Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 09, 2017

House and Senate Democrats have wondered for months whether Bernie Sanders' supporters might choose to focus their energy on launching primary challenges to party moderates in 2018. They're about to get an answer. Sanders has decided the moment is right to launch his proposal for the single-payer health insurance system that helped form the backbone of his presidential message. And Democrats who don't get behind it could find themselves on the wrong side of the most energetic wing of the party -- as well as the once and possibly future presidential candidate who serves as its figurehead.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Either we stand for something or we will lose. Probably Medicare should be offered in all states through Obamacare on the exchange, that would end all of the problems with insurance companies pulling out of markets and younger people could be charged premiums to make Medicare solvent ad thus solve that direction of attack on the program at the same time. No Democrat would be forced to support it but any that don't would probably regret their choice.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-08 09:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jesus, just give them their ------ healthcare, send them the bill and tell them to shut the ---- up.

I think I'll eventually support this, if for no other reason than to end the incessant whining.

#2 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-08-09 02:04 AM | Reply

#1 There's no corporate money in Medicare. Doing anything with Medicare won't line a politicians pockets.

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 05:34 PM | Reply

Probably Medicare should be offered in all states through Obamacare on the exchange,...

I like the idea of Medicare for all. I just don't think that we can get there in a single step. To start, let Medicare be the default option on the exchanges when there is only one or no insurers offering plans.

With the consolidation of providers (especially hospitals and medical practices), it is especially important that insurers be large enough to negotiate favorable prices for its customers. I just don't think individual insurers are large enough to get the best deals. However, Medicare is large enough and about our only hope of effectively restraining provider price increases.

Another advantage to Medicare is that the insurance industry knows how to offer Medicare Supplement plans. This would allow insurance premiums to be low and those with special health needs/concerns to purchase additional insurance.

After Medicare has been successfully introduced to the exchanges, it would be time to implement the next step in implementing Medicare for all.

Government competing against private enterprises is not good for the economy (or innovation) UNLESS those enterprises have proven themselves to be greedy, self serving and not acting in the best interests of the public which, I believe, has been the case for many (most?) private health care insurers.

#4 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2017-08-10 06:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think single payer is a fine idea. This country is already on a trajectory toward bankruptcy, installing single payer will vastly accelerate the process. The sooner we reckon with and deal with our fiscal disaster the better. But it won't happen until we are actually bankrupt.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 09:53 AM | Reply

I think single payer is a fine idea. This country is already on a trajectory toward bankruptcy, installing single payer will vastly accelerate the process. The sooner we reckon with and deal with our fiscal disaster the better. But it won't happen until we are actually bankrupt.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 09:53 AM | Reply

Single Payer would lower costs to cover people and would be cheaper over all and provide more coverage. It would do the opposite of what you espouse.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-10 09:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Every Democrat should push single payer.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-10 10:03 AM | Reply

"This country is already on a trajectory toward bankruptcy, installing single payer will vastly accelerate the process."

Is this just math you do as a Republican to make you feel better?

Because, well...you know...actual math says exactly the opposite. As do actual real-world instances in country after country after country.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 10:16 AM | Reply

Is this just math you do as a Republican to make you feel better?

Because, well...you know...actual math says exactly the opposite. As do actual real-world instances in country after country after country.

Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 10:16 AM | Reply

Jeff borrowed Vernon's calculator.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-10 10:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I think single payer is a fine idea. This country is already on a trajectory toward bankruptcy, installing single payer will vastly accelerate the process."

The way Republicans put everything on the credit card you're probably right but if Democrats are in charge we'll raise the taxes necessary to pay for it. It isn't rocket science, it's just overcoming propaganda pushed by Republicans since 1980. Trickle down doesn't work, we've learned that over all these years, perhaps one day you'll learn too Jeff.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

The way Republicans put everything on the credit card you're probably right but if Democrats are in charge we'll raise the taxes necessary to pay for it. It isn't rocket science, it's just overcoming propaganda pushed by Republicans since 1980. Trickle down doesn't work, we've learned that over all these years, perhaps one day you'll learn too Jeff.

#10 | POSTED BY DANNI

It is mathematically impossible to raise taxes to a point where are unfunded liabilities are covered.

The realized tax rates would have to be so astronomically high for ALL brackets, not just the rich, that it would collapse our economy.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 12:13 PM | Reply

"It is mathematically impossible to raise taxes to a point where are unfunded liabilities are covered."

No it's not.
Start with capital gains.
You can probably end there too.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 12:14 PM | Reply

Is this just math you do as a Republican to make you feel better?
Because, well...you know...actual math says exactly the opposite. As do actual real-world instances in country after country after country.

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

On top of $20 trillion in debt we have $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. So, let's just add a massive new entitlement vastly increasing government spending. You know, real math and all that.

If China decides it's not going to purchase any more of our debt, this country will immediately begin to default on its obligations.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 12:16 PM | Reply

I love how you proponents of 'just tax the rich' assume:

1. That the pool of money in the upper income brackets is limitless.

2. That raising taxes, especially dramatic increases in taxes, will have no economic impact whatsoever. People won't change their behaviors one iota in response.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 12:17 PM | Reply

"So, let's just add a massive new entitlement vastly increasing government spending. You know, real math and all that. "

Using real math, countries with UHC pay a lower percentage of their GDP on health, cover a larger percentage of their populace, and deliver better measurable results.

That would be LESS costs, making it MORE affordable in the long run.

Real math, not Republican math.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 12:19 PM | Reply

Bernie is in favor of the same healthcare plan as a majority of Americans. Why won't the "establishment" Democrats get behind it? As far as I'm concerned, Bernie is the mainstream ideologue on this issue.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-10 12:20 PM | Reply

"If China decides it's not going to purchase any more of our debt, this country will immediately begin to default on its obligations."

All the more reason to get our fiscal house in order. Ultimately, single-payer will be all America will be able to afford, since it actually costs less than what we're doing now.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Using real math, countries with UHC pay a lower percentage of their GDP on health, cover a larger percentage of their populace, and deliver better measurable results.
That would be LESS costs, making it MORE affordable in the long run.
Real math, not Republican math.

#15 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

$20 trillion in debt + $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. And this is government spending without single payer.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 12:23 PM | Reply

"$20 trillion in debt + $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. And this is government spending without single payer."

So your answer is to continue with the more expensive route?

Mine is to get on the cheaper route.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 12:25 PM | Reply

"If China decides it's not going to purchase any more of our debt, this country will immediately begin to default on its obligations."

Utter nonsense. China buys U.S. Treasury Bills because they are a safe investment not to help our economy.

"I love how you proponents of 'just tax the rich' assume:
1. That the pool of money in the upper income brackets is limitless."

We paid off a higher debt to GDP disparity than we have right now in the 1950's by taxing the rich. That motivated the same rich to invest here in job creating companies which caused millions of well paying jobs to be created and those same rich folks got richer. Reaganomics ended all of that because it is trickle down economics and has been proven to be a failure over and over.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 12:26 PM | Reply

If China decides it's not going to purchase any more of our debt, this country will immediately begin to default on its obligations.

#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Most of the debt is owned by US citizens and even the debt "China" owns is not owned by the government of China but by Chinese people. The US is also not a person with an expiration date and a family, so it can conceivable take on debt in perpetuity.

The national debt is not inherently bad nor does it even need to be paid, it is just a measure of our leadership's collective incompetence.

#21 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 12:30 PM | Reply

Sanders stupid followers should be ashamed he conned them so hard.

#22 | Posted by Tor at 2017-08-10 01:26 PM | Reply

"Sanders stupid followers should be ashamed he conned them so hard."

You may disagree with him but to call him a con only makes you look disconnected from reality. Take your meds.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He milked his followers long after it was obvious he wasn't going to be nominated.

#24 | Posted by Tor at 2017-08-10 03:10 PM | Reply

Most of the debt is owned by US citizens and even the debt "China" owns is not owned by the government of China but by Chinese people. The US is also not a person with an expiration date and a family, so it can conceivable take on debt in perpetuity.

Right now debt-to-GDP is exceeding 100%. The only other time it's ever been that high was right after WWII and back then this country didn't have unfunded liabilities on future promises. It can carry debt in perpetuity, but it cannot take on debt in perpetuity.

We paid off a higher debt to GDP disparity than we have right now in the 1950's by taxing the rich. That motivated the same rich to invest here in job creating companies which caused millions of well paying jobs to be created and those same rich folks got richer.

In a globalized economy, higher and higher levels of taxation chases money right out of the country. Also, high levels of taxation doesn't motivate investment. Are you familiar with the risk/reward paradigm? Everybody knows that playing the Mega Millions is a losing proposition. Yet, as the amount of the jackpot climbs, so does its ticket sales. Why? People are more willing to throw a dollar at a 1 in 30 million chance of winning when the jackpot is $300,000,000 than when it's $12,000,000.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 03:33 PM | Reply

"Right now debt-to-GDP is exceeding 100%. The only other time it's ever been that high was right after WWII and back then this country didn't have unfunded liabilities on future promises. It can carry debt in perpetuity, but it cannot take on debt in perpetuity."

That was exactly my point. All it is is a measure of incompetence.

And they can issue more debt. What is to stop the federal government from just issuing new bonds to pay for the old ones ala Ponzi? If there was an actual limit to the debt we could take one, we wouldn't be $20T in the red.

#26 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 03:53 PM | Reply

I love how you proponents of 'just tax the rich' assume:
1. That the pool of money in the upper income brackets is limitless.
2. That raising taxes, especially dramatic increases in taxes, will have no economic impact whatsoever. People won't change their behaviors one iota in response.

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That pool of money may be limited, but were' sure not seeing any proof of it. You'll have to let us know when it's actually under any significant threat. Right now, those wealthy seem to be making exceptional gains compared to everyone else.

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they're worth $1.13 trillion -- more than the GDP of Canada.

#27 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-10 04:32 PM | Reply

#27

Interesting to see how much that increase is when adjusted for inflation. Regardless, it's still an eye-popping number.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:36 PM | Reply

Jeff's right. And the Bluest Blue states figured it out already. In Bernie's VT they couldn't get the math to work. In CA they scrapped the idea because they couldn't get the math to work. And in Colorado the voters rejected the idea outright last November. Aren't there any liberals in OR or HI or WA who want to blow the dust off their adding machines, and give it a whirl? No Neanderthal Tea Partiers in those places to stand in their way. Maybe they're just a bunch of selfish bastards. Hate poor people. In the pockets of big pharma. Etc Etc Etc

If Jerry Brown and his pals running the richest state can't get it to go, and a small snowflaker all-white state like VT can't figure it out, it's amusing to watch them pretend Donald Trump is going to crunch the numbers and make it all rosy at the national level.

#29 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-10 10:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

PS. I love Bernie. I think he's a delusional old fool. But he sure has proven useful, lately. God bless him.

#30 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-10 10:47 PM | Reply

Using real math, countries with UHC pay a lower percentage of their GDP on health, cover a larger percentage of their populace, and deliver better measurable results.
That would be LESS costs, making it MORE affordable in the long run.
Real math, not Republican math.

Posted by Danforth

Fascinating. But if that's true, why don't the Dems do it in Illinois? Or Connecticut or Rhode Island or New York City or Boulder? No Republicans thick on the ground in those place to keep Dems from saving other Dems a lot of money, and making them healthier besides.

So why don't they? Are they stupid?

#31 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-10 10:52 PM | Reply

"So why don't they? Are they stupid?"

No.

They, like other Congresscritters, are bought and paid for by lobbyists, including the health insurance industry.

A more salient question would be why do we as Americans pay the highest prices in the world, and a higher percentage of our GDP on health than any other first-world nation?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-11 08:25 AM | Reply

A more salient question would be why do we as Americans pay the highest prices in the world, and a higher percentage of our GDP on health than any other first-world nation?

#32 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-08-11 08:25 AM | REPLY

Because we're fat from having massively unnatural amounts of sugar in our food.

#33 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-11 08:47 AM | Reply

"Because we're fat from having massively unnatural amounts of sugar in our food."

That doesn't explain why we pay the highest prices for the same procedures, and the highest prices for the same drugs.

Nice attempt at deflection, however.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-11 08:49 AM | Reply

Health is important to us. And other things are cheaper. In Asia and Europe they spend a far high % on housing, which costs at three times as much on a price/income basis than in the US. Branded clothing in the US costs half as much as elsewhere. Gasoline is ridiculously cheap. And so on.

Just the way it is.

#35 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-11 08:59 AM | Reply

"Just the way it is."

Nonsense. America is being ripped off, comparatively. We pay to subsidize the world's pharmaceuticals, because our Congress--both Rs and Ds--are bought & paid for by lobbyists. Meanwhile, when the Payton Mannings of the world want the best neck care possible, they leave the US.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-11 09:03 AM | Reply

That doesn't explain why we pay the highest prices for the same procedures, and the highest prices for the same drugs.

#34 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-08-11 08:49 AM | FLAG:

Oh that one is easy. Opaque pricing and irregular structures. Institutes with menu based pricing in the US are on par with the same services offered elsewhere in the globe.

High prices for same drugs, because we're subsidizing everybody else. If a company wants to get a foot in the door in a foreign country, they can put it on that market at a loss and make it back up in ours.

#37 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-11 09:34 AM | Reply

Not to mention we keep massively increasing demand, but not the supply.

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-08-11 09:39 AM | Reply

"Right now debt-to-GDP is exceeding 100%. The only other time it's ever been that high was right after WWII and back then this country didn't have unfunded liabilities on future promises. It can carry debt in perpetuity, but it cannot take on debt in perpetuity."

Jeff Jeff Jeff

Don't you know where you are? This is TrumpLandia. In TrumpLandia we can just declare bankruptcy at any time and walk away.

Viola! Clean slate. It's a Jubilee!

As for single payer math not working... it doesn't matter anymore. Repeal and replace was lie from the beginning. Republicans have proven they have no plan. Single payer is an actual plan. And even if it is a lie (it is not)like repeal and replace was it is a good lie. Much better than any Republican lie that's for sure!

Count me in Bernie. I have another 27 bucks.

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-11 11:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Oh that one is easy. Opaque pricing and irregular structures."

Something addressed by UHC.

"High prices for same drugs, because we're subsidizing everybody else. "

Yep. And because both Rs and Ds--when they each had the chance--sold out to Big Pharma instead. Shameful.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-11 01:38 PM | Reply

Still don't know why Danforth doesn't show his fellow liberals how to do universal coverage at the city or state level. Seems so easy. Are they just lazy? All talk, no action? Maybe they don't really want it. They just say they do. Hard to say.

#41 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-11 10:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort