Will Bernie Sanders' long-ago praise of Socialist regimes hurt Democrats in November?

ArmenianJohn said:

Find a roommate but don't marry a wife who would be your roommate? Huh?

Click to expand...

That'll work as well, as long as getting debt free is pursued by both before the kids come along (not easy when both are sleeping in the same bed).

OldWiseGuy said:

That'll work as well, as long as getting debt free is pursued by both before the kids come along (not easy when both are sleeping in the same bed).

Click to expand...

Earlier you said it wouldn't work... You aren't very careful with what you say, apparently.

Cis.jd said:

I am curious about how Bernie and the others are really going to make this happen, and how long will that be once the bill is done.

Is it really possible for student debt to be wiped out if one of them are in office or is this all blowing smoke so that millennials and snowflakes will vote them in?

Believe me, if I see a realistic and possible plan that will take away student debt quickly, I will vote.

Click to expand...

Careful with the word "snowflake," since I believe that counts as a violation of terms now, and people can sometimes get trigger happy with the report option.

But yes, I'm not at all certain that Sanders has realistic plans for getting anything done (hence my preference for Warren), though even if he did, he would almost certainly be opposed in Congress just on principle. I think the most that could be expected would be making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, which would already be a significant improvement on the current situation.

I think the value of a Sanders presidency would largely lie in normalizing the type of ideas that people have an irrational negative reaction to, because of the socialist label. I don't see what's so conservative about letting the insurance industry suck all the money out of the healthcare system, for example, but that's where we're at.

Silmarien said:

I think the value of a Sanders presidency would largely lie in normalizing the type of ideas that people have an irrational negative reaction to, because of the socialist label. I don't see what's so conservative about letting the insurance industry suck all the money out of the healthcare system, for example, but that's where we're at.

Click to expand...

What's so unimaginable about making reforms within the current system we have? The notion that we must move to State control of everything and everybody because prescription drugs are too expensive or the insurance business needs reform is illogical, yet that seems to be the way many people think.

ArmenianJohn said:

Earlier you said it wouldn't work... You aren't very careful with what you say, apparently.

Click to expand...

The odds are that it won't work. Satisfied?

Albion said:

What's so unimaginable about making reforms within the current system we have? The notion that we must move to State control of everything and everybody because prescription drugs are too expensive or the insurance business needs reform is illogical, yet that seems to be the way many people think.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "state control of everything"? I wouldn't advocate for the government literally taking control of healthcare, but my problem with the insurance industry is that a for-profit company running a risk analysis of healthcare needs is always going to involve intermediaries leeching vitality from the system (without actually providing a genuine service in return). Maybe there's a non-profit, non-governmental alternative, but that would be about as revolutionary.

Silmarien said:

a for-profit company running a risk analysis of healthcare needs is always going to involve intermediaries leeching vitality from the system (without actually providing a genuine service in return).

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "leeching vitality from the system?" And do insurance companies not provide genuine service? Mine pays for bills as stipulated in our mutually agreed plan. Maybe I found the one that gives genuine service (mine's Aetna, so it's pretty big one I seem to have discovered)?

I wouldn't advocate for the government literally taking control of healthcare,

Click to expand...

That what some of the Democrats running promote. Sanders wants to abolish private health insurance and so have government literally take control of health care. Why should I be allowed to enter into private insurance contracts as I see fit? Why ought Bernie Sanders be micromanaging my life?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/private-insurance/

Medicare for All Would Abolish Private Insurance. ‘There’s No Precedent in American History.’

I think it's the culmination of all that is Bernie that will hurt him in a general election. I'm rooting for Bernie in the Democratic primaries... not only will Trump win the electoral college this time, he'll also win the popular vote.

Let me be clear, though... I'm not so much for Trump as I'm opposed to Bernie and his ilk.

Bernie is a communist-going to Russia, Cuba. Lots of Utube videos out there. He speaks more of the govt owning & managing rather than simply managing & that is the difference between communism & socialism. Communism is a centrally planned economy. The govt owns & runs the major arms of the infrastructure: transport, communication, energy grid, healthcare. Socially it controls the education process in the type of propaganda it wants taught. The media is run by the state. There is no private property. The individual exists for the state. The democratic party is in chaos now because of him. Even look at Chris Matthews, a very staunch democrat, calling him out because very simply communism does not work.

Yekcidmij said:

What do you mean by "leeching vitality from the system?" And do insurance companies not provide genuine service? Mine pays for bills as stipulated in our mutually agreed plan. Maybe I found the one that gives genuine service (mine's Aetna, so it's pretty big one I seem to have discovered)?

Click to expand...

I would say no, they do not provide a genuine service. Your doctor is providing the genuine service here; your insurer, on the other hand, is simply engaging in actuarial calculations so that it can maximize its profits by minimizing the risk that it will have to make payments. We can aim for reform to reduce the abusive practices, but the underlying problem is that the business model itself is inherently parasitical.

Yekcidmij said:

That what some of the Democrats running promote. Sanders wants to abolish private health insurance and so have government literally take control of health care. Why should I be allowed to enter into private insurance contracts as I see fit? Why ought Bernie Sanders be micromanaging my life?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/private-insurance/

Medicare for All Would Abolish Private Insurance. ‘There’s No Precedent in American History.’

Click to expand...

Oh, I am pretty openly in favor of abolishing private, for-profit health insurance. I am not in favor of abolishing private-sector medical providers, though.

There are numerous types of models, see for example: Health Care Systems - Four Basic Models - PNHP. (Come to think of it, the German model might actually be a better solution for this country than Medicare for All.)

Silmarien said:

What do you mean by "state control of everything"? I wouldn't advocate for the government literally taking control of healthcare, but my problem with the insurance industry is that a for-profit company running a risk analysis of healthcare needs is always going to involve intermediaries leeching vitality from the system (without actually providing a genuine service in return). Maybe there's a non-profit, non-governmental alternative, but that would be about as revolutionary.

Click to expand...

Basically right. I didn't mean to make my comments seem so personal.

Silmarien said:

I would say no, they do not provide a genuine service. Your doctor is providing the genuine service here;

Click to expand...

I would say they both are providing a genuine service. The doctor provides the actual medical service, of course, but the insurer provides an insurance service. I don't think the fact that it's insurance means it's not "genuine" (however it is you're using that term).

your insurer, on the other hand, is simply engaging in actuarial calculations so that it can maximize its profits by minimizing the risk that it will have to make payments.

Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean it isn't providing a genuine service. Of course they try to maximize profits and minimize costs - everyone does that, including you and me with our personal finances (I assume you don't spend regardless of all costs). But calculating actuarial tables to provide a service while maximizing gain and minimizing cost doesn't mean it's not a "genuine service."

We can aim for reform to reduce the abusive practices, but the underlying problem is that the business model itself is inherently parasitical.

Click to expand...

I won't be one to argue that there's not a better way of conducting business. Of course there is, but it hardly follows that a wholesale government takeover of the entire industry is a "genuine" solution. We don't have to argue two extremes here: government takeover of the entire industry or Lord of the Flies.

Oh, I am pretty openly in favor of abolishing private, for-profit health insurance.

Click to expand...

Why do you care who I contract with about health insurance? Why can't you leave me alone to conduct my own affairs? So if I want to transact with another private individual or organization for healthcare insurance, you would do what? Send the police? Knock down my door? Take the kids and put me in prison?

Look, you don't know my family and we don't know you, so we'd appreciate it if you didn't decide our lives for us. If I want to purchase health care insurance from a private organization, I think you ought to have nothing to do with it. Thanks.

I am not in favor of abolishing private-sector medical providers, though.

Click to expand...

That looks to be just an inconsistency on your part. What gives you the right to abolish one but not the other? I suspect it's an arbitrary claim on your part. Nothing prevents you from claiming a right to abolish both.

There are numerous types of models, see for example: Health Care Systems - Four Basic Models - PNHP. (Come to think of it, the German model might actually be a better solution for this country than Medicare for All.)

Click to expand...

Who cares? Quit trying to micromanage my family's health care. We want you to leave us alone and mind your own business.

Yekcidmij said:

I would say they both are providing a genuine service. The doctor provides the actual medical service, of course, but the insurer provides an insurance service. I don't think the fact that it's insurance means it's not "genuine" (however it is you're using that term).

Click to expand...

They're not contributing to the practice of medicine in a way that would justify remuneration for their services. All they're doing is managing risk so that they can profit on the fact that people need healthcare.

Yekcidmij said:

I won't be one to argue that there's not a better way of conducting business. Of course there is, but it hardly follows that a wholesale government takeover of the entire industry is a "genuine" solution. We don't have to argue two extremes here: government takeover of the entire industry or Lord of the Flies.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the universal multi-payer non-profit German system might be a better fit for this country.

Yekcidmij said:

Why do you care who I contract with about health insurance? Why can't you leave me alone to conduct my own affairs? So if I want to transact with another private individual or organization for healthcare insurance, you would do what? Send the police? Knock down my door? Take the kids and put me in prison?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? If private, for-profit health insurance were abolished, there would be no for-profit company that you would be able to enter into a contractual arrangement with in the first place. There would be no need for police action to enforce something like this, since the product would not exist in the first place.

Beyond that, the issue of immoral contractual agreements is a concern of mine. I don't think people should be left alone to sign away their civil rights, for example, or that someone asking a doctor to euthanize them is merely a matter of making a free decision. I don't think prostitution should be legal, and I don't think for-profit health insurance should be either.

You're welcome to disagree, but I'm not a libertarian, so this type of argument isn't going to be very compelling to me.

Yekcidmij said:

That looks to be just an inconsistency on your part. What gives you the right to abolish one but not the other? I suspect it's an arbitrary claim on your part. Nothing prevents you from claiming a right to abolish both.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that I didn't have a right to advocate for the abolition of private-sector medical providers. I just see no compelling reason to adopt such a measure.

Yekcidmij said:

Who cares? Quit trying to micromanage my family's health care. We want you to leave us alone and mind your own business.

Click to expand...

Yes, because the predicted collapse of our healthcare system doesn't affect everyone.

Silmarien said:

They're not contributing to the practice of medicine in a way that would justify remuneration for their services. All they're doing is managing risk so that they can profit on the fact that people need healthcare.

Click to expand...

But back to the point: how does this mean it's not a "genuine" service? You just keep repeating the claim.

I agree. I think the universal multi-payer non-profit German system might be a better fit for this country.

Click to expand...

Is there reason to believe this?

What are you talking about? If private, for-profit health insurance were abolished, there would be no for-profit company that you would be able to enter into a contractual arrangement with in the first place.

Click to expand...

In the world where you abolish private, for-profit health insurance, if someone were to offer it to me anyway, and I accepted the offer, you'd do what? Arrest me? Take the kids and put me in prison? All for making a trade of my own free will? All for signing an insurance contract?

And what makes you think that by "abolishing" this market that the market would, as if by magic, disappear? There are plenty of industries that are illegal where the market still exists. Markets always exist as long as supply and demand exist. A market will exist if the demand for it does.

There would be no need for police action to enforce something like this, since the product would not exist in the first place.

Click to expand...

I doubt it would magically disappear as if markets disappear by fiat. No, people would still do it if the costs and benefits made sense. People will see to their life and health, regardless of what other stuff you proclaim they should do. And you would do what to them if they did so? I suppose break up families and arrest parents. You have to; without an enforcement mechanism you can't abolish it. So you would have to arrest people for buying insurance. Forgive me for rejecting this sort of paradise.

Beyond that, the issue of immoral contractual agreements is a concern of mine.

Click to expand...

Why is my buying health care insurance an immoral contract? It seems if someone is willing to provide insurance at a mutually agreed price, then there's nothing immoral about me seeing to my own health care. Maybe in your world seeing to one's own health by way of an insurance contract is immoral to the point of being criminal, but in the real world it isn't.

I don't think people should be left alone to sign away their civil rights, for example, or that someone asking a doctor to euthanize them is merely a matter of making a free decision.

Click to expand...

Why is this analogy even applicable? If I'm entering into a contract to have a private, for-profit org help cover an ER visit, I hardly see how that's analogous to signing myself into slavery or asking the ER to euthanize me. I don't accept the overly dramatic analogy as remotely relevant.

I don't think prostitution should be legal,

Click to expand...

We aren't talking about prostitution. I'm sure it's an interesting discussion though.

and I don't think for-profit health insurance should be either.

Click to expand...

So you'd send the police after people for buying health insurance. You're willing to break up families and arrest parents for buying.....health.... insurance. Forgive me for not wanting that paradise.

If private health insurance were abolished, 20+ years from then people will look back on it as we look back on prohibition. An outmoded, regressive way of thinking instituted by some busybodies.

You're welcome to disagree, but I'm not a libertarian, so this type of argument isn't going to be very compelling to me.

Click to expand...

Well, my disagreeing with you doesn't involve me arresting you for declining to purchase health insurance, so the disagreement here is not symmetric. If I disagree with you, you think the police should be involved. If you disagree with me I don't send the police.

I'm not trying to compel you to anything - you're the one that wants to forcibly compel me. I'm just pointing out an inferior argument, whether or not you recognize that you've taken a losing position in an argument doesn't matter to me.

Yes, because the predicted collapse of our healthcare system doesn't affect everyone.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why I should believe prophecies like this, nor can I see how your conclusion about health insurance follows from this prophetic claim.

Uber Genius said:

The stats are of course based on what is generalizable to the population rather than true for any individual. There will be outliers and people like my step-daughter who chose to major in theatre at NYU and managed to rack up $200k in debt. But she has marshalled her career by making good choices and working twice as many hours as the average american worker and now (10 years later) makes $200k per year and growing.

Historically this country has told their citizens that they have a right to spend their money how they see fit and they have to live with the consequences. My point is that if we take the second half of that equation and say, well since you chose to spend it poorly (where the return on investment was not likely to be positive related to other investments), we (the government) are going to take money from those people who invested wisely and give it to those who did not, and we will put you in prison if you don't pay... well...it seems to me to be immoral, not just a poor political move.

Click to expand...

Well, I think the underlying problem with the student debt situation is the effect that it has upon the whole economy, rather than just upon the individual students. As much as I hate consumer capitalism, it's what we have, and if virtually an entire generation has reduced buying power because of exorbitant debt, that's a pretty serious economic issue that needs to be addressed. If significant numbers of people are delaying (or foregoing) marriage and children because of this, if they have no savings for retirement, and so forth and so on, the social effects are going to be pretty serious.

I've known people whose student debt repayment plan amounted to ignoring the debt in the expectation that it would eventually be canceled, so I don't disagree that there's something unfair about a blanket cancelation. I don't think expecting people to simply live with the consequences is a wise solution when dealing with a problem that has a significant economic effect, though. Maybe something like a greater tax deduction for student debt would be a more moderate approach.

Yekcidmij said:

But back to the point: how does this mean it's not a "genuine" service? You just keep repeating the claim.

Click to expand...

I think that the concept of money is incoherent unless understood as a symbol representing an actual concrete exchange of goods or services. The doctor is performing an actual service by providing you with medical care; those involved in the administration of the office are providing a genuine service to the doctor, etc.

What is the insurance company doing? All it's engaged in is a sort of weird wealth redistribution via risk factors, which I can't describe as an actual good or service. Or even morally acceptable. If it's not providing a genuine good or service, the fact that it profits anyway makes it parasitic to the entire industry.

Yekcidmij said:

Is there reason to believe this?

Click to expand...

It's a universal multi-payer alternative. One of the criticisms of single-payer is that it eliminates choice, so a multi-payer solution might potentially be a better match for this country than a single-payer one would be.

Yekcidmij said:

In the world where you abolish private, for-profit health insurance, if someone were to offer it to me anyway, and I accepted the offer, you'd do what? Arrest me? Take the kids and put me in prison? All for making a trade of my own free will? All for signing an insurance contract?

And what makes you think that by "abolishing" this market that the market would, as if by magic, disappear? There are plenty of industries that are illegal where the market still exists. Markets always exist as long as supply and demand exist. A market will exist if the demand for it does.

Click to expand...

Insurance isn't a market--it's an intermediary. Do you think doctors would work with illegal health insurance companies? How would they be able to enforce contracts against them if the whole business were illegal?

Yekcidmij said:

I doubt it would magically disappear as if markets disappear by fiat. No, people would still do it if the costs and benefits made sense. People will see to their life and health, regardless of what other stuff you proclaim they should do. And you would do what to them if they did so? I suppose break up families and arrest parents. You have to; without an enforcement mechanism you can't abolish it. So you would have to arrest people for buying insurance. Forgive me for rejecting this sort of paradise.

Click to expand...

An illegal health insurance company selling plans to families would effectively be carrying out a scam, since the services it claims to provide are invalid. We don't normally break up families and arrest parents for falling for scams, so I'm not really sure where this sort of idea is coming from.

Yekcidmij said:

Why is my buying health care insurance an immoral contract? It seems if someone is willing to provide insurance at a mutually agreed price, then there's nothing immoral about me seeing to my own health care. Maybe in your world seeing to one's own health by way of an insurance contract is immoral to the point of being criminal, but in the real world it isn't.

Click to expand...

Because I think for-profit health insurance is intrinsically immoral and has a negative impact on the entire healthcare system.

Yekcidmij said:

Why is this analogy even applicable? If I'm entering into a contract to have a private, for-profit org help cover an ER visit, I hardly see how that's analogous to signing myself into slavery or asking the ER to euthanize me. I don't accept the overly dramatic analogy as remotely relevant.

Click to expand...

It's relevant because your argument relies entirely upon the assumption that there's an unalienable right to enter into any contract you so desire. That assumption is false.

Yekcidmij said:

Well, my disagreeing with you doesn't involve me arresting you for declining to purchase health insurance, so the disagreement here is not symmetric. If I disagree with you, you think the police should be involved. If you disagree with me I don't send the police.

Click to expand...

Where are you even getting this from? If you want to enter into an unenforceable contract with an illegal company and lose your money, that is your own business. I have never implied that the police should go after victims of con artists.

Uber Genius said:

I'm confused as to why you are confused. We have a political philosophy dominating the political stage in America last week, and the previous year. It is unabashed socialism. McGovern and Dukakis were center-left like LBJ, Bernie, Warren, Yang all have socialist platforms. Why are they not "current?"

Click to expand...

My point is that this information is nothing new. The article was not news, but commentary, or opinion, and offered nothing new (except that such a thing should come from a leftist source).

Silmarien said:

What is the insurance company doing? All it's engaged in is a sort of weird wealth redistribution via risk factors, which I can't describe as an actual good or service. Or even morally acceptable. If it's not providing a genuine good or service, the fact that it profits anyway makes it parasitic to the entire industry.

Click to expand...

I still don't see how your argument works. You seem to dismiss insurance itself as a "genuine" service, which is a strange claim. They're rather obviously providing a service, specifically insurance, to the people who enter into contracts with them. How you get from that to "not genuine" is elusive.

It's a universal multi-payer alternative. One of the criticisms of single-payer is that it eliminates choice, so a multi-payer solution might potentially be a better match for this country than a single-payer one would be.

Click to expand...

I think I meant to ask why think what works in your perception about Germany would work here? You have to assume at least two critical, and always un-argued points. You have to assume scale and structure invariance. You have to make the critical assumption that the things done in Germany would scale to the population size of the US. And given the political, legal, and regulatory structures in Germany, you have to assume that "health care" has some transitive property where what goes on there can just work over here. I see no reason to believe that health care is scale and structure invariant. To put it another way, it's not a safe assumption to think that just because something works in Germany that it would work here.

Insurance isn't a market--it's an intermediary. Do you think doctors would work with illegal health insurance companies? How would they be able to enforce contracts against them if the whole business were illegal?

Click to expand...

People are creative. Demand creates supply (contra your previous libertarian jibe on this thread, I swiped that statement from Keynes). How they would make the arrangement work is not my concern. I could imagine many things including something as simple as the patient submits a receipt to the insurance company who reimburses them, so doctors don't have to deal with an insurance company at all.

An illegal health insurance company selling plans to families would effectively be carrying out a scam, since the services it claims to provide are invalid. We don't normally break up families and arrest parents for falling for scams, so I'm not really sure where this sort of idea is coming from.[

Click to expand...

So your proposal wouldn't have an enforcement mechanism? Then you wouldn't abolish anything.

Because I think for-profit health insurance is intrinsically immoral and has a negative impact on the entire healthcare system.

Click to expand...

That's a different claim than previously suggested where you indicates that me entering into an insurance contract was immoral. You again assume scale invariance where what applies to the system must apply to the individual and vice versa. This is not a safe assumption.

I would of course agree that aggregate behavior can produce undesirable outcomes. But it would be fallacious to think that aggregate behavior map's to individuals and it would be fallacious to think that individual morality aggregates to groups. I could entertain that the current health care market is undesirable without the ridiculous proposition that the individuals engaging in health insurance contracts are immoral. Simply put, I doubt your assumption that morality has those sorts of aggregation properties.

It's relevant because your argument relies entirely upon the assumption that there's an unalienable right to enter into any contract you so desire. That assumption is false.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. I have a right to enter into any contract I so please, so long as it's in principle a legitimate contract and doesn't harm other people. Your proclamation of immorality is wholly unconvincing.

Where are you even getting this from? If you want to enter into an unenforceable contract with an illegal company and lose your money, that is your own business. I have never implied that the police should go after victims of con artists.

Click to expand...

So you wouldn't have an enforcement mechanism. Then you wouldn't actually abolish anything. You can call people names, con-artists, scammers, etc.., all you want. And what do you mean by "unenforceable contract?" Would you prohibit courts from hearing "breech of contract" suits? Would you prohibit both federal and state courts from doing this? Could I use third party arbitration to settle cases? I thought you were for just wholesale taking over health care, but it appears that the [claimed] German system is a little more involved. It looks like we also need to toss all of contract law out the window. But in reality, it appears you haven't thought really through "enforcement" in any sense of the word.