DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 What are all the Berniacs going to do when they realize their party screws them and nominated Clinton? Write-in Bernie. He gets a lot of support from independents in open primaries, who will have absolutely no allegiance to Hillary or the Democratic Party. Which would actually be pretty funny...if Clinton and Cruz win the nominations, we could have two party candidates and two independents in Trump and Sanders. A vote split four ways, and an electoral college who's electors aren't necessarily bound by the popular vote, could be an entertaining circus.
IDBillzFan Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 What are all the Berniacs going to do when they realize their party screws them and nominated Clinton? Take it like the non-thinking robotic bitches they know they are. They do what they're told, and like it that way. Think Bill Murray dentist scene in Little Shop. "Yyyyes, doctor."
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Take it like the non-thinking robotic bitches they know they are. They do what they're told, and like it that way. Think Bill Murray dentist scene in Little Shop. "Yyyyes, doctor." I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the Bernie supporters are free thinkers. Just massively ignorant. It's the Clinton supporters who are Stepford voters. They're just !@#$ing scary.
IDBillzFan Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the Bernie supporters are free thinkers. Just massively ignorant. It's the Clinton supporters who are Stepford voters. They're just !@#$ing scary. Here's the thing that messes me up a bit. I've met the Trump supporters. Family members. Absolutely blind and dumb as bricks. Gatorman-level stupid. Never paid attention to politics and think this is their Tea Party moment. No clue how stupid Trump sounds, and genuinely don't care. They've picked a moron, and they're sticking with him. On the other hand, I have friends who are suddenly Bernie supporters. These are people who don't follow politics because they've been hurt too many times. They're generally pretty smart people. Just not smart enough to realize that what Bernie says and how Bernie plans to execute it are two completely different things. They like him in concept, but stop thinking when you ask them about the specifics. Anyone who likes Hillary is just an thoughtless idiot. It's impossible to look objectively at her resume and think she is interested in anything other than fleecing America for her own good. In that way, she's pretty much the Donald Trump of the left.
reddogblitz Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) What are all the Berniacs going to do when they realize their party screws them and nominated Clinton?Vote for Trump, or third party, or stay home. Party has been screwing Barney all along. Will be fun if he can get ahead on elected delegates. I love how the Democan media mouthpiece (MSNBC) always counts the super delegates (a total sham) as being for Hillary even though they haven't voted yet. Edited April 7, 2016 by reddogblitz 1
Magox Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) Here's the thing that messes me up a bit. I've met the Trump supporters. Family members. Absolutely blind and dumb as bricks. Gatorman-level stupid. Never paid attention to politics and think this is their Tea Party moment. No clue how stupid Trump sounds, and genuinely don't care. They've picked a moron, and they're sticking with him. On the other hand, I have friends who are suddenly Bernie supporters. These are people who don't follow politics because they've been hurt too many times. They're generally pretty smart people. Just not smart enough to realize that what Bernie says and how Bernie plans to execute it are two completely different things. They like him in concept, but stop thinking when you ask them about the specifics. Anyone who likes Hillary is just an thoughtless idiot. It's impossible to look objectively at her resume and think she is interested in anything other than fleecing America for her own good. In that way, she's pretty much the Donald Trump of the left. Don't get me wrong, I do think Hillary is corrupt but I also believe she won't be as feckless and weak on the FP world stage and that she would be much more willing to work across the aisle with Republicans and willing to make much-needed changes to the ACA than Obama. I could be wrong and she may govern as a complete left winger but I do believe her instincts are more to the center than Obama's. In regards to Trump supporters, you can't pigeonhole them like you can some other candidates supporters, they transcend across all socio-economic and regional demographics. My in-laws much to my horror are Trumpkins and they are both college educated folks, I've always found them to be reasonable people. However, much like the rest of the Trumpkins, when I spoke with them about his deficiencies they either A) chalked it up to bluster and didn't take it seriously and B) Didn't care because he was from the outside and he was going to "shake up the system". ughh In regards to Bernie supporters, you nailed it. They like him in concept, but stop thinking when you ask them about the specifics. I've been making the same argument for a while now. He's an idea, some people like the idea of education and healthcare being provided to them at no cost from the government. And they love the idea of those cheating 1%'ers and corporations paying for it. I can never have a rational conversation with these folks because when I go into detail and how logistically it is a wholly unworkable plan, not to mention that the total cost of his proposals are astronomically high and that his plans to soak the rich wouldn't even come close to paying for it. They hardly ever have a response to these minor details and just usually go back to "We can't keep doing what we are doing" or "We need a more educated populace and healthcare costs are higher here than anywhere else". Never mind the fact that Congress would ever go along with it not even his own colleagues in the Senate in house would have the stomach for it. By the way, has anyone read his healthcare plan? It's basically Medicare for all on steroids. I'll save that for another day Edited April 7, 2016 by Magox
Magox Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) Everyone likes the idea of Medicare for all until you have to put it into practice and consider the cost and pay-for's . This is similar to the typical response I get from the Bernie supporters. Edited April 7, 2016 by Magox
GG Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Everyone likes the idea of Medicare for all until you have to put into practice and consider the cost and pay-for's . This is similar to the typical response I get from the Bernie supporters. I like to eat ice cream all day and not get fat or get diabetes.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Everyone likes the idea of Medicare for all until you have to put into practice and consider the cost and pay-for's . This is similar to the typical response I get from the Bernie supporters. It can't be any worse than a mandate with penalty with escalating cost.
Magox Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 It can't be any worse than a mandate with penalty with escalating cost. Sure it can and it is.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Sure it can and it is. For who? Doctors and insurance companies?
GG Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 For who? Doctors and insurance companies? If a plan is bad for doctors, how well do you think it's going to fare for the patients?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 If a plan is bad for doctors, how well do you think it's going to fare for the patients? Think they're happy now?
GG Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Think they're happy now? They're not happy because they see where the trainwreck is heading
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 They're not happy because they see where the trainwreck is heading Better to rip the band aid off than let the costs linger. It's a losing fight
Magox Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) For who? Doctors and insurance companies? The implementation of a one-sized all Health system. Bernie Sanders plan is essentially Medicare-for-all on Steroids. It's a popular idea for many because by-in-large medicare beneficiaries are pretty pleased with their Medicare. There are logistical nightmares for implementing such a system. Let me first start off by saying that unlike private insurers, where medical reimbursement rates are negotiated between the medical provider and insurer, the reimbursement rate is not a negotiated rate but an arbitrary fixxed rate set by the government. Which means that many doctors/specialists choose not to participate due to the lower reimbursement rate. So the mechanism they use to try to lower costs are governmental controls rather than addressing the root causes of soaring medical costs. You see a lot of this going on with ACA medical providers. Many of the quality medical providers are moving away to higher paying negotiated rates provided by off-exchange insurers. Which is why many of the ACA HMO lower premium plans which most people choose participate in networks that are very limited due to the lower reimbursement rates. It's very common to set a doctors appointment with your medical provider only to have your appointment realized 6 weeks down the road. As of right now we have about 55 million current Medicare beneficiaries, 65 million Medicaid users and approximately 200 million have private health insurance. So the idea under Bernie is to move the 200 million with private health insurance and additional 50 million that are the current uninsured to Medicare. I assume Bernie would like to do away with Medicaid an move them onto Medicare as well. So what would a one-size-fits-all healthcare system look like from where the US is right now? Well, we know that Medicare would reduce the medical reimbursement rates to doctors, specialists, hospitals etc. Meaning that there would be an arbitrary figure to determine what each medical provider should receive for their services. Considering that each medical provider has their own set of costs due to regional factors, taxes, population and population demographics it is a system that poses a lot of financial burdens to many providers who can not cope with the lower reimbursement rates. A profitable hospital in Dade county can absorb lower reimbursements whereas a hospital in a more rural county can not. Not all hospitals or medical providers are profitable. The idea that you are going to cut reimbursements by 20-35% without there being a significant unintended consequence is simply not rooted in reality.- Many hospitals would shutter, tons of medical providers wouldn't participate in the lower reimbursement insurance provided by the government and would move to either concierge medicine and/or accept the higher paying private insurers. Which is fine, except there is one little problem with this. We already have doctor shortages as it is, you add an additional 50 million uninsured people to the rolls (which I support expanded health coverage) and you have doctors moving to higher forms of reimbursements you essentially create lots of shortages in the delivery of medicine which runs counter to achieving the goals of the intended reform. What about efficiency and fraud? Right now with approximately 14% of the population currently is on Medicare, there is over $50 Billion a year in fraud, if you were to end up with 90% of the population on Medicare you are looking at over $300 B in fraud alone. The over protections for workers in governmental jobs borders on absurdity. The efficiency in most governmental held functions is much lower than the private sector, primarily due to the incentive structure within each irrespective entity to perform at higher levels. It is nearly impossible to rid of a gov. employee for low-job-performance, whereas in the private sector there is an open market for each position meaning that accountability is held at a higher premium. Accountability is big issue, which leads to higher fraud and less efficiency. What about the overall cost and where would the cost come from? Projections vary, even left leaning economists expect the cost of Bernie's proposals to be somewhere in the ballpark of $2-3 TRILLION a year. Lets add some perspective to this, the total budget of the federal government for 2017 is expected to be around $4 Trillion. We are talking about an increase of approximately 50%. I don't care how much you soak the rich there is no way you can feasibly come to that number. Bernie's proposals for "Medicare for all" consists of plans that have no premiums, no deductible no copays, just to be clear this isn't simply "Medicare for all" this is something more than what current Medicare offers. Sounds wonderful, but so do puppies and rainbows. This is simply not workable. There is no way to offset the costs under this proposal. 1) Bernie wants to increase marginal income taxes by a huge amount, I'm not going to get into the drawbacks of such a proposal because that is a whole separate argument, but even such a tax increase does little to impact the cost incurred under the plan. 2) Wants to end tax breaks for capital gains and dividends. Sounds like a good way to get Wall Sreet, right? Except it really isn't, most beneficiaries from capital gains and dividends believe it or not, are not from those 1%'ers but rather from retirees, pension funds heavily used by Unions, government workers etc. So yes, while you are hitting the rich you are also hitting many middle to upper middle class folks. 3) additional taxes for the rich of limiting tax deductions past $250k. Which would bring in $15 B a year according to Bernies figures. Even if you want to accept the idea that these taxes wouldn't have an impact on the economy, they still do very little to address the total cost of his plan. Set aside the fact that we can't come close to covering the cost of such an endeavor or the logistical nightmares that would be imposed on the delivery of medicine, what would this mean for the country moving forward? You hear the constant argument, "Well, they do it in Europe and that's what we should do" Ok. I get it, they are providing healthcare for their residents. But is it a mere coincidence that European governments all have persistent high debt, high unemployment and virtually no growth rates? If it wasn't for the influx of middle eastern refugees there would be no population growth, simply because they aren't desirable places to move to. People move to Europe and find there are few job opportunities. Look at the financial downturn, we look here at the U.S and say our economy sucks. True, it is crummy relative to where we use to be but it's still a lot better than where our European counterparts are. I could go on and on about the stifling effects of over regulation and taxation and what it does to innovation and growth but I'll save that for another day. Edited April 7, 2016 by Magox
Dorkington Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Write-in Bernie. He gets a lot of support from independents in open primaries, who will have absolutely no allegiance to Hillary or the Democratic Party. Which would actually be pretty funny...if Clinton and Cruz win the nominations, we could have two party candidates and two independents in Trump and Sanders. A vote split four ways, and an electoral college who's electors aren't necessarily bound by the popular vote, could be an entertaining circus. I would really like to see the Republican and Democratic parties split, its time for more options.
Tiberius Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Set aside the fact that we can't come close to covering the cost of such an endeavor or the logistical nightmares that would be imposed on the delivery of medicine, what would this mean for the country moving forward? You hear the constant argument, "Well, they do it in Europe and that's what we should do" Ok. I get it, they are providing healthcare for their residents. But is it a mere coincidence that European governments all have persistent high debt, high unemployment and virtually no growth rates? If it wasn't for the influx of middle eastern refugees there would be no population growth, simply because they aren't desirable places to move to. People move to Europe and find there are few job opportunities. Look at the financial downturn, we look here at the U.S and say our economy sucks. True, it is crummy relative to where we use to be but it's still a lot better than where our European counterparts are. I could go on and on about the stifling effects of over regulation and taxation and what it does to innovation and growth but I'll save that for another day. Health insurance is the reason for stagnant European growth? How about the fact they don't have a central government to balance out regional difference and eliminate barriers to commerce like we do. Europe is still a divided continent and that hurts their economy. I don't disagree that socialism also hurts in some significant ways but when a small nation like Greece can cause all that problems its a structural problem as much as anything.
Recommended Posts