Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Trump vs. Sanders will be the second election in a row featuring two candidates who would almost certainly lose to anybody besides their actual opponent.
I was thinking specifically "least electable," but it also works as "least suited to become president." Those concepts are closely related.
It just feels like you're assuming your conclusion. Don't we need to wait for Sanders to lose the general election to say he wasn't electable? The actual polling evidence that exists seems to indicate that Bernie is just as electable, if not more so, than the other Democratic candidates.
"Provided by" in the sense that i buy it through them? Yes.
Braces aren't usually covered as it is considered an elective/cosmetic procedure. Either way, if you are in anyway contributing to your own health insurance, then you are already paying for healthcare for others.
Yeah, the recent Emerson poll seems to indicate that he is the most electable from the Dem side.
Polls are meaningless right now. Sanders hasn't received anything resembling serious scrutiny yet, so of course he polls better than the other candidates. He's an empty vessel at this point.
This once again seems to be assuming the conclusion. Polling evidence right now might not be perfect but it seems like the best evidence we have. And even if the evidence is wildly inaccurate, that would merely be support for the argument that we just don't know who is most electable. It isn't support for the argument that Bernie is least electable.
Ok, I'll bite. What part of his record has not yet been sufficiently scrutinized?
What? He's basically been running for president for the last 5 or 6 years and we know nothing about who he is?
My experience is that dental provides partial coverage for childhood orthodontics.
Are you saying its not your problem now, but Sanders will make it your problem? Because I think poor people with kids who need healthcare is absolutely your problem and mine. I'm not saying its our problem in some moral, civic duty sense, I'm saying we are both paying for that now and it is a massive economic burden on us under the current health care system in this country. Medicare for All is the fix to lowering health care costs across the board.
I'm not sure this is what you're trying to say. He hasn't received the full power of the fear mongering and demagoguery of the GOP machine yet, no....his record has been analyzed ad nauseum....it's where all the "socialism" stuff comes from.
I believe I am too, but that's not what's being proposed by any of them as far as I'm aware. Sanders/Warren are proposing a federally funded program where prices are negotiated by the government, but would be run by the existing institutions. Full disclosure here, I am a "public option" guy where the government provides an insurance plan available to whoever wants to be part of it leaving it to compete in the existing "private" market.
Again a person seems to have an issue identifying exactly where the "socialism" stuff comes from.
This would be a good start for a cover letter to apply for Bernie's death squad positions.
He's certainly his own worst enemy in this regard. I'll never understand why he embraces it the way he does when his policies don't. I'd like to think he knows what the word means, but maybe not.
I think he knows what it means and he's just weird about it. He says he wants "socialism like Denmark" to which even the Denmark PM demurred and said his nation wasn't socialist because they don't control the means of production.He's certainly his own worst enemy in this regard. I'll never understand why he embraces it the way he does when his policies don't. I'd like to think he knows what the word means, but maybe not.
Yeah...not sure what's going on, but it doesn't add up and it doesn't favor him. He doesn't need to be perpetuating the myth OR his detractors need to be honest with themselves and take him for his word when he defines the terms as he is attempting to use them. I'm confident the latter will NEVER happen, so it'd be really good for him if he'd stop. I think it's too late though. He's already given them the talking point no matter how inaccurate it is.
That’s the rub. The government should not be competing in the same market it’s regulating. It will inevitably bend the rules in its favor.
I think his meaning of "democratic socialist" and the one everyone thinks (communism) may differ greatly. But admittedly...I am still trying to figure that out.He's certainly his own worst enemy in this regard. I'll never understand why he embraces it the way he does when his policies don't. I'd like to think he knows what the word means, but maybe not.
There's no question about that. They are very different. His policies are populist policies and are expansions of programs we already have that work well in this country. I'm speaking specifically of his healthcare and education policies. A few of the others are slightly different in nature, but for those two specifically, if you're ok with the public school concept, I can't understand why you wouldn't be ok with extending that four years to those who choose to do that. If you're ok with Medicare and how it works as a concept for the older generations, I can't see how you're adamantly opposed to it for everyone else. None of it sniffs the actual definition of socialism...not even close. I get the concern, with respect to healthcare, that the government wouldn't be good at funding it and that's why I am all for them proving they would be good at it via a public option. Allow the government to show that they can use their power and resources to provide good healthcare. Let them negotiate prices for their plan just like a private company would and let the chips fall where they may. Then we'd know for sure. If they aren't good at it, then no one would sign up and it would go away and we'd know once and for all.
What he said and what you said are two completely different things. I see nothing wrong with allowing the government to have a plan in the existing market. None. Let them prove to us that they can run an efficient plan. If they can, great. If they can't, that's great too, we can finally move on.
That’s ridiculous. They can’t possibly create a more efficient plan when they are directly competing with the same entity that’s setting their costs.
What do you mean? I guess I need an example. The way it works today, United Healthcare goes out and negotiates their pricing with pharama companies. They agree to pay $100 for drug X, or service Y etc. Why is it a problem for the government to then go out and negotiate their own prices for drug X or service Y and that's what the person on their plan pays? I'm not saying the government gets to dictate a price that everyone has to follow....that would be absurd.
The government regulates the cost structure when it determines the minimal coverage. They will essentially control the base price point. They can then set their price wherever they want. They don’t have to cover their costs.What do you mean? I guess I need an example. The way it works today, United Healthcare goes out and negotiates their pricing with pharama companies. They agree to pay $100 for drug X, or service Y etc. Why is it a problem for the government to then go out and negotiate their own prices for drug X or service Y and that's what the person on their plan pays? I'm not saying the government gets to dictate a price that everyone has to follow....that would be absurd.
In a M4A with a private option, nobody is competing with the government on said minimal coverage.
We aren’t talking about that. We’re talking about the public option to M4A transition. At least I am. Perhaps we got mixed up.
You are requiring "costs" to do a lot of heavy lifting here in my opinion. While it's true that the government determines what HAS to be covered, that is NOT controlling the price point. They set the requirements and the companies negotiate from there. No one today would suggest that the government is setting the prices for those companies. The government would be functioning in the private market just like they do with the USPS. They will be required to operate under the same requirements as everyone else...if they can't cut it, the market will tell them.
It is, most certainly, controlling the base price point.
For argument's sake, let's say I agree to this being "controlling the base price point". You'd agree that this control is in place today already correct?
It'd be here where I'd point out that almost the entire reason that the USPS is "bleeding money" is because of a 2006 law that mandated the USPS "pre-fund" retiree benefits decades into the future. There is no other organization in the US (public or private) that operates under this requirement. This accounts for about $5-6 billion per year in expenses, with the USPS most recently reporting about $1.5 billion in losses. Take away that requirement and the USPS would be earning a healthy profit every year.
Hillary didn't coast to the nomination. She hung on by the skin of her teeth against basically the only other guy running, a guy who was polling in the single digits at the beginning of the campaign. Nobody "woke up" to how weak she was after she won the nomination. Most of the democrats who voted against her knew it and the people who supported her in the primaries never wavered. And which of the non-Trump Republicans who ran in 2016 would have beaten Hillary? I'd argue none of them. I mean, did you watch those debates? They all got shellacked by reality tv star/7th grade bully who talked about his junk on stage. The nonsense that some spew about Sanders being the worst candidate is just that. Nonsense. Had he been the nominee in 2016 right now we'd all be talking about this lousy crop of 2020 republicans. If Sanders is the nominee this time around he might not beat Trump (tough to beat an unapologetic cheater who's had 4 years to hone his skill) but to say he's the worst candidate is an assumption that has no basis in reality. I agree that polls, especially national polls, don't carry a lot of water at this point but they're all we have and they all say Sanders has the best shot in a head-to-head. It's almost like some people here think if only the dems nominate a moderate republican they could win this thing.
