg up.

This isn't democracy, I get where you're coming from, but it is not hard to understand a party reserving help for members only. What's hard is when they "coronate" someone and lock out other members. That doesn't make sense.

I'm just saying that by refusing to join, it was as if Bernie was driving in the Indy 500 with "the parking brake on", that's all. He didn't NEED to leave the parking brake on, he could have joined way back in 2008 and used his crowdfunding and charisma to turn over the Democratic Party in order to run in 2016.

PS:
If you look back, that is clearly what Hillary did starting in 2012, because "Obama for America" wasn't giving much help to other Democrats down the line in state House and Senate or even state legislature and gubernatorial races. That is HOW Hillary leveraged her position in the 2016 DNC, she filled the VACUUM left by Obama for America.

Again, I'm not saying his refusal to become a Dem wasn't a big factor, or that becoming a Dem wouldn't have helped him, but you're just not going to convince me that it made all the difference when virtually everyone in the DNC in a position of power/seniority at the time was in Hillary's pocket or was an ally of hers, influential megadonors and party leadership despised (and continue to despise) Bernie, the egregious conflict of interest arising from the fact that she bailed out the organization after Obama had financially vampirized it and the influence that afforded her, how the establishment of the party and DNC leadership desperately wagoncircled to keep honest to god progressive/FDR actual democrats out of positions of power and influence and systemically marginalized them, and how even the people who, again _were_ Dems, got steamrolled, either in the race, or in the sense of being kept out of it.

In totality, there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that Bernie was hedged out on the basis of ideology and self-dealing friendships/conflicts of interest at least as much as party affiliation, representing a resurgence of the FDR wing the Third Way/New Dem guys that were in charge absolutely and categorically despised, and still do to this day. Anyone who thinks that significant divisions don't exist in the Dem party for this reason is either naive, self-delusional or lying in a conscious attempt to downplay them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Again, I'm not saying his refusal to become a Dem wasn't a big factor, or that becoming a Dem wouldn't have helped him, but you're just not going to convince me that it made all the difference when virtually everyone in the DNC was in Hillary's pocket or was an ally of hers, influential megadonors and party leadership despised (and continue to despise) Bernie, the egregious conflict of interest arising from the fact that she bailed out the organization after Obama had financially vampirized it and the influence that afforded her, how the establishment of the party and DNC leadership desperately wagoncircled to keep honest to god progressive/FDR actual democrats out of positions of power and influence and systemically marginalized them, and how even the people who, again _were_ Dems, got steamrolled, either in the race, or in the sense of being kept out of it.

Which is precisely WHY he should have joined the moment the 2008 elections were done. He could have used his considerable mojo starting way back then and planted the seeds to head off all that stuff you just mentioned. I just finished addressing that in my last response to you.

They would not have been able to circle any wagons because by the time 2012 rolled around, he would have more or less owned the party, certainly by 2014. He was in Congress, so there is no way he didn't understand which way the wind had been blowing all these years. He knew what he was putting himself up against. He's always known. He is not a stupid man and he is very observant.

And by the way, if you put your ear to the ground, you will notice that that progressive FDR wing is now starting to GAIN GROUND.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'd say SOD has addressed most of the points I wanted to make in response, but beyond that, no, SP doesn't automagically reduce costs; of course not. It does however provide the fundamental mechanisms you need to do so, by leveraging the bargaining power and economy of scale of the single payer and government to control expenses at every level of input: suppliers (medical equipment, drugs, supplies), payers (no administrative bloat; billing is simple, quick and easy), and providers (compensation/labour prices are reasonable, procedures costs aren't inflated to exorbitant sums, no 'paymaster' system, etc).

The root of the disease in the States is obvious: a largely unchecked profit incentive meets a captive audience paying for a good that has fairly inelastic demand (everyone must have healthcare), with regulatory capture and govt influence keeping things that way, or even worsening the situation (for example Medicare can't negotiate drug prices). If you want to go deeper still, money in politics issues combined with an until recently sufficiently indifferent public lie at the root of it all.

My main beef with SD/DS (and its close cousin single payer for all essential goods/services) is funding it (via taxation) based on one's perceived ability to pay. Economic reality is that to discount (subsidize) something for person X you must overcharge person Y to make up the difference (assuming that the provider is compensated equally for a given good/service) - the "less expensive for most" argument ignores that basic fact. What other essential goods/services are to (or should) be priced that way? Should a poor person pay less than a rich person for an identical cartload of groceries or housing unit rental? That is essentially the main goal of SD/DS master plan.

 

[Surrealistik]

Which is precisely WHY he should have joined the moment the 2008 elections were done. He could have used his considerable mojo starting way back then and planted the seeds to head off all that stuff you just mentioned. I just finished addressing that in my last response to you.

They would not have been able to circle any wagons because by the time 2012 rolled around, he would have more or less owned the party, certainly by 2014. He was in Congress, so there is no way he didn't understand which way the wind had been blowing all these years. He knew what he was putting himself up against. He's always known. He is not a stupid man and he is very observant.

And by the way, if you put your ear to the ground, you will notice that that progressive FDR wing is now starting to GAIN GROUND.

As I'm sure I've said to you previously (way back), I rather doubt that Bernie as a relative, despised unknown in the party back in 2008 would have really been able to head-off and counteract Hillary who was a beloved darling of the New Dem establishment leadership even back then. 8 years, while despised by the powers that be, essentially with very few allies and without the notoriety and fame that came with his 2016 run, is basically no time at all to undo that level of corruption. I don't think he would have succeeded; at the very least he would have needed to run in 2008 as a Dem, build his movement back then, get the fame and exposure, and somehow do it while people still actually thought Obama was a bold new progressive (and maybe even Bernie was fooled by the man, which is why he didn't step in unlike in 2016). Ironically, if he ended up stealing enough of Obama's thunder, it may have _helped_ Clinton and advanced her influence more than hindered or undermined her by splitting the progressive vote such that she'd win the nomination (another possible reason he chose not to enter).

Further yes, progressive FDRs are starting to gain ground now largely in thanks to the man and his exposure per the 2016 cycle, and all this, of course, in spite of the establishment's very best attempts to stifle and marginalize them.

In summary, it's very difficult to say what kind of momentum Bernie would have been able to build back in 2008 as a Democrat in light of the context, and it is certainly impossible to conclude that it would have been an absolute slam dunk for progressives which would have dispelled the massive litany of advantages Clinton had accrued for herself by 2016.

My main beef with SD/DS (and its close cousin single payer for all essential goods/services) is funding it (via taxation) based on one's perceived ability to pay. Economic reality is that to discount (subsidize) something for person X you must overcharge person Y to make up the difference (assuming that the provider is compensated equally for a given good/service) - the "less expensive for most" argument ignores that basic fact. What other essential goods/services are to (or should) be priced that way? Should a poor person pay less than a rich person for an identical cartload of groceries or housing unit rental? That is essentially the main goal of SD/DS master plan.

That definitely lies at the heart of progressive taxation which is essentially a constant in the developed world.

We charge wealthy people more tax for a variety of reasons.

The first is that even at higher %s the taxes have low to no impact on a wealth person's actual quality of life than a lower % does on someone much less well off.

The second is that excess consolidation of wealth is economically toxic: one dude with ten billion doesn't produce nearly as much economic activity as a hundred thousand guys with a hundred thousand apiece; he will never consume or need nearly as much stuff, so a big chunk of that money is basically pulled from circulation which is a bad thing.

The third is that often wealthy people _do_ benefit more from taxes directly or indirectly than a poor person. If you run a big enterprise, you can be absolutely assured that rule of law, infrastructure, markets and an educated, healthy workforce the govt has an essential role in procuring are all major elements its success and profitability depend on. If you had to bring workers from abroad because the locals were too backwards/unfit, hire mercenaries for protection and security, pave your own roads (or get gouged by someone making theirs), pay bribes to sell your wares, and then, to top it all, had a relatively meagre market to sell them to with customers who are wary if not paranoid of being scammed because they have no protections and therefore no confidence, that's definitely going to impact your bottom line in a bad way.

 

[Mithrae]

My main beef with SD/DS (and its close cousin single payer for all essential goods/services) is funding it (via taxation) based on one's perceived ability to pay. Economic reality is that to discount (subsidize) something for person X you must overcharge person Y to make up the difference (assuming that the provider is compensated equally for a given good/service) - the "less expensive for most" argument ignores that basic fact. What other essential goods/services are to (or should) be priced that way? Should a poor person pay less than a rich person for an identical cartload of groceries or housing unit rental? That is essentially the main goal of SD/DS master plan.

Seems to me that what we're talking about here is an inalienable right to stuff like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Access to quality healthcare is a corollary of pursuit of happiness, and often of life itself; it would be rather perverse to suppose that it should be contingent on how much money one has managed to extract from a market economy... yet that is the view which many take.

The way in which the most common and basic requirements for those inalienable rights are met may differ from case to case; income assistance is much more effective for access to food than feeding everyone from government-run farms would be for example, while in the case of housing both income assistance and government housing projects may be viable in different circumstances. Ideally of course, such income assistance should not be necessary except in some exceptional cases: Therefore education is another fundamental, both for its own sake and to help everyone secure adequately-paid employment. Minimum wages and overtime pay are another, to avoid or mitigate a race-to-the-bottom employment market which would culminate in virtual serfdom.

The precise mechanisms may vary and be open to discussion and refinement; but surely what should not be in question is that everyone should have access to these things?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Seems to me that what we're talking about here is an inalienable right to stuff like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Access to quality healthcare is a corollary of pursuit of happiness, and often of life itself; it would be rather perverse to suppose that it should be contingent on how much money one has managed to extract from a market economy... yet that is the view which many take.

The way in which the most common and basic requirements for those inalienable rights are met may differ from case to case; income assistance is much more effective for access to food than feeding everyone from government-run farms would be for example, while in the case of housing both income assistance and government housing projects may be viable in different circumstances. Ideally of course, such income assistance should not be necessary except in some exceptional cases: Therefore education is another fundamental, both for its own sake and to help everyone secure adequately-paid employment. Minimum wages and overtime pay are another, to avoid or mitigate a race-to-the-bottom employment market which would culminate in virtual serfdom.

The precise mechanisms may vary and be open to discussion and refinement; but surely what should not be in question is that everyone should have access to these things?

I agree with you to a large extent but SD/DS income redistribution schemes apply to all basic needs - food and shelter are equally, if not more important, than medical care to become non-profit (socialist) industries. Eating out of dumpsters and living in a cardboard box under bridge is not going to be easily fixed by an annual doctor visit. I have no objection to a public option (for a premium of say 10% of AGI) but to have everyone (except the rich?) subject to whatever the federal 'budget' allows a care provider to make (charge back to the treasury?) is not necessary to help the 12% to 15% who need regular public assistance.

Insurance (public or private) should be for the rare, unexpected and expensive events in life - not to make routine maintenance costs 100% covered. Imagine how much homeowners insurance would cost if it covered periodic repainting and replacing worn out carpeting or appliances. Imagine how much auto insurance would cost if it covered oil changes, tune-ups and worn parts replacement.

 

[Mithrae]

I agree with you to a large extent but SD/DS income redistribution schemes apply to all basic needs - food and shelter are equally, if not more important, than medical care to become non-profit (socialist) industries.

What? Why? There are some problems surrounding for-profit food production and distribution (eg. environmental degradation, price pressures and ethical concerns raised by meat consumption, ranching and factory farming), but in general it's a functional system. Why mess around too much with something that works? I imagine social democrats would promote regulation or targeted taxation - and especially reductions in agricultural subsidies - to deal with most of the problems in that market and then, as I said, the only issue is that if some folk can't afford enough/quality food income assistance would be necessary.

I suppose there's also the quasi-monopolistic power which big supermarket chains have gained, the blow to producers' profit margins which their purchasing and bargaining power often entails, the corner-cutting and lower qualities which that in turn implies... and hence the dietary impacts which cheap, processed or preserved mass-market food has on the population. I'm sure social democrats (unlike libertarians?) are concerned about and offer potential answers to those issues too; and of course democratic socialists would most likely have as a long-term objective a break-up of the monopolistic agricultural and distribution companies and return to more localized collectives.

But either way we'd still most likely be looking at a market-based and at least partly profit-driven approach to food production and sale. I mean, I'm not a democratic socialist (not yet at least), but I imagine their concern would be that profit as the primary performance indicator for mega-corporations threatens or destroys much else of value; not that localized collectives can't use reasonable profit margins as a useful measure of value and efficiency!

Eating out of dumpsters and living in a cardboard box under bridge is not going to be easily fixed by an annual doctor visit. I have no objection to a public option (for a premium of say 10% of AGI) but to have everyone (except the rich?) subject to whatever the federal 'budget' allows a care provider to make (charge back to the treasury?) is not necessary to help the 12% to 15% who need regular public assistance.

Insurance (public or private) should be for the rare, unexpected and expensive events in life - not to make routine maintenance costs 100% covered. Imagine how much homeowners insurance would cost if it covered periodic repainting and replacing worn out carpeting or appliances. Imagine how much auto insurance would cost if it covered oil changes, tune-ups and worn parts replacement.

I can't really answer that. Australians don't get public health insurance per se; I suppose our Medicare could be viewed that way insofar as visits to GPs who accept bulk billing, but we've got public hospitals and suchlike, alongside private options. A recent post by Checkerboard Strangler was the first time I'd really considered the logistics of why America might be more or less locked into the insurance/private provider model.