Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy for 2020 this morning, scaring T-rump into another frenzy. Sanders said one of his main reasons for running is the fact it’s inconceivable to have a pathological liar in the White House governing America. T-rumptards are fuming and grabbed their tiki torches when he announced.
shareWell, Berno got his ass whipped in 2015 at the primaries and I wouldn't mind seeing it again.
shareBecause Hillary had been groomed for the presidency for years and the DNC had no interest in giving anyone else a fair shake. He still managed to put up some good primary numbers despite all that. Now he's basically up against Kamala Harris. She has a lot of DNC support but they aren't behind her nearly as strongly as they were for Hillary.
shareYeah but socialism went out in the 70s.
shareEverything Bernie advocated for in 2016 is now popular. Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage and free public college. Those things did poll well with the public in 2016 but it took awhile for mainstream media to give it positive attention. Better late than never.
shareRemember when T-rump was going to repeal and replace Obamacare on his second day in Office? "Easiest thing to do", he promised. That was going to be followed by the first bricks being laid for the 'wall Mexico will build' on day three. The wall was the next easiest thing to do, followed by the third easiest thing to do - get Mexico to pay for it.
shareBut all these things aren't 'free' though, are they? That means folks that create jobs will lose the incentive to do so because of higher taxes. And, many countries are finding out that socialised medicine and 'free college' isn't what they are cracked up to be. We don't have any of that here in the UK or Ireland (I'm British but also have a US passport). Denmark and other countries are privatising their healthcare and offering scholarships and loans for universities. Why may you ask? Because socialised medicine and other handouts are having a detrimental effect on the economy.
share"Why may you ask? Because socialised medicine" has always required people to pay, the "free healthcare for all paid for via taxation" which certain people keep insisting exists across Canada and Europe (including Scandinavia, UK) and Israel has never existed, people do pay out of their own pocket and private insurance is also either mandatory or essential in those countries.
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders
______________________
Private health insurance is mandatory in Canada and Europe (including Scandinavia) and Israel and Australia etc
An international perspective is helpful here. When you look out at the rest of the world — at the dozens of countries that run universal health care systems — you find that every universal health plan relies, in some form or another, on private insurance.
“Basically, every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies international health systems. “I don’t think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.”
Other developed countries routinely use private insurance to fill in the gaps of their public plans or to offer patients a way to get to see a doctor a bit faster. Some countries, like Australia, even take aggressive steps like offering tax benefits to encourage citizens to enroll in private coverage alongside their public plan.
“Each country has figured out its own role for private insurance,” says Robin Osborn, a vice president at the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund who studies international health systems. “In almost every system, it tends to not be controversial because the commitment to basic universal coverage is there.”
______________________
______________________
How other countries use private health insurance, it turns out, can actually tell you a lot about what countries value in a health care system — and how they think access to care ought to be organized.
The three ways other countries use private health insurance
When you look out at our peer countries, you essentially see them using private health coverage in three distinctive ways.
First, there are some countries that require all citizens to enroll in health coverage run by private insurers. These insurers typically compete in a market with strict rules about what they must cover and how much different medical services cost.
The Netherlands and Israel are good examples of this type of system. In both countries, citizens are required to purchase coverage from a private plan. Somewhat coincidentally, the Netherlands and Israel both have four dominant health plans in their private markets.
In each case, the insurers are required to cover the same set of benefits and cannot charge higher premiums for the sick. But they can compete along other dimensions.
“They compete on what other benefits do they offer, and the price of the premium too,” Osborn says. “Generally, though, people don’t switch insurance very much. They tend to stick with their plans for a long time, even though they have the option to switch each year.”
The benefit these systems offer is primarily about choice: In Israel and the Netherlands, patients have multiple options for where they want to seek health coverage.
Second, there are some countries where private insurance supplements public insurance. It’s quite common for Canadians and Europeans to purchase supplemental insurance that covers things that the public plan won’t.
______________________
______________________________
Sometimes this takes the form of supplemental insurance to pay for non-covered benefits. In Canada, for example, two-thirds of the population takes out private plans to cover vision, dental, and prescription drug benefits — none of which are included in the public plan. Thirty-nine percent of Danish citizens carry private coverage for non-covered benefits including physical therapy.
In other places, this takes the form of supplemental insurance to cover the cost sharing included in the public plan. If you look at France, you see that 95 percent of the population takes out (or receives public subsidies for) private insurance to cover their copayments and deductibles.
Third, there are some countries where private insurance complements public insurance. In these places, residents buy private coverage to gain better, faster access to benefits that are covered in the public system.
Osborn points to England as an especially good example of this type of coverage. About 11 percent of the British population purchases complementary coverage that can get them faster access to specialty doctors or elective procedures.
“The UK is very committed to solidarity and equity in its health system, but at the same time, they are still very comfortable with this private insurance role,” she says. “I think it operates as a safety valve. People use it for elective surgery, for something like a hip replacement where there might be a long waitlist.”
Australia is another example of a country that has really embraced complementary coverage, to the point that 47 percent of the country’s residents carry private coverage alongside their public plans. The government actually encourages citizens to buy a private plan, offering tax rebates to those who enroll — and a lower lifetime premium for those who sign up before they’re 30.
______________________________
The debate we’re having around universal coverage in the United States right now often centers on the health care plan offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). His plan — which you can read a longer explainer of here — envisions government-run health insurance that covers a wide array of benefits including vision, dental, and prescription drugs. His plan has no cost sharing for patients — meaning you don’t pay a copayment when you go to the doctor, nor do you have a deductible to hit before your benefits kick in.
The Sanders plan permits supplemental private insurance, the type that covers things that the public system doesn’t. But because the public insurance plan pretty much covers everything, it’s difficult to see what role it would play.
Here’s the thing: None of our peer countries have built a health care system like this. Canada, France, England, Australia, and the Netherlands all run health care systems that have gaps in coverage.
Not one of our peer countries has found a way to provide health care that covers all benefits at no cost to patients — the price is just prohibitive. Instead, most provide free or low-cost access to core medical services while asking patients to kick in something for the parts the government can’t afford.
______________________________
Wouldn't private insurance play the role of insuring the people who could afford it either on their own or through work? I would imagine that health care providers would have the option of accepting whatever insurance they wish to, so the top doctors in their fields wouldn't be providing treatment to Medicare patients.
What I understood, and correct me if this is off, but wouldn't Medicare for All mean that everyone is entitled to government insurance, but if you have better insurance from work, then you'd use that. If you are independently wealthy, you'd buy your own top notch insurance, or maybe even go to a doctor who doesn't even accept insurance.
"But all these things aren't 'free' though, are they?"
Nope. Free is generally the term republicans use to condemn people on the left who support medicare for all. Medicare for all isn't even universal healthcare for all. Its not single payer. Its simply medicare for people of all ages instead of just the elderly. The elderly do not get universal "free" healthcare in the US.
And of course its going to need to be paid for. After two tax cuts that went to the wealthy (Bush's and Trump's) all we gotta do is revert that and then it gets paid for. Income tax for the middle class can remain where it is especially since Trump just raised it for his wealthy tax cut.
"We don't have any of that here in the UK"
Its kind of funny that you say that when UK is known for having public healthcare which is indeed a socialized healthcare system. Sure there may be countries that are privatizing health insurance but keep in mind they will still have a government option that prevents costs from going through the roof like they do here in the US. As long as we get a public option then I'm happy.
Free college would be for community colleges and not universities. Its a challenge but a necessary one as our education system is deteriorating especially with all the Betsy Devos characters running the show. We are systematically becoming less educated as the CEOs get wealthier by rigging the system against the working class. Thats the thing Bernie Sanders stands against. Every single issue that he pushes deals with disrupting the current oligarchy that controls the US. And many establishment democrats rely on that oligarchy to inflate their bank accounts which is why they will never give Bernie a fair shake. The only thing stopping Bernie Sanders from beating Trump in 2020 is the DNC.
Okay
shareFeeling the bern yet? :)
share[deleted]
[deleted]
ROF Thanks for the comedy and I must say, what a substantial argument LOL. Later.
shareOriginally I thought you were a supporter of other dem candidates like Kamala Harris. I didn't realize you're a Trumper. But your last few posts pretty much nail it. The ignorance. The deflection. The lack of a come-back. It all make sense now. You're targeting Bernie because you know he's the one guy guaranteed to defeat the Idiot in Chief.
Btw I didn't report any posts. I don't get triggered by words especially as tame as imbecile.
Fox chuckleheads are losing their sh!t tonight over Bernie’s announcement. They’re ignoring the McCabe revelations and losing their minds over Bernie.
shareI have this bad feeling Trump's going to win again.
The country is moderate left on a lot of things, but this Sanders brand of socialism that Dems have taken to is more than the American public will tolerate.
why is this in a Trump thread and not on Bernie's page?
shareI hope he does win.
shareI doubt T-rump will be able to run for re-election. Hopefully, he will be impeached or jailed by then.
shareI totally agree. Also, Bernie Sanders would be a disaster in regard to national security.
shareEven if Bernie Sanders does not become a final candidate, at least he will have made his point about t-Rump and all the lies we have had to listen to in the last two years.
shareCare to share what 'lies' you're talking about?
shareHere you go: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
These are just the highlights.
[deleted]
Well, that was a charming and telling tale about YOU more than a condemnation of him.
Are you shooting to make it TWO boards?
Just as an "amusing" side note, I got banned from a forum a couple of years ago, a forum where they hardly ban or moderate anyone, cause there was another reality-challenged lefty who you SOOOOOO remind me of...... and I couldn't stop telling him to kill himself, and pointing out the fact that he has the personality of a rapist pedophile.
Eventually they banned me after I kept doing it for a long while.
[deleted]
T-rump is really appealing to the bottom of the barrell.
This is another probable mistake. The Democratic party is splitting the bill up too much. I get it, EVERYONE wants to be the one to take down Trump but come on. Let's assume that Biden does not throw his hat in and that we pretty much have almost everyone we're going to see on the ballot. Even assuming they get through the primaries better than the Republicans did in 2016 (when the game show host won), who in the current pack of candidates do you really, truly seeing going toe to toe with Trump in the General election debates? He's an idiot and a thug and a wannabe 1930's mob boss but he's also a street fighter and an entertainer. I'm not sure I see ANYONE on the Democrats side that can debate him in a similar fashion. And frankly, if you go into a televised debate with this amoral, uncivilized racist and try to take the "high road"....you'll be eaten alive.
shareI have a feeling a number of them will start dropping off like flies sooner than later. My predictions: Gillibrand, Castro, Gabbard (who had a disastrous interview on 'The View' yesterday), Klobucher, Buttigieg. I don't see how they can keep up the campaign funding with so many other 'names' in the race. I have a feeling all - if not most - will drop out by year's end.
I think the next tier to drop would include Cory Booker, Warren, possibly Harris. They will be next year, during the primaries.
Beto O'rourke still may announce - and I think he may go far. He's the rising star in the party.
But that's the problem....too many rising stars trying to grab the brass ring NOW. How many of the candidates you're talking about would do INFINITELY better in 2024 or 2028?
shareHard to say - who will they be running against in 2024 or 2028? I think the Republican candidate has much to do with their chances in any year. Timing, of course, is everything - maybe 2020 is the right time?
shareThe OP spent an entire year electioneering for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders.
shareAs your beloved T-rump loves to say, "Fake News!"
I voted for Bernie in my state's primary you idiot, and donated to him. I supported Hillary (and was not disappointed with either) when she won the nomination. Try again.
To paraphrase your beloved T-rump: "Thrillhouse is an enemy of the people!"
Links.
shareIMDB shut down the forums because of Russian bots, remember?
shareYes I do. That's VERY convenient for you and your now utterly unproven claims and attacks, isn't it?
fortunately, the Russian bots found a new home supporting Trump on other boards.
Da, Comrade?
IMDb dismantled their old forums because the boards were run on an entirely different hardware and software system (and in an entirely different country) which were obsolete and incompatible with IMDb's newly developed platform (they were unrolling a new platform at that time).
They said they decided against developing a new board system because they lacked the ability and interest in moderating more than a million posters on a daily basis. They knew the boards were overrun with negativity/nastiness/hate-speech - which reduced the quality of their site (IMDb is an industry tool) - and they knew they could never clean it up. They did say building a new message board system was something they would consider in the future, but that future is now and they're not and it's they way it goes.
bernie is an assclown...
share