Dude, only 35+% people showed up to vote (for this Ohio election), these are not race, voter ID, Russian fake news, voting suppression or other excuses, a shit lot of people did not vote because they did not care, that segment is way bigger than voter suppression and definitely much bigger than 3rd party voters. So if people are going to freak out and blame those 2,000 or so green voters that the country is falling to a fascist state because they voted 3rd party, then fvck what do you say about the millions that could vote but just chose not to? If people here (not you but other posters) are going to hyperventilate about 2K voters, then they need to hyperventilate about the 60%+ that did not show up.
This “brushback” against progressive candidates isn’t really a negative thing. Progressives are seeing limited success. Which is a start. All they need is get a few wins, enough to force debates and disrupt clear demonstrations of favors to donors.
A Liberal tea party. Now there is the progressive caucus, but they are probably not as far left as the socialist would want. That tends to be a problem for the left, the splintering into a bunch of in-fighting groups. Let see if the lefty people that win can work with the Progressive caucus or if they will try to set up their own version of the left freedom caucus.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...nservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/ Basically Sanders is saying that in the best case scenario where doctors, pharmacies, healthcare providers do agree to cut cost by 40% (simplification on my part) medicare for all could save 2 Trillion over 10 years, but he forgot to mention that in the worse case scenario it would cost 3.2 Trillion more.
"When Mercatus released their report, they had one goal in mind: draw attention to the fact that the federal spending goes way up in the Sanders M4A plan. And of course it does, to the tune of $32.6 trillion. But M4A advocates responded by drawing attention to the fact that total spending actually goes down in the Sanders M4A plan by $2 trillion. This has been a long-running argument for M4A: yes federal spending goes up a lot but that federal spending is merely replacing other spending (premiums, deductibles, copays) people are forced to do in our status quo system. Mercatus got mad that this became a major emphasis of the coverage of their report. So they started a counter-campaign arguing that Mercatus M4A plan is the real estimate. However, this is not the real estimate. The author of the report acknowledges as much in the paper and, tellingly, this estimate appears in the appendix of the report, not its main text. What the Mercatus M4A plan really represents is a totally separate plan Mercatus came up with that has higher provider rates than the ones in Sanders M4A plan. Mercatus now insists that everyone look to the Mercatus M4A plan, which says total health spending will go up by $3.2 trillion rather than the Sanders M4A plan, which says it will go down by $2 trillion. Which score you go with ends up mattering a lot for public messaging and for the press. And so it needs to be repeated again: the Sanders M4A plan bar is a score based on the actual text of Sanders’s bill and the Mercatus M4A plan bar is not. With that all said, which score you go with really does not matter that much. None of these bars are that precise and even the Mercatus M4A plan is an incredible deal. Relative to the status quo, the Sanders M4A plan insures 30 million more people, virtually eliminates out-of-pocket expenses, and provides hearing, visual, and dental coverage for everyone. The cost is the same as we already spend in the status quo." https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/13/the-mercatus-medicare-for-all-report-in-one-graph/
My god...they really are extremists....I can’t deal with it. They really DO want their version of perfection....like immaculate. Too bad their version would have to be a burlap wearing dreadlock having beatnik....what a joke. “These 3,600 Comments Are None Too Pleased With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's John McCain Tweet” https://jezebel.com/these-3-600-comments-are-none-too-pleased-with-alexandr-1828611560
This is a very good point, +-1 % of GDP either plan result as we currently spend, but shift the cost burden from private employees to tax taxpayers (or if totti fan ran the government, just keep borrowing). A few other good points in favor of single payer,Sanders plan is more generous than most plans around the world, so it can be even cheaper than what the reports have (we could also add more stuff and make it more expensive). Also getting rid of the healthcare tax benefits from companies (may be unpopular at first) would create more income to the government to use to pay for the single payer (see chart). https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...1/how-expensive-would-single-payer-system-be/
This is from Forbes, a business right leaning magazine, so it may be dismissed for that. The problem with people that say Medicare has lower management cost than private companies, so if we do medicare for all we can save billions of dollars is that they are cherry picking stats to make their point (everyone does it). The article gives the reason, Medicare is for mostly old people, old people cost a lot of money to take care of. So Administrative expenses look good, but it is actually more expensive. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...e-not-save-administrative-costs/#6d8d59d960ba Now I have a problem with the Forbes conclusion because if Medicare for all does get expanded for all, administrative expenses will go up as a percentage of total cost. So no it will not save as much money as people think, but it will also not be as expensive as Forbes makes it sound in their conclusion because for the general population the cost per beneficiary will be lower than for older people, so the average per person will go up but only slightly.
The government doesn’t borrow the money it prints the money. Foreigners who buy bonds/T-bills are investing US dollars for a return, they are not lending. What is not in doubt is that Med4all would be cheaper than the current system if it provided the same level of coverage. It shifts the burden from private expense to public. In other words, it is cheaper to go public. Therefore, you are either ideologically opposed to government intervention, or you oppose the expanded coverage: more people covered & more benefits. Which is it?
See that is the problem, it is very much in doubt that it would do that. But it may not be much more expensive as some people think, and who knows in the long run it could truly end up cheaper.
Bloomberg with an article on the difficulties. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...es-are-all-wrong-for-single-payer-health-care
Mercatus said it will save 2 trillion over ten years, all while significantly increasing coverage. We can also compare cost of healthcare to every other developed country. The most expensive and the worst outcomes on a comparative basis. Kessler fact-checker from WaPo cited in that very old article has been caught out a number of times making false claims and has been forced to make retractions. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/washington-post-medicare-for-all-error
Interesting to revisit @Knave 's opening gambit nearly 2 years later. Some aspects are more hopeful. IMO the damage of the Trump Presidency has been a lot worse than we might have hoped for. I think if the House of not taken, we'll see the GOP/Trump take that as permission for more aggressive authoritarian plays.
1. Mercatus did not say that, Sanders making the claim got 3 Pinocchio s on fact checker sites. Now, the higher cost scenario was only about 1% of GDP higher than current estimates, to cover all Citizens. So that is not bad. As the article you posted says, best case scenario (sanders rosy numbers) it saves 1 Trillion, under the worst case scenario it only costs about 2 more Trillion but both cover 100% of all citizens. 2. Keeping cost down is easier than bringing cost down. A single payer in the USA will not bring down Healthcare cost as % of GDP to Europe levels, the American people are used to the high amount of healthcare we have. At best it will keep the increases smaller going forward, that is a much harder sell, but a good argument to make in favor of single payer.
So with all the other crap Trump has done, I am finally starting to see people I didn't think would turn on him start to question. Over what, you ask? His actions after McCain's death Saturday. When we look back at the beginning of the end of Trump, this could be the single issue that made people finally open their eyes to his hubris.
I will never understand the reverence for McCain, who has a huge amount of blood on his hands. Strangely enough, it was post-Bosnia when his war boner reached maximum stiffness. Up to that point, he actually was skeptical or in opposition to most interventions. In that sense, he is one of the chief architects of the current situation in the Middle East. Oh, wait. I know why he's getting posthumous tongue-baths from at least a large part of the left: he's the Grand Poobah of NeverTrumpism. That's the only thing that matters.
I'm going to stop reading here. Right, because they criticized Sanders for saying something he didn't say. The fact checkers, all mau maued by the right, for some reason looked only at federal spending, not all health care spending. Sanders only talked about the latter, not the former. You're contrarianism/"well, actually"ism has moved past ridiculous to parodic. Source/link? I know Morning Joe has been worshipping him like he's Jesus Christ himself...but MJ isn't the left. I suspect Chris Matthews is doing the same. Who else? The overwhelming majority of what I've been reading about McCain has been mixed. I've seen a few epic takedowns. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/mccain Show me some tongue baths please.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/28/pers-a28.html That took two seconds, and its the socialists calling out "their own".