"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread

[Thundercrack85]

What country, and I'm not trying to be obstinate here, real question....what country with our population size has that type of healthcare system that is working?

Kelly, there isn't one. But why can - and do - we have the world's greatest military, and not the world's greatest health care system? Why do we all agree that the country's defense is a shared responsibility, but not the country's healthcare?

It just seems insane to me. The country builds tanks it doesn't need while people die from a lack of healthcare. And when I say it doesn't need them, that's not me saying that, it's the army itself. To quote the chief of staff: "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

Why do we have thousands of state-of-the-art tanks sitting in a parking lot, when people die because of treatable conditions, they can't afford to have treated? Of course, it's not just the tanks, but they are the most gratuitous example.

 

[Charlatan]

There's a cancer drug my mother in-law is on now to help keep her in remission. If we had the UKs model, she wouldn't be able to get it because of a cost/benefit analysis done in the UK which deemed the drug not worth the price.

It's the same argument with capitalism vs socialism. One supports greed and might not be the most moral position to take. However, the other offers a stagnant society null of innovation from a lack of motivation.

Greed is good when it's leading to new breakthroughs. There's a reason why French come to the US in droves for advanced medical care.

Living in America is hard. Nothing should be handed to anyone. This is the land of the free, not the land of the "take care of me". This is the backbone of our society. Over the past 80 years this country has slowly lost that in favor of more safety nets. As a result, we have stopped taking so many risks and risk falling to the same evils that doom our European counterparts. America has always been different. Success has come from that. If we continue to act like a European nation, we should expect similar results.

Like capitalists don't ever fail to research and develop things if it doesn't pass their cost/benefit analysis. lol.
She's lucky her insurance covers it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There's a cancer drug my mother in-law is on now to help keep her in remission. If we had the UKs model, she wouldn't be able to get it because of a cost/benefit analysis done in the UK which deemed the drug not worth the price.

It's the same argument with capitalism vs socialism. One supports greed and might not be the most moral position to take. However, the other offers a stagnant society null of innovation from a lack of motivation.

Greed is good when it's leading to new breakthroughs. There's a reason why French come to the US in droves for advanced medical care.

Living in America is hard. Nothing should be handed to anyone. This is the land of the free, not the land of the "take care of me". This is the backbone of our society. Over the past 80 years this country has slowly lost that in favor of more safety nets. As a result, we have stopped taking so many risks and risk falling to the same evils that doom our European counterparts. America has always been different. Success has come from that. If we continue to act like a European nation, we should expect similar results.

Your country is crumbling around you. No one is saying the UK's healthcare system is perfect. Every system can be and should be improved. It's true America has been different, and I hope it continues to be different in some ways, but different isn't always better. I mean, if you want to not use the metric system, that's a funny quirk. Not having universal healthcare in the 21st century is insane. The current gun laws are insane. The current education system is insane. I could go on.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

What country, and I'm not trying to be obstinate here, real question....what country with our population size has that type of healthcare system that is working?

There are only two countries in the world bigger than the US by population. Neither is necessarily a fair example because they are 4 times bigger. And neither is as wealthy as the US.

But to answer your question in a reasonable manner, Brazil. And this would probably be more convincing if a Zika outbreak wasnt currently in the news, but they have a pretty expansive universal healthcare system guaranteed by the constitution. It is only on the upswing. They have some issues in the realm of coverage and infrastructure being that Southern Brazil is far more modern, urbanized and affluent than the North, but where it works, it works well.

Others might say the EU as a whole, being that they use a single currency (which is better off than the US dollar) and virtually all of their countries provide healthcare to their citizens. The EU's debt is lower than the US in total, per capita and growing slower (a fact I just learned). It's also worth noting that private healthcare still exists there. So it's not like one replaces the other.

 

[Kelly]

Kelly, there isn't one. But why can - and do - we have the world's greatest military, and not the world's greatest health care system? Why do we all agree that the country's defense is a shared responsibility, but not the country's healthcare?

It just seems insane to me. The country builds tanks it doesn't need while people die from a lack of healthcare. And when I say it doesn't need them, that's not me saying that, it's the army itself. To quote the chief of staff: "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

Why do we have thousands of state-of-the-art tanks sitting in a parking lot, when people die because of treatable conditions, they can't afford to have treated? Of course, it's not just the tanks, but they are the most gratuitous example.

Oh I agree with you wholeheartedly , it's just that money is not the only thing that's gonna fix this the size of our bureaucracy and the fact that most of the countries except for course Canada have a unitary type of government does very centralized where as we have a federal government that is far from centralized state governments should have their own ways and means taking in taxes spending them along with many other things add to that a huge population is not something that we can just say oh we need it here does in writing now will figure out how to pay for it . I for one have absolutely no problem paying the kind of taxes that say a Swedish citizen pays if I knew that my government was going to spend it efficiently and effectively this government has never proven that they can do that there in lies the problem.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Having lived in some of what could charitably be described as America's less successful states, I am not a fan of the state administering healthcare. True that might work well in Massachusetts, or some other developed state, but then you have, well let me not name names.

I am all for further centralization. Trying to have 50 different healthcare systems, makes as much sense as America having 50 air forces. And that's without Republicans sabotaging it. The cluster-**** that is Obama, shows how unworkable that is. Republican governors will let their constituents die for want of healthcare just to prove a point. Ideally the purview of state governments should be things like keeping up roads, and electrical grids, but they have shown themselves to be inept at even that.

I'm not saying there can't be some sort of regionalization. But on a state level...

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I wish Bernie would become president of Hawaii.

I'd pack my s--t the same day he was sworn in.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There's a cancer drug my mother in-law is on now to help keep her in remission. If we had the UKs model, she wouldn't be able to get it because of a cost/benefit analysis done in the UK which deemed the drug not worth the price.

It's the same argument with capitalism vs socialism. One supports greed and might not be the most moral position to take. However, the other offers a stagnant society null of innovation from a lack of motivation.

Greed is good when it's leading to new breakthroughs. There's a reason why French come to the US in droves for advanced medical care.

Living in America is hard. Nothing should be handed to anyone. This is the land of the free, not the land of the "take care of me". This is the backbone of our society. Over the past 80 years this country has slowly lost that in favor of more safety nets. As a result, we have stopped taking so many risks and risk falling to the same evils that doom our European counterparts. America has always been different. Success has come from that. If we continue to act like a European nation, we should expect similar results.

If you understand that greed is preventing renewable energy to becoming common place then you could see the danger of greedy people overseeing medical research that finds treatments instead of cures.

Or profit obsessed companies controlling drug prices and surgery schedules or hospital billing.

 

[chaseter]

Taxes can serve as a great way to support or punish poor habits. No laws, just a carrot and a stick.

What about the poor?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What about the poor?

Poor people do pay a laziness sin tax. It's called living to check to check and fewer options.

What about a sin tax for greedy people? Isn't greed a seven deadly sin?

Greed has brought buck more suffering than sloth.

Think about it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Radix malorum est cupiditas. You know, that quote from Donald Trump's favorite book. Chapter "One Timothy".

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I have to say "greed is the root of evil" makes more sense than "money is the root of all evil".

You can greedy about love, money, pride, etc

 

[Micromind]

There's a cancer drug my mother in-law is on now to help keep her in remission. If we had the UKs model, she wouldn't be able to get it because of a cost/benefit analysis done in the UK which deemed the drug not worth the price.

It's the same argument with capitalism vs socialism. One supports greed and might not be the most moral position to take. However, the other offers a stagnant society null of innovation from a lack of motivation.

Greed is good when it's leading to new breakthroughs. There's a reason why French come to the US in droves for advanced medical care.

Living in America is hard. Nothing should be handed to anyone. This is the land of the free, not the land of the "take care of me". This is the backbone of our society. Over the past 80 years this country has slowly lost that in favor of more safety nets. As a result, we have stopped taking so many risks and risk falling to the same evils that doom our European counterparts. America has always been different. Success has come from that. If we continue to act like a European nation, we should expect similar results.

Life saving drugs should not cost that much in the first place... it's costly as manufacturers heavily indulge in over-pricing, that's the shortcoming of profit based economy.

 

[chaseter]

Poor people do pay a laziness sin tax. It's called living to check to check and fewer options.

What about a sin tax for greedy people? Isn't greed a seven deadly sin?

Greed has brought buck more suffering than sloth.

Think about it.

So it's ok for the poor to be overweight and unhealthy under UHC because rich people are greedy and they should pay for like, everything!?

You remember that part in Billy Madison when he rambles without answering the question?

 

[chaseter]

I have to say "greed is the root of evil" makes more sense than "money is the root of all evil".

You can greedy about love, money, pride, etc

I agree. But, implementing UHC means implementing healthier living measures on everyone and monitoring each person's progress. Otherwise, the country would go broke. It's impossible. We are a nation of obese people and it's only getting worse. You can't medically cover everyone if we choose to eat bad, not exercise, and be overweight and it's not the governnent's role to nanny people. People that make bad life choices need to fail. For some unfortunately that means a shorter life through smoking, drinking, eating, risky behavior, drugs, etc etc. I guess we could jail fat people...

 

[kedrell]

They've tried to implement a Luxury Tax before and that basically could be called a Greed Tax. It didn't work and they abandoned it shortly after trying it since it didn't raise nearly as much $ as they thought they'd get. Greed may not be moral but it is motivating. Sloth by definition does not.

 

[hippie_hunter]

He's not unelectable. I mean, you can keep saying that. By all means keep saying that. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I postulate that for the sheer reasoning expressed in that quote alone, HRC is more unelectable. More HRC dems will support Bernie in the GE than Bernie supporters will support Hillary.

So speaking of electability, if the polls say Sanders doing better than HRC against Trump/Cruz, and the logic behind their supporters says Sanders' camp is more avidly opposed to HRC than the other way around, and if a spade is a spade, and if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

And you can keep telling yourself that Bernie is electable. You have to look at core fundamentals and it all works against Bernie.

My biggest annoyance with Bernie's electoral math is that it is the exact same as Ted Cruz's. And by that I mean it is completely nonsensical and ******ed. There isn't this vast wealth of untapped voters at the extreme ends of the aisle who just haven't come out and voted simply because there hasn't been a pure conservative or pure progressive. Americans typically vote for a candidate that is closest to the center, which is where most Americans lie. Bernie is not a centrist. He is running a campaign that disdains moderation.

And to focus more on American voters, American voters will typically also vote for the more pragmatic choice. Voters will reject a candidate like Bernie Sanders when they realize that they will get absolutely nothing done. It's one thing to criticize Presidents like Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. for failing to live up to lofty expectations, but if you look at Bernie's platform, it is filled with nonstarters that have no chance of even being considered. Even Bernie's own party is saying that it isn't going to happen. And to move onto my third reason why Bernie unelectable, this perfectly segues into that part:

Bernie's own party will not support him. This will be the same problem that a candidate like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz would face, in fears of electoral oblivion at all levels, the party will shy away from the Presidential candidate in a grotesque save yourself preservation mode. When the party shys away from its own candidate, it doesn't make the candidate look any good. It's their way of saying that they give up. They're not going to invest resources necessary to win in order to save them for future battles.

Attacks on Bernie write themselves. Bernie gives the GOP a lot to work with on health care, budget matters, taxation, social issues, etc. They will attack Bernie as someone who will raise taxes on all. They will attack him as someone who will take from the middle class to give to the lazy poor and people of color. He will spend us into oblivion. And so on. Bernie on the other hand will counter the same way he always does, by sounding like a ****ing broken record.

And finally, just look at his Iowa win. Bernie dominates in the base that he has of young millennial voters. But he will do horribly with other demographics as they get older (just like he did with the Iowa caucuses). He will dominate extreme progressive voters, but will do horribly with moderates and conservatives (again, just like what happened in Iowa) and Republicans will probably peel away more Democrats than he will with Republicans. He will dominate with black voters because blacks, rightfully so I might add, see Republican as a four letter word, but he will do poorly with whites and I find it unlikely that the likely GOP candidate (Rubio) will do as poorly with Latinos that Mitt Romney did.

If I were a betting man, if Bernie gets the nomination, it would be a massive Republican victory. Bernie would probably even lose in traditionally solid Democratic states like New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. He would lose states that lean Democratic like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And he has no chance in swing states like Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, etc.

Bernie's current polling comes from the simple fact that he's a shiny new toy. It will erode once he's no longer new and people get to know him better and when attacks on him take their toll.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

They've tried to implement a Luxury Tax before and that basically could be called a Greed Tax. It didn't work and they abandoned it shortly after trying it since it didn't raise nearly as much $ as they thought they'd get. Greed may not be moral but it is motivating. Sloth by definition does not.

The ironic thing is that many people want to get rich so they don't have to work.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

And you can keep telling yourself that Bernie is electable. You have to look at core fundamentals and it all works against Bernie.

My biggest annoyance with Bernie's electoral math is that it is the exact same as Ted Cruz's. And by that I mean it is completely nonsensical and ******ed. There isn't this vast wealth of untapped voters at the extreme ends of the aisle who just haven't come out and voted simply because there hasn't been a pure conservative or pure progressive. Americans typically vote for a candidate that is closest to the center, which is where most Americans lie. Bernie is not a centrist. He is running a campaign that disdains moderation.

And to focus more on American voters, American voters will typically also vote for the more pragmatic choice. Voters will reject a candidate like Bernie Sanders when they realize that they will get absolutely nothing done. It's one thing to criticize Presidents like Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. for failing to live up to lofty expectations, but if you look at Bernie's platform, it is filled with nonstarters that have no chance of even being considered. Even Bernie's own party is saying that it isn't going to happen. And to move onto my third reason why Bernie unelectable, this perfectly segues into that part:

Bernie's own party will not support him. This will be the same problem that a candidate like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz would face, in fears of electoral oblivion at all levels, the party will shy away from the Presidential candidate in a grotesque save yourself preservation mode. When the party shys away from its own candidate, it doesn't make the candidate look any good. It's their way of saying that they give up. They're not going to invest resources necessary to win in order to save them for future battles.

Attacks on Bernie write themselves. Bernie gives the GOP a lot to work with on health care, budget matters, taxation, social issues, etc. They will attack Bernie as someone who will raise taxes on all. They will attack him as someone who will take from the middle class to give to the lazy poor and people of color. He will spend us into oblivion. And so on. Bernie on the other hand will counter the same way he always does, by sounding like a ****ing broken record.

And finally, just look at his Iowa win. Bernie dominates in the base that he has of young millennial voters. But he will do horribly with other demographics as they get older (just like he did with the Iowa caucuses). He will dominate extreme progressive voters, but will do horribly with moderates and conservatives (again, just like what happened in Iowa) and Republicans will probably peel away more Democrats than he will with Republicans. He will dominate with black voters because blacks, rightfully so I might add, see Republican as a four letter word, but he will do poorly with whites and I find it unlikely that the likely GOP candidate (Rubio) will do as poorly with Latinos that Mitt Romney did.

If I were a betting man, if Bernie gets the nomination, it would be a massive Republican victory. Bernie would probably even lose in traditionally solid Democratic states like New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. He would lose states that lean Democratic like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And he has no chance in swing states like Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, etc.

Bernie's current polling comes from the simple fact that he's a shiny new toy. It will erode once he's no longer new and people get to know him better and when attacks on him take their toll.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that there's some moderate Republican hiding in the shadows somewhere who will unite the 7 and bring order to the galaxy.

A massive Republican victory for whom?? The frontrunners? You yourself say that Cruz is just as far right as Sanders is left. And I don't think you'd expect Trump to be fare better in this realm. So unless you think it's Marco Rubio who will appeal to the most moderate of leftists, you broke your own argument to bits before it began.

The moderate voters you are theorizing will abandon or "reject" Sanders because he can't get things done are going to vote for Rubio because he'll be in a Republican dominated Washington? Oh he'll sure as hell get things done... Of that I'm certain. Moderates who want that aren't moderates at all, they are called republicans.

 

[kedrell]

I saw an article recently that followed historical trends in Presidential elections and such and concluded that an incumbent in office has 3 times as much of a chance of keeping their office when running for re-election as they do of losing it. The report also stated that after a 2-term President is done and another of the same party tries to win that office and keep it in the same party...well it's the inverse there as they have 3 times the odds of losing to the opposition party's candidate. So basically, historically speaking, the odds are in the Republican's favor to retake the White House this cycle. We've only had a party retain the Presidency for a 3rd cycle just once since 1948 and that was when Bush senior won in 1988. And that was vastly due to Reagan's tremendous popularity at the end of his 2nd term rubbing off on Bush(something Obama ain't nowhere near right now). I'd also say that whoever wins this November will have a greater than ever chance of ending up as a 1-term President. We've only had 2 of them since 1948 as well(Kennedy and Ford don't really count due to very unusual circumstances for both) in Bush Sr. and Carter. We're due for another 1-termer no matter which party wins this election.

 

[kedrell]

The ironic thing is that many people want to get rich so they don't have to work.

Yes it is. But most rich people will tell you they had to work their asses off to get to where they are.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Attacks on Bernie write themselves. Bernie gives the GOP a lot to work with on health care, budget matters, taxation, social issues, etc. They will attack Bernie as someone who will raise taxes on all. They will attack him as someone who will take from the middle class to give to the lazy poor and people of color. He will spend us into oblivion. And so on. Bernie on the other hand will counter the same way he always does, by sounding like a ****ing broken record.

As offensive as you are probably being roping "lazy poor" and "people of color" together, there are a lot of poor people in this country who are not lazy and know they aren't lazy. They will reject this argument.

There are a lot of destitute minorities in this country. Who, once again, know that they aren't lazy.

You know what there isn't a lot of in this country? People in the middle class. So they can use that 30 year old argument all they want. But the lower class knows its ********. Or at the very least they know it's them Bernie wants to help. And until the middle class is revitalized, the argument about protecting it is worthless.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yes it is. But most rich people will tell you they had to work their asses off to get to where they are.

How much of it is hard work? How much is raw intellect? How much of it is the right connections? How much of it is luck?

Do you really think Martin Shkreli worked harder than 95% of the US population who will never be millionaires?

 

[Thundercrack85]

The myth of meritocracy. That is what the Republicans love to preach.

The game is rigged. Most people will never be wealthy. Acknowledge that, and govern accordingly.

 

[hippie_hunter]

As offensive as you are probably being roping "lazy poor" and "people of color" together, there are a lot of poor people in this country who are not lazy and know they aren't lazy. They will reject this argument.

There are a lot of destitute minorities in this country. Who, once again, know that they aren't lazy.

You know what there isn't a lot of in this country? People in the middle class. So they can use that 30 year old argument all they want. But the lower class knows its ********. Or at the very least they know it's them Bernie wants to help. And until the middle class is revitalized, the argument about protecting it is worthless.

You misunderstand me, in no way am I calling the poor and minorities lazy. That's awful and flat out inaccurate. But with the Randian influences that have taken hold within the GOP, you can bet that they will attack Bernie that way. And many will buy it. It's disgusting.

Also, even though Bernie is constantly talking about the declining middle class, I find it unlikely that he would win that demographic. Again, the attacks on Bernie write themselves. Good luck selling them the tax increases he proposes. White middle class voters tend to lean more Republican, and his proposals are more attractive to those of lower incomes than those in the middle class and older.