US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1331

On April 16 2019 22:04 farvacola wrote:
Sanders will win

On April 16 2019 22:12 farvacola wrote:
I think Pete is genuinely interested in doing the right thing enough that he will acquiesce and maybe even hang his hat on a VP run. In any case, a Democratic Party that pushes him as an alternative instead of Biden shows off at least a modicum of change, enough to inspire a grain of hope at least.

On April 16 2019 22:33 Dromar wrote:


I think you're dead wrong on every part of this. Unfortunately, I've got to go to work. I encourage you to research Andrew Yang further, and NOT just the smear pieces that certain media sources have put out.

On April 16 2019 22:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’d wonder why he’s been on Fox 5 times, nothing against Yang himself or his personal reasons, more why are Fox inviting him on so much?

On April 16 2019 23:14 Danglars wrote:

What other Democratic candidates want to even be seen on Fox News? You only get the people that really need name recognition and attention.

Sanders’ is doing a good “rising above” play that fits well with his campaign theme.

Sanders vs Trump would be exciting.

On April 16 2019 23:26 Plansix wrote:
Sanders knew he would drive ratings up for Fox News, set the terms he would want to appear on the network. Other candidates like Warren could likely do the same, if they felt it would benefit them. But not every candidate has Sanders’s ability to dunk on questions about making money or other issues in the past. His ability to dismiss and disregards criticism, fair or unfair, is almost unique among the candidates and allows him to appear on platforms like Fox News with less to fear. Someone like Warren or Harris could do it and somehow generate endless B-roll for Republican candidates.

On April 16 2019 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


What do you mean "set terms he would want to appear"? What terms?

On April 16 2019 23:34 Plansix wrote:

The town hall set up and so on. Location and the people that would be in the audience. The method of questioning. Sanders is not dumb, so he wouldn't have appeared if Fox said there wouldn't be an audience, for example.

On April 16 2019 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


Are you sure about that or is this speculation? It wouldn't be a townhall without an audience though so I think that's a given.

On April 16 2019 23:45 Plansix wrote:

Absolutely. If it hadn’t been in a town hall format, Sanders wouldn’t have agreed to do it. The man is not stupid and prefers that format because he can play to the crowd. I’m not framing it as a bad thing or that it was a big fight with Fox New. Just that he knows what he is doing and is playing to his strengths. And won't do things that won't play to those strengths.

On Wednesday Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vt.) rolled out this year’s version of his draft legislation to abolish traditional Medicare. He calls it “Medicare for All” because polls tell him that voters don’t want to abolish traditional Medicare. Voters also don’t want him to destroy the U.S. system of private medical insurance, but his plan would do that, too. A key question raised by the new bill is whether patients, doctors and nurses would be able to escape the new government-run system when it fails to provide needed care—as such systems always do.

Calling it “Medicare for All” is not the only deception. One section of his bill, entitled “Freedom of Choice,” includes the following text:

Any individual entitled to benefits under this Act may obtain health services from any institution, agency, or individual qualified to participate under this Act.

In other words, you are free to choose any doctor the federal government allows you to choose. On at least one point, Mr. Sanders is being honest. He’s not even trying to sell the Obama whopper that patients will get to keep the plans and the doctors they like.

Speaking of the private health plans that roughly half the country now enjoys, the legislative text from Mr. Sanders makes it clear that they would be put out of business. Also, employers can not operate their own plans to compete with the government plan. Section 107 of the draft bill states that once the plan is fully implemented:

...it shall be unlawful for—
(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or
(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.

And while politicians in Washington continue to roast Wells Fargo for opening accounts without the knowledge of customers, this will be standard operating procedure for the new government insurance plan. The legislation calls for “the automatic enrollment of individuals at the time of birth in the United States or upon the establishment of residency in the United States.”

Of course sometime after birth many patients will want an alternative. As noted, the plan says that patients can choose any qualifying provider. But will doctors choose to serve patients who are paying for care with a BernieCard? (The legislation formally calls it a Universal Medicare card.)

The idea is to contain costs by forcing doctors, nurses and other providers to accept very low compensation relative to the current system. This effort will go well beyond the current Medicare system’s method for limiting reimbursements to the people who heal us. The Sanders bill says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall establish, document, and make publicly available a standardized process for reviewing the relative values of physicians’ services.”

This process shall include “methods and criteria for identifying services for review, prioritizing the review of services, reviewing stakeholder recommendations, and identifying additional resources to be considered during the review process.’’

For those uninitiated in the ways of politics, “stakeholders” means people with no direct stake in the health of the patient.

Would people who do have a stake in maintaining the quality of American medicine be able to avoid this system? Generally no, although a few lucky patients who are extremely wealthy and plan ahead may be able to find an avenue to escape.

The legislation does have a provision for private contracting for medical services, and assuming doctors, patients and nurses obey the various rules for such contracts, there would be a path for some small amount of non-government health care. But remember insurance products and corporate plans are not allowed to compete against the broad coverage promised by the government plan. And the Sanders bill prohibits private contracts “entered into at a time when the beneficiary is facing an emergency health care situation.”

So there would generally be no escape for patients who realize too late that they will die before they get to the front of the line for necessary care. But for someone who does not require insurance and is willing and able to pay cash for any needed services—and who contracts ahead of time to cover possible needs in a way that complies with the Bernieaucracy—there appears to be a narrow path to high-quality service. But how many Americans are financially capable of paying cash for any needed medical care?

Instead of a plan to allow freedom only for one-percenters like Bernie Sanders, why not let all patients escape the new bureaucracy and make their own choices on health care?