Official Bernie Sanders for President 2016 thread

[Dr.Gonzo]

Just allow people to buy insurance across state lines and you'll introduce some downwards pressure.

Remove some regulation and bring back friendly societies, that will reduce costs significantly.

[mikewlgm]

per capita dumbass. we might be a large country, but luckily, we're the richest country in the history of the world. why are you trying so hard to continue a system in which some yacht buying ************ who owns an insurance company rapes you?

Once again calling someone a dumbass doesn't support your argument

It has nothing to do with money. Its logistics.

[scumbag]

You probably believed Obama too right?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-plan-keep-it/

get back at me when your IQ surpasses room temperature.

[mikewlgm]

Scumbag let me know when your done googling logistics so we can continue the conversation.

[scumbag]

Once again calling someone a dumbass doesn't support your argument

It has nothing to do with money. Its logistics.

says who? you? you penetrating moron!

[mikewlgm]

get back at me when your IQ surpasses room temperature.

So..........is that your response?

[mikewlgm]

says who? you? you penetrating moron!

You aren't making any points....you know how a debate and/or conversation works right?

[Dr.Gonzo]

<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">This article was published in the Winter 1993-94 issue of Formulations</center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">by the Free Nation Foundation</center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;"> </center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;"></center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis</center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;"> </center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It</center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;"> </center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">by Roderick T. Long</center> (to table of contents of FNF archives)
Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.
Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was tooaccessible. But in that era, too, government stepped forward to solve the problem. And boy, did it solve it!
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)
The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.
Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."
"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.
Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care. By contrast, the average cost of medical service on the regular market was between one and two dollars per visit. Yet licensed physicians, particularly those who did not come from "big name" medical schools, competed vigorously for lodge contracts, perhaps because of the security they offered; and this competition continued to keep costs low.
The response of the medical establishment, both in America and in Britain, was one of outrage; the institution of lodge practice was denounced in harsh language and apocalyptic tones. Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession. Moreover, many saw it as a blow to the dignity of the profession that trained physicians should be eagerly bidding for the chance to serve as the hirelings of lower-class tradesmen. It was particularly detestable that such uneducated and socially inferior people should be permitted to set fees for the physicians' services, or to sit in judgment on professionals to determine whether their services had been satisfactory. The government, they demanded, must do something.
And so it did. In Britain, the state put an end to the "evil" of lodge practice by bringing health care under political control. Physicians' fees would now be determined by panels of trained professionals (i.e., the physicians themselves) rather than by ignorant patients. State-financed medical care edged out lodge practice; those who were being forced to pay taxes for "free" health care whether they wanted it or not had little incentive to pay extra for health care through the fraternal societies, rather than using the government care they had already paid for.
In America, it took longer for the nation's health care system to be socialized, so the medical establishment had to achieve its ends more indirectly; but the essential result was the same. Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.
Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices — a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.
The final death blow to lodge practice was struck by the fraternal societies themselves. The National Fraternal Congress — attempting, like the AMA, to reap the benefits of cartelization — lobbied for laws decreeing a legal minimum on the rates fraternal societies could charge. Unfortunately for the lobbyists, the lobbying effort was successful; the unintended consequence was that the minimum rates laws made the services of fraternal societies no longer competitive. Thus the National Fraternal Congress' lobbying efforts, rather than creating a formidable mutual-aid cartel, simply destroyed the fraternal societies' market niche — and with it the opportunity for low-cost health care for the working poor.
Why do we have a crisis in health care costs today? Because government "solved" the last one. D

Bibliogaphy
David T. Beito. "The 'Lodge Practice Evil' Reconsidered: Medical Care Through Fraternal Societies, 1900-1930." (unpublished)
David T. Beito. "Mutual Aid for Social Welfare: The Case of American Fraternal Societies." Critical Review, Vol. 4, no. 4 (Fall 1990).
David Green. Reinventing Civil Society: The Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics. Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1993.
David Green. Working Class Patients and the Medical Establishment: Self-Help in Britain from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to 1948. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1985.
David Green & Lawrence Cromwell. Mutual Aid or Welfare State: Australia's Friendly Societies. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1984.
P. Gosden. The Friendly Societies in England, 1815-1875. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1961.
P. Gosden. Self-Help: Voluntary Associations in the 19th Century. Batsford Press, London, 1973.
Albert Loan. "Institutional Bases of the Spontaneous Order: Surety and Assurance." Humane Studies Review, Vol. 7, no. 1, 1991/92.
Leslie Siddeley. "The Rise and Fall of Fraternal Insurance Organizations." Humane Studies Review, Vol. 7, no. 2, 1992.
S. David Young. The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America. Cato Institute, Washington, 1987.
(to table of contents of FNF archives) (to top of page)

[scumbag]

Just allow people to buy insurance across state lines and you'll introduce some downwards pressure.

Remove some regulation and bring back friendly societies, that will reduce costs significantly.

is there a right wing talking point you don't parrot?

LETS DISPEL THE NOTION THAT YOU KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU DON'T. ALL THIS WOULD DO IS ALLOW INSURANCE COMPANIES TO GO TO THE LOWEST TAX STATE.

[scumbag]

So..........is that your response?

why would i respond to that moronic "question"?

[Dr.Gonzo]

Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was tooaccessible.

This.

[mikewlgm]

why would i respond to that moronic "question"?

Are you a typical Bernie supporter? Screaming and yelling and crying but not actually making any points?

[Dr.Gonzo]

is there a right wing talking point you don't parrot?

LETS DISPEL THE NOTION THAT YOU KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU DON'T. ALL THIS WOULD DO IS ALLOW INSURANCE COMPANIES TO GO TO THE LOWEST TAX STATE.

Friendly societies, you obviously don't know what they are and their history.

[scumbag]

i've made dozens of great points in this thread.

you're the dipshit who came in here and said "'free' college won't work because you have to pay grounds workers".

[ACoochy]

Good post.

Heres my problem with the "free" college

College won't be "free" it will just be someone else paying for it. More than likely the people who are already paying for their kid to go to college.

Professors,janitors,advisors,cafeteria workers all need to be paid

Buildings have to be repaired

Campus has to be upkept


Who is gonna pay for all that?

Taxes you say....good plan then college will be as shitty as public high schools in this country. Teachers are quitting left and right all over the country because the pay is low and job is hard. You want college to be as bad as public schools then make it "free" like public schools.

Yet there somehow able to make it work in some of the affluent european countries...

Then again a overall 50% tax rate imposed on everyone can afford such luxuries...

Better than trying to save 100k for tuition maybe?

Go figure...

[mikewlgm]

i've made dozens of great points in this thread.

you're the dipshit who came in here and said "'free' college won't work because you have to pay grounds workers".

Its true. Try asking a public high school teacher how she feels about govt running education or just look up the facts......and then tell me why you want them running higher education as well....

Or you can just cry and call people names like you have been doing.

[Dr.Gonzo]

i've made dozens of great points in this thread.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Yet there somehow able to make it work in some of the affluent european countries...

Then again a overall 50% tax rate imposed on everyone can afford such luxuries...

Better than trying to save 100k for tuition maybe?

Go figure...

They make it work through rationing.

The average European American's healthcare is comparable to the best of Europe.

[mikewlgm]

Yet there somehow able to make it work in some of the affluent european countries...

Then again a overall 50% tax rate imposed on everyone can afford such luxuries...

Go figure...

What Like Denmark? Most of those countries are small in size and population and really only have one ethnic group.....its an apple to oranges comparison.

[ACoochy]

What Like Denmark? Most of those countries are small in size and population and really only have one ethnic group.....its an apple to oranges comparison.

Not really...

Thats just an excuse to stop it from happening...

Besides political agendas why couldnt a model similar to that be replicated to size?

[unde0087]

The bigger government gets in our everyday lives the worse off it will be. This whole free healthcare and education sound wonderful to people, I wonder if they are also aware doing this will take away their choice on where they get to go to school and where they will receive their free healthcare. It's just another way the government puts more clamps down. The free part comes with a cost your freedom of choice.

[guitarjosh]

Yet there somehow able to make it work in some of the affluent european countries...

Then again a overall 50% tax rate imposed on everyone can afford such luxuries...

Better than trying to save 100k for tuition maybe?

Go figure...

Some...for now. Those European socialist models that the left talks about looks nothing like their ideal America. In those Scandinavian countries, the average person pays over 60% of their income in taxes. This has caused a major demographic problem that will collapse the welfare state in the not to distant future. What Bernie and his supporters want to emulate is closer to the South American models, which usually end up with food shortages.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Yet there somehow able to make it work in some of the affluent european countries...

Then again a overall 50% tax rate imposed on everyone can afford such luxuries...

Better than trying to save 100k for tuition maybe?

Go figure...

[ACoochy]

Some...for now. Those European socialist models that the left talks about looks nothing like their ideal America. In those Scandinavian countries, the average person pays over 60% of their income in taxes. This has caused a major demographic problem that will collapse the welfare state in the not to distant future. What Bernie and his supporters want to emulate is closer to the South American models, which usually end up with food shortages.

Get back to me when they a debt % to GDP ratio as high as you guys then we'll talk...

Oh and it's 50% too...

[DwightShrute]

i've made dozens of great points in this thread.

[guitarjosh]

Get back to me when they a debt % to GDP ratio as high as you guys then we'll talk...

Oh and it's 50% too...

What is your point?

[stevenash]

That's bullshit. Why would nurses be backing bernie if he was going to fire them? the only people getting fired will be some yacht buying motherfuckers - and their employees - who make their living denying people coverage.



says who? the "liberal" media you always say lies? wonder if they're protecting the trillion dollar private insurance industry?

You've heard of Friedman?

What happens to all the people who work in insurance and medical billing?

Some 500,000 of the 2 million people who work in insurance and medical billing could be displaced under a single payer system, Friedman said. But many could be shifted to other health care jobs, he argues. Instead of<del style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </del>spending hours on the phone with insurers, for instance,
nurses could spend more time caring for patients.

Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single payer system, estimates it would cost $20 billion to retrain and place displaced workers.

A universal health care bill introduced in 2013 by Michigan Representative John Conyers, a Democrat, would providedisplaced employees with retraining and temporary transition payments equal to their annual salary, not exceeding $100,000 a year. A single payer bill introduced that year by Sanders did not contain such programs.

[stevenash]

That's bullshit. Why would nurses be backing bernie if he was going to fire them? the only people getting fired will be some yacht buying motherfuckers - and their employees - who make their living denying people coverage.

Bullshit-bullshit-bullshit

1199 supports Hilary, they don't trust Bernie.
Bullshit, I also know I/T people who do data processing for hospitals and visiting nurse services, hell I know the I/T director for VNS that's in he 1199, they are not supporting Bernie.
And I detest Hil, I'm just posting facts here.


1199SEIU, Largest Healthcare Union in America, Supports SEIU Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Nov 17, 2015“Today the Executive Board of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) voted to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, and 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East voted to support that decision. During the endorsement decision-making process, we sent a clear message that we strongly urge Secretary Clinton not only to continue supporting a $15 minimum wage on state and local levels, but also expand that support to the federal level for all working people. In the richest country in the history of the world, we must ensure that hard work is rewarded, that working people can provide their children with a better future, and that we can build a fair and inclusive economy.
“Over the past few months, more than 22,000 members of 1199 had conversations with each other and filled out surveys about their priority issues, and made their voices heard through social media. 1199SEIU’s executive leaders then met with both Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders, and expressed to them our urgent priorities: good jobs with a living wage, quality healthcare for all, social justice, immigration reform and a healthy planet. Following those meetings, we felt confident that both candidates strongly supported our issues, but that Secretary Clinton outlined the most effective strategy for winning the general election.
“We admire and respect Senator Sanders, and applaud his message of fairness and economic justice. But above all, we cannot under any circumstances let anti-worker, right-wing politicians gain control of the White House, in addition to controlling the Senate, Congress and the Supreme Court. That consolidation of power by the extreme right-wing would be a catastrophe for working people, women, people of color, immigrants, youth, seniors, the LGBTQ community, and for America’s standing in the world. The Republican agenda is focused on accumulating more wealth and power for the top 1%, while leaving everyone else behind.
“Secretary Clinton has the commitment, skills and experience to move our country forward, and the most effective strategy to win the presidency. Therefore, we support SEIU’s decision to endorse Secretary Hillary Clinton, and will mobilize our more than 400,000 members to ensure the priority issues of healthcare workers, our families and our communities are heard loud and clear. Together, we will fight for a country that works for working people, with security, opportunity and dignity for all.”
- George Gresham, President of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.

- See more at: http://www.1199seiu.org/1199seiu_sup....FOXH8c3h.dpuf

[Thor4140]

Hey scummy got a question for ya. Let's say 100 trillion dollars just fell in my lap . now I come out and say I'm gonna pay for everyones healthcare and schooling all out of my own pocket. What would the sneaky right wingers say then? Would they actually come up with a reason to stop me and is it possible their gullible followers would finally realize these asshole will do anything to protect the top earners. Even if it didn't cost them a cent?

[DwightShrute]

Hey scummy got a question for ya. Let's say 100 trillion dollars just fell in my lap . now I come out and say I'm gonna pay for everyones healthcare and schooling all out of my own pocket. What would the sneaky right wingers say then? Would they actually come up with a reason to stop me and is it possible their gullible followers would finally realize these asshole will do anything to protect the top earners. Even if it didn't cost them a cent?

ya that could happen I suppose

[Thor4140]

Bullshit-bullshit-bullshit

1199 supports Hilary, they don't trust Bernie.
Bullshit, I also know I/T people who do data processing for hospitals and visiting nurse services, hell I know the I/T director for VNS that's in he 1199, they are not supporting Bernie.
And I detest Hil, I'm just posting facts here.


1199SEIU, Largest Healthcare Union in America, Supports SEIU Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Nov 17, 2015“Today the Executive Board of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) voted to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, and 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East voted to support that decision. During the endorsement decision-making process, we sent a clear message that we strongly urge Secretary Clinton not only to continue supporting a $15 minimum wage on state and local levels, but also expand that support to the federal level for all working people. In the richest country in the history of the world, we must ensure that hard work is rewarded, that working people can provide their children with a better future, and that we can build a fair and inclusive economy.
“Over the past few months, more than 22,000 members of 1199 had conversations with each other and filled out surveys about their priority issues, and made their voices heard through social media. 1199SEIU’s executive leaders then met with both Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders, and expressed to them our urgent priorities: good jobs with a living wage, quality healthcare for all, social justice, immigration reform and a healthy planet. Following those meetings, we felt confident that both candidates strongly supported our issues, but that Secretary Clinton outlined the most effective strategy for winning the general election.
“We admire and respect Senator Sanders, and applaud his message of fairness and economic justice. But above all, we cannot under any circumstances let anti-worker, right-wing politicians gain control of the White House, in addition to controlling the Senate, Congress and the Supreme Court. That consolidation of power by the extreme right-wing would be a catastrophe for working people, women, people of color, immigrants, youth, seniors, the LGBTQ community, and for America’s standing in the world. The Republican agenda is focused on accumulating more wealth and power for the top 1%, while leaving everyone else behind.
“Secretary Clinton has the commitment, skills and experience to move our country forward, and the most effective strategy to win the presidency. Therefore, we support SEIU’s decision to endorse Secretary Hillary Clinton, and will mobilize our more than 400,000 members to ensure the priority issues of healthcare workers, our families and our communities are heard loud and clear. Together, we will fight for a country that works for working people, with security, opportunity and dignity for all.”
- George Gresham, President of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.

- See more at: http://www.1199seiu.org/1199seiu_sup....FOXH8c3h.dpuf

Nash if Hillary wins its a smart move if she loses Bernie won't hold a grudge. Now if they support Bernie and Hillary wins we get bills like NAFTA shoved down our throats. Those union workers also don't get in line like robots and do everything this guy says. I assure u if one wants to vote for Bernie they will. As well as Trump

[stevenash]

Nash if Hillary wins its a smart move if she loses Bernie won't hold a grudge. Now if they support Bernie and Hillary wins we get bills like NAFTA shoved down our throats. Those union workers also don't get in line like robots and do everything this guy says. I assure u if one wants to vote for Bernie they will. As well as Trump

Third party steps in, or we have a repeat of 1988

[DwightShrute]

[IMG]https://****************************/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12717449_795215993945773_664219516130785 1901_n.jpg?oh=ad2768ef9c3612506a47282114 2e57ba&oe=573022E6[/IMG]

[ACoochy]

Is it just me or does it seem that the older we are then the more scared of any real hope we become?

[DwightShrute]

Is it just me or does it seem that the older we are then the more scared of any real hope we become?

more like ... fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Hope and change in 2008 was a lie.