Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?[W:44]

[joG]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

You don't adjust by simply adding per capita public spending; that's completely inane, you compare outcomes. Case in point, the United States has by far the most inefficient healthcare system on the face of the planet: its bloated healthcare spending amounts to pure padding that means far less in practice than the raw dollar amount would suggest as an adjustment input.


Again, PPP isn't relevant so much as outcomes in terms of things that matter (longevity, health, education, democratic integrity, corruption, etc...).

We've looked at the health system in the States here often and there are things that could be improved. The government spends far too much. And, where government produces private goods it is highly improbable that inefficiency could be avoided.

 

[Surrealistik]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

We've looked at the health system in the States here often and there are things that could be improved. The government spends far too much. And, where government produces private goods it is highly improbable that inefficiency could be avoided.

The government spends far too much precisely because of the toxic level of private involvement; all that egregious inefficiency stems directly from the private sector. The best, most cost effective healthcare schemes the world over involve extensive government involvement.

 

[MagicMike]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

For me, it was a matter of voting for the individual that I viewed as the most qualified and most likely to achieve success during the general election and to achieve a degree of legislative success once elected. The proposals made by Bernie are desirable, to an extent, but I deem them to be too severe and disruptive and thus, are unlikely to yield success in the general election (although, I didn't foresee him being gifted the opponent of Donald Trump) or for his legislation to be successfully passed by a House and Senate that will probably remain under Republican control.

Bernie is quite aware that his proposals are completely correct, but unlikely under Republican control of Congress. Some Trump supporter, I don't remember which, supported him because he "swings for the fences". So does Bernie, but he swings for the fences we need, not the ones that will make us, again, the most hated nation. Also, Bernie is calling for a Political Revolution because we need to take back the control of our government. Or congressional districts have been configured to assure one party or the other cannot lose the election in that district, when they should be without regard to who lives there, just how many. Also very flawed is the delegate process and the primary process. In the primaries we vote, but the delegates that go to convention are selected later by a separate process and not really bound to any candidate, even the bound ones. We vote for a candidate and then delegates are selected who SAY they will vote for that candidate at the convention, but they are not bound at all in the Republican convention. I am not sure of the legal binding of Democratic delegates, but the Democrats added Super Delegates in the early 80's because they were afraid the general voters would not select "electable" candidates, so added unbound Super Delegates to counter them. Very undemocratic. Another example of a flawed delegate process is the Electoral College. while established for a good reason in our early years, it has proved to be flawed and may have elected one President contrary to the popular vote, which is legal under the Electoral College system. We need to abolish both the conventions and the Electoral College as they no longer reflect democracy in the present day.

 

[joG]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

The government spends far too much precisely because of the toxic level of private involvement; all that egregious inefficiency stems directly from the private sector. The best, most cost effective healthcare schemes the world over involve extensive government involvement.

Actually it is very probably less the private sector that is more inefficient. It is the public sector health care that is so. You do know for instance that per capita of total population the USA has spent about the same as countries like Germany. As the US system spent this on a smaller segment of the population and so, the per capita public spending per beneficiary has been higher. I'm sure you knew this and just didn't mention it so as not to confuse me.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Actually it is very probably less the private sector that is more inefficient. It is the public sector health care that is so. You do know for instance that per capita of total population the USA has spent about the same as countries like Germany. As the US system spent this on a smaller segment of the population and so, the per capita public spending per beneficiary has been higher. I'm sure you knew this and just didn't mention it so as not to confuse me.

Just as you chose not to mention that the US has worse health outcomes than Germany (actually, pretty much every country with nationalized healthcare) because it was obvious, I'm sure.

But this is starting to move off topic.

 

[joG]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Just as you chose not to mention that the US has worse health outcomes than Germany (actually, pretty much every country with nationalized healthcare) because it was obvious, I'm sure.

But this is starting to move off topic.

The German one is the one I know best and we were just through that. That system is now having to rethink, regroup and reduce the quality of provided care as it had become unsustainable in spite of lower per beneficiary support than the US public system and free riding the benefits from the massiv American spending.

 

[MagicMike]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

joG would you please give us some numbers and references to prove your statement, as I have heard just the opposite (I will look for numbers to prove that).

 

[Glen Contrarian]

This is honest curiosity (for me at least).
Hillary Clinton supporters and there seems to be a lot of you. Why did you choose Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination?

This is not to judge Clinton supporters or cheer for Sanders (or disparage either candidate's supporters) but there might be debate on your answers.

And thanks for voting this primary season by the way (no matter who you voted for).

I support Hillary and was an alternate state delegate for her in '08.

I support her because she knows how to get things done in the face of epic adversity. I think Obama's one of the best presidents we ever had, but I think we can all agree that he was more than a little naive in his first couple years...and Hillary's not naive at all. She's got a wealth of foreign policy experience, knows how to work for the people and for the finance sector (I don't like the finance sector, but yeah, we need them, too).

More than anything else, she, like Obama, is a pragmatist, whereas Bernie - whom I personally like a lot more - is more of an idealist...and it's not good to have an idealist in the Oval Office.

Besides, the Right needs to learn that the path to power and prosperity doesn't always run through testosteroneville.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

The German one is the one I know best and we were just through that. That system is now having to rethink, regroup and reduce the quality of provided care as it had become unsustainable in spite of lower per beneficiary support than the US public system and free riding the benefits from the massiv American spending.

The only argument you gave was a very attenuated case that the bottom 10% basically cost the same in the the US as they do in Germany. That's not a case why universal healthcare is bad or unsustainable. For it to be unsustainable you'd need to actually provide a metric (By the way, there exists a handy one in terms of the GDP, which case Germany is unquestionably doing better than the US) and explain why it's unsustainable.

You can start looking at various data sets to draw almost any conclusion you want, the question is why you chose the metric that you did. If you can't make you case with the the percentage of the GDP being your central point, I think that your argument is bound to be pretty weak. It was 11.3% of Germany's GDP in 2013. Seriously, how is this "too much"? The only way I can see that it can suddenly become "too much" is if we're now redefining what "too much" means.

 

[Helix]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

electability/inevitability/the scary orc carrying the flag of the other Fisher Price My First Political Party.

and the stupid gerrymandered duopoly which ensures that you only get those two choices at the polls.

 

[joG]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

The only argument you gave was a very attenuated case that the bottom 10% basically cost the same in the the US as they do in Germany. That's not a case why universal healthcare is bad or unsustainable. For it to be unsustainable you'd need to actually provide a metric (By the way, there exists a handy one in terms of the GDP, which case Germany is unquestionably doing better than the US) and explain why it's unsustainable.

You can start looking at various data sets to draw almost any conclusion you want, the question is why you chose the metric that you did. If you can't make you case with the the percentage of the GDP being your central point, I think that your argument is bound to be pretty weak. It was 11.3% of Germany's GDP in 2013. Seriously, how is this "too much"? The only way I can see that it can suddenly become "too much" is if we're now redefining what "too much" means.

First off, I did not say that the "bottom 10% basically cost" anything. What I said was totally something else.
As to what I believe you mean to be your second argument, I really don't understand, what you meant to say.

 

[Surrealistik]

I support Hillary and was an alternate state delegate for her in '08.

I support her because she knows how to get things done in the face of epic adversity. I think Obama's one of the best presidents we ever had, but I think we can all agree that he was more than a little naive in his first couple years...and Hillary's not naive at all. She's got a wealth of foreign policy experience, knows how to work for the people and for the finance sector (I don't like the finance sector, but yeah, we need them, too).

More than anything else, she, like Obama, is a pragmatist, whereas Bernie - whom I personally like a lot more - is more of an idealist...and it's not good to have an idealist in the Oval Office.

Besides, the Right needs to learn that the path to power and prosperity doesn't always run through testosteroneville.

Again, ain't no democrat getting anything done in the face of a GOP controlled House and Senate, doesn't matter if it's Bernie or Hillary as Obama (who is of nearly an identical political disposition) has repeatedly shown, including throughout his late first and entire second term. Doubly so when the GOP loathes her more than they ever disparaged Obama, which is saying a lot; this perception of pragmatism counts for exactly nothing. How do you anticipate her getting anything meaningful done in terms of the progressive agenda without committing to the sort of disproportionate sacrifice they demand? If your response is that the Dems need to take both chambers, great, I agree with you: at that point, Bernie could most certainly pass his markedly superior agenda too.

There is nothing unrealistic or idealist about Bernie's policy under the conditions where a Dem president could actually get things done.

Also I'd say that Hillary's foreign policy experience actually counts against her outside of the Iran deal; there is not much beyond that which can be thought of as truly positive.

 

[Surrealistik]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Actually it is very probably less the private sector that is more inefficient. It is the public sector health care that is so. You do know for instance that per capita of total population the USA has spent about the same as countries like Germany. As the US system spent this on a smaller segment of the population and so, the per capita public spending per beneficiary has been higher. I'm sure you knew this and just didn't mention it so as not to confuse me.

Since Field didn't fully address this point (who has otherwise being doing an amicable job); wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

That's a massive and substantive difference.

 

[opendebate]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Since you asked politely:

1: I prefer her stance on issues. She does not go as far as Sanders does in changing things, which is a positive. I do not want massive change in this country. I want small improvements and tweaks to improve a system that already works far better than we tend to give it credit for(until we visit other countries and see just how good we do have it). Sanders campaign strikes me as pie in the sky, not going to happen and if it did would have major unintended consequences type stuff.

2: The rich are not my enemy, nor is Wall Street. As long as Sanders portrays them as such, I will not support him.

Would you elaborate on this a bit

 

[joG]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Since Field didn't fully address this point (who has otherwise being doing an amicable job); wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

That's a massive and substantive difference.

Thank you for the link. I hadn't followed the numbers for the latest increase in German spending. But I am not sure, what the link is meant to mean. It doesn't even semm to show the public vs private spending nor does it make out the number of beneficiaries covered by the public system. That is not a reply in any way.

 

[DDD]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Cause a Clinton already has a positive international reputation and a Sanders does not.

 

[Greenbeard]

Again, ain't no democrat getting anything done in the face of a GOP controlled House and Senate, doesn't matter if it's Bernie or Hillary as Obama (who is of nearly an identical political disposition) has repeatedly shown, including throughout his late first and entire second term. Doubly so when the GOP loathes her more than they ever disparaged Obama, which is saying a lot; this perception of pragmatism counts for exactly nothing. How do you anticipate her getting anything meaningful done in terms of the progressive agenda without committing to the sort of disproportionate sacrifice they demand? If your response is that the Dems need to take both chambers, great, I agree with you: at that point, Bernie could most certainly pass his markedly superior agenda too.

This is where having a wonk who is steeped in the details of policy and knows the levers of power will be beneficial. Where Bernie talks in very vague and general terms about single-payer (which he seems to understand more at a gut than a policy level, and which I think most people recognize wouldn't even get through a Democratic Congress), Clinton has raised the possibility of using 1332 waivers to facilitate state-level public health insurance options. That's an interesting idea and it's something a Clinton HHS realistically could pursue. Bernie is a very blunt instrument, and ultimately he's better suited to his perch in the Senate than to the presidency.

 

[Surrealistik]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

Thank you for the link. I hadn't followed the numbers for the latest increase in German spending. But I am not sure, what the link is meant to mean. It doesn't even semm to show the public vs private spending nor does it make out the number of beneficiaries covered by the public system. That is not a reply in any way.

Total expenditure on health care is obviously a measure of overall healthcare system efficiency when you compare outcomes. Further, these other countries have _far_ greater government involvement; according to you, their overall efficiency should be much worse than the US'. But hey, since that's not enough for you and I feel like thoroughly dismantling this nonsense about the public sector's culpability for insanely inefficient US healthcare upon your insistence, here's the public expenditure as well:

OECD Statistics -> Health -> Health Expenditure and Financing -> Per capita, current prices, current PPPs + Private sector

Would you look at that? 2013, private expenditure for the States per capita was 4,515.9; first place by a mile vs Switzerland at 2,084.0.

But with all of this private expenditure, surely the US is avoiding the need for extensive government supplement right? Wrong.

United States is still outputting 4,197.5 per capita in 3rd place behind Norway and the Netherlands at 4,980.8 and 4,494.8 respectively (whose health care systems provide encompassing and comprehensive coverage for their entire population). Germany? 3,677.4. That's quite a difference.

When you look at aggregate financing, the US is also 1st place by a mile at 8,713.3 vs Switzerland (notably also a leader in private spending behind the US; what a coincidence!) as a distant runner up at 6,325.2. Oh and Norway and the Netherlands, those two countries that beat out the US for public spending? They're in an even more distant 3rd and 4th at 5,862.4 and 5,130.9 respectively. Germany? 4,818.9. Since the horrible, 'inefficient' government is so completely bound up in their healthcare, shouldn't the US be easily outperforming them (rather than getting worse results for a lot more money?)?


Remember, reality tends to be a lot more complicated than nonsense Randian fairytails about private sector infallibility and public sector incompetence. Form opinion based on facts and evidence, not blind ideology or cherrypicked minutiae and anecdote; you end up looking a lot more intelligent that way.

 

[Surrealistik]

This is where having a wonk who is steeped in the details of policy and knows the levers of power will be beneficial. Where Bernie talks in very vague and general terms about single-payer (which he seems to understand more at a gut than a policy level, and which I think most people recognize wouldn't even get through a Democratic Congress), Clinton has raised the possibility of using 1332 waivers to facilitate state-level public health insurance options. That's an interesting idea and it's something a Clinton HHS realistically could pursue. Bernie is a very blunt instrument, and ultimately he's better suited to his perch in the Senate than to the presidency.

There is nothing concrete whatsoever to suggest Hillary will be able to work with an even more hostile GOP House and Senate. You can talk up her 'wonk' qualities all you like; I'm not buying. If a far more charismatic, better liked and at _least_ comparably intelligent and more experienced Obama can't do it, there's no way in hell a far more despised Hillary can. Straight up, full stop. For all of the accusations of delusion heaped upon Bernie supporters by Hillarites, this is one that the latter party is egregiously steeped in (primarily because they think it's one of very few relative selling points Clinton has vs Bernie). There is only so much that can be done with circumvention.

Further, there is no evidence to suggest that Bernie couldn't pass his ideas through a Dem House and Congress seeing as such a massive turnover would be an obvious extension of his mandate, and not even the DNC would _dare_ to defy the man who delivered it such complete and encompassing power at the federal level, especially when he would make effective and vigourous use of the bully pulpit. Though you may think he's shaky on details now, you can damn well bet when single-payer is in the process of being made policy it will get much more concrete.

 

[Greenbeard]

There is nothing concrete whatsoever to suggest Hillary will be able to work with an even more hostile GOP House and Senate.

...that's why I chose the example of a Clinton proposal to bring back the public option concept using existing regulatory tools that don't require Congressional action, vs. Sanders pushing a single-payer concept that does and likely wouldn't even get it in a Dem-controlled Congress.

Though you may think he's shaky on details now, you can damn well bet when single-payer is in the process of being made policy it will get much more concrete.

And this is they key point. That step is the important one. When it comes to working out policy details, navigating sticky issues and tough competing constituencies, Bernie isn't the one I want at the helm. That isn't his forte and it isn't where his strengths lie. He's well-suited to big vague conceptual proselytizing, which is why he should stay in the Senate where his purism works to his advantage and can be a source of strength. That won't be the case in the White House.

 

[Surrealistik]

...that's why I chose the example of a Clinton proposal to bring back the public option concept using existing regulatory tools that don't require Congressional action, vs. Sanders pushing a single-payer concept that does and likely wouldn't even get it in a Dem-controlled Congress.

Prove it. It would be insane and suicidal for the DNC to refuse Sanders when the House and Senate are an extension of his mandate.

Further, I very much doubt her proposal can survive a Senate and House blockaide in any meaningful form; if it were effective and possible, Obama would have probably already done it:

Hillary Clinton resurrects public option, or not? - PNHP's Official Blog

And this is they key point. That step is the important one. When it comes to working out policy details, navigating sticky issues and tough competing constituencies, Bernie isn't the one I want at the helm. That isn't his forte and it isn't where his strengths lie. He's well-suited to big vague conceptual proselytizing, which is why he should stay in the Senate where his purism works to his advantage and can be a source of strength. That won't be the case in the White House.

Do you honestly expect a candidate to have every, or even most details in place for such a complex and historic piece of legislation that would have to go through countless drafts while being made into policy during a campaign? Don't be asinine. Campaigns are about broadstroke ideas, minutiae comes later when all of the particulars are known.

Further, I have seen nothing concrete to suggest that Clinton would actually be better at shaping policy.

 

[iguanaman]

Prove it. It would be insane and suicidal for the DNC to refuse Sanders when the House and Senate are an extension of his mandate.

Further, I very much doubt her proposal can survive a Senate and House blockaide in any meaningful form; if it were effective and possible, Obama would have probably already done it:

Hillary Clinton resurrects public option, or not? - PNHP's Official Blog




Do you honestly expect a candidate to have every, or even most details in place for such a complex and historic piece of legislation that would have to go through countless drafts while being made into policy during a campaign? Don't be asinine. Campaigns are about broadstroke ideas, minutiae comes later when all of the particulars are known.

Further, I have seen nothing concrete to suggest that Clinton would actually be better at shaping policy.

She can get elected and that is the critical need. The Republicans have gone off their rocker and we cannot risk having them in charge. Sanders has already shaped policy and has done his job. He never believed he would get the nomination and will be happy with Clinton as President.

 

[Greenbeard]

Prove it. It would be insane and suicidal for the DNC to refuse Sanders when the House and Senate are an extension of his mandate.

Maybe you can point me to all the House and Senate candidates running on single-payer right now that you're expecting to win their elections and get it through Congress. Because I'm not aware of the coming single-payer majority coalition, even in this blue sky Dem Congress hypothetical. An optional Medicare buy-in for the near-elderly couldn't even get through Congress in 2009. This stuff is hard and counting on a miracle is just going to leave you embittered when the miracle doesn't come to pass.

Do you honestly expect a candidate to have every, or even most details in place for such a complex and historic piece of legislation that would have to go through countless drafts while being made into policy during a campaign?

After decades of advocacy for it, I don't think it's a lot to ask that he have some idea of what he wants to propose. Every time he's been asked a tough question, he punts. When asked in a debate about what brought down Vermont's attempt to be the first state to implement single-payer, he said "go ask the governor, I'm just the senator from Vermont." When asked in a town hall by a supporter who works in the insurance industry what will happen to her job, he essentially said everybody in the health sector will just slide over to the delivery side of health care. Which doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. When asked about the financing and the fact that the new revenue he points to appears to significantly undershoot what's needed, the campaign just does some hand-waving about how it'll find plenty of savings to make up the difference.

These are serious questions and he obviously hasn't put much thought into coming up with serious answers. That's pretty troubling, since he's been beating the drum on this issue for many, many years.

There's a role for people like Bernie in things like this, but the big chair isn't it.

 

[Surrealistik]

She can get elected and that is the critical need. The Republicans have gone off their rocker and we cannot risk having them in charge. Sanders has already shaped policy and has done his job. He never believed he would get the nomination and will be happy with Clinton as President.

...Again, Sanders has superior electability by the numbers. If you're trying to tell me that comical GOP ads vilifying Bernie for socialism will outweigh the slew of legitimate and scathing attacks they can level against Clinton and Sanders' vastly superior head to head polling, likability and trustworthiness ratings, you're going to have a very hard sell on your hands.

Further, are you some kind of psychic that can somehow peer into the heart and soul of Sanders, and determine, contrary to every expressed intent, that he was at all points resigned to failure?

Maybe you can point me to all the House and Senate candidates running on single-payer right now that you're expecting to win their elections and get it through Congress. Because I'm not aware of the coming single-payer majority coalition, even in this blue sky Dem Congress hypothetical. An optional Medicare buy-in for the near-elderly couldn't even get through Congress in 2009. This stuff is hard and counting on a miracle is just going to leave you embittered when the miracle doesn't come to pass.

I dunno Greenbeard, maybe you can show me a House or Senate candidate who, by themselves, can get something as ambitious and encompassing as national singlepayer done in a vacuum without a clear movement behind it. If/when Sanders wins and expresses his intent to move forward on singlepayer per the support of these chambers, then lobbies hard, I have no doubt that Dems will fall in line and utilize that as part of their platform. Again, a Bernie victory, particularly a decisive Bernie victory with this as a pillar and cornerstone of his campaign, would represent a clear and present mandate; one that the DNC would be idiotic to refuse on a House/Senate flip. They can choose between electoral oblivion or enacting the policy they were voted in for.

After decades of advocacy for it, I don't think it's a lot to ask that he have some idea of what he wants to propose. Every time he's been asked a tough question, he punts. When asked in a debate about what brought down Vermont's attempt to be the first state to implement single-payer, he said "go ask the governor, I'm just the senator from Vermont." When asked in a town hall by a supporter who works in the insurance industry what will happen to her job, he essentially said everybody in the health sector will just slide over to the delivery side of health care. Which doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. When asked about the financing and the fact that the new revenue he points to appears to significantly undershoot what's needed, the campaign just does some hand-waving about how it'll find plenty of savings to make up the difference.

These are serious questions and he obviously hasn't put much thought into coming up with serious answers. That's pretty troubling, since he's been beating the drum on this issue for many, many years.

There's a role for people like Bernie in things like this, but the big chair isn't it.

You can dismiss Bernie all you like; repeating a lie that he is unelectable or unfit for office doesn't make it true, much as I understand this is a favoured tactic of Hillary supporters.

Again, the fact is that national singlepayer would be a tremendously complex piece of legislation that is bound to be subject to extensive mutation and revision before final implementation. Throwing out specifics for something like this during a primary or campaign would be like throwing darts at a moving target in the dark. The important thing is the core idea which is tried and proven in many countries and contexts. Further, he has specifically laid out his means of paying for it here; hardly handwaving at all: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

 

[Greenbeard]

I dunno Greenbeard, maybe you can show me a House or Senate candidate who, by themselves, can get something as ambitious and encompassing as national singlepayer done in a vacuum without a clear movement behind it. If/when Sanders wins and expresses his intent to move forward on singlepayer per the support of these chambers, then lobbies hard, I have no doubt that Dems will fall in line and utilize that as part of their platform. Again, a Bernie victory, particularly a decisive Bernie victory with this as a pillar and cornerstone of his campaign, would represent a clear and present mandate; one that the DNC would be idiotic to refuse on a House/Senate flip. They can choose between electoral oblivion or enacting the policy they were voted in for.

I suppose this is part of the problem. Despite all the talk of a "movement" there's no evidence Bernie is actually leading one. Primary turnout is down from '08 and he's still losing badly. These kinds of hand waving answers don't offer much confidence that if through some unlikely turn of events Bernie did find his way to the presidency he'd have any idea how to advance his agenda. "Then a miracle happens" is not a satisfying answer.

Equally important, from what I've seen the exit polls show that primary voters who rated health care as their number one issue have broken Clinton's way in state after state, even those Bernie wins. So the assumption of a mandate for single-party seems to be more an article of faith than anything else.

Again, the fact is that national singlepayer would be a tremendously complex piece of legislation that is bound to be subject to extensive mutation and revision before final implementation. Throwing out specifics for something like this during a primary or campaign would be like throwing darts at a moving target in the dark. The important thing is the core idea which is tried and proven in many countries and contexts. Further, he has specifically laid out his means of paying for it here; hardly handwaving at all: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

As I think I've made clear, one of my biggest concerns about Bernie is that I don't think he appreciates the complexity of the issue or is equipped to tackle it. What I'm hearing here is that he's got no particular plan, and no idea how this non-plan would be passed. That isn't a recipe for success. The immediate pivot to unnamed other countries instead of grappling with the realities of our system and policy environment of the U.S. just underscores how little there there is right now.