|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
Last time I talked about all the reasons why I didn't think Biden would buck tradition and recapture the lead in the relatively moderate candidate lane. Now, on to Sanders a little. He's got all the passion behind him that other campaigns can only dream of.
I don't really know which side will win the fight between claiming he's too extreme to win the general against telling everyone America is ready for his proposals. I don't know whether or not Warren will drop out and endorse. I can't predict if Buttigieg and Bloomberg will run good campaigns, although I think the Bloomberg ads thus far do a good job painting him as a strong champion of typical Democratic plans. I have however seen some worrying things that hurt Sanders.
One is the union opposing his government health legislation in Nevada. The big culinary labor union with all the Vegas casino workers distributed a letter to members describing their opposition to Sander's proposal.
LAS VEGAS – Nevada’s most powerful labor union is warning workers about Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders' health care views.
On Tuesday night, before New Hampshire’s primary was called in favor of the Vermont senator, Culinary Union workers received leaflets describing Sander’s intentions for union health care this way:
“End Culinary Healthcare” and “Require ‘Medicare For All.’”
The Culinary Union represents 60,000 housekeepers, porters and bartenders working in Las Vegas casinos. At the top of the union’s presidential asks is to maintain the robust health care plans members have fought hard to negotiate and win.
USA Today
Because this is the post-2015 world of politics, Sanders supporters doxxed labor union officials and hurled vicious insults on the internet. And these things other candidates siezed on, of course.
Sanders has a good shot at nomination, particularly from being seen as fighting a crony DNC establishment. This kind of mistake matters. The others are the behavior of his political surrogates, which I might post on later.
|
I keep hearing about "vicious insults" but have no idea what they are talking about? Also not sure what you would mean by doxxing union officials?
Sounds like a manufactured nothingburger to me. After Reid got them to endorse Clinton in 16 no one thought they'd be endorsing Sanders this time.
|
I'm with GH here (On the manufactured nothingburger thing).
This is not "Sanders did bad thing" or even "Sanders called for his supporters to do bad thing", it is "Sanders supporters did bad thing", and even that is only alleged and not really detailed. Also no details about the "vicious attacks" and "doxxing" sounds a lot like someone trying to describe something as harshly as possible.
|
If it's anything it's probably a "the union officials did bad thing". I haven't looked in detail but I heard their objection to Sanders was not very charitable.
|
On February 14 2020 03:19 Danglars wrote:Last time I talked about all the reasons why I didn't think Biden would buck tradition and recapture the lead in the relatively moderate candidate lane. Now, on to Sanders a little. He's got all the passion behind him that other campaigns can only dream of. I don't really know which side will win the fight between claiming he's too extreme to win the general against telling everyone America is ready for his proposals. I don't know whether or not Warren will drop out and endorse. I can't predict if Buttigieg and Bloomberg will run good campaigns, although I think the Bloomberg ads thus far do a good job painting him as a strong champion of typical Democratic plans. I have however seen some worrying things that hurt Sanders. One is the union opposing his government health legislation in Nevada. The big culinary labor union with all the Vegas casino workers distributed a letter to members describing their opposition to Sander's proposal. Show nested quote +LAS VEGAS – Nevada’s most powerful labor union is warning workers about Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders' health care views.
On Tuesday night, before New Hampshire’s primary was called in favor of the Vermont senator, Culinary Union workers received leaflets describing Sander’s intentions for union health care this way:
“End Culinary Healthcare” and “Require ‘Medicare For All.’”
The Culinary Union represents 60,000 housekeepers, porters and bartenders working in Las Vegas casinos. At the top of the union’s presidential asks is to maintain the robust health care plans members have fought hard to negotiate and win. USA TodayBecause this is the post-2015 world of politics, Sanders supporters doxxed labor union officials and hurled vicious insults on the internet. And these things other candidates siezed on, of course. https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1227794040483205121Sanders has a good shot at nomination, particularly from being seen as fighting a crony DNC establishment. This kind of mistake matters. The others are the behavior of his political surrogates, which I might post on later.
Sanders is right though,universal healthcare should be a thing of solidarity.
You pay a premium for diseases you will never get,sometimes diseases you can not even get. Thats the core of healthcare,at least thats the case here.
You can not say,i dont want coverage for x and pay less. Like i cant say "i dont need coverage for pregnancy because i am a man so i want that out so that i can pay less", same for several diseases and accidents.
You can pay extra to get more coverage but the extend of that is pretty much limited.
Just because a verry small group managed to get a good deal they dont support universal care,its kinda egoistic which is disapointing coming from a union. But yes usa is different from eu so i guess it makes sense from an american point of vieuw.
Maybe The culinary union can negotiate some extra coverage instead from their employers but reading this makes me think usa is not ready for universal care.
|
On February 14 2020 03:19 Danglars wrote:Last time I talked about all the reasons why I didn't think Biden would buck tradition and recapture the lead in the relatively moderate candidate lane. Now, on to Sanders a little. He's got all the passion behind him that other campaigns can only dream of. I don't really know which side will win the fight between claiming he's too extreme to win the general against telling everyone America is ready for his proposals. I don't know whether or not Warren will drop out and endorse. I can't predict if Buttigieg and Bloomberg will run good campaigns, although I think the Bloomberg ads thus far do a good job painting him as a strong champion of typical Democratic plans. I have however seen some worrying things that hurt Sanders. One is the union opposing his government health legislation in Nevada. The big culinary labor union with all the Vegas casino workers distributed a letter to members describing their opposition to Sander's proposal. Show nested quote +LAS VEGAS – Nevada’s most powerful labor union is warning workers about Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders' health care views.
On Tuesday night, before New Hampshire’s primary was called in favor of the Vermont senator, Culinary Union workers received leaflets describing Sander’s intentions for union health care this way:
“End Culinary Healthcare” and “Require ‘Medicare For All.’”
The Culinary Union represents 60,000 housekeepers, porters and bartenders working in Las Vegas casinos. At the top of the union’s presidential asks is to maintain the robust health care plans members have fought hard to negotiate and win.
That sounds like they're fighting to keep everyone healthcare bad because the union negotiated good healthcare and don't want that to change.
I don't think they know the implications of Bernie's healthcare plan.
|
On February 14 2020 03:44 Simberto wrote:
I'm with GH here (On the manufactured nothingburger thing).
This is not "Sanders did bad thing" or even "Sanders called for his supporters to do bad thing", it is "Sanders supporters did bad thing", and even that is only alleged and not really detailed. Also no details about the "vicious attacks" and "doxxing" sounds a lot like someone trying to describe something as harshly as possible.
I don't really think Sanders wants to call the union liars for characterizing the comments that way. Perhaps you disagree. In fact, there would be no disagreement to raise a fuss if the union hadn't considered the Sanders program to be bad for its union members and its health plan. That's the Sanders program and the union's newsletter to members in opposition , not actually involving the supporters.
On February 14 2020 04:01 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 03:19 Danglars wrote:Last time I talked about all the reasons why I didn't think Biden would buck tradition and recapture the lead in the relatively moderate candidate lane. Now, on to Sanders a little. He's got all the passion behind him that other campaigns can only dream of. I don't really know which side will win the fight between claiming he's too extreme to win the general against telling everyone America is ready for his proposals. I don't know whether or not Warren will drop out and endorse. I can't predict if Buttigieg and Bloomberg will run good campaigns, although I think the Bloomberg ads thus far do a good job painting him as a strong champion of typical Democratic plans. I have however seen some worrying things that hurt Sanders. One is the union opposing his government health legislation in Nevada. The big culinary labor union with all the Vegas casino workers distributed a letter to members describing their opposition to Sander's proposal. LAS VEGAS – Nevada’s most powerful labor union is warning workers about Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders' health care views.
On Tuesday night, before New Hampshire’s primary was called in favor of the Vermont senator, Culinary Union workers received leaflets describing Sander’s intentions for union health care this way:
“End Culinary Healthcare” and “Require ‘Medicare For All.’”
The Culinary Union represents 60,000 housekeepers, porters and bartenders working in Las Vegas casinos. At the top of the union’s presidential asks is to maintain the robust health care plans members have fought hard to negotiate and win. USA TodayBecause this is the post-2015 world of politics, Sanders supporters doxxed labor union officials and hurled vicious insults on the internet. And these things other candidates siezed on, of course. https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1227794040483205121Sanders has a good shot at nomination, particularly from being seen as fighting a crony DNC establishment. This kind of mistake matters. The others are the behavior of his political surrogates, which I might post on later. Sanders is right though,universal healthcare should be a thing of solidarity. You pay a premium for diseases you will never get,sometimes diseases you can not even get. Thats the core of healthcare,at least thats the case here. You can not say,i dont want coverage for x and pay less. Like i cant say "i dont need coverage for pregnancy because i am a man so i want that out so that i can pay less", same for several diseases and accidents. You can pay extra to get more coverage but the extend of that is pretty much limited. Just because a verry small group managed to get a good deal they dont support universal care,its kinda egoistic which is disapointing coming from a union. But yes usa is different from eu so i guess it makes sense from an american point of vieuw. Maybe The culinary union can negotiate some extra coverage instead from their employers but reading this makes me think usa is not ready for universal care.
I'm old enough to remember "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." I suppose the new Democratic messaging is, "if you like your health plan, it's gone because you will definitely like my new one." This union saw a threat and wrote about it. It doesn't really matter if you think the union should've had a different mind, and you definitely can't look at them and tell them what should and shouldn't be a thing of solidarity.
Maybe you can see it is equally "egoistic" and "disappointing" that their concerns are so easily disregarded by people ostensibly in favor of unions. I find it incredibly patronizing to tell a union to get on board with a radical change to their existing manner of providing for their union members, when they've just detailed problems they have with it. That's something you may do with children that bring you a sheet of paper they've earnestly written on. Sanders has thus far praised the union and told them they're gonna like it. Maybe he'll craft something better next.
I do disagree with you about what health insurance should be, and paying to insure yourself against things you need no insurance for. Since you say "that's the case here," then I do think a cross-national discussion on health insurance philosophy is beyond the topic. The response to unions that they should already agree with Sanders is the troublesome issue.
|
"Paying to insure yourself for things you don't need insurance for" is 100% the point of insurance. If you disagree with that then you're not talking about insurance anymore.
|
No, that is not necessarily the point of insurance. The point of insurance is to insure yourself for things you need insurance for.
If i don't have a car, i don't need insurance against my car breaking down.
However, i don't think that healthcare should be handled on an insurance basis. Or if it is, it should be handled as a communal insurance rather than an individual one. Otherwise, you will get people who are not insured against the thing they should have needed insurance against, or people who cannot pay for the insurance against all the things they need insurance against.
I think that we as a society need to decide that we don't want people to die of stuff that they cannot afford treatment for. And thus, we cannot only have individual insurance. Healthcare is something that needs to be solved for the whole society.
Also, this might be really annoying to people in the US, but every time these discussions come up i am very, very happy that i don't have this problem, and that this constant discussion doesn't need to happen here. I hoenstly cannot imagine how you can simply accept your status quo. If you would try to supplant any european countries healthcare system with the US system, there would be a revolution. The population would not accept that. And even our neoliberals are not crazy enough to try.
|
I don't strictly mean that that is the point of insurance per se, but it is a necessary condition for insurance to be effective. It is fundamentally the redistribution of money from those who don't need it to cover an expense at a point in time to those who do. When you start breaking it up into things like risk pools, etc. You defeat the entire mechanism that's supposed to make it work for people who really need it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 13 2020 19:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 19:21 Simberto wrote:
Can we not do the Trump-style childish nicknames? I was kinda looking forward to "butti bros" being a thing
I have to admit that that’s pretty damn clever.
|
On February 14 2020 05:55 NewSunshine wrote:
"Paying to insure yourself for things you don't need insurance for" is 100% the point of insurance. If you disagree with that then you're not talking about insurance anymore. On February 14 2020 06:59 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't strictly mean that that is the point of insurance per se, but it is a necessary condition for insurance to be effective. It is fundamentally the redistribution of money from those who don't need it to cover an expense at a point in time to those who do. When you start breaking it up into things like risk pools, etc. You defeat the entire mechanism that's supposed to make it work for people who really need it.
Now that you have gone from 100% the point of insurance, to talk otherwise is not to talk insurance, into alleging it's a supporting aspect of insurance and insurance is fundamentally redistributive, perhaps you understand why I said
I do think a cross-national discussion on health insurance philosophy is beyond the topic. The candidates have plenty to observe and comment on their health plans, and voters' and groups' agreement, without talking down to people or insinuating someone doesn't even know the point of insurance.
|
On February 14 2020 06:59 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't strictly mean that that is the point of insurance per se, but it is a necessary condition for insurance to be effective. It is fundamentally the redistribution of money from those who don't need it to cover an expense at a point in time to those who do. When you start breaking it up into things like risk pools, etc. You defeat the entire mechanism that's supposed to make it work for people who really need it.
Insurance is a form of risk management. it is not a money redistribution scheme. Risk creates the need for insurance. Life and Casualty are two very different forms of insurance making the vague generalizations in your post tenuous at best.
A whole life policy lasting decades results in pay out the vast majority of times.
A short term casualty policy lasting a couple of years revolving around your property getting struck by lightning causing a fire results in very few pay outs.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On February 14 2020 04:01 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 03:19 Danglars wrote:Last time I talked about all the reasons why I didn't think Biden would buck tradition and recapture the lead in the relatively moderate candidate lane. Now, on to Sanders a little. He's got all the passion behind him that other campaigns can only dream of. I don't really know which side will win the fight between claiming he's too extreme to win the general against telling everyone America is ready for his proposals. I don't know whether or not Warren will drop out and endorse. I can't predict if Buttigieg and Bloomberg will run good campaigns, although I think the Bloomberg ads thus far do a good job painting him as a strong champion of typical Democratic plans. I have however seen some worrying things that hurt Sanders. One is the union opposing his government health legislation in Nevada. The big culinary labor union with all the Vegas casino workers distributed a letter to members describing their opposition to Sander's proposal. LAS VEGAS – Nevada’s most powerful labor union is warning workers about Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders' health care views.
On Tuesday night, before New Hampshire’s primary was called in favor of the Vermont senator, Culinary Union workers received leaflets describing Sander’s intentions for union health care this way:
“End Culinary Healthcare” and “Require ‘Medicare For All.’”
The Culinary Union represents 60,000 housekeepers, porters and bartenders working in Las Vegas casinos. At the top of the union’s presidential asks is to maintain the robust health care plans members have fought hard to negotiate and win. USA TodayBecause this is the post-2015 world of politics, Sanders supporters doxxed labor union officials and hurled vicious insults on the internet. And these things other candidates siezed on, of course. https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1227794040483205121Sanders has a good shot at nomination, particularly from being seen as fighting a crony DNC establishment. This kind of mistake matters. The others are the behavior of his political surrogates, which I might post on later. Sanders is right though,universal healthcare should be a thing of solidarity. You pay a premium for diseases you will never get,sometimes diseases you can not even get. Thats the core of healthcare,at least thats the case here. You can not say,i dont want coverage for x and pay less. Like i cant say "i dont need coverage for pregnancy because i am a man so i want that out so that i can pay less", same for several diseases and accidents. You can pay extra to get more coverage but the extend of that is pretty much limited. Just because a verry small group managed to get a good deal they dont support universal care,its kinda egoistic which is disapointing coming from a union. But yes usa is different from eu so i guess it makes sense from an american point of vieuw. Maybe The culinary union can negotiate some extra coverage instead from their employers but reading this makes me think usa is not ready for universal care.
I wouldn't say it's a mater of not being ready, as in they lag behind and they'll catch up soon, they mostly just missed their opportunity.
There's pretty much no new real big social insurance policy that has been created in the last 40-50ish years in the west. Well I'm sure we can find a few counter-example like child-care, but overall there isn't really a big appetite, or at least political power, for those kind of policy anywhere else. Most people defend them when they have it (and even then) but as soon as you want to make something new there's opposition from everywhere, even when there's an electorate majority supporting it, it never seems to go anywhere.
Overall those kind of big policy like health care, unemployment insurance and public higher education were created in a very different context, obviously there was more public support for a lot of them then before, but there was also quite a lot less way to oppose governmental action. It's not always that the program where that much more popular than before, but also that government were be able to act more freely, electoral victory tended to legitimate going through public oppositions and government were less impeded by various local, economic, juridical or international counter powers that limit what a central government can do. Things like, we can't do X health care policy because we signed an international treaty setting the price of a bunch of medicament, or we are going to get a hit to our credit score if we do it, or the various and almost never ending court examination or oppositions on various law and clauses, crossed with all the states legislation opposition and various very organized pressure groups. Hell outside the US, these kind of policy were sometime establish by non-democratic government.
Of course the US system is build to permit the kind of four dimensional chess oppositions, but it's mostly like that everywhere else now. For example, constitutional court weren't really a thing for the first half of the 20th century outside the US, now you have them all over the world on various degree. Not saying it's all bad, FDR probably could have build a wall 90 years ago, Trump can't really.
|
Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins.
|
Am I to gather there were no "vicious attacks" or doxxings related to the Union leadership launching these attacks against Bernie?
|
Canada8989 Posts
On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248
The fact that it's listed has "no one" is deeply funny.
One out of three chance is still pretty high stuff for Sanders, he definitely has to be happy with that. We'll probably be set on what's gonna happen come super Tuesday, I wonder if the insensitive of no one getting the majority will mean that smaller candidates will be able to have to money to stick around longer...
|
On February 14 2020 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Am I to gather there were no "vicious attacks" or doxxings related to the Union leadership launching these attacks against Bernie?
I rely on you to bring any to this thread's attention, with similar citation like the culinary union's dispatches.
|
On February 14 2020 09:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Am I to gather there were no "vicious attacks" or doxxings related to the Union leadership launching these attacks against Bernie? I rely on you to bring any to this thread's attention, with similar citation like the culinary union's dispatches.
So no, there weren't any vicious attacks or doxxings?
|
On February 14 2020 07:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 05:55 NewSunshine wrote:
"Paying to insure yourself for things you don't need insurance for" is 100% the point of insurance. If you disagree with that then you're not talking about insurance anymore. Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 06:59 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't strictly mean that that is the point of insurance per se, but it is a necessary condition for insurance to be effective. It is fundamentally the redistribution of money from those who don't need it to cover an expense at a point in time to those who do. When you start breaking it up into things like risk pools, etc. You defeat the entire mechanism that's supposed to make it work for people who really need it. Now that you have gone from 100% the point of insurance, to talk otherwise is not to talk insurance, into alleging it's a supporting aspect of insurance and insurance is fundamentally redistributive, perhaps you understand why I said Show nested quote +I do think a cross-national discussion on health insurance philosophy is beyond the topic. The candidates have plenty to observe and comment on their health plans, and voters' and groups' agreement, without talking down to people or insinuating someone doesn't even know the point of insurance.
Okay, now you got your gotcha moment, but you're insinuating that people should be free to opt out of any insurance pool that they wish. That if someone felt healthy and not at-risk, that they shouldn't need to participate in the system because they don't need it. Taken to its logical conclusion, this results in a pool of only high-risk individuals, causing premiums to skyrocket and the whole exercise to be moot. It only works when people are paying in who don't often take out from it. Your health isn't something you can opt in and out of. You can't know what will happen. There is no basis for definitively saying you don't need to contribute to the system, just because you'd rather not pay. I don't necessarily like where all my taxes go, that doesn't mean I can opt out. Letting people opt out of the healthcare system leaves the already ill and infirm to be also saddled with the debt of their bills. I would think they're suffering enough already without having financial ruin piled on top.
I also remember why I don't do this with you anymore. The baiting, arguments in absentia, hyperbole and condescension are exhausting. Do it with someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
