"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread

[MaceB]

I'm just curious, and maybe this is too personal. I'm just trying to understand Bernie's appeal. Are you 18-22 by any chance? Or older than 25? I know that sounds dismissive, I'm not trying to be I swear.

I'm 30, and I support Bernie for the following reasons:

1) He's the only one who prioritizes campaign reform and fixing our crony capitalistic system. There is literally no one else who makes it a voting issue, and it's the single biggest problem this country faces.
2) He's got a longstanding record defending progressive issues, so I know he believes what I believe.
3) He's the only one who talks about our military industrial complex and how it's completely overblown and needs to be changed.
4) He's the only one who's talking about healthcare for all.

In short, Bernie is an idealist. He's not settled with bad ideas just because they have become institutionalized in our system. I think that's important, since the other Dem seems willing to band aid our system rather than reforming it.

Nor do I buy into the cynical calculation that he can't win the general. He can. Dems have the female vote, the LGBT vote, the minority vote, and the lower class vote. Both Trump and Bernie's popularity is a clear sign that the American voter is hungry for something different.

And last, my vote is my political speech, guaranteed to me by the constitution and God himself. I won't give that up for anyone. Maybe Bernie is an idealist dream that won't ever happen, but why would I want to waste my free speech on a "pragmatist" who could win but that doesn't believe what I do? Isn't that what's been giving us political/corporate insiders for decades?

 

[CaptainWagner]

Man, he absolutely killed it tonight at the Democratic town Hall.

The comment about Hillary claiming to be a progressive while taking millions in donations from Wall Street was perfect. And she had no response. I'm honestly starting to think he stands a chance. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but he's certainly better than Hillary, Trump, or Cruz.

 

[summerteeth]

I have no problem responding to these. It's whether or not you actually take any of my answer seriously that I'd be concerned about. To answer summerteeth's question, I am 24 years old.

90% of what appeals to me about Bernie is that he isn't being bought. I personally ask anyone who supports Clinton > Bernie what they think of big money in politics. If they don't have a legitimate response to this, I know they don't know enough about the situation.

When Bernie talks about Glass Steagall and Citizens United, I know he's fighting for my voice. I'm not saying he's fighting for my specific opinion on abortion/gay marriage/war or whatever, I'm saying he's fighting for me to have a voice. Even if banks and wall st. weren't buying politicians across the board, my voice is small. But in the current political climate, my voice is non-existent.

[YT]5tu32CCA_Ig[/YT]Now for Lex,
1. Again, to me it's not about social issues or socialism. But the bottom line is, money is non-vital to me. I make plenty (and live in Cali, so that should give you a decent estimate of my income).
2. Nothing a Democrat fights for will come to pass. But I trust Bernie and what he will manage, is a cabinet and VP (potentially Elizabeth Warren who i also trust) and he will likely be able to appoint 2-4 supreme court justices who I can also trust. Not to mention the movement. If his "political revolution" kicks off, young people and progressives will continue to vote even when its not a damn presidential election. And we can clean up congress.
3. Again, not my primary concern, but I already pay out the ass to live in Cali. Where this does hit home is among my friends and family. People who stand to save thousands on health insurance premiums and plenty of young folks who want to go to college but their parents won't be able to afford it. But again, this is not my main concern. IF it came to pass, I'd be okay with it, IF it never came to pass, i wouldnt be particularly surprised.
4. This falls pretty close to the mark. Considering. But it's not like I havent done my research on this guy. lol

Anyway, I appreciate the modicum of respect you guys have shown in those responses. Please continue the debate. I love to be challenged so I can be certain I'm satisfied with my decision.

Trump isn't bought either lol. Anyways, McCain actually tried to get Campaign Finance Reform done, but I never saw the left rally around him.

1. I also live in Southern California and I know plenty of people that don't make much money. That doesn't necessarily mean much not saying you don't make a lot of money just saying the reasoning isn't there.

2. If any of his policies came to pass the economy would dip so much that any movement would immediately be killed and this country would swing so far right it would be scary and that's coming from a Republican.

3. Personally, I'm going to stand to lose thousands if his plan is passed and I'm in the middle class. Living in California we have some of the most affordable community colleges in the country.

Most people I know that have crushing debt didn't utilize this system and lived on campus. They paid for the college experience not their actual education. I lived at home (well if you can call it that it was foreclosed on and I lived there while nobody was making payments on it until the bank took it away) worked 30 + hours a week and went to community college and transferred to a four year to earn my degree. The people I know who are struggling are people who majored in things like screenwriting, costume design, and film production. Should taxpayers really pay more for stuff like that?

I find his stance on colleges rather elitist and well... somewhat racist really. I mean, I'm only the second person on my Dad's side of the family to graduate from college. In order to pay for free college tuition we are all going to have to pay more in taxes. That means hard working people who never went to college or never will go to college will have to pay into a system that isn't for them. Not everybody is college bound. Some people will become electricians, plumbers and construction workers etc. What about these blue collar workers? Why should their taxes go up to benefit some middle class/upper middle class/upper class white kid who wants to live in the dorms and experiment with drugs and sex? The focus should be driving down the price of college tuition. This is a problem I have with liberal policies you end up with less choice as a result. You get a program whether it works for you or not and have to pay for it.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I mean, in all honesty, you asked me why I'm voting for him then neglected to respond to the reason I'm voting for him other than:

Trump isn't bought either lol. Anyways, McCain actually tried to get Campaign Finance Reform done, but I never saw the left rally around him.

You're right about Trump, although being a billionaire himself doesnt really speak to his cause in this regard. As far as McCain goes, I wasn't old enough to vote when he ran for president.

Not sure if you've seen me express it, but I don't consider myself a liberal or a democrat inherently. If anything, I support "progressive independents fighting corruption."

1. I also live in Southern California and I know plenty of people that don't make much money. That doesn't necessarily mean much not saying you don't make a lot of money just saying the reasoning isn't there.

2. If any of his policies came to pass the economy would dip so much that any movement would immediately be killed and this country would swing so far right it would be scary and that's coming from a Republican.

3. Personally, I'm going to stand to lose thousands if his plan is passed and I'm in the middle class. Living in California we have some of the most affordable community colleges in the country.

Most people I know that have crushing debt didn't utilize this system and lived on campus. They paid for the college experience not their actual education. I lived at home (well if you can call it that it was foreclosed on and I lived there while nobody was making payments on it until the bank took it away) worked 30 + hours a week and went to community college and transferred to a four year to earn my degree. The people I know who are struggling are people who majored in things like screenwriting, costume design, and film production. Should taxpayers really pay more for stuff like that?

I find his stance on colleges rather elitist and well... somewhat racist really. I mean, I'm only the second person on my Dad's side of the family to graduate from college. In order to pay for free college tuition we are all going to have to pay more in taxes. That means hard working people who never went to college or never will go to college will have to pay into a system that isn't for them. Not everybody is college bound. Some people will become electricians, plumbers and construction workers etc. What about these blue collar workers? Why should their taxes go up to benefit some middle class/upper middle class/upper class white kid who wants to live in the dorms and experiment with drugs and sex? The focus should be driving down the price of college tuition. This is a problem I have with liberal policies you end up with less choice as a result. You get a program whether it works for you or not and have to pay for it.

it's cool that you make over a quarter million a year. I am really happy for you. But if we take his plan at face value, anyone who makes under that will only see a benefit. And that's 90% of the country. The majority. If you choose not to take his plan at face value, so be it. I don't blame you. But then you're telling me that you don't take any politicians plans at their word so you must realize they are all playing you.

And if they are all playing me (including Sanders) I at least want the stuff he's promising and cant deliver over the stuff everyone else is promising and can't deliver.

But that's inaccurate for me to say. I do trust the guy, sue me. And I don't treat him as the lesser of the evils. I think its the once in a lifetime opportunity we get to elect a non-evil. Not a lesser evil. A non-evil. I seriously doubt another presidental candidate in our lifetime will be able to raise $30 million (adjusted for inflation) in individual contributions. Especially not if we all see it fail this time.

I ask everyone I talk to how they feel about big money in politics. If they say its bad and aren't supporting Bernie, they are misguided.


In the end though, if you consider Bernie Sanders a racist elitist, I likely cannot help you see it my way.

 

[chaseter]

4+ year free college is asinine. I'm all for bringing down the ridiculous cost but I'm not paying for someone else's professional degrees. Get real here. It's a pander to the young vote and it's more entitlement. You aren't entitled to a BA in Theater.

Healthcare for all. Europe is drowning in debt. We can't give every single person quality healthcare. I'm sorry. It sucks. It's financially improbable. You would have to monitor lifestyle choices of everyone. Someone who eats burgers everyday doesn't deserve a free $60k heart surgery. The real issue is cost. Drug companies have monopolies, insurance costs for malpractice is outrageous, hospitals are owned by profit driven investor groups. We've made medicine an ultra lucrative business and we all have to pay. This issue is way deeper but cost is the main factor for problems.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

The real issue is cost. Drug companies have monopolies, insurance costs for malpractice is outrageous, hospitals are owned by profit driven investor groups. We've made medicine an ultra lucrative business and we all have to pay. This issue is way deeper but cost is the main factor for problems.

One of the rare moments you and I agree 100%. The aforementioned heart surgery as just one example shouldn't even cost $60k.

But any regulation on those things is usually considered socialism or at least anti-capitalism. (Actually I'm not certain which of those two things conservatives would say is worse)

Shkreli for example, is a guy who, had he not been such a surface-level *****ebag, would have been a hero among capitalist purists.

 

[MaceB]

4+ year free college is asinine. I'm all for bringing down the ridiculous cost but I'm not paying for someone else's professional degrees. Get real here. It's a pander to the young vote and it's more entitlement. You aren't entitled to a BA in Theater.

1) Most of the rest of the industrialized world aims to have paid education.
2) It's an investment, not an expense. Just like the individual now invests to better their chances at income later, so to can the country invest to bring down costs as we migrate to the new technological age. If we have a bunch of uneducated millennials, it'll cost us more in the long run, believe me.
3) Bernie has a plan to pay for it. Why not give it a gander and do the research on whether it could work?
4) In a country where our defense spending is equivalent to the ten runner up countries combined, the funds are clearly available if we prioritize them differently.
5) And here comes the "you didn't earn that" sort of argument. This isn't a popularity contest. It's not about picking winners and losers, like we do today. It's about giving everyone an equal playing field. It doesn't matter whether you think a large portion of the populace doesn't deserve it. We all would do better as a country if we all had education available to us. A rising tide lifts all boats. This impulse to make some worthy of benefits while others not is language aimed at perpetuating inequality. We don't need to settle for inequality. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 100 wrong doers get away then 1 deserving person left without. Call me a dreamer... but I'm not the only one.

Healthcare for all. Europe is drowning in debt. We can't give every single person quality healthcare. I'm sorry. It sucks. It's financially improbable. You would have to monitor lifestyle choices of everyone. Someone who eats burgers everyday doesn't deserve a free $60k heart surgery. The real issue is cost. Drug companies have monopolies, insurance costs for malpractice is outrageous, hospitals are owned by profit driven investor groups. We've made medicine an ultra lucrative business and we all have to pay. This issue is way deeper but cost is the main factor for problems.

Ask the Canadians if it can't be done. Tell them that they can't afford it and see what happens. You say it's improbable, but we have tons and tons and tons of models on how it could work and be stable. Europe's socialized medicine is not on the verge of collapse. Not to mention, we spend more than any country in the Western world. There are savings there for those in need. Do you honestly like the fact that we are beholden to for-profit insurance companies and drug companies for our healthcare? I mean...what do you think their incentives are? They are publicly traded for gosh's sakes.
And again, you're arguing to throw the baby out with the bath water here. Your argument is that since a few people eat too much and need heart repair which they don't deserve, then we should void the whole prospect. What about the single moms who have to choose between their own health and the welfare of their children? What about the kids right out of high school who don't have family support? They should what... just die? This sort of language is masked in practicality, but it's really just cruel.
And if the real issue is cost, than a single payer option would create competition. If it's really about cost, then a medicare for all program would be able to leverage its buying power to bring costs down. I mean... we're Japan's standing army for goodness' sakes. Japan... one of the biggest economies in the whole world. Sure it'll be hard; most worthwhile things are. It's a question of priorities and our will to change.. not feasibility.

 

[chaseter]

Pure capitalism is driven by greed. I'm all for regulations that make sense. Non profit CEOs shouldn't make millions. Any company subsidized by the tax payer should have salary and bonus caps. Big pharma shouldn't be allowed to advertise or hold patents for 7 years on life saving drugs. Place a cap on profits for drug companies...forcing them to reinvest in more research. Hospitals should be non-profit...along with aforementioned caps. Local providers can charge what they want, capitalism!!!, but competition will lower prices. They need help though because insurance drown providers. Hospital chains are drowning competition. Lastly, illegal citizens deserve emergency care but anything beyond that, the provider should be able to turn away non paying individuals. We already have partial government run hospitals subsidized by the state.

The other big factor is punishing companies that outsource. We export more jobs than any other country. That sucks money out of our country that could go to infrastructure and healthcare subsidies.

 

[MaceB]

Lastly, illegal citizens deserve emergency care but anything beyond that, the provider should be able to turn away non paying individuals. We already have partial government run hospitals subsidized by the state.

Using those kinds of services in a capitalistic system raises costs for everybody. And again... what are you saying? That we should turn them away so they can die in the street?

 

[chaseter]

Using those kinds of services in a capitalistic system raises costs for everybody. And again... what are you saying? That we should turn them away so they can die in the street?

Did you read 'emergency' services? We can't foot the bill for non tax payers for everything. This isn't a lollipop land filled with rainbows and money trees. We live in a place called reality. You may ask Canada if they can pay for tens of millions of illegal immigrants since their model is ideal to you.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

This isn't a lollipop land filled with rainbows and money trees. We live in a place called reality.

Just a small note on this, we are a very wealthy country. Like absurdly so (comparatively). And I doubt anyone would argue that is because of hard-working individuals (I mean where else would the money come from?).

The unfortunate part is 95% of us will never see this. So much of this production goes straight up the ladder to sit in the banks of the wealthy.

Now, whatever your opinion on this may be,
- it's their money they can burn it if they want
- it's their money they earned it fair and square
- it's their money their family gifted it to them

Money that is just sitting, is not helping anyone. And we can take a couple hints from that show hoarders on this one.

 

[chaseter]

We can't tax individuals or businesses over 50%. Capital is mobile in an industrialized global economy...see so many examples. We can't force others to pay for everything for everyone. College isn't a necessity. Not everyone can be a marine biologist. You don't need to go to a University to become a construction worker. That is reality. We are raising a generation of unrealists. Lower the cost of college and let the hardworkers achieve their own goals. As for healthcare, we again can't pay for everything. It sucks but it's reality. Everyone needs to pay taxes, not just the rich, in any socialist society. Europe's debt is crumbling them. The EU and Canada's debt are pushing 90% gdp. Please tell me how that is a model we want to strive for? What happens when it's over 100? All of these industrialized countries are shipping jobs (wealth) overseas to countries that are trying to become indrustrialized like China and India. These rich countries are slowly crumbling as imports exceed exports. Guess who suffers? The middle class, the poor...certainly not the rich. They can go anywhere.

 

[summerteeth]

I mean, in all honesty, you asked me why I'm voting for him then neglected to respond to the reason I'm voting for him other than:



You're right about Trump, although being a billionaire himself doesnt really speak to his cause in this regard. As far as McCain goes, I wasn't old enough to vote when he ran for president.

Not sure if you've seen me express it, but I don't consider myself a liberal or a democrat inherently. If anything, I support "progressive independents fighting corruption."



it's cool that you make over a quarter million a year. I am really happy for you. But if we take his plan at face value, anyone who makes under that will only see a benefit. And that's 90% of the country. The majority. If you choose not to take his plan at face value, so be it. I don't blame you. But then you're telling me that you don't take any politicians plans at their word so you must realize they are all playing you.

And if they are all playing me (including Sanders) I at least want the stuff he's promising and cant deliver over the stuff everyone else is promising and can't deliver.

But that's inaccurate for me to say. I do trust the guy, sue me. And I don't treat him as the lesser of the evils. I think its the once in a lifetime opportunity we get to elect a non-evil. Not a lesser evil. A non-evil. I seriously doubt another presidental candidate in our lifetime will be able to raise $30 million (adjusted for inflation) in individual contributions. Especially not if we all see it fail this time.

I ask everyone I talk to how they feel about big money in politics. If they say its bad and aren't supporting Bernie, they are misguided.


In the end though, if you consider Bernie Sanders a racist elitist, I likely cannot help you see it my way.

I make about 60,000 a year but my benefits are fully paid for by my employer. Any tax increase would be a new cost for me towards health care that I previously did not pay for and would probably be a worse plan. So I am taking him at his word. It just will cost me money.

I never said he was a racist. The policy will end up being disproportionately benefitting white people over people of color who will most likely see an increase in their taxes to pay for free college. I say it's elitist because it presumes everyone is college bound or wants to be. It will make people pay for a service they never used or will never use which is garbage. I think he means well but as as an old white man I don't think he quite understands some of the communities he wants to help and his tuition free policies would have an adverse effect on.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I make about 60,000 a year but my benefits are fully paid for by my employer. Any tax increase would be a new cost for me towards health care that I previously did not pay for and would probably be a worse plan. So I am taking him at his word. It just will cost me money.

I never said he was a racist. The policy will end up being disproportionately benefitting white people over people of color who will most likely see an increase in their taxes to pay for free college. I say it's elitist because it presumes everyone is college bound or wants to be. It will make people pay for a service they never used or will never use which is garbage. I think he means well but as as an old white man I don't think he quite understands some of the communities he wants to help and his tuition free policies would have an adverse effect on.

Well I think *ideally* your employer would see that they could take the money they are investing in your healthcare currently and cycle it into a pay bump (and since we are mostly talking in ideals anyway, i figure thats a safe thing to say).

In other words, people won't have to seek and hope for a job that offers benefits and companies won't have to worry about competing in that arena. They still could but they don't have to. And I guess it comes down to who you trust more with your health. The government or your employer.

In the past I may have said I trust employers more than I trust government policy, but these days I'm not so sure.

As with so many of these things though, it would be far less non-sensical for them to approach a situation like yours (nation-wide) with both the option of government-funded healthcare and another option for grandfathering you and your company into the singlepayer system.

There is absolutely something to be said for the people who are completely disinterested in college. As there even is with people who are disinterested in High School for that matter. But even applying for the skill-oriented jobs you mention often yields better results for those with college degrees. Education is never a bad thing in my humble opinion.

The foundation of education needs some serious reworking too however, and I do think it's fair to say that in urban populations this would be a far better reform policy for everyone, including people of color.

 

[MaceB]

Did you read 'emergency' services? We can't foot the bill for non tax payers for everything. This isn't a lollipop land filled with rainbows and money trees. We live in a place called reality. You may ask Canada if they can pay for tens of millions of illegal immigrants since their model is ideal to you.

I believe I saw that, yes,. Having a large portion of the country rely on emergency services though raises the rates for all of us. Maybe I'm not following you. And again I ask..what would you do with these people? I'm not talking about those who are taxed; I'm talking about those who are insured... and the only way to get to 100% insured is to do a Medicare for all type approach. Because someone drank every day, maybe they deserve to die a painful death due to a failing liver... But what about the single moms who can't find work? The children without a decent home? Do they deserve to die too? And wouldn't it be more costly to refuse service? Having a healthier pool of people who can do their yearly check up without breaking the bank will increase savings for citizens, and the providers. Again, a rising tide lifts all boats. It's in our best interest to build the middle class and keep folks healthy.

You say we don't live in a lollipop land, but insuring everyone isn't some far off crazy utopia. Nearly every industrialized country besides ours does healthcare for all, and they pay far far less than we do. I didn't bring up Canada in order to imply that there aren't difficulties, but as a people, they'd be outraged if it was taken away. Despite the obstacles, they see in it in their best interest. They live in a world of "we" instead of "me," and economically, they aren't on the edge of destruction yet. And also, if we have more air craft carriers and worthless soviet era jets than anyone in the Earth combined, it's doable. It's about priorities. You say that the reality is that we have to stick with the bad system we have. I say you need to try harder. We can do better. It's about political will.

 

[Warhammer]

I make about 60,000 a year but my benefits are fully paid for by my employer. Any tax increase would be a new cost for me towards health care that I previously did not pay for and would probably be a worse plan. So I am taking him at his word. It just will cost me money.

I never said he was a racist. The policy will end up being disproportionately benefitting white people over people of color who will most likely see an increase in their taxes to pay for free college. I say it's elitist because it presumes everyone is college bound or wants to be. It will make people pay for a service they never used or will never use which is garbage. I think he means well but as as an old white man I don't think he quite understands some of the communities he wants to help and his tuition free policies would have an adverse effect on.

Don't we already do this?

 

[chaseter]

I believe I saw that, yes,. Having a large portion of the country rely on emergency services though raises the rates for all of us. Maybe I'm not following you. And again I ask..what would you do with these people? I'm not talking about those who are taxed; I'm talking about those who are insured... and the only way to get to 100% insured is to do a Medicare for all type approach. Because someone drank every day, maybe they deserve to die a painful death due to a failing liver... But what about the single moms who can't find work? The children without a decent home? Do they deserve to die too? And wouldn't it be more costly to refuse service? Having a healthier pool of people who can do their yearly check up without breaking the bank will increase savings for citizens, and the providers. Again, a rising tide lifts all boats. It's in our best interest to build the middle class and keep folks healthy.

You say we don't live in a lollipop land, but insuring everyone isn't some far off crazy utopia. Nearly every industrialized country besides ours does healthcare for all, and they pay far far less than we do. I didn't bring up Canada in order to imply that there aren't difficulties, but as a people, they'd be outraged if it was taken away. Despite the obstacles, they see in it in their best interest. They live in a world of "we" instead of "me," and economically, they aren't on the edge of destruction yet. And also, if we have more air craft carriers and worthless soviet era jets than anyone in the Earth combined, it's doable. It's about priorities. You say that the reality is that we have to stick with the bad system we have. I say you need to try harder. We can do better. It's about political will.

You can't implement UHC in America. We would go bankrupt. Canada's citizens are healthier, it's 1/10th the size of the US, and they don't border a third world country. If Canada's population was 10% illegal immigrants, they would go broke. If 2/3 of their population was overweight, they would go broke. Americans are obese and unhealthy. You can't pay health bills for an increasingly unhealthy population. It's also not fair to those that exercise and eat right. The EU has 90% debt to gdp. In 20 years, they'll be insolvent. Look at Greece. There is no perfect model of UHC.

The real problem is cost. It's why Obamacare is largely a flop. So you insured everyone but it still costs an arm and a leg. Thanks Obama. Pay your crazy high monthly premiums and your crazy high deductible.

Medicare for all will also fail. See social security...especially as the population gets more and more unhealthy. This generation of children are projected to live shorter than their parents thanks to obesity. If you implement UHC, you would have to implement mandatory exercise and eating right. Not gonna happen.

 

[summerteeth]

Well I think *ideally* your employer would see that they could take the money they are investing in your healthcare currently and cycle it into a pay bump (and since we are mostly talking in ideals anyway, i figure thats a safe thing to say).

In other words, people won't have to seek and hope for a job that offers benefits and companies won't have to worry about competing in that arena. They still could but they don't have to. And I guess it comes down to who you trust more with your health. The government or your employer.

In the past I may have said I trust employers more than I trust government policy, but these days I'm not so sure.

As with so many of these things though, it would be far less non-sensical for them to approach a situation like yours (nation-wide) with both the option of government-funded healthcare and another option for grandfathering you and your company into the singlepayer system.

There is absolutely something to be said for the people who are completely disinterested in college. As there even is with people who are disinterested in High School for that matter. But even applying for the skill-oriented jobs you mention often yields better results for those with college degrees. Education is never a bad thing in my humble opinion.

The foundation of education needs some serious reworking too however, and I do think it's fair to say that in urban populations this would be a far better reform policy for everyone, including people of color.

I didn't realize we were talking ideally, I thought we were taking him at his word? Anyways, no I doubt employers will do that because they are also being hit with a 2.2% tax increase remember? So it'll probably go to that. You are bringing up things that aren't part of his proposal.


To answer your question though, I would say neither. I trust me to make the best decision about my own healthcare. If my employer wasn't giving me what I needed I would go elsewhere.


Education does need to be completely revamped, but this would add to what is part of the problem. This idea that there is a singular model for education for every kid. If a student doesn't meet that model right now in k-12 they fall through the cracks. If they aren't college bound they have very little support and they are treated as not as worthy of education as other students. You keep acting like it's a matter of choice for some of these kids. Not everyone is capable of going to college nor will they be able to go to college.

I do think it's fair to say that in urban populations this would be a far better reform policy for everyone, including people of color.

Please explain how? 15% of Hispanics ages 25-29 have a bachelor degree or higher I guess who cares about the other 85% huh?. 22% of African Americans 25-29 have a bachelor degree or higher. This is compared to 40% of white people. don't think that white people are going to benefit from this more than minority groups? And just to stop you, it isn't cost that's causing this gap. Just look at high school graduation rates, only 75% of Hispanics graduate from high school. We need to reform k-12 education and give these kids an actual shot. Bernie's free college for all policy will overwhelmingly benefit middle and upper class white people.

Don't we already do this?

To some degree, but not completely like Bernie would have us do.

 

[MaceB]

You can't implement UHC in America. We would go bankrupt.

These folks disagree with you.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/august/america-needs-cost-effective-universal-health-care
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-the-United-States-provide-universal-health-care-like-other-countries
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/health-care-its-what-ails-us

Again, every other industrialized country in the world does universal health care. You're saying that are citizens are so different, that our conditions are so unique, that it's off the table/not possible without even trying? Okay.
Plus, you're disregarding the savings that would come with universal healthcare. Savings for the providers who no longer have to do as many emergency room procedures. Savings for the citizens who would pay more for taxes but less in out of pocket hospital expenses. The ACA has cut our deficit according to the CBO for this very reason.
Also, note that we pay more than every other country, because we rely on for-profit insurance companies. A single payer option would be able to leverage itself to bring costs down.
So no, it'd be difficult to be sure, but not impossible.

Canada's citizens are healthier, it's 1/10th the size of the US, and they don't border a third world country. If Canada's population was 10% illegal immigrants, they would go broke. If 2/3 of their population was overweight, they would go broke. Americans are obese and unhealthy. You can't pay health bills for an increasingly unhealthy population.

You need a citation for claims like these. Here's mine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-f...nadian-style-healthcare-work-vermont-sanghavi
http://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CaseForUHC.pdf

Again, you're disregarding the economic gains of lower pharma bills, lower hospital bills, less ER visits, more leverage to set the price, etc. You're accounting for all the costs, but not taking into account all the gains.
Also, it's a question of priorities as I said before. We have the largest fleet in the world several times over in a post cold war world that doesn't need them anymore. It's about moving the money around. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No.
Also, your argument that Americans are so unhealthy that it wouldn't work is exactly the reason why UHC would be so beneficial. If people can afford to get check ups and see their doctor about various things, they'll be more prone to go, which will improve their health and life expectancy.

It's also not fair to those that exercise and eat right. The EU has 90% debt to gdp. In 20 years, they'll be insolvent. Look at Greece. There is no perfect model of UHC.

So we're going to let people go bankrupt and maybe even pass away because it's not fair to you? Selfish. Anyway, I'd argue that such troubles are mostly due to austerity, specifically as you mention Greece.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/art...-unraveling-of-european-universal-health-care
Also, they've been saying this stuff for years and years... oh it's going bankrupt. But it never does. Know why? Cause they make it a priority. It's a MORAL responsibility above all, and as such you finance those sorts of things.
And you seem set on trying to argue that we can't rather than asking how we could. How about a tobacco tax? Plastic bag tax? Capital gains? etc? There are so many ways to bring up money while also encouraging good behavior. How about taxing snack food? Give the added bonus of discouraging overeating while also helping to pay for our system. There are several streams of revenue that we aren't taking advantage of yet.

The real problem is cost. It's why Obamacare is largely a flop. So you insured everyone but it still costs an arm and a leg. Thanks Obama. Pay your crazy high monthly premiums and your crazy high deductible.

The ACA has been an outrageous success! http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...e-has-been-even-more-successful-than-expected
It's brought hospital costs down. Reduced the deficit according to the CBO. It's reduced the medical cost curve by historic levels. Increased the number of insured and surpassed expectations. 68% of people who bought from exchanges rated their plan good, very good, or excellent. Premiums aren't rising as you say... or at least there doing it at a smaller level than has happened in decades.
https://newrepublic.com/article/119623/obamacare-one-year-seven-charts-show-law-working
And that's not even mentioning the MORAL reasons why it's a success. More insured, children get to stay on their parents plan, no pre-existing conditions, etc.
Obamacare has been a huge success by every metric, whether it be on citizen's premiums, medical expenses, hospital expenditures, or the national deficit.

Medicare for all will also fail. See social security...especially as the population gets more and more unhealthy. This generation of children are projected to live shorter than their parents thanks to obesity. If you implement UHC, you would have to implement mandatory exercise and eating right. Not gonna happen.

I don't understand what you're trying to say about social security. So, again and again and again, what's your solution? Just go with the way it is and let these folks die in the street? I say we can do better. I despise this conservative "pragmatism" which is really just a way to say "screw them, I have mine." I find it cruel and disgusting. I say you're not even trying to see how it could work. I say that because of our poor health, we NEED a better medical insurance system. Like the rest of the world.

 

[summerteeth]

These folks disagree with you.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/august/america-needs-cost-effective-universal-health-care
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-the-United-States-provide-universal-health-care-like-other-countries
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/health-care-its-what-ails-us




You need a citation for claims like these. Here's mine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-f...nadian-style-healthcare-work-vermont-sanghavi
http://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CaseForUHC.pdf

.

Did you just quote an article on Vermont as an example as to why it would work? You realize they ditched the program because they figured it wasn't going to work right?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

The numbers were stunning. To implement single-payer, the analysis showed, it would cost $4.3 billion in 2017, with Vermont taxpayers picking up $2.6 billion and the federal government covering the rest. To put the figures into perspective, Vermont’s entire fiscal 2015 budget, including both state and federal funds, is about $4.9 billion.

Shumlin’s office estimated the state would need to impose new personal income taxes of up to 9.5 percent, on top of current rates that range from 3.55 to 8.95 percent. Businesses would be hit with an 11.5 percent payroll tax, on top of 7.65 percent payroll taxes employer pay for Social Security and Medicare.

 

[MaceB]

Well, to be faire, I quoted many articles speaking to the feasibility, so I'll just extend all those other citations. I wasn't aware of that in Vermont, though I'm sure its much much more difficult on the state level than it is on the federal level. I'll have to research more, since I'm sure it's a nuanced situation.

Also, since it's so easy to pick out one argument and use it to lambast the whole point, I'll just rehash some of my args not addressed.

1) we are the only industrialized world without UHC
2) There are many sources of income that we haven't explored... plastic bag tax, tobacco tax, junk food tax, capital gains, wall street bank transfer tax, etc.
3) It's a moral issue - that trumps all
4) There would be a cost, but there'd also be gains and it isn't proper to accept one while ignoring the other.
5) We have a huge amount of military spending and waste that we could cut. It's about priorities.

That's just off the top of my head. Want more citations? There's plenty of educated folks who can speak to the feasibility and benefits of UHC.

 

[summerteeth]

Also, since it's so easy to pick out one argument and use it to lambast the whole point, I'll just rehash some of my args not addressed.

.

Not really, not a well constructed argument. Unless, you are taking it out of context or misrepresenting something.

 

[MaceB]

Not really, not a well constructed argument.

...so my five points aren't even worthy of contention cause they're so bad? uh huh. What's the logical fallacy here?

1) there are more sources of income that we could pull from
2) moral imperative
3) Only country without it
4) We pay much more than said countries
5) Our military spending is huge and could be cut along with other departments

Let me know how those are weak arguments, and I'll try to expand on them.

 

[summerteeth]

...so my five points aren't even worthy of contention cause they're so bad? uh huh. What's the logical fallacy here?

1) there are more sources of income that we could pull from
2) moral imperative
3) Only country without it
4) We pay much more than said countries
5) Our military spending is huge and could be cut along with other departments

Let me know how those are weak arguments, and I'll try to expand on them.

What is the logical fallacy? I'm not responding to your argument because you backed it up with weak sources like the Vermont story and Quora.

 

[hippie_hunter]

1) there are more sources of income that we could pull from

That would be very, very unpopular to pass. Good luck selling things like a VAT tax or raising taxes on the middle class. This is the biggest hurdle to affording universal health care, politicians don't have the balls to pass the revenues needed to fund it.

2) moral imperative

Which is opinion based.

3) Only country without it

And keep in mind the fiscal state of the countries with it. Let me give you a hint, it's pretty bad right now. Even the more secure nations like the UK have been performing harsh austerity measures on their social welfare system.

4) We pay much more than said countries

Which can be tackled in various ways without universal health care.

5) Our military spending is huge and could be cut along with other departments

Just like with the tax arguement: good luck trying to sell that. Cutting the military budget is not a popular notion, especially in the past couple of years thanks to the rise of ISIS. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that it needs to get cut, but let's be realistic here.