The consensus of the expert political pundits is that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election because she was a terrible candidate and that she didn’t campaign in Wisconsin. She did not appeal to the “white working class”.
The Republican Party, which has no moderates, and moderate Democrats agree that progressives don’t win elections because they play “identity politics”. Progressives focus too much on issues that are unique to different groups of people, rather than focusing on what is important to most Americans, who are moderates, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Conservatives and moderates promote the notion that politicians should focus more on the “white working class”. Excuse me? Why isn’t the “white working class” identity politics? Are these politicians saying that what is good for the white working class, is good for everyone? If that is what they are saying, I completely agree that it SHOULD be the case. In a perfect world, what is good for one American SHOULD be good for ALL Americans. The problem is we don’t live in a perfect world.
White Americans, whether they are in the working class or the wealthy class, have always separated themselves from other Americans. Contrary to popular belief, Africans who came to the Western Hemisphere in the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries did not come here seeking employment, and they did not choose to not learn to read or own land and to live in harmony with other people who migrated to the new world. Neither did Native Americans choose to give up there land in exchange for a cushy life on reservations. Identity politics go way back and come way forward, related to the “white working class” as well as all white people.
I could go into explaining why when I grew up in rural East Texas in the 1950s and 1960s, I had to be in the NFA (New or Negro Farmers of America) as opposed to the FFA (Future Famers of America). Or I could explain why even to this day, Christians of the Baptist doctrine in the USA are divided into the Southern Baptist Convention for white churches, and The National Baptist Convention for black churches. But let’s not get into that. Let us just focus on how Americans are divided in 2019.
In 2019 black Americans have the highest rate of unemployment, the lowest level of income and wealth, the highest rate of incarceration of all ethnicities. Is that because black people are lazier than others? Less able to manage their money than others? More criminal than others? Given the state of affairs among black Americans, wouldn’t it be safe to say that black Americans have some issues that are unique to black Americans? Likewise, aren’t there some issues that are unique to Hispanic Americans, LGBTQ Americans, female Americans, Muslim Americans, Native Americans and yes, working class Americans (not just the white working class, but ALL working class Americans)? Progressives don’t exclude any of these groups, nor do they exclude the white working class or even the wealthy for that matter. What progressives attempt to do is to include ALL Americans by addressing issues that are unique to some groups as well as issues that are common to all groups. With progressives, there are no big “I’s” and little “you’s”. We are ALL in this together.
I’m baffled. We don’t encourage members to give a thumbs down to another member just because they have a differing opinion. This site is here for discussions and debates about those differing opinions. I know because I read every comment on this site.
Yes, the thumbs down is available for comments that break our rules and are egregious, but I can count on one hand the number of times it has been used by anyone in the 10 years we have been operating planetpov.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I believe that TOCB’s post was about the white working class and identity politics.
A little more on the debate:
“Despite calls to start over, US health system covers 90%”
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/calls-start-us-health-system-covers-90-64605476
One either believes that the Russkies attacked, meddled and influenced the 2016 general election to swing it to tRump, or one doesn’t.
On a regular day, during a normal election where all votes are counted correctly and hostile foreign governments are minding their own business, sure, we can stop to analyze, criticize and dissect the American voter all day long.
Until then, I really don’t see the point in it.
There is documented evidence that Russia infiltrated the voting systems in at least 23 states and at the very least purged some voter rolls. There is also documented evidence that in Texas ballots were changed. The fact that the reports say that votes for trump were changed to votes for Hillary is immaterial in Texas in the sense that Hillary was not going to win Texas anyway in 2016. Texas was probably just a test. IF votes could be changed in Texas, they could also be changed in WI, MI and PA. There is a VERY HIGH likelihood that trump did not actually win the electoral vote, so any analysis of why or how Hillary lost is mute.
I’ve always thought it was a silly argument to accuse Democrats of playing “identity politics.” So what? As you say, they can talk about individual groups and their problems and issues while also addressing things that affect all Americans. And actually, the only reason this is even an issue is because it pisses off Republicans when Democrats talk about the solutions they propose since Republicans have no solutions for anything. The only people they care about are the über-rich. Then they expect all the aspiring rich white people who belong to their party to think they’re talking about them. ?
Yes. We are most definitely all in this together. Divisiveness doesn’t work, but diversity does!
As we’ve seen over the past few days, it is indeed Identity Politics to single out a class of white voters as more desireable than minority voters. And that, sadly, is a subtle kind of racism that is written off as “pragmatic” by many in the Dem Establishment.
The reality too is that this “Repub-Lite” approach usually fails for Dems. I remember Murph mentioning that this was Claire McKaskill’s approach in her Senate race in 2018. She did not bother to build up the vote from minorities but tried instead to appeal to Trump voters instead. She lost in an election year that was a record sweep for Dems, the Trump Repubs she pandered to didn’t come out for her at all.
It’s one thing for a Dem in a red district or state to run more moderate or conservative but at the same time, they should be trying to maximize turnout from those most likely to support them.
We are indeed all in this together and a majority of Americans are not racists and do not support Trump. I hope the eventual Dem nominee (better not be Biden), will recognize this obvious truth and push the Dems to generate turnout and enthusiasm from Dem and indie voters who can easily hand the election to the Dem if they go out and vote.
Chasing after people so unprincipled and undiscerning to have voted for Trump, is foolish and dangerous.
Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Friedman said the other day that he does not support a single payer health insurance system, or providing health care to undocumented immigrants (before we provide health care to all Americans), or decriminalizing immigrants entering the USA to seek asylum. These things are too far left for Friedman. Friedman is not alone in his sentiment. I wholeheartedly disagree with them. The myth that most Americans like private heath insurance neglects to say WHY they like it. They like it because that is all they have. If they are under 65 years old or not disabled or poor, they either get private for-profit health insurance or they use ER for primary health care. Most Americans LIKE a CEO of a for-profit company deciding what treatment they can get? Does any American doubt for one second that if that CEO determines that it is unprofitable for his company to allow a treatment that your doctor says you need in order to live, that that CEO would deny the treatment without even a second thought? I doubt very seriously if most Americans LIKE that.
I disagree with Friedman as well.
I’m a bit off of him after watching an interview with him proclaiming that he wants a tall wall at the border…with a big gate. The latter doesn’t redeem the surprisingly misguided former (most immigrants and drugs come from legal points of entry so even if he meant it figuratively, keeping illegal border crossings down does little to fix any immigration issues…since many are about sanctuary too which can’t be “walled” away). He also went on about how Trump is more likely to win because of his aggressive racism and I think that is selling the decency of most Americans far short. He condemned Progressive Dems and like most NeverTrump Repubs, claimed that Dems should only run a moderate centrist who doesn’t offer big change…other than defeating Trump. Friedman is a proponent of low expectations, he is very overrated IMO.
Friedman is also more conservative than I knew he was so it’s unsurprising he opposes single payer, health care to immigrants and returning illegal border crossings to just being civil violations (as they used to be treated). He is more myopic than I thought.
Providing health care to migrants is more about protecting all of us, most enlightened people see that. If a segment within society is getting sick more often and spreading communicative diseases and illnesses, what does Friedman and others who believe like him, think will happen to “citizens” who are side by side with them in society?
The gardeners, housekeepers, nannies, fruit pickers, construction workers, bus boys, etc. that surround all of us daily, that stand in line with us or walk past us in the street, if that whole segment of society is neglected health-wise and sickly, how do their health epidemics not crossover into being all of ours?
Single payer is operated successfully in nearly all developed nations, the argument that America is too incompetent to succeed at what every other country has is bogus, a phony talking point coming from either those who have ignorantly bought into that insurance industry propaganda or those intentionally trying to prevent all Americans from having not-for-profit healthcare.
Google is your friend. Very few of any advanced countries have single payer Healthcare, even though most all have Universal Healthcare. Some like the U.K. have nationalized Healthcare. A VA for All. Others like Switzerland and Germany have private health insurance with the government aiding those who can’t afford the private insurance. Still others like Australia and Canada have a system that looks like single payer but is largely decentralized and run at the state or provincial government level (California would do its thing and Mississippi would do its thing). Single payer as Bernie proposes really doesn’t exist anyplace. Oh, and single payer is NOT Medicare for All since Medicare in general only covers 80%. To have full coverage, most buy private insurance and then the private insurer, NOT the Federal Government acts as the payer to the healthcare providers. Single payer is closest to Medicaid for All which has a much more restricted choice of healthcare providers.
Also note that less than 10% of folk in the US are not covered by health insurance. And that includes illegal residents who are not covered in places like Canada under their system and young folk who don’t see much of a need for coverage. So what we are looking at with single payer is a central government take over of a gigantic system to add coverage for a very small percent of the population. Oh, and trillions a year in new taxes to pay for it. Now try to convince people these are not new taxes because their bosses will no longer have to pay for their insurance. Sure, those bosses will pass their health insurance savings to their workers. If you and Bernie missed it, his Single Payer would likely be a windfall to the corporations and rich on a scale equal to Trump’s tax give away.
A little more Google and a wee bit less ideology I think is often a good thing. Or so says Bah Humbug Jake, the numbers guy.
Google will also tell you that of ALL industrialized nations in THE WORLD, the USA spends more per capita for health care and more people do not have access to quality affordable health care. Although not all industrialized nations have a single payer system, they ALL have some form of universal health care system that covers ALL of their citizens. Btw, I have personal experience with the Canadian system. I was injured when I visited Canada once, and they patched me up without EVER asking me for money OR asking me for any insurance information.
I recall reading some years ago that when Singapore was examining models for their universal health care system, the country that they DID NOT want to model was the USA. The idea is to cover all citizens without regard to their ability to pay. No nation provides health care coverage for free. Health care is funded in a manner to provide the maximum benefit to citizens WITHOUT considering profits for private insurance companies that fill in the gaps.
The USA does not have to copy any existing model. We can create our own unique model. The current system is woefully inadequate, simply because the primary motivation of the system is profits for insurance companies. There is no getting around that in a for-profit environment. Some Americans, including myself, feel that a person’s life should not be subject to the profits of an insurance company. Pre-existing conditions? There is no way that the private health insurance market can cover pre-existing conditions EVEN IF THEY WANTED to. The ONLY way to cover pre-existing conditions is to have a single pool AND a way to still cover deficits, and NO private industry can do that.
Thanks to Google, here is the closest thing to the truth about how various nations provide better health care than the USA, in spite of the fact that the USA probably has the best health care delivery system in the world.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/international_health_systems_for_single_payer_advocates.php
Yep, as I said Single Payer is far from what most all advanced countries have. But most all have Universal Healthcare which is what I also support. And yes, Switzerland, Germany and France among many others base their Universal Healthcare on private insurance and private providers. Their healthcare costs and life expectancies are better than here and just as good as the Single Payer and Nationalized systems in other countries. Here is another situation where I would actually like to see Universal Healthcare enacted in the real world in the near term. You seem to want to make an ideological and what you see as a principled point. Anyway, expansion of Obamacare with a public option as proposed by Biden is for real and can be passed if he wins and we keep the House and pickup the Senate. If you missed it and whether you like it or not, Biden seems to have already gotten support from biggies like AARP, AMA, Kaiser, etc. for this form of Universal Healthcare. They have come out strongly against Single Payer and will oppose any candidate who supports it. And then there are the needed new taxes. One is in the tens of billions a year. Bernie’s baby is in the trillions and nothing like it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
As an aside, campaigning on expanding Obamacare, with Switzerland as a reference if needed, with folk keeping their insurance sure sounds better than Medicaid for All or the VA for All with trillions a year in new taxes to basically extend healthcare to some 5% or so of the legal population who are not now covered and want to be. As an aside, in Canada you got emergency care as I’ve gotten in England. Oh, and we were LEGALLY there. That is NOT healthcare coverage. That is emergency care available to anyone, even an illegal. An illegal here already can get that. But they can’t get a heart transplant without paying. Same for you and me in Canada and England.
Your statement that single payer is “far from” what most advanced countries have is misleading at best and to be more accurate it is false. The universal plans most advanced countries have are actually very close to a single payer system. Private insurance in only used to fill in the gaps and is not used for primary care. You may or may not know that the ACA was originally a republican alternative to Hillarycare, which was closer to a single payer system. In fact, Obama initially supported a single payer system in his first campaign for POTUS. The ACA protects the for-profit private insurance industry. The only reason most Democrats supported it when it was originally passed was because it was better than what we had before the ACA. It was a means to an end. With a republican Congress and/or a republican president, the ACA was the best we could get. That is not the case if we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president, unless of course the president is Biden or some other person who panders to the republican fear of “socialism”, like Social Security and Medicare.
Additionally, the court ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, that the ACA was unconstitutional because the government does not have the power to mandate or require people to purchase goods and services under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Roberts allowed the law to stand, but essentially gave a signal to Congress to change it so that it would be funded by a tax, as that is the only way Congress can fund programs. The court essentially said that the penalty was constitutional because it was administered by the IRS, which made it look like a tax. The problem with that ruling is that it is difficult to give the IRS the power to penalize an individual for something that the court said is unconstitutional, i.e., the individual mandate.
With the current make-up of the court, it is highly likely that in the upcoming case that challenges the constitutionality of the ACA, at least a 5-4 decision will make it unconstitutional. In fact it could be a unanimous decision, and neither Joe Biden or anyone else who opposes single payer has a Plan B if the court rules the ACA is unconstitutional.
Not so. The bulk of Universal Health plans are VA for All as in the UK or government subsidizing private insurance to help those in need like Switzerland, Germany and France. And the few countries with a single payer type system decentralize it to operate primarily at the state or provincial level like Australia and Canada. If you missed it, Biden’s plan would fund the added insurance for those without it and can’t afford it from taking back some of the Trump tax giveaway to the rich. And if you missed it, single payer will require some $2 TRILLION in new taxes a year and give a windfall to the corporations. Besides, it doesn’t have a chance of passing with the massive opposition it will get even from the good guys of healthcare. Again, I want to oust Trump and I want to get Universal Healthcare. I’m not interested in ideological purity or the good fight for the principle of it that is most likely to lose.
According to the OECD most countries with universal plans fund them primarily with government funding and use private insurance to fill in the gaps for elective care and such. I don’t often agree with the Roberts court, but I agree that per the Commerce Clause, the ACA’s individual mandate in unconstitutional, so unless Congress makes subsidies to help those who can’t afford private insurance in the form of a tax, there is no fix for the ACA.
As for the cost of a single payer system being $2 trillion a year, I suspect it would be more than that initially, although the cost curve should bend downward after we establish a healthier population by making primary care available to everyone. We currently spend over $3.4 trillion a year on health care. Universal single payer is not a matter of ideological purity, rather it is a matter of having the political will to do the most prudent and cost effective thing related to providing health care to all Americans. Spreading lies about “socialism” and protecting the private health insurance industry keeps the USA at the absolute bottom as far as providing health care for our people. You and Biden sound like freaking republicans.
In Germany, Switzerland, France and many others healthcare is with private insurance with the government using tax revenues to fill in the gaps to make it universal. Our gap is 5% to 10%. So not only would a Swiss like system be way less disruptive and easier to implement than a Single Payer, it would take less than a tenth as much in new taxes to fund. Also, it would have way more political support from the public since 75% say they want Universal Health but want to keep their private insurance. And some of the biggies of healthcare will likely support it instead of opposing it. Try to get anything passed with AARP and Kaiser actively opposing it. And so what if you think Biden and I have a Republican position? Actually that’s good if it helps get us Universal Healthcare. Single Payer doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to get enacted and will feed the Radical/Socialist claims of the Republicans. And like Impeachment that would fail, it helps Trump win.
Oh, the ideology is thinking the Central Government can be more efficient than a private decentralized system of nonprofit and for-profit businesses. The VA vs. Kaiser. The Post Office vs. FedEx. On a personal note, I observed the comparison in China as they made their economic transition. The contrast was so great and one sided it was funny. And I’ve spent over 40 years in a field with on going direct comparisons between Central Government and decentralized private nonprofit and for-profit operations. The latter wins hands down. I can’t get into the details without identifying myself which I will not do.
Please provide a link that supports this statement, as it is contrary to what I read at the link I provided to you. The FACT is that most countries that use universal health care systems use public funding to cover the overwhelming majority of it, and they only use about 5% funding from private insurance.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/international_health_systems_for_single_payer_advocates.php
I did a longer detailed response to you which got lost somewhere in this place which didn’t keep a draft. Anyway, Switzerland is based on a system closest to our private insurance. France has a multiplayer system that is closely tied to the central government but some 85% of the population have private health insurance to supplement the inadequate basic system. Germany is a great mix of systems based on professional associations, mutuals, private insurance, etc. Google is your friend. I want Universal Healthcare so I support the one closest to our current system that takes the least new taxes and would have the broadest political support even from some of the biggies of healthcare like Kaiser and AARP. And I don’t want to push for anything that can support Trump’s Socialist canard if there is a viable alternative. Single Payer fails on all these.
You keep saying that Google is my friend. Is Google also YOUR friend? For whatever reason, you continue to misrepresent the effectiveness of universal healthcare in other nations. I provided a link that gave a summary of healthcare in UN nations according the OECD, which you refute but you won’t provide a link to support your claims. Here is another link that I found on “our friend” Google that explains healthcare coverage in France. Your statement that 85% of healthcare coverage in supplemented by private insurance in France COULD give the impression that private insurance companies fund 85% of healthcare cost in France. That may or may not be your intent. The fact is 70% of healthcare cost in France is funded by universal healthcare and 30% by private insurance, which is similar to the 20% that is supplemented in USA by private insurance related to Medicare.
The important point is that a universal single payer system is the most cost effective healthcare system in the world. Wherever private for-profit healthcare insurance is used, the primary focus by definition is on “profits”, and not healthcare.
https://transferwise.com/us/blog/healthcare-system-in-france
In Germany the healthcare system seems to be more employer and income based. If you make under a certain income, you are required to be in the public healthcare system, while you can choose to be covered by private insurance companies if your income is higher than the threshold, as well as some other circumstances.
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/healthinsurance.html
Yep, Germany and France are Universal Healthcare with a major role for private insurance. They are NOT Single Payer. Switzerland is based on private insurance. Do note that private insurance in the US is not only for-profit but can be nonprofit, mutual, cooperative, etc. For example, Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield are nonprofit. Damn, most people in the US who do not get Medicare/Medicaid/VA get it from private nonprofits.
You say:
“The important point is that a universal single payer system is the most cost effective healthcare system in the world. Wherever private for-profit healthcare insurance is used, the primary focus by definition is on ‘profits’, and not healthcare.”
You know no such thing. First, there are very few Bernie type Single Payer systems and I’ve seen no study that says they are anymore cost effective than the other Universal Healthcare systems. And as I’ve indicated, the whole “for-profit” line is ideological since most private health insurance is NOT for-profit whether here or in most other countries. What is actually most important is getting Universal Healthcare passed in the US. And that will be way easier with a plan like Biden’s than Bernie’s Single Payer…and I know you know that. But if you don’t then just image which would be easier to pass, a plan supported or not actively opposed by the likes of Kaiser, AARP, the AMA, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc. or actively and vigorously opposed by them.
You sound like a health insurance lobbyist or something, as you are TOTALLY misrepresenting universal healthcare abroad as well as the private health insurance industry in the USA. First of all, the French says France is as close to a single payer system as you can get without being totally single payer, and even Germany REQUIRES public insurance if you earn less than a threshold. And most private health insurance companies operate for the purpose of making a profit. To deny that is to out and out LIE.
Everyone has an opinion, and you can fine a website by doing a Google search to support almost any position you take. Some things though are just plain old horse sense.
All a single payer health insurance system is, is one where people collectively fund the cost of their health care. You can call it “socialism” or any “ism” you choose, but all it is, is people helping people. The ideal model of a single payer system is one where EVERYONE is in one pool and people pay according to their ability to pay, while everyone has access to quality health care with ZERO regard to profits. Any deficits are taken care of by the government that administers a healthcare tax, just like deficits are handled in any other government program by a federal government that has an unlimited capacity to fund ANYTHING, i.e., a national debt of over $20 trillion and RAPIDLY growing every second.
The United States government can fund ANYTHING its citizens need. All that is required is the will to do it. As Dick Cheney famously or infamously once said, “Deficits don’t matter”. Further, as I have stated countless times with no one even attempting to challenge me, there is absolutely no way that the private health insurance industry can cover pre-existing conditions and make a profit, and there is no way they will even attempt to do it if they cannot make a profit. DO YOU DISPUTE THIS???
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/why-5-new-nonprofit-health-insurance-cooperatives-failed-to-thrive-the-federal-undermining-of-a-field-of-nonprofits/
I am a health insurance lobbyist. A Universal Healthcare Insurance one. I want all to have coverage for their healthcare with the government subsidizing those who can’t afford it. You what ideological purity that guarantees we not only won’t have Single Payer, we won’t have Medicare for All, we won’t have any form of Universal Healthcare. We’ve gone back and forth on these issues over the years and it goes nowhere. You’re wedded to the principle. I’m wedded to the reality. And with that let’s leave this for now.
At least I have a better understanding of your defense of the private health insurance industry. Needless to say, I am not a big fan of your industry. I don’t blame the industry for trying to make profits. That is what for-profits businesses do. I just don’t see what value private for-profit health insurance companies add to the healthcare space. Maybe you can respond to what the industry can do that is better than people self funding through a single payer system. I can see the expertise the industry has developed in administering insurance programs and that process is worth a fee, as it would cost the government to administer a single payer system. However, other than an administrative function, I don’t see the value in the industry.
As I pointed out, most health coverage is NOT for-profit. It is like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield. They are non-profit. And I don’t give a damn if some companies also make a profit as long as we get Universal Healthcare. You would rather dump on for-profit companies at the cost of having Universal Health. As I mentioned, I’ve spent over 40 years in a field that is mixed Fed Government, nonprofit, for-profit and cooperative. By far the least efficient and cost ineffective is Fed Government. Not to mention usually poor quality. I’m into real outcomes, not the ideological purity of the process. Oh, it’s NOT related to health insurance. You misunderstand my comment. Bye bye…
How can you be an effective lobbyist for the health insurance industry when you can’t even carry on a conversation with a lay person? The problem is you are attempting to defend the indefensible.
You probably know as well as I, that no entity other than the federal government can effectively cover over 300 million people, including pre-existing conditions. It simply cannot be done. Obama said the only reason he supported and promoted the ACA, which was originally a republican alternative to Hillarycare, was because the private health insurance industry was already in place and he was trying to preserve it. He said if he was starting from scratch, he would prefer a single payer system, but his new position was to basically protect the private health insurance industry because it was a more moderate position that republicans could get behind.
TOCB – Every time I check out a claim by Jake321 on what he says is a fact, it turns out to be false. Based on this, I don’t have confidence in any of his claims, including his claim about being a health insurance lobbyist.
How could a lobbyist have made such a false claim that most health insurance is with non-profits when that is an outright falsehood?
Here are the real facts, a list of the top health insurance companies in number of patients and revenue, from Forbes (a slightly more legit source than Jake):
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/america-s-largest-health-insurers-in-2018.html
It’s always the ones who go out of their way to claim how highly they value facts that turn out to be the most averse to them.
“According to Alliance for Advancing Nonprofit Health Care’s most recent report, about 63% of U.S. health plans with over 100,000 enrollees are nonprofit.”
And then:
“For more than 80 years, Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) companies have provided secure and stable healthcare coverage to people in communities across the country. BCBS grew out of a grassroots approach to a prepaid hospital plan in 1929. Today, the 36 independent and locally operated BCBS companies take what we learn from covering more than 106 million people – one in three Americans – and use that knowledge to improve our healthcare system, and the health and wellness of our local communities.”
And then:
“Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente is one of the nation’s largest not-for-profit health plans, serving 12.3 million…”
And then there are the 18 million covered by the VA.
But I apologize, I hadn’t realized some BCBS insurers had become for-profit. So while most of the health plans covering 100,000 or more people are non-profit, most people are no longer covered by non-profits, just a very large proportion are. But the point remains, the issue is not the for-profit structure but the most likely way to get Universal Healthcare for all US residents. I’ll put my bets on a proposal that is supported or at least not opposed by the likes of Kaiser, BCBS (non-profit or for-profit) and AARP (in partnership with United Health for some 5 million seniors) than actively opposed by them. Why you guys don’t understand this is beyond me.
Oh, I have said repeatedly I am NOT a health insurance industry lobbyist. That was an accusation made against me because I actually supported and was “lobbying” for getting Universal Healthcare in the near here-and-now with a plan like Biden’s and would not buy into Bernie’s Single Payer sure
loser. You guys should take a deep breath and focus on what is doable and not what you think is the pure with no chance of happening any time soon. See, I want Universal Healthcare for ALL residents of the US even if it means some big bad capitalists make a buck. You guys seem to want to punish those big bad capitalists more than helping the uninsured and under-insured.
You offered a trivial unknown lobbying group as backup for your disproven statements. BTW, I found a financial report for them and in 2015 their gross income was $7,190 and in 2014 it was $8,827. Do you really think that’s a better funded, more substantial and reliable source than Forbes?
Meanwhile, you again mix apples and oranges to deflect from how your claims were untrue. Your disproven claim about the majority of people being insured by non-profits is not proven correct by offering a completely different assertion that, “about 63% of U.S. health plans with over 100,000 enrollees are nonprofit.”
That is a non-sequitur, even if that was true though I doubt it is, it doesn’t contradict Forbes’ list of for-profit insurers proving most Americans are in for-profit plans.
You can keep hammering a square peg into a round hole but it will never fit. Truth is so much easier.
I said that since some BCBS plans have gone for-profit, most Americans are no longer covered by not-for-profit healthcare coverage. Oh, it would take me pages to refute all the crap you have listed about my position on Universal Healthcare. With the first lie being that I do not support Universal Healthcare. Now that is pretty basic. And again you miss the main point. We have an existing health coverage system that is in large part not-for-profit and even so does not cover all. The major issue is how best to get Universal Healthcare passed, not how to take vengeance on those big bad capitalists. Way easier to get political support for a system that is built on the existing system and takes only about a tenth as much in new taxes then try to throwout a system employing millions that now covers a great majority of the population to have coverage for a relatively small part of the population without coverage now. And create a single centralized Federal agency that would take trillions a year in new taxes and massively increase the Federal workforce. Oh, and give a windfall to corporations who will no longer pay for employee health insurance. I want Universal Healthcare so I support the plan with by far the greatest likelihood of passing.
You have to admit Jake, that revealing that you are a lobbyist for the insurance industry kinda gives the impression that you are conflicted related to single payer. I grant you that you are entitled to your opinion. Also, since the Democratic Party is a big tent party, we make room for more conservative people like you. All I ask of anyone, progressive or conservative, republican or Democrat, is integrity and transparency. Employers will always participate in healthcare coverage for their employees, as it is in their best interest to have a healthy workforce. However, the contribution by employers would go to the same single pool as contributions by other participants. My guess is that most employers would welcome a single payer insurance system. As you know, insurance is about FUNDING healthcare and not about PROVIDINIG healthcare. The provider network in the USA does not have to change one iota as a result of a single payer insurance system, except it would be more accessible to more people. THAT is the goal of everyone except the private for-profit health insurance industry.
As for getting an quality cost effective system passed in Congress, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THE POLITICAL WILL. As long as republicans run the government, NO cost effective system will be passed. The ONLY reason most Democrats, including myself, supported the republican ACA plan was because given the conservatives in Congress in the Democratic and the republican parties in 2010, that is best we could do.
Obama erroneously thought that republicans would work with him if he proposed more conservative plans across the board. He did not realize the error in that until his second term. When we elect a Democratic Congress and a progressive Democratic president, we WILL pass a single payer system. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Democrats need to explain and enlighten the public about the myths of “socialism” as republicans have characterized it. Republicans have a tendency to lie and distort about EVERYTHING. It is prudent for any society to continuously manage the optimum mixture of collective/public funding and private funding for things that people need.
Socialist programs DO NOT give control of resources to the government, as communism does. It simply provides for public or collective funding, as opposed to private for-profit funding. Some things can be more effectively funded by the private sector, while others are more effectively funded by the public sector. We really don’t want some people in our society to have better military protection, law enforcement protection, access to education, roads and bridges, and YES HEALTHCARE than others. We want these services to be equally available to ALL people. At least that is what I prefer. Maybe you don’t.
You are funny with your repeating that crap about me being an agent for the insurance industry. But again, enough. I’m for Universal Healthcare that can pass. You want to make an ideological point with Single Payer that will never pass.
I am funny for repeating something YOU said? You have a very strange sense of humor. Universal healthcare does not work without single payer. I know that AND YOU know that. Why you refuse to admit that is your business.
You are funny misreading what I said and sticking to that even after I repeatedly corrected you. Since most advanced countries have universal healthcare that is NOT a Single Payer System as Bernie proposes, I disagree. And since Switzerland and other countries have Universal Healthcare based on a private insurance system or one with a major private insurance component with government subsidies for those in need, you are wrong. But most important, Single Payer doesn’t have a chance of passing in the US while a much cheaper in terms of new taxes Universal Health System based on the current system expanded as proposed by Biden could actually pass.
I am afraid you lack credibility on this subject Jake. And everything you said in your last post is completely false. It is hard for me to believe you actually believe that.
So says you…I recall you getting this kind of bee in your bonnet on other issues. It seems to be your way.
I am not sure what kind of “bee” you are talking about, but I admit that when I believe something, I don’t just change my opinion because someone else has a different opinion, although I want to be able to recognize valid points and even change my opinion when or if I see those valid points are better. As I stated before, I am an imperfect being. Most people I know are.
LOL…yes we all are…
This is much like your claim that most healthcare plans are non-profit (which you admitted is incorrect) and it is a false statement. The largest component of EVERY universal healthcare system is the single payer component. It is virtually impossible for the for-profit healthcare industry to cover all basic healthcare needs, including pre-existing conditions.
I think we have a definitional problem. Single Payer refers to a single Federal Agency raising taxes to fund Universal Healthcare AND administering the direct payments to the healthcare providers, not just being the single funding source for the Universal System. I’m all for the Fed’s raising taxes to help provide the money for those who need subsidies including for those not now covered. I don’t see the need for the Fed’s to take over as the sole funding source for ALL health insurance to do this. But I’m especially against the Fed’s nationalizing and monopolizing the entire health insurance system and being the single central administrator of the entire system. As with Impeachment I’ll go with Pelosi’s practical political position on this as well:
https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-medicare-all-single-payer-health-insurance-affordable-care-act-1318788
Time out, Jake. You posted in response to one of my posts that you are a health insurance lobbyist. Are you saying that you were kidding about that? You also accused me of not accepting your apology when you admitted that it is not factual that most healthcare insurance plans are non-profit. The above post is the first time I saw that admission, and I have not posted on this thread since you posted that.
By adopting a single payer healthcare funding system does not put the government in control of healthcare delivery. Medicare is funded by the government while allowing people to use the private healthcare delivery networks. One does not have to go to the VA to be in Medicare plans.
I agree that some government run programs are poorly run, but that is not true of every government run program. Again, not that anyone I know of is proposing the government should run our healthcare delivery system. Bernie is not proposing that, nor is anyone else.
Although I am not a big fan of Bernie’s for president, I appreciate the work he has done in Congress. I think the way he ran his 2016 campaign was harmful to the Democratic Party and ultimately to the country, as it helped to elect trump. Bernie’s campaign lied about Hillary Clinton on many occasions that from my perspective went over the line as far as hardnose politics is concerned. In reality, so did the Obama campaign in 2008, as Obama’s campaign was the first to promote the lie that Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. I know that Obama, Sanders and everyone else who say that know that the Resolution To Use Force Against Iraq was NOT a vote for war with Iraq IF Iraq complied with the terms of UN sanctions, which they did and Bush 43 and republicans illegally invaded Iraq anyway.
Additionally, I am not anti-Biden. I just think his time has come and gone and that his worldview is from a time that has passed. Also, I don’t apologize for not supporting ANY white male until a female has been elected president. To me it is shameful that we have not had a female president in the over 240 years of our existence as a nation.
I was playing and said I was a lobbyist for Universal Health Insurance, not the Health Insurance industry and for not an actual paid lobbyist for anything. And I apologized for not keeping up with the times. Didn’t realize some BCBS plans had gone from non-profit to for-profit. But my point is that a large part of the health insurance industry is not-for-profit. So it is not just the big bad for-profit corporations that are the issue but what is the most likely way to get Universal Healthcare. And yes, I don’t think centralized national monopolies are efficient whether private or public. And yes, I wish Biden was 20 years younger but as of now he remains our best chance of beating Trump…it so ALL the polls show…even the latest from Fox that threw Whacko Trump into a Twitter hissy fit against them. Maybe one of the women will come up strongly in the Primaries and against Trump. But as of now it is old white Unky Biden, whom I likely would not support in saner, less critical times. As an aside, I supported Clinton in the 2008 Primaries.
Capitalism is vastly overrated. Like cancer, it can only survive by endlessly and increasingly devouring its host. Which in this case happens to be the American people. I’ll take a little humane socialism any day. And most younger people — including younger voters of which there are many — are not the slightest bit averse to hearing and using the word socialism. They’re quite comfortable with it, in fact.
Thank you, AdLib, for injecting a bit of real truth into the discussion!
Well, if you missed it we are NOT starting from scratch. Almost 300 million people in the US already have healthcare coverage:
“The percentage of people with health insurance coverage for all or part of 2017 was 91.2 percent, not statistically different from the rate in 2016 (91.2 percent). Between 2016 and 2017, the number of people with health insurance coverage increased by 2.3 million, up to 294.6 million.”
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-264.html
Of course the Fed’s need to be involved in the funding to cover the less than 10% without coverage now and to provide for improved coverage. But to build on what we already have is a hell of a lot cheaper and will take a hell of a lot less tax money and has a hell of a better chance of being enacted than throwing out must all the current system to be replaced with a Fed Government Single Payer System which has zero chance of passing now and likely forevermore.
And stop with this saying I’m a heath industry lobbyist. But yes I support and advocate for Universal Healthcare like Biden is proposing and against Bernie’s sure loser Single Payer Plan. It often seems like you are more interested in making a principled point than in reality.
Jake321, As an RN with decades of experience, I have to wonder if you’ve ever spent time in the real world American health care system. Private insurers serve absolutely NO useful purpose in American healthcare — unless you count being a paper-shuffling, procedure-delaying, money-grabbing middle man as a “purpose.” The vast majority of physicians HATE insurance companies and view them as time-wasting blood-suckers. The sooner they’re all gone, the better — for both patients and physicians.
The American Nurses Association backed Bernie in 2016 because he was the ONE candidate who got it. And that endorsement was from people who are the “boots on the ground” (not the wonks) of health care in America.
Guess you missed my point. I want Universal Healthcare in our big bad real world of private insurers, both for-profit and not-for-profit. As I’ve noted, I would rather have Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser, AARP, the AMA, etc. supporting a Universal Healthcare proposal, or at least not vigorously opposing it, than have them as vigorous opponents which they all are in terms of Single Payer. I also believe that a plan that costs billions a year in new taxes has a better chance of passing than one that costs TRILLIONS a year in new taxes, while eliminating an entire industry with millions of private sector jobs and creates a vast new Federal Agency.
Yes, I have had more dealing with the current system than I would have liked. So what? Oh, please poll your RN’s to see if they like dealing with most private insurance companies vs. dealing with Medicaid. Would they like working for a private hospital or the VA or a county hospital. Would they like to work for the Federal Government like Postal Workers? Since that is the direction this will go if the Federal Government nationalized Health Insurance and gets a monopoly on funding the entire healthcare system. And ask the doctors the same questions. Seems they general don’t like dealing with Medicaid way more than having to deal with private insurance. Again, a plan similar to Biden’s based on our current system which covers most everyone with an expanded Obamacare for those not now covered has at least some chance of passing if he becomes Prez. A plan like Bernie’s Single Payer has even less chance of passing as Bernie becoming Prez. I want Universal Healthcare, not pie in the sky. Seems that’s also Pelosi’s position:
https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-medicare-all-single-payer-health-insurance-affordable-care-act-1318788
Don’t know about you but I think a plan supported by Pelosi has a wee bit better chance of passing than one opposed by her. But who knows?
Oh believe me, nurses and doctors know all about dealing with insurance companies. They know exactly how obnoxious it is to have to fill out a SIX PAGE mandatory form to justify ordering a given antibiotic to a given patient. All because some ignorant pencil pushing dope with no medical expertise at all thinks that forcing professionals to justify their decisions at ridiculous length will cut down on the use of particular (perhaps more expensive, but more effective) medications and/or procedures. They want everyone to be on cheap generic drugs, treatments and procedures (or better yet, none at all) and they’re happy to make life a total misery for any medical professional who puts patient safety and proper treatment above the almighty bottom line. Capitalism has NO place in medicine. None. Health care should never be a profit-making “industry.” This is one of the many areas (along with for-profit schools, prisons, etc.) where capitalism totally sucks and should be eliminated entirely.
And Medicaid is better? And they don’t have pencil pushers in the Post Office or the DMV…who can’t be fired for dragging their feet and even incompetence? Virtually every Universal Health System has a major private component. I don’t care if they are all non-profit or mutuals or coops. But I also don’t care if they are for-profit especially since to get Universal Healthcare passed here we will have to live with for-profit insurance for quite awhile.
Without capitalism in medicine in one way or another most people alive today would likely be dead. Some of the best medical centers in the US are for-profit. But I’m not ideological about this. Some areas that you mention don’t have to be publicly owned but private for-profit and non-profit whichever works better and is most cost effective. I generally favor community ownership and cooperative ownership over government ownership. But generally favor them over profit oriented ownership if there is not much entrepreneurial need in the operation. However, getting the best results for the users in a cost effective way should be the primary goal, not that of ownership form even if a private owner makes a buck. As I mentioned before, I worked in a field for some 40 years that had all these ownership forms providing the same product and service. By far the worst in terms of quality, cost effectiveness and user satisfaction was government ownership. All the rest were better and pretty much the same as each other. It was being non-governmental that made the difference.
Medicaid is a helluva lot better. As is Medicare. To quote one of the physicians I worked with: “They might be a little slower to pay, but at least they pay.” Unlike private insurance companies, whose motto is: “Dispute, Delay, Then Deny.” As a person who has worked in healthcare (which obviously you have not), I can say that the most accurate representation of the way things really are regarding private insurers was Michael Moore’s film “SickO.” Those immoral insurers depicted in the film? They’re for real. I’ve taken care of people who had brain stem infarcts because they couldn’t afford their blood pressure meds. I’ve seen 28 year old women denied coverage for chemotherapy.
Your anti-government attitude seems to come straight from Rush Limbaugh and/or Fox News. I’ve never had a negative experience at the BMV. I’ve asked many people on Social Security whether their payments are deposited every month without fail, and the answer has always been “yes.” And for many other people, government services function perfectly well. So obviously the government isn’t the massive collection of “inept gummint parasites” that you and the rest of the right wing media love to portray.
Unregulated capitalism’s day is over with. And the sooner older people get with the program and recognize that younger voters do not like the system they’re stuck with and plan to change it, the better for all.
Young folk always seem to joy in reinventing the wheel and not learning from the mistakes of the past. And today a lot din’t know what a dictionary or history book is. But enthusiasm they do have. Maybe it comes from inexperience and a still not fully developed brain. And it’s clear you have not spent much time in a Socialist country.
“Young folk” (to use the geezerific term for the people who will very shortly be running the show without “help” from their elders) could make a great argument that they’ve been left a stinking mess of a situation to clean up here. They figure that socialism could hardly be any worse than the stunted, poisoned environment they’ve grown up in. One where buying a home, paying for a college education and getting health care that doesn’t bankrupt them are all but impossible — unless they happened to have been born into Koch brothers level wealth.
But, since it’s difficult to have a true dialog with someone who knows more about Japan than someone who has lived there for 40 years, and who knows more about what it’s like to be a registered nurse than an RN does, I’ll be exiting this thread now.
At least one mission was accomplished in the course of the discussion, though. Joe Biden has one less vote in the primary than he might have had a few days ago.
For an expat who claims they have not lived in the US for 40 years you seem to think you know a lot about the US today. I never said I knew more about Japan than you. I just used sources about Japan that seem credible and said I would check with my Japanese relatives since I have no idea who you are and how credible you are. And the same goes for RN’s. I checked sources and will check my RN relatives who are practicing in the US today. Well, a large part of the Dem voters disagree with you since in recent days Biden has been increasing his lead over the other Dem candidates. On average, he has almost the same support as the next three candidates combined. He is also the only Dem who is beating Trump by more than we beat the Republicans in 2018. The others are either not beating him or are by less than our 2018 margin which is not good. Our goal is to beat Trump. All else is secondary. We’ll see how he does in the debate this time.
Once again, you are very confused, Jake. Kesmarn is a very experienced RN who lives in the US and not in Japan. Kalima lives in Japan.
Both are extremely knowledgeable about the US, politics and many other topics and no one here questions their credibility because they don’t get easily confused, they don’t pretend to know what they don’t know, they don’t offer unsubstantiated or incorrect “facts” nor have I ever seen them fabricate claims about having relatives in every field of work or country as needed to try and argue why they would know better than people who have more insight and experience than they do on an issue.
I believe in coincidence but if one person after another expresses that they find the same person lacking in credibility, that person may want to reflect on why that is and how that could be addressed.
AdLib, thank you so much for clarifying the fact that Kalima and I are two different people (and for clarifying so many other things as well). People are entitled to their own opinions of course, but when they decide that they’re also entitled to decide other peoples’ opinions regarding the country or health care system that they’ve lived in/worked with for decades, that’s when communication breaks down. The commercial about the character who says: “I’m not a neurosurgeon, but I (or one of my relatives) slept at a Holiday Inn last night,” comes to mind.
You are correct, I confused the two of you. Sorry.
And how about you? Let’s see, after I in detail describe my support for Universal Health you not only say I don’t support it but go on a bull crap rant in a personal attack on me accusing me of all kinds of bad things. After I note I was wrong about some statement you can’t constrain yourself from continuing attacks as if I hadn’t corrected my claim. I post plenty of references from the likes of the CDC, the US Census, Kaiser, etc. and you go on a diatribe about not liking one of my references but without countering the data in that reference. You seem to like personal attacks, gotyas, scoring debating points and pissing on posts (pun intended).
Oh, have you also gone after TOCB for confusing my posts to you as if they were to him? And we don’t even have similar names. I also told you that if you don’t believe any of my personal claims, we can use Murph to verify them, including my Left credentials and family connections.
And again, only about 10% don’t have health coverage and a major proportion who don’t could have it if they wanted. (The link to your reference claiming otherwise didn’t work but it appeared to be similar to one by one of the “K’s” that used stats about subgroups of the population and incorrectly claimed it applied to the whole population.) Most all Universal Health plans around the world have a major role for the private sector and thus Bernie’s Single Payer is not the same as what most all other countries have. A major part of our private health coverage is not-for-profit and thus by the numbers the reason the US is so much more expensive than other countries can not just be due to excess profits.
A Universal Health Plan that retains the current private insurance and takes billions of new taxes a year has a better chance of passing than one that eliminates the private insurers and takes TRILLIONS a year in new taxes.
A Universal Health proposal that has the support of the likes of the AARP, Kaiser and the AMA has a better chance of passing than one they actively oppose. A Dem candidate who supports a plan that these folk can support has a better chance of beating Trump than a candidate who supports a plan that they oppose. Since our top priority is beating Trump it seems to make the choice fairly easy. And that seems to be the way both the Dem voters and general electorate are leaning…at least for…
Here in Japan we pay a certain amount, not that much, in our taxes, and then only have to pay 30% on our medication or treatment. If you pay more than a certain amount in a year, you get a rebate. I would have been much poorer if I had paid the full amount for a recent surgery. A visit to any hospital for consultation, only costs on average, $10. Waiting for months or hours to see a doctor even with an appointment as with the NHS, is very rare here. I consider myself to be very lucky and don’t understand why it can’t happen in America or why no Dem candidate mentions fixing Obamacare. It seems more popular now.
Well, that actually is what Biden is proposing. Most of the others seem to want to move us towards an NHS System by starting with Single Payer while wiping out the current private insurance system. No way that the Federal Government once it has a monopoly on paying for and controlling all Healthcare will not move to nationalize the private providers. It’s the nature of the beast. And exactly what is intended by the Democratic Socialists like Bernie.
It works for 126.8 million people in Japan but some who can afford it stay with their private insurance provider and there is the point, most can’t afford private insurance. I have never thought of it as government controlled because I pay into it and benefit from outstanding healthcare.
If you are against Socialism, then giving up Welfare benefits, Medicare and SS would be ok with those who made Socialism their boogeyman man? Most people screaming about Socialism are following their leader and don’t even know what it means.
Oh, before I forget, I’m off to see the neurosurgeon who saved my life 6 weeks ago, where I will be treated like a queen in a so-called, government controlled hospital giving me the best healthcare in my lifetime.
Btw, the NHS was doing ok until Thatcher and Tories who came after her, started to butcher it by either stealing funds or underfunding it. Like the repubs, the Tories don’t give a shit about who dies.
Japan does not have a Single Payer System. It has thousands of private health insurance providers that people are mandated to join. Those who can’t afford the costs are subsidized by the government. Health insurance is NOT nationalized in Japan as Bernie’s Single Payer System would be. I have no problem with the system in Japan even though a lot of folk break the law and don’t buy private health insurance. I have no problem with Medicare especially when you buy extra private health insurance that covers the 20% of your costs not covered by Medicare. In this case, the payer and administrator becomes the private insurance company which is reimbursed by the Federal Medicare Insurance Fund plus tax revenues and fees. In practice, much of Medicare is NOT Federal Single Payer. And I have no problem with government administered and subsidized social insurance funds like SS and Unemployment Insurance. None of these are Socialist in the classic or formal sense.
I spent a lot of time in this thread indicating why I support Universal Health in the US that builds on Obamacare and our current private insurance system which is subsidized by the Fed’s for those who can’t afford the insurance. Single Payer nationalizes the entire health insurance industry eliminating millions of private jobs replacing it all with a gigantic new Federal Agency. And the intent of the Democratic Socialists most pushing Single Payer is to next nationalize the entire health provider system, making our entire healthcare system a VA for All or similar to the UK’s NHS.
I like Socialism in the form of consumer and worker coops and TVA. But what I don’t like is when Socialism becomes the organizing central principe of the whole National economy and society. Mostly because it always fails or stagnates and becomes dictatorial. Oh, and there is no example of a Democratic Socialist country today and has never been one that lasted more than a few years. However, there are plenty of fine Social Democratic countries. But the two systems while having similar names are poles apart. Bernie and friends are Democratic Socialists, NOT Social Democrats. They embrace a system that has had nothing but failures for a
century.
The only healthcare plan you are mandated to join is the national healthcare insurance, “Shakkai Hoken” run by the government. All citizens, dependents and those working here are obligated to join. It’s illegal not to. They take 5% from your income to cover costs, then you pay 30% for your medical bills. If you pay more than ¥100,000 a year, you get a rebate.
Private insurance does not play the part that you suggest. Very few people have private insurance as it only covers major illnesses like cancer and very little else.
Have you ever lived in a country governed by Democratic Socialists? I have many friends who have, and didn’t hear any complaints. Calling yourself a Democratic Socialist doesn’t mean that you adopt socialism as a whole concept.
The point I was making is that Japan has thousands of health plans that people must join under the National Universal Healthcare System. And they appear to be a mixed bag of company based, municipal based and mutual associations. And most folk have supplemental private insurance:
https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/japan/
This is not Single Payer as Bernie and friends propose.
Since there is no Democratic Socialist country in the world and I can think of maybe only one in the past that only lasted a few years, your friends must have lived in Sandinista Nicaragua in the ‘80’s. Note again that the Social Democratic countries of Scandinavia are NOT Democratic Socialist. They are regulated market capitalist with most businesses, industries and property in general privately owned. This
is hardly Socialist of any kind.
Anyway, the DSA and Bernie do embrace Socialism as a whole concept, at least as their economic and societal goal. They aren’t like me limiting my Democratic Socialism to coops, mutual associations, publicly owned utilities, etc.
No, there is only the National insurance plan that they must join because it’s illegal not to. Living in Tokyo there are no other choices to choose from.
Private insurance has nothing to do with the government plan. It’s optional if you are worried about a family history of cancer or other life threatening illnesses and is in combination with life insurance.
The only insurance to be accepted everywhere except for private clinics, is the National Insurance Plan that everyone must join.
Sweden is a Social Democratic government that has not adopted the whole concept of socialism.
Social Democrats and usually referred to just as the Social Democrats. It is the oldest and largest political party in Sweden. The current party leader since 2012 is Stefan Löfven, who has also been Prime Minister of Sweden since 2014.
I did not say that I had lived there, I said that my friends have.
Yep, Sweden is Social Democratic and not Democratic Socialist. Very big difference. There are plenty of successful Social Democratic countries. There is not one Socialist one, Democratic or not.
Oh, on Japan I can only cite what is reported by objective agencies about their system. However, you are there. I’m not. Some of my relatives from there will be here soon. I’ll ask them about their take and experience when I see them. Since one of them just went through some serious medical they should be quite familiar with how it works in a practical way.
Unless your relatives are Japanese citizens, are married to a Japanese citizen, work and pay taxes and have perrmanent resident status as I have, their experience of health insurance will be very different to mine. I have RA so visit the hospital once a month for the last 30 years.
Sweden is still committed to providing for their citizens with welfare, housing, health insurance, education and pensions that was created by the SAP, Swedish Social Democratic Workers Party in the 1930’s.
So whatever they choose call themselves, those parts of the socialist agenda remains in their effort to take care of their citizens.
As you know there are many socialist elements to everyday life in America and all over the world that people are afraid to acknowledge because they unfortunately equate communism with socialism as being the same when it’s not.
My relatives include Japanese Citizens, married to and permanent residents.
As I said socialist programs can work and be good things for any country. What is NOT good since it has always failed, stagnated or resulted in tyranny, is Socialism, intended to be democratic or not, when it gets state power and control of the economy. The DSA and Bernie are Socialist, NOT Social Democratic. They explicitly want to eliminate market Capitalism and replace it with a socialist economy. They want to ultimately replace private property with collective ownership. The Swedes knew this and intentionally went Social Democratic and NOT Socialist.
Then they should be on the National Insurance Plan run by the government as I am.
I really don’t understand your hate for Sanders when it’s clear that he won’t win the nomination. He‘s not stupid enough to think he could successfully implement the changes you accuse him of wanting to make. He wants equality and to not have the rich people buying elections. Increase in the minimum wage, healthcare for everyone and the rich to pay their fair share in taxes. What is wrong with that? Nothing as far as I and millions of people around the world who want to see it happen too.
I said that Sweden along with many countries share elements of the original socialist agenda and that does not make them socialists but it means that this part of it works.
LOL…why I don’t like Bernie and don’t trust him is a very long political story going back some 45 years…and more. But this might help. He has hardly changed in all those years and for most of those years he was explicitly a Revolutionary Socialist Trot. And lots of old New Yorkers like me had grandfathers or great uncles of a similar political bent who would also always turn red in the face and spit their ideological certainties across the family dinner table in everyone else’s face and dinner plate. But you are correct, he will not get the nomination and won’t get close so likely won’t be a spoiler and won’t run for Prez as an independent.
As I’ve said, I have no problem with some socialist programs within a Social Democratic contest. Oh, you say Bernie “…wants equality and to not have the rich people buying elections. Increase in the minimum wage, healthcare for everyone and the rich to pay their fair
share in taxes.” The same can be said of Biden. But he doesn’t spit in my dinner plate even if he can be a wee bit too cuddly… };o)