Sanders is ahead -- 17 votes to 9

CNN just said Trump is on his way to the biggest Republicam victory aince John McCain beat GW Bush in 2000.

And McCain didn't win, did he...

Tell me again why this matters?

It was yooooge!!

TarheelsInNj said:

CNN just said Trump is on his way to the biggest Republicam victory aince John McCain beat GW Bush in 2000.

And McCain didn't win, did he...

Tell me again why this matters?

I don't think anybody can go lower than Bush went in the days following the NH primary.

Looking forward to Rubio's fifth-place victory speech.

So I had a friend over for dinner today. He's American but has lived in England for the past 30 years. He owns houses in the U.S. and in London and the English countryside. He can afford to have healthcare anywhere he likes. 
I was thinking of this thread when I said to him. "Tell me about the healthcare system in England."
"I like it. Why do you ask?"
"Bernie Sanders is promoting it here."
My friend said, that single payer will never happen in the U.S., but it works in England. He said it will have to change in England because right now you get healthcare just from being there, and they can't afford to keep that up. Also most people don't pay for their prescriptions, even when they are supposed to pay, they just tell the pharmacist that they don't pay, and the system isn't set up to catch them. 
He explained that you sign up with a doctor who is in your region. It's based on geography. The wait is longer when you want to see a specialist than your primary care doc. For instance, he said, "My doctor and I agree that it's time for me to see an ophthalmologist, and this is where the wait will happen. My doctor will request the specialist appointment for me, and the specialist's office will send me an appointment time. It won't be the right time, won't work for my schedule, and there will be some back and forth, and finally I'll have an appointment scheduled. But there isn't always a long wait for specialist. If they've (the system) has decided they want better outcomes in certain areas, the wait will be shorter. For instance, they wanted better outcomes with cancer, so the system is very efficient at getting people treated for cancer."

I asked if the technology was backwards, since the description he gave of the scheduling certainly seemed outdated. He said, no the technology is up-to-date for the things they consider important like treatment. 
He explained that no one pays for visits to the doctor. He thinks this has to change because if you go to any clinic, which you don't need an appointment for, you just walk in, it is filled every afternoon after three by women and children. "They must be bored, which is why they go there." (A man without children.) As I mentioned previously, he said most people don't pay for prescriptions. Medical school is paid for by the state, and doctors are paid well but don't get rich. 
Then he told me why he thinks the U.S. system will never be like the English system. "The U.S. has an aggressive capitalist system. I've lived outside of the U.S. for thirty years, and it's shocking how people are just left by the wayside here in a way they are not in other countries."
Now I have to stop here and say that this guy is not soft-hearted in any sense of the word. He is a bottomline businessman who is frugal in his own life, quite pragmatic, and conservative in many ways. 
Back to his explanation of why the U.S. will never have single payer, "The U.S. healthcare system is structured so certain entities -- insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, doctors and malpractice firms can take as much as possible. You can't stop them."
When I protested that with a shrinking middle class there could be an overhaul, and we could demand a single payer system or a system more like England's, he assured me that it would take 150 years for that kind of revolutionary change to happen. "It doesn't matter what the 'people' want. The 'people' don't matter in this system. There are twenty-five people running this country."
Well. I protest.

lisat said:

.... There are twenty-five people running this country." ....

We have a dictatorship. Expand your understanding of dictatorship and you understand that is what we have. They don't need guns or "Let me see your papers." They get what they want without violence.

Or if you want a simpler explanation, go to Carlin. "They own this ....in' place.  It's a big club and you and I ain't in it. It's called The American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it."

I sure miss him.                                         

ml1 said:

why wouldn't a GOP Congress block any and every proposal from a President Bloomberg?

Maybe they would like to enjoy a 16 oz soda?

lisat said:

When I protested that with a shrinking middle class there could be an overhaul, and we could demand a single payer system or a system more like England's, he assured me that it would take 150 years for that kind of revolutionary change to happen. "It doesn't matter what the 'people' want. The 'people' don't matter in this system. There are twenty-five people running this country."
Well. I protest.

When Nelson Mandela was elected president in South Africa I was talking to a family member and wondered how long it would take for the United States to elect a black president.  She insisted that we still had too far to come socially and that it wouldn't happen in our lifetime.  We not only have a black president, we also have marriage equality, both things I probably never thought I would see when I was younger. I'm not saying single payer will happen soon, but I also don't think it will necessarily take 150 years just because right now change seems impossible.

Says Wikipedia:

The three most recent presidential election winners (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama) finished second in the New Hampshire primary before later being elected to the presidency, while the previous four before that won the New Hampshire primary.

Jasmo said:

tjohn said:

RobB said:

Benghazi!!!!!

Bloomberg was behind Benghazi?!?

Of course, haven't you read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Amazing that was exactly what I was thinking just after I read the post before this one.

terp said:

I don't know.  If there was an emergency and Putin picked up the phone, do you really want Trump to be the guy who answers?

Bernie is in la la land with his policies.  He really believes that these things that any reasonable person knows don't work will work.  You have to hand it to him.  I think spending some time in the real world would have done Bernie some good.  He is clueless. 

Do you understand the difference between Democratic Socialism and Socialism? 

I first brought up the importance of Bernie emphasizing that difference when he wasn't doing so and was told it wasn't important because he was doing well without saying anything. He has since tried to point out the difference but it seems he hasn't succeeded completely.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

lisat said:

.... There are twenty-five people running this country." ....

We have a dictatorship. Expand your understanding of dictatorship and you understand that is what we have. They don't need guns or "Let me see your papers." They get what they want without violence.




Or if you want a simpler explanation, go to Carlin. "They own this ....in' place.  It's a big club and you and I ain't in it. It's called The American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it."




I sure miss him.                                         

I think old George was close to the truth. Since the 70's, way TF before CU, right wing machine created "philanthropies" (tax dodges that went to fund con think tanks), endowed chairs at prestigious universities in an effort to affect the politics of academia, and fake grass roots groups to draw attention for their other nefarious efforts. The rabid libertarianism of Kochs, Scaifes, Olins, others were inspired by our Austrian pal von Mises to work around our political system by focusing on these 3 areas. I'm paraphrasing from Dark Money.

Every one of these bastards inherited their money and made gazillions out of millions, many through gubmint contracts.

spontaneous said:

lisat said:

When I protested that with a shrinking middle class there could be an overhaul, and we could demand a single payer system or a system more like England's, he assured me that it would take 150 years for that kind of revolutionary change to happen. "It doesn't matter what the 'people' want. The 'people' don't matter in this system. There are twenty-five people running this country."
Well. I protest.

When Nelson Mandela was elected president in South Africa I was talking to a family member and wondered how long it would take for the United States to elect a black president.  She insisted that we still had too far to come socially and that it wouldn't happen in our lifetime.  We not only have a black president, we also have marriage equality, both things I probably never thought I would see when I was younger. I'm not saying single payer will happen soon, but I also don't think it will necessarily take 150 years just because right now change seems impossible.

Thank you for giving me hope. I agree with you. I did not think that marriage equality would happen so quickly, and since I have a gay son, I am relieved. Of course there are strides that are still needed in that area, but there is movement. I think one reason for progress in that area is that most families have gay relatives. Since we love them, we want others to accept them. Now if black relatives popped up randomly in white families, and white relatives in black families, maybe we would all get along better. 

@formerlyjerseyjack, thanks for the laugh, but no hope.

@GL2, I enjoy your posts in general, and these also.

@terp, I don't know what to say, and I hope that your overwhelming posts stay on the other Bernie thread. Not a personal attack, but they sometimes render others to the sidelines.

My posts on this thread have been pretty benign.    

terp said:

My posts on this thread have been pretty benign.   "> 

If my doc told me I had a benign brain tumor I'd still be pretty upset about it.  

Wow. That's mean!

There's a Caruso **glasses on** snap there somewhere.

terp said:

My posts on this thread have been pretty benign.   "> 

Agreed. I guess it was my way of thanking you.

De nada

spontaneous--people do have benign brain tumors and learn to live with them. Just sayin'