An important alleged fact about the primary I haven't seen mentioned here

[Craig234]

Let me preface this by saying it's not about Biden's voters. They have their reason, thinking Biden is the most likely to beat trump, for voting him.

But it's been argued a leading reason for the PARTY support of Biden, is that the massive industry for the party, filled with consultants and others, all know they'll largely lose THEIR incomes and positions under Bernie's reforms, while they'll do fine under a trump or centrist presidency. Under a trump second term, they'll remain in their positions, profiting from anti-trump sentiments by the party.

Under a Sanders presidency, with his war on money in politics and against corrupting big money donor control of the party, they're out of jobs, which is why Bernie and only Bernie, not trump, is an existential threat to their money. Voters will do BETTER being represented; wealthy donors and their minions will do worse.

So, the party establishment allegedly prefers a trump second term to a Bernie presidency. And voters should understand that they are putting their own pocketbooks ahead of the Democratic voters' interests. And that's why Bernie is fighting for those voters. Even if those voters - like trump voters - have adopted the views of the party.

Voters would do better to use the facts they can get, their own eyes and ears, to reach opinions, than just things like media - who want the billions in big money advertising and oppose Sanders - and party loyalist endorsements by people who recently said the opposite about Biden.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Let me preface this by saying it's not about Biden's voters. They have their reason, thinking Biden is the most likely to beat trump, for voting him.

But it's been argued a leading reason for the PARTY support of Biden, is that the massive industry for the party, filled with consultants and others, all know they'll largely lose THEIR incomes and positions under Bernie's reforms, while they'll do fine under a trump or centrist presidency. Under a trump second term, they'll remain in their positions, profiting from anti-trump sentiments by the party.

Under a Sanders presidency, with his war on money in politics and against corrupting big money donor control of the party, they're out of jobs, which is why Bernie and only Bernie, not trump, is an existential threat to their money. Voters will do BETTER being represented; wealthy donors and their minions will do worse.

So, the party establishment allegedly prefers a trump second term to a Bernie presidency. And voters should understand that they are putting their own pocketbooks ahead of the Democratic voters' interests. And that's why Bernie is fighting for those voters. Even if those voters - like trump voters - have adopted the views of the party.

Voters would do better to use the facts they can get, their own eyes and ears, to reach opinions, than just things like media - who want the billions in big money advertising and oppose Sanders - and party loyalist endorsements by people who recently said the opposite about Biden.

Bernie can no more explain how he plans to enact his policies than Republicans can explain how trickle down economics actually works as opposed to the theory they continually peddle.

When he can explain how hes going to make doctors accept less money and companies pay more without privatizing them, he can get back to me. Until such time, hes just making promises he doesnt have a chance in hell of delivering on.....not because the establishment will impede him, but because reality will.

 

[swing_voter]

Let me preface this by saying it's not about Biden's voters. They have their reason, thinking Biden is the most likely to beat trump, for voting him.

But it's been argued a leading reason for the PARTY support of Biden, is that the massive industry for the party, filled with consultants and others, all know they'll largely lose THEIR incomes and positions under Bernie's reforms, while they'll do fine under a trump or centrist presidency. Under a trump second term, they'll remain in their positions, profiting from anti-trump sentiments by the party.

Under a Sanders presidency, with his war on money in politics and against corrupting big money donor control of the party, they're out of jobs, which is why Bernie and only Bernie, not trump, is an existential threat to their money. Voters will do BETTER being represented; wealthy donors and their minions will do worse.

So, the party establishment allegedly prefers a trump second term to a Bernie presidency. And voters should understand that they are putting their own pocketbooks ahead of the Democratic voters' interests. And that's why Bernie is fighting for those voters. Even if those voters - like trump voters - have adopted the views of the party.

Voters would do better to use the facts they can get, their own eyes and ears, to reach opinions, than just things like media - who want the billions in big money advertising and oppose Sanders - and party loyalist endorsements by people who recently said the opposite about Biden.

You forget that Biden was on his way out. He had lost badly in Iowa, New Hampshire. If Congressman Jim Clyburn hadn't endorsed him, Biden would've folded.

So where were the consultants and others then? They certainly weren't with Biden. They certainly couldn't help him.

Voters in South Carolina voted for Biden by 50% and breathed life back into his campaign.

 

[CMPancake]

Bernie can no more explain how he plans to enact his policies than Republicans can explain how trickle down economics actually works as opposed to the theory they continually peddle.

When he can explain how hes going to make doctors accept less money and companies pay more without privatizing them, he can get back to me. Until such time, hes just making promises he doesnt have a chance in hell of delivering on.....not because the establishment will impede him, but because reality will.

So then your alternative is to just let people literally die by the thousands and go bankrupt by the millions?

 

[Craig234]

You forget that Biden was on his way out. He had lost badly in Iowa, New Hampshire. If Congressman Jim Clyburn hadn't endorsed him, Biden would've folded.

So where were the consultants and others then? They certainly weren't with Biden. They certainly couldn't help him.

Voters in South Carolina voted for Biden by 50% and breathed life back into his campaign.

The consultants didn't care which non-Bernie candidate won; only that anyone but Bernie did. Biden has strong southern black support as 'the guy who touched Obama' and the 'official' party candidate. They voted for Hillary, too, as I recall. When SC clarified Biden was the non-Bernie, what did all the other candidates do when Obama called them?

 

[Craig234]

So then your alternative is to just let people literally die by the thousands and go bankrupt by the millions?

Don't you love the "universal healthcare isn't possible!" crowd? It's never been done except in the entire rest of the first world outside the US.

 

[Mach]

But it's been argued a leading reason for the PARTY support of Biden, is that the massive industry for the party, filled with consultants and others, all know they'll largely lose THEIR incomes and positions under Bernie's reforms, while they'll do fine under a trump or centrist presidency. Under a trump second term, they'll remain in their positions, profiting from anti-trump sentiments by the party.

Sounds as crazy as Trump-type arguments IMO. Stop the crazy.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

So then your alternative is to just let people literally die by the thousands and go bankrupt by the millions?

No, where did I say or imply that?

That asked, it does beg another question.....people keep telling us Sanders isnt a socialist, and here you are incredulous that I wouldnt be onboard with an outright socialst tactic being pushed by a presidential candidate.

So which is it? Is he is or is he aint a socialist? Time for some intellectual honesty on the matter. If hes not, then why is his proposal tacitly socialist, and if he is, why do he and his supporters try to distance themselves from the word every chance they get?

 

[Craig234]

Sounds as crazy as Trump-type arguments IMO. Stop the crazy.

That's how the truth sounds to the misinformed. "First they call you crazy". Now, try thinking before you post and try again. What do you know about the incentives for the consulting industry for the party?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Don't you love the "universal healthcare isn't possible!" crowd? It's never been done except in the entire rest of the first world outside the US.

I never said it couldnt be done. I said it isnt going to be done the way Bernie proposes it because the math simply doesnt add up unless you nationalize the healthcare industry, which I have been told by countless Bernie supporters isnt what hes proposing.

So how does HE square that circle without being the socialist he keeps saying he isnt?

 

[SoCal]

Bernie can no more explain how he plans to enact his policies than Republicans can explain how trickle down economics actually works as opposed to the theory they continually peddle.

When he can explain how hes going to make doctors accept less money and companies pay more without privatizing them, he can get back to me. Until such time, hes just making promises he doesnt have a chance in hell of delivering on.....not because the establishment will impede him, but because reality will.

This is a huge part of the problem with our current system. We pay doctors literally twice as much as European doctors. If we don't get that under control, healthcare for all will never work. I imagine doctors would push back against this 'reform' as much as the "establishment"...

 

[Mach]

That's how the truth sounds to the misinformed. "First they call you crazy". Now, try thinking before you post and try again. What do you know about the incentives for the consulting industry for the party?

Tell me more about the sub-structure of the twin towers while you're at it.

"It has been argued that"?? The party, looks in line with the voters. We'd rather put Biden up against Trump than Sanders.
Didn't Biden win an area by 25 points, that Sanders beat Hillary in by 25 points? A 50 point flip from just 4 years ago? It's not a conspiracy theory. Sanders is pushing ideas from the 50s, and doesn't seem to have a deft hand at positioning himself for the general. He was hoping for a Trump-like fevered groundswell, built on rhetoric, and he didn't get it. End of story. Oppose Trump, stop helping him...please.

Keep spreading division though, it only helps Trump.

 

[Drawdown]

Even under President Bernie, the politicians would still design a system to make sure money still gets through. Only a Constitutional Amendment would stop it since Citizens United,

 

[Craig234]

Tell me more about the sub-structure of the twin towers while you're at it.

Sure. They were destroyed when Al Queda flew planes into the buildings. You think you make a clever argument implying I'd support 9/11 conspiracy theories; but instead only discredit your own lack of arguments with the false claim.

"It has been argued that"?? The party, looks in line with the voters. We'd rather put Biden up against Trump than Sanders.

Another pathetic argument. That's why Biden beat Bernie in the first three states. Your argument isn't even RELEVANT to my point. The party's establishment's motives are the topic, and they are what they are whether voters happen to agree or not; whether they've been able to persuade voters or not.

Sanders is pushing ideas from the 50s, and doesn't seem to have a deft hand at positioning himself for the general.

That's a new BDS attack. But Democrats agree much more with Bernie than with Biden on the issues; they're simply (2/3) not voting on the issues, but on the electability myth.

Keep spreading division though, it only helps Trump.

You realize that works both ways. If you'd stop supporting the worse, weaker candidate and back Bernie, we'd have unity. You're just helping trump, just like Hillary voters did in 2016. The time for unity - something Bernie is a lot better at than the centrists - is after the convention, not when we're choosing a nominee.

 

[Craig234]

Even under President Bernie, the politicians would still design a system to make sure money still gets through. Only a Constitutional Amendment would stop it since Citizens United,

You're not entirely wrong. I'd rather have a president who fights for the right things and doesn't get them, than a president who fights for the wrong things and doesn't get the right things. (c) Craig234

 

[Craig234]

This is a huge part of the problem with our current system. We pay doctors literally twice as much as European doctors. If we don't get that under control, healthcare for all will never work. I imagine doctors would push back against this 'reform' as much as the "establishment"...

You'd think so. In 1960, the medical industry did just that, hiring Reagan as a spokesman to oppose Medicare. But times change; nurses have come out for Medicare for all, and a poll found 49% of doctors support it. Poll finds 49% of doctors support 'Medicare for All' | FierceHealthcare

 

[CMPancake]

No, where did I say or imply that?

Any action taken to oppose nationalizing healthcare is an act that condones the deaths and hardship. If you don't want to be an accomplice to health insurance companies, vote and support Medicare For All.

That asked, it does beg another question.....people keep telling us Sanders isnt a socialist, and here you are incredulous that I wouldnt be onboard with an outright socialst tactic being pushed by a presidential candidate.

Sanders entire campaign is that of a Social Democrat. Which is the compromise to the Moderates. For the record, nationalizing healthcare isn't a "Socialist tactic." Almost every nation in the First-World has nationalized healthcare, and I don't now if you're aware, but almost of those nations are still Capitalist.

So which is it? Is he is or is he aint a socialist? Time for some intellectual honesty on the matter. If hes not, then why is his proposal tacitly socialist, and if he is, why do he and his supporters try to distance themselves from the word every chance they get?

Calm down, grandpa and please explain what you mean by "Tacticly Socialist" and "Socialist Tactics."

 

[SoCal]

You'd think so. In 1960, the medical industry did just that, hiring Reagan as a spokesman to oppose Medicare. But times change; nurses have come out for Medicare for all, and a poll found 49% of doctors support it. Poll finds 49% of doctors support 'Medicare for All' | FierceHealthcare

It's understandable doctors would want this reform, I believe most doctors love their job, but I doubt they'd love a 50% pay cut. If a poll comes out that shows doctors are ready and wiling to be paid like their European counter parts, it would help the cause, but don't hold your breath. Would you take a 50% cut in pay? I doubt many Americans, working any job would...

 

[Craig234]

It's understandable doctors would want this reform, I believe most doctors love their job, but I doubt they'd love a 50% pay cut. If a poll comes out that shows doctors are ready and wiling to be paid like their European counter parts, it would help the cause, but don't hold your breath. Would you take a 50% cut in pay? I doubt many Americans, working any job would...

So you're arguing doctors support Medicare for all and just don't know it would reduce salaries? Evidence? I'd suggest they see the same issues we do with the rest of the system, the tens of millions lacking coverage and the huge overpricing, and care more about the people than the salary.

 

[Craig234]

Any action taken to oppose nationalizing healthcare is an act that condones the deaths and hardship. If you don't want to be an accomplice to health insurance companies, vote and support Medicare For All.

I would argue that in theory, there are alternatives to nationalized healthcare that provide universal care. But that PRACTICALLY, the twice-as-expensive private systems are just too expensive for the country to afford sustainably, and so you are guaranteeing people under-covered by keeping the expensive system. The only workable option fiscally is nationalized, to avoid killing many people.

 

[Moot]

So you're arguing doctors support Medicare for all and just don't know it would reduce salaries? Evidence? I'd suggest they see the same issues we do with the rest of the system, the tens of millions lacking coverage and the huge overpricing, and care more about the people than the salary.

A lot of doctors don't accept Medicare at all....which highly suggests they wouldn't support M4A.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Any action taken to oppose nationalizing healthcare is an act that condones the deaths and hardship. If you don't want to be an accomplice to health insurance companies, vote and support Medicare For All.



Sanders entire campaign is that of a Social Democrat. Which is the compromise to the Moderates. For the record, nationalizing healthcare isn't a "Socialist tactic." Almost every nation in the First-World has nationalized healthcare, and I don't now if you're aware, but almost of those nations are still Capitalist.



Calm down, grandpa and please explain what you mean by "Tacticly Socialist" and "Socialist Tactics."

All this brought to us by the guy who actually identifies as a socialist.

A person who is normally careful can indeed employ less than careful policies from time to time. It doesnt mean that the policy wasnt still less than careful.

Billy Crystal said it best:



One of the tenets of socialism is nationalization of industry. You just advocated for that very thing. Bernie has skirted the issue, but the end result of his proposals would lead to exactly that.

 

[Craig234]

I would argue that in theory, there are alternatives to nationalized healthcare that provide universal care. But that PRACTICALLY, the twice-as-expensive private systems are just too expensive for the country to afford sustainably, and so you are guaranteeing people under-covered by keeping the expensive system. The only workable option fiscally is nationalized, to avoid killing many people.

Hm, no responses.

 

[SoCal]

So you're arguing doctors support Medicare for all and just don't know it would reduce salaries? Evidence? I'd suggest they see the same issues we do with the rest of the system, the tens of millions lacking coverage and the huge overpricing, and care more about the people than the salary.

You're right about the polls showing doctors are approx 50% for and 50% against. We both know which side of the political spectrum most doctors who support it are on. But I'd bet that the doctors who claim they support it, wouldn't be so enthusiastic when the rubber meets the road and they lose half their pay.

"A new poll finds that about only one in 10 registered voters want the equivalent of Medicare for all if it means abolishing private health insurance plans" So don't forget about the nine out of ten Americans who're clueless about the advantages of single payer. Single payer health care doesn't have a chance until a majority of Americans understand the advantages and are willing to give up private insurance. That's going to take a long time, much longer than a Sanders' Presidency can deliver.

Generally speaking I think most doctors are overpaid, while minimum wage workers are vastly underpaid. But increasing their pay while reducing doctor's salaries has to be done slowly over time, not in a Sander's 'revolution'. We've gone over this many times so you can have the last say.

I wish your last claim was true, but this is 'Merica...

 

[Craig234]

You're right about the polls showing doctors are approx 50% for and 50% against. We both know which side of the political spectrum most doctors who support it are on. But I'd bet that the doctors who claim they support it, wouldn't be so enthusiastic when the rubber meets the road and they lose half their pay.

"A new poll finds that about only one in 10 registered voters want the equivalent of Medicare for all if it means abolishing private health insurance plans" So don't forget about the nine out of ten Americans who're clueless about the advantages of single payer. Single payer health care doesn't have a chance until a majority of Americans understand the advantages and are willing to give up private insurance. That's going to take a long time, much longer than a Sanders' Presidency can deliver.

Generally speaking I think most doctors are overpaid, while minimum wage workers are vastly underpaid. But increasing their pay while reducing doctor's salaries has to be done slowly over time, not in a Sander's 'revolution'. We've gone over this many times so you can have the last say.

I wish your last claim was true, but this is 'Merica...

Well, you don't really have an argument on the doctors' support, except 'they don't understand it will reduce their salaries and don't mean it when they say they support it'. Bernie gave it four years, which is enough time, and if not he could take longer. But he's try - no one else will. So we keep the unaffordable system and Americans without coverage.