I don't think the American Dream is something open to much interpretation. In fact, you can google it/find definition for it. "The American Dream is the belief that anyone, regardless of where they were born or what class they were born into, can attain their own version of success in a society where upward mobility is possible for everyone. The American Dream is achieved through sacrifice, risk-taking, and hard work, rather than by chance." It's always some variation of the above. Which frankly foots to reality, the eye test if you will. This is not "I have the ability to become the best of the best of the best and a billionaire!!!" Frankly to me that's more a construct of the last 40'ish years, where $$ has increasingly become more and more and more important, in America. Relative to Bernie, I think he's actually trying to promote the American Dream more than most, and certainly more than the current GOP ideals. This doesn't in any way take away the ability to be exceptional. You can still be an exceptional artist, an exceptional business man, whatever. The idea that the rich might get taxed more doesn't correlate to the ability to be exceptional. The ideas that immigrants (or anyone) shouldn't be discriminated against, the climate change is real and is a threat, that the healthcare system is completely f'd in America and some version of healthcare for all makes sense, the idea that $$ in politics is a huge problem, the idea that blacks and minorities have been disproportionately jailed, the idea that education is paramount and that if public education is already provided K-12 further providing it for pre-K through college is in no way radical just a function of whether it reflects the core need to educate society for the betterment on individuals and the whole, etc, etc.... ... NONE of these ideas really in any way infringe on ones ability to be exceptional. All they infringe on is a budget. As such, a budget pushback makes for a logical and worthy political discussion. An ENTIRE budget pushback. We know this.. we don't have to guess it, because in both America historically and in other countries, many of which consistently rank higher than America in lots of factors that are important to "life, happiness, etc." there are things like higher taxes on the rich, or more democratic socialist policies, and STILL exceptionalism. And STILL personal responsibility. And STILL pride in work.
Change create changes. Not everything will be for the better. But ultimately many/most things will be. Have you done any research into where the US ranks or indexes from a healthcare perspective comparatively to other large and wealthy countries? Cause most of those countries rank better than the US on healthcare and life expectancy, while providing it to their entire populace, and a much cheaper cost per capita.
This is true and I have no doubt its amplified but then you look at just the Bernie supporters here and see that it is a real phenomenon. Also doesn't help that Bernie himself is so dismissive.
You don't know this for sure it could make things worse especially because Bernie does not know the actual numbers. Those other countries are not working with the numbers of people we would be what happens when you scale up and that is also with a population that is not as healthy as a lot of those countries. Have you done research on the issues those countries have in their healthcare systems? Long waits Rationing of care Some treatments that are not offered. Shortage of doctors. Bernie does not have a magic wand and none of those other countries has the same population that we have its not as easy as just rebooting the system. Those other countries also have supplemental insurance which nobody acknowledges and even then a lot of people are not happy with their health care. Why do you think this is the panacea when it"s never been tried on a population this size and when some people will not be getting better healthcare or convenience? Because Bernie says so?
I do know that adding healthcare will make it better, EVERY OTHER Westernized country has it, we are the ONLY ones profiting from illness. DD
There has never been a Democratic contest as contested as this one, either, I suspect. So, while I think that is a good change, I don't know that it 'fixes' the issue here. I could see Bernie getting somewhere around 35-40% of the vote going into the convention, with the rest sprinkled amongst the remaining candidates (of which there could still be 5). Whether by plan or not, I could easily see it getting to a second vote. Kinda ironic that that is necessary, but yes. Is Bernie a member of the Democratic Party? I believe he is often still listed as an Independent. Would he sign that? If it meant being the nominee, I can't see why he wouldn't. But would that really change his basic convictions (that led him to be in Independent)? I doubt it.
I have various plans I can choose from. The one I have allows me to go out of network. Yes, I have to pay deductibles and premiums. See previous comment. Do people not get that all of that cost in contained in M4All? It seems not, which is pretty scary. First, they said this for Obamacare, and it turned out to not be true at all (which they knew when they said it). Second, not all doctors take Medicaid/Medicare. There are reasons for that. So, either there could still be doctors that don't take it, or there could be a lot fewer doctors, leading to longer wait times, etc. But, in general, yes, that is facet of M4All that is fair to bring up. Which bring us back to cost. Tell me how, for sure, my costs will go down, or at least not go up. In addition to the potential doctor/wait time issue.
Most things aren't known for sure. By that logic, why change anything? All I know is the facts that the research points out relative to US ranks/indexing and costs. I won't downplay that more people means more potential hiccups and bureaucracy. Of course, we have states. If it won't work on a national level - which I think is just a pushback point as all I've ever heard is that blanket statement with no research or facts behind it - would it work on a state level? It's kind of just math and size at that point. I'm not advocating state-run M4A... just saying the general comment "we're too big though" is kind of just a comment with no data behind it, as far as I can tell. so... why not have a better healthcare system? - Our healthcare system consistently ranks below comparable countries in terms of quality, cost and outcomes - Yeah, that's because we're not healthy people!! I don't see the logic in this. I "think" you're trying to argue the reason our healthcare system ranks below comparable countries is because we're less healthy for reasons not inherent to our hc system in the first place - eg. Americans eat way too many hamburgers (random, but easy to understand example). But that's not what the stats say. That might explain certain things like overall life expectancy, but not the overall stats, which do DEEP research and look DEEPLY into overall healthcare quality across very detailed and specific types of care and outcomes. Yes, the research on this isn't hard to find. As I noted, we aren't behind on everything... in some areas we are better... and not everything will get better or much better or whatever. But on the whole, research and data overall, point out time and time again, the US is behind on overall healthcare quality, while spending more, while delivering it to a smaller % of its populace. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...althcare-system-compare-countries/#item-start https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-rel...ending-highest-among-developed-countries.html https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2019/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/the-us-health-care-system-an-international-perspective One could provide endless links and studies. Similarly, some of the points you bring up are true. Like wait times... its more nuanced, and varies by country - not all public healthcare countries have the same wait times either. But yes, in general public healthcare might lead to longer wait times in certain areas, especially anything that is elective or can be put off. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/access-affordability/4578-2/ On the other hand, as noted in the above link, the U.S. ALREADY has long wait times for certain things. Another article mentioning the same: https://www.americanprogress.org/is.../truth-wait-times-universal-coverage-systems/ Conversely, absolutely Canadians aren't jumping for joy with wait times. addressed below, but just because people are cheering for or pushing some type of M4A or universal healthcare, doesn't mean they think it'll be a magic wand and everyone will be ecstatic with the change. there's give and take, OF COURSE. It's not just Bernie, fyi. And it's not just Democrats. The majority and depending on poll sometimes super-majority of Americans prefer some form of universal healthcare. I don't expect it to magically work amazingly everytime. It'll be hard work. And because of "government" they might f'up some stuff. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The current system sucks. Our healthcare system SUCKS... relative to the rest of the world. It's just facts and figures. It's not an opinion. study after study after study after study says the same things. America is ranked WAY TOO LOW on chart after chart after charter of metrics that are relevant to healthcare quality. It doesn't mean we're the worst at EVERYTHING. It doesn't mean universal healthcare is the best at EVERYTHING. But when you factor in our rankings, with how much money we spend on it, and with how much less access everyone has to it as a "basic universal human right" relative to countries with universal healthcare ... something is broken. Whether its 100% MFA, some kind of hybrid, or something else entirely, it needs to be "fixed"... fixed in quotes because nothing is a panacea, everything has pros and cons - and by the way, this is ESPECIALLY true in healthcare.
If there are no insurance companies very few doctors and hospitals will run on a cash-only basis. So nearly ALL doctors and hospitals will accept it. Under current medicare, not all doctors and hospitals need to accept medicare because insurance will pay them. Yes, some doctors or hospitals might not accept it, but it will be tough for them to maintain business.
Thanks for being honest about what you fear most. There is nothing wrong with being averse to change. As you have said, you are retired and just want to to enjoy your time doing art without having to witness the country radically change around you. That's a legitimate concern. You have the right to feel that way. However, the American exceptionalism you cherish so much is built upon fighting for radical changes. From the American Revolution, to the abolishment of slavery, to the progressive movement of the early 20th century, to the Civil Rights Act -- America has always been a nation of radical change for the greater good. Everything we have today it terms of rights, liberties, benefits, etc were all once fought very hard for by brave men and women. Today, that fight is about healthcare, education, climate change, etc -- which you may think doe not requires radical change, but the vast majority of young people looking for their version of the American Dream feel otherwise. Most of them can't afford college, or buy a house, or start a family without being crippled by lifelong debt. Meanwhile, you argue the solution is simple as anti-corruption like you are somehow naive enough to believe the most corrupt institute in all of politics -- the Republican Party -- will cooperate in fixing this problem.
I dont know how anyone can defend our current healthcare system. Maybe theyve had the luxury of just being able to pay for it. For most people, like me and my family, it has been a huge struggle. This is why I liked Klobochar in the beginning and then stopped. She didnt recognize it as big as an issue that it really is.
That's an empty platitude which means nothing. If you think you can do it better, then you should have done it already, not waited decades for a revolutionary to come along and hold your feet to the fire. Young working class Americans are not buying this moderate democrat bullshit anymore. That's exactly Bernie's whole appeal. He demands radical change and sticks to it every single day because he knows none of these moderates are not going to fight for change once they're in office.
Lets cut to the chase here - The cant afford college without lifelong debt thing is just dead wrong. Its based upon choices , the choice of what school you go to first and foremost - You can get a useful degree without that crippling debt. There are community and junior colleges that are much more affordable than "name brand schools" - I went to one (Blynn) many years ago and avoided the crippling debt. That option is still available today. Going to Blynn today a 4 year degree will cost you ~$16k. My son took a similar route - community college for the basics and finishing his degree at UH and while I did help him with costs , he could have afforded it easily alone and will walk away with no debt .... but he works full time too. My niece goes to SFA , another economical school .... and rather than living on campus , lives in an RV which costs her ~$200 a month including utilities. But hey , some people think they need to go to a prestigious school and pay $30-50k a semester .... that's just stupidity. Buy a house without longterm debt ? No kidding ? Most people have 15-30 year mortgages because few people have the cash on hand to buy a house , they usually have to save several years just to have the down payment. What do you expect here ?! Start a family ? Sure makes sense to do that when you have established yourself .... I mean , you can make the poor financial decision and have kids fist .... but that's not very smart. I'm not afraid of change at all , I'm very adaptable. I just think the change many are asking for ..... really isn't good for anyone long term. I have kids and grandkids to consider ..... not just myself and my art. Some of this change I am for - like M4A but I can get that with literally any Dem candidate without the rest of that extreme agenda and massive government spending that Bernie proposes.
Which other Dem candidate will do M4A? You say its about choices, but youre talking like the guy who has been blessed with a higher level of thinking useful for doing research like you have. Guess what, todays government has it set up where 80% of all underprivileged, uneducated are all prone to fall into these traps. It sounds like you have not much perspective outside your own POV and your own family. Which isnt bad considering most people live in their own bubble and not seeing other people's way of living and cultures.
You do realize I'm a minority from a very poor neighborhood with a public school education right ? My people are some of the poorest in the nation .... averaging under $20k a year. My experiences are starting at the very bottom. Falling into those traps is .... nobody's fault but the individuals , there's an old saying - Look before you leap. Its plain old common sense. Before you jump into something you don't know about - research your alternatives. Everyone's blaming the system .... and no one blames themselves. Personal responsibility is something these young generations just don't comprehend.
Yes. And not in the 'you have to pass the bill in order to see the details' fashion. I'm not again UHC. I mostly agree with the concept. Some countries seem to do it quite well (NZ and Australia have the model that I think would most apply here, but they're never the models mentioned). BUT I am also concerned that my taxes will go up, my care will go down, and I won't really be able to do a thi That depends on how the system is set up. Australia and New Zealand have both public and private systems, and it works just fine. It would probably be the best system here, because of that. Of course due to political agenda, those aren't the models any of the politicians are looking at. Yes, all REMAINING doctors would likely take it. There would likely be fewer doctors. There already are doctor shortages. Plus, this could well drive some of more promising candidates away, leading to lower quality of care. Doctors want more freedom to practice as they see fit. Moving to M4All would remove that, and make it even more regulated (regulations being one of the main reasons many of them don't take Medicaid currently). Which gets back to political forces driving this. Rather than trying to pigeon hole it into a public system, why not let capitalism actually work in medicine, driving down costs and improving quality? Is everyone really against better quality at lower cost? If so...why?
Yes, that's fair. I was going with the Bernie proposal for it. Those that go a half step with it run into the problems you mentioned. I believe that either way the taxes will go up. I happen to believe that it can be done where we spend more in taxes but save the same or more in medical expenses. So it's a net win. Even if not, I'm okay with paying slightly more in taxes in order to have universal coverage. I think the benefits beyond just my personal finances will outweigh the costs.
I believe that is possible as well, and I as well would pay a little more in taxes for a WELL RUN UHC. The problem is that nobody seems to be able to come up with one, and then when they start lying about what will happen I get very concerned, and prefer the status quo. Again, the major reason for their failure is they are addressing not the problem, but the symptoms. WHY do people who want insurance not have it (and many of them not even want it)? Because it costs too much. It costs too much because health care costs too much. The problem is NOT coverage, but COST. Control costs and the coverage issue will mostly resolve itself. It is also how you create something that will benefit everyone, not just those who don't have insurance. It is certainly worth considering that the main reason we have the such expensive health care is because we over regulate it, and then burden it with malpractice insurance anyway. We don't apply what made this country great--capitalism. Taking something that is flawed because it is too regulated, and saying it will be fixed by adding a lot more regulation, doesn't seem likely to have success. Making it public would solve the malpractice issue...you can't sue the government. But is that really a good thing, having no recourse if you get very bad health care that causes significant harm?
