leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
Rick is mostly right about Bernie. It's sad MANY don't get it.
No, he's not, and it's sad that MANY can't see the bigger picture. Sanders is more than a collection of policies. He wouldn't get the majority of them passed anyway. He's just a recognition that the status quo is out of control and wealth concentration is obscene. There is no one on this board who has experienced the true wealth we're talking about. No one is admonishing people who make a few hundred thousand dollars a year. That's peanuts relative to these people. There are people who are literally worth tens of billions of dollars while others can't even afford preventative screening for cancer. We need someone who is willing to acknowledge this and do what they can to at least make it more equitable. Don't preach to me about some pragmatist like Hillary Clinton. Pragmatism is just an excuse to say that you're afraid to upset the status quo.
Regarding health care, there's really a couple options. Rick should appreciate that. Either you are willing to let people who can't afford health care die from diseases with no one treating them or you think that in a country as wealthy as ours, we could at least provide basic health care services to keep them alive. There's very little middle ground. Our health care system is currently a trainwreck, and Obamacare is a train wreck. It's not feasible to continue to offer health "insurance" (it's really just a money transfer scheme) through the private sector and just allow "insurance" companies to raise their rates to meet the sky rocketing costs every year. I am more than willing to allow the government to take over health care FUNDING (they're not taking over health care - that's a conservative lie) in the name of equality over efficiency. As someone who is comfortable financially, I'm more than willing to pay more for the reassurance that my mom or dad or cousin or sibling will never be faced with the decision to go bankrupt or die. If I lived in a dirt poor country, I might view it differently.
That is the problem though. Bernie could have run on a campaign like that. However, he instead put "Free puppies for everyone!" at the forefront. Free health care, free childcare, free college, 1 million government jobs. He chose to do that. It was effective too. People still love Bernie. It was also pretty disingenuous to do it as a Presidential candidate given his political career and just how little he actually fought for things like this until he decided he could get national recognition as the also-ran against Hillary.
Bernie had some good ideas and made some good points. If I were running for President I would be closer to Bernie than anyone else who ran. I understand the idea of a "pragmatism" means more of the status quo with incremental changes. That is because change is hard and can't and shouldn't be quick and drastic. We never know what the unintended consequences would be. Take the housing crisis as an example. It started off with a great idea in getting more people the ability to own homes. That is one of the more noble goals we have attempted to meet. We even did a good job accomplishing it. It also crashed the economy down the line and many of the same people who were "helped" by it ended up with major ramifications.
Now, the answer is always "Well, ignore his actual plans. It's about ideas! It's about bringing up issues!". That is not our responsibility. It is the responsibility of the candidate. Candidates don't have to make outlandish claims that are intended to be ignored. Bernie could have run his campaign a different way if we weren't supposed to concentrate on his "Free puppies for everyone!" style. He chose not to.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
