2016 Election Thread (My God Kill Me Now)

[lukethedrifter]

I've expressed my fair share of Bernie skepticism but characterizing single-payer as a tax increase is misleading at best. Taxes would go up, yes. But health insurance premiums would go away, forever. Just imagine that "total benefits" breakdown that one might get from one's employer. Imagine if that chunk of the pie that went to your health insurance went into your pocket instead.

Odds of that happening are not great though.

It's an eventuality. Sooner or later. Or we end up worse off than Brazil.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I've expressed my fair share of Bernie skepticism but characterizing single-payer as a tax increase is misleading at best. Taxes would go up, yes. But health insurance premiums would go away, forever. Just imagine that "total benefits" breakdown that one might get from one's employer. Imagine if that chunk of the pie that went to your health insurance went into your pocket instead.

Odds of that happening are not great though.

It's an eventuality. Sooner or later. Or we end up worse off than Brazil.

I'm not disagreeing. Just saying, the odds of employers that are paying - I don't know - $400/month premiums for each employee saying: Well, now that UHC is here, we are going to give you 100% of that money in the form of a salary is not great. I bet there would be bumps, sure, but not 100%. At the same time, the cost of healthcare would also likely go down, overall, so the $400/person wouldn't really need to be 'taxed' at that rate. It's complicated, and the more I think about it the more in favor of it I become, especially compared to what is happening now, but let's not assume corporations will take the morally correct path.

[Schlich]

transcript for those who can't watch:

Time and time again, you hear one thing in speeches and you see a campaign with the worst kind of tactics, reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats. Well I am here to say that is not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. Since when do Democrats attack each other on universal health care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman's dream. I thought this campaign finally gave us an opportunity for us to put together a coalition to achieve universal health care... just because Obama chose not to present a universal health care plan does not give him the right to attack me because I did... This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged. Because this is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we wanna do for America. So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public.

[pioneer98]

Anyone want to discuss the liberal wonks turn against Sanders?

Are you referring to articles like this written by Paul Starr?

Yeah, exactly. There have been a bunch of these since approximately the last Democratic primary debate where it became clear Sanders has a real shot at the nomination.

Sanders has no shot at the nomination. Seriously, people. We are starting off with two Whitey McWhiterson states. Once we get to the states with primary voters that actually resemble the Democratic Party, this race will not look like this.

FiveThirtyEight - Iowa isn't the state presidential candidates pretend it is

I've heard people say "Iowa is 92.1% white". Well, that it counting Latino voters as "white". If you include them as a minority, its like 87% white. It's still above average but it's not as extreme as people think it is, and certainly not as extreme as New Hampshire.

I also liked the tidbit that only 3.8% of Iowans work in agriculture and 40% of Iowans work in professional services like finance, real estate, etc.

[Jocephus]

"In your Christian faith, there is a very significant tenet and that's the tenet of forgiveness," O'Reilly said.

"I think you should be the bigger man," O'Reilly added. "Don't you think that's the right thing to do?"

"It probably is," Trump agreed. "But y'know it's called an eye for an eye. I guess also you can look at it that way."

"No, no, no," O'Reilly countered. "That's Old Testament. If you're the Christian, the eye-for-the-eye rule goes out. Here's what it is: Turning the other cheek."

O'Reilly physically turned his cheek and patted himself to show what he meant:

reminds me of this scene from the wonderful UHF

[Schlich]

I've expressed my fair share of Bernie skepticism but characterizing single-payer as a tax increase is misleading at best. Taxes would go up, yes. But health insurance premiums would go away, forever. Just imagine that "total benefits" breakdown that one might get from one's employer. Imagine if that chunk of the pie that went to your health insurance went into your pocket instead.

Odds of that happening are not great though.

It's an eventuality. Sooner or later. Or we end up worse off than Brazil.

I'm not disagreeing. Just saying, the odds of employers that are paying - I don't know - $400/month premiums for each employee saying: Well, now that UHC is here, we are going to give you 100% of that money in the form of a salary is not great. I bet there would be bumps, sure, but not 100%. At the same time, the cost of healthcare would also likely go down, overall, so the $400/person wouldn't really need to be 'taxed' at that rate. It's complicated, and the more I think about it the more in favor of it I become, especially compared to what is happening now, but let's not assume corporations will take the morally correct path.

Sanders' health care plan has an employer payroll tax. Average american is still going to save money any way you slice it. The problems aren't once it's implemented, it's getting there in the first place.

[jim]

I tried reading the wiki page on what Iowa caucuses were and I couldn't finish it. The Iowa Caucus[1] is an electoral event in which residents of the U.S. state of Iowa meet and blah blah blah blah.

What the hell is this thing and why do they do this? As if the primary/convention/electoral college thing isn't convoluted enough as it is, Iowa decides to make it even worse.

[jim]

You have to admit that is freaking hilarious.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I've expressed my fair share of Bernie skepticism but characterizing single-payer as a tax increase is misleading at best. Taxes would go up, yes. But health insurance premiums would go away, forever. Just imagine that "total benefits" breakdown that one might get from one's employer. Imagine if that chunk of the pie that went to your health insurance went into your pocket instead.

Not to mention the greater job mobility it provides for the middle class. This is really never talked about but I think it is why, even though employers [expletive], [expletive], [expletive] about their health care coverage expenses, they are slow to let go of that benefit. Its a hassle at best and not possible at worst to change health plans so it makes their employees dependent on them to some degree.

[Michael]

Look, I realize the challengers for Sanders in the general election, though you might want consider whether it's a fight worth having. And when the alternative is something like Ted Cruz, I don't know that anyone can say with confidence who would have the upper hand.

What fight are we exactly having? Not even Democrats are getting behind Bernie on this one. I think single payer is the future and I'm glad Sanders is having the conversation, but it's poison in the general election.


Sanders might beat Trump or Cruz, but I think Hilary has a better chance. Republicans do to which is why they're running ads to support Sanders. Not to mention a Sanders nomination will open the door to 3rd party candidates like Bloomberg, which will help bolster Republican chances.

I've expressed my fair share of Bernie skepticism but characterizing single-payer as a tax increase is misleading at best. Taxes would go up, yes. But health insurance premiums would go away, forever. Just imagine that "total benefits" breakdown that one might get from one's employer. Imagine if that chunk of the pie that went to your health insurance went into your pocket instead.

Making a nuanced argument like this from a self described socialist to the general electorate is a really bad idea. And this is for something that basically has no chance in the near future.