Bloomberg's Role

Bloomberg would likely be fine with Biden getting back into the race big time.

I just wanted to point out what Bloomberg has been doing in two areas. Bloomberg has been more active than the NRA in backing those whose congressional race are focused on climate change. "His" candidates won almost all their races in 2018, and were a big part of the Democrat's winning the House. He can be expected to do this again. Obviously, a Sanders at the head of the ticket will make this effort much more difficult.

Bloomberg and Governor Jerry Brown lead the US effort to meet the US pledges made to those who signed the Paris Accords. This is being done in spite of the efforts of the White House. In addition to helping financially, Bloomberg has been critical in reducing the number of coal plants in the US energy future. [In fairness, I would also note that Steyer has spend lot of effort and money on Climate Control issues, and on candidates].

It is great for folks to demonstrate and to try to inflict Bernie's revolution upon us. It is quite another to actually pass legislation and act without legislation as Bloomberg, Brown and Steyers have done (and also Bezos, Gates and many others]. Bernie thinks that billionaires have no place on this earth. I'm certainly glad they are going where others have only talked and voted. [for Sanders in favor of the gun lobby, against citizenship for DACA folk, and in support of climate change proposals which are simply impossible and terrible even as goals.] even AOC recognizes the passing Obamacare improvements, including a public option is a good step forward.
======
As I have said, it is time for Bloomberg to stop spending millions to introduce HIMSELF, and spend more time introducing us to the statements and policies of Sanders.
========
And, no, I don't want Bloomberg as president. I would greatly prefer Biden (or even Buttigieg or Klobuchar]. But, for now, Bloomberg is doing the heavy lifting, and telling the truth about Sanders and the effects of his candidacy. he needs to do much more.

wing2000 said:

Agree. Income disparity is an in issue the resonates with people across party lines. I don't necessarily agree with Sanders on his solutions, but I do appreciate that he highlights perhaps the biggest economic and political issue facing our country.

Click to expand...

Income disparity is NOT the problem. As long as people have what THEY need, the fact that there are the very rich is irrelevant. The issue is that the economy is indeed doing great, and the middle class is not participating. The gains are going almost entirely to the 1%, while social benefits are taken away from the middle class. If social spending were increased by 20%, including guaranteed affordable health care, folks wouldn't care that there are rich folks like Gates, Bezos and Bloomberg. In the US, middle class folk want TO BE rich. They want to be able to provide for their families. Taking from the rich is the Sanders/Warren solution.

We may get to see just how unpopular this position is in a general election.

ZNP said:

When I have heard Sanders condemn billionaires it isn't simply we shouldn't have them, his issue is the disparity in wealth. Bloomberg has as much wealth as the poorest 150 million americans. Yes, the Bible is all for running your own business and becoming wealthy. But it also says you need to rebalance every 70 years, there needs to be a debt forgiveness every 70 years. So Sanders is proposing free college, similar to everyone being required to go to high school for free (which was a boon to our economy and standard of living). He also wants socialized medicine. In my opinion there are certain services that have to be socialized. The fire department was terrible when it wasn't socialized, the Police department is terrible if it isn't socialized. Public schools result in far more equitable society than relying on private school. In the same way I would like a basic health care plan provided to everyone without pay. I don't want to take the bus with someone who has TB and can't afford to get it treated.

Click to expand...

Are you really suggesting that the only way for everyone to have affordable access to care is for the government to pay for, and set the standards for, all medical care. We have a robust social service system in the US. Obamacare with a public option could solve the affordable access issue without political revolution and a revamping of the healthcare industry. Americans prefer choice. Taking away everyone's insurance coverages is not necessary. We can offer Medicare to all at a price, subsidized as is the case in the current system.

The only ones that make it more likely for you to get sick on the bus are Republicans who won't subsidize access, and those who won't go of treatment or vaccinations.

zippy2006 said:

This is something that all the moderate candidates need to do, and given the numbers in Nevada it just might happen.

Click to expand...

I agree, except that the best thing that almost all the moderates can do is get out, rather than continue hopeless races.

ZNP said:

Capitalism without socialist policies is evil, cold and heartless. The fire department used to require you to pay them up front and be a subscriber before they would put the fire out in your house. We learned that was a mistake because a fire on a house not protected would jump to houses that were. People realized it is foolish to have individual fire protection, you need the entire city protected. The same with the police department. The rich have private cops who patrol their gated community, third world countries do it as well, it only amplifies the divide between rich and poor. Slums become super dangerous and rich communities are not safer because they have servants coming from the poor quarters to work in their houses. Public school is essential to raising the US standard of living. If people had to pay for private school our graduation rates and attendance would be a small fraction of what it is today. There is a direct relationship to how much education people have with how much they make (talking about millions of people, not individual exceptions). The more they make the more taxes they pay. So, public education through high school has more than payed for itself. The idea that extending that to college makes a lot of sense. Likewise, if you require individual insurance for each person, then the unemployed and under employed will be riding the bus, taking the train, going to the same schools, same grocery stores with untreated illnesses that could be contagious.

Click to expand...

Two Comments

1) We have private grade schools and high schools. They aren't free. This OPTIOn should continue. So, yes, public colleges should be free. Community colleges and vocational schools should be free or subsidized (and they should be heavily regulated, since the cheating has been considerable in the past).

2) And yes, all individuals should be required to carry certainly levels of health insurance. A public option should be available. Subsidies should be available.

ZNP said:

Jesus taught a form of capitalism with socialism. Read Matt 20:1-16

He goes to the employment office and hires workers for his field. He goes out early in the morning, 9am, noon and at 3 and hires workers. He then pays them all the same amount. Why? Day laborers don't live by the hour, they live by the day. Everyone needs a days wage. He asked the guy at 3 pm why he was there all day, it wasn't because he came late or was lazy, it was because no one hired him. That is not his fault. It may be that he is old, or lame, or some other reason why he wasn't hired, but this is not a cold, heartless world we live in. Everyone deserves the dignity of being able to work and earn money. If this guy goes and stays there from 6am till 3 and then gets hired for 3 hours and paid for 3 hours it isn't worth it. He had to take the bus down and back, he had to bring lunch and dinner. The Lord is giving us an example of compassionate capitalism.

Click to expand...

Your example is not of capitalism. Capitalism cannot work under a system where all are paid the same, no matter how much they work. What you are, in a sense, suggesting is that unemployment insurance be set to equal the wages of those who are working.

we also have Obamacare for those under 65. We need more subsidies and a public option. That would cover what you seem to request.

However your solution requires so much more. It would require many trillions of tax increases to make the Medicare system able to accommodate all the people.

Yes, companies would then amend their contributions to cover what supplemental insurance covers for Medicare now. Most have such policies. So, yes, the premiums paid directly by the people would end, except for those whose companies don't cover supplemental insurance.

ZNP said:

We have medicare. I think we should have the various parties involved determine what the bare minimum health care that everyone needs is and that should be done via medicare. Jobs could still provide "platinum" health care as a perk, but yes, I believe every person regardless of whether they are working or not should be able to get basic health care.
.

Click to expand...