Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@ darksidevoid:
That's more extensive than the English NHS! Prescriptions are paid for (unless you have an exception) and dental care is largely Private.
edited 12th May '16 10:35:06 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
Then that's bloody recent. Only a little while ago they released a vid railing about how Clinton vs Trump was the nightmare scenario because there was so little difference between them. Which is, of course, absurd. For them to try and walk it back now strikes me as a case of too little too late.
I also can't help but get a "see, we were right and you should have picked Bernie" vibe off of that vid you linked, which is one of the reasons I don't trust it.
Lovely. Because that's what you should blow up friendships over. If it was a friend voting for Trump she might almost have a point, but over that?
edited 12th May '16 10:47:44 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Agreed. I have nothing against Sanders, but the levels of crazy he's generated from some of the people on the hard left is incredibly frustrating to me. Groups like TYT (and various other members of the You Tube left like Secular Talk, etc) have proven depressingly willing to put ideological purity over reality, and it's just sad. I hope not too many of their viewers are going to listen to them.
![]()
That's common on the Hard Left — in Europe, often there are dozens of Left-wing parties, formed from splits caused by ideological disagreements.
I know. I have an odd feeling that the US might eventually end up driving Europe (including Scandinavian) to the Left.
edited 12th May '16 11:24:53 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnWhelp.
(Basically he's going from "We'll never touch it" to "We'll see what needs a haircut once I get in.".)
Well, of course they did; "Sanders is really winning... despite the conspiracy and all obstacles against him! He's beating the odds!"
Frankly, did anyone ever think that he'd go this far? Even if he doesn't outright win, I'd say that this was a triumph...
Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination Toward Hillary Clinton
: The Reason Why Dozens of Lobbyists Will Be Democratic Presidential Delegates
.
This is a bit creepy...
In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records.
That’s at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. Of them, 41 lobbyist superdelegates, almost six in 10 of all lobbyist superdelegates, have already committed to supporting Clinton.
edited 13th May '16 1:09:47 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.2.5 million more voters
tip the nomination towards Hillary Clinton a hell of a lot more than lobbyists.
The hard left loves mythmaking - "British coal was the cheapest in Europe during the Miners' Strike!" etc - and it seems that the bards are already out in force. The fact remains that unless Sanders gets more pledged delegates than Hillary, there is zero reason for the superdelegates not to back the candidate who is actually a member of their party and not a sometime-ally, sometime-enemy gadfly.
Into the trash it goes.
edited 13th May '16 3:37:28 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiNever mind the first article, read the second, it's from ABC, and it's where all my quoted text is from. What seems like a matter for concern is not that the superdelegates support Clinton specifically, but that so many of them are lobbyists rather than any kind of elected official or even party insider. They lack popular legitimacy.
Everyone loves mythmaking, even alleged centrists, mainstreamists, and "rationalists"
. Please don't allege that this is a wingtip proclivity.
edited 13th May '16 1:59:17 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/05/10/phil-m10.html
A world socialist article's insight on some stuff regarding the elections held in Manila and future ties to America.
Be warned that some of its claims are blatantly untrue.
@Handle: Actually it's now more "Sanders would have won if the nomination process wasn't so blatantly undemocratic", and I'd say that's pretty much on the money, in states where independents could vote, he almost always won or came extremely close outside of the Deep South.
Before you say "Oh it's a private party, they can do what they want", do recall that the two party's primaries are funded with public money, and outside of oddball states like Vermont, there's no room for third parties.
edited 13th May '16 5:39:18 AM by CaptainCapsase
If independents don't want to call themselves Democrats, they have no business participating in a Democratic primary. They might be Republican fifth columns looking to subvert the party.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Remind me again why this is a thing and how it's legal? Doesn't it mean that the Dems and Republicans have been given an official role above that of regular political parties? It seems rather similar to how China works or the USSR worked, just with two officially sanctioned parties instead of one.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
x6
While I do think there is an argument to be made that the power of superdelegates needs to be curbed (maybe have them sit out the first round of voting, so any candidate with a true majority of pledged delegates always gets the nomination), I agree it's going to end up being a moot point in this particular election.
Unless Bernie Sanders pulls off what he did in West Virginia in every remaining state (which is highly improbable), Hillary Clinton is going to walk into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates and a majority of the popular vote. Which renders the whole question of superdelegates a moot point in this election.
Now that I think about it, I wonder if Hillary Clinton could win over a lot of Bernie's supporters if she pushed for a rule change to eliminate superdelegates from the first round of voting for future conventions. Obviously she isn't going to win over the most extreme radicals, but I think it could send a clear message to the majority of his supporters that she is listening to at least some of their concerns.
Bernie Sanders Supporters Propose ‘Mobilizing Voters’ to Beat Donald Trump
. Basically, some people from the Sanders campaign are saying he should concede defeat after the California primaries, then help defeat Trump.
By subversion, I mean Republicans with a safe nominee (this year being the first time in a long time this wasn't really the case) forgoing a Republican ballot and spoiling the local Democratic contest.
Plus, I simply don't trust independents. If they're not going to call themselves "Democrat," then why vote in a Democratic internal nomination? Either affiliate or get out.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Seems like Trump is actually pivoting to the right when faced with the prospect of funding his own campaign :-/
Re: polls: Candidates always get a bump when they become the presumptive nominee and right after the convention. Trump's getting the benefit of that now, while Hillary still faces a divided house.
Everything from demography to Trump's quadrupling down on his thorniest positions suggest that, barring a terrorist attack or an economic crisis, Hillary should have no problem still.

Doctors' single-payer prescription for health care reform
After the Supreme Court removed the final roadblock to the law in 2015, President Obama declared that at last “in America, health care is not a privilege for a few, but a right for all.” Yet doctors on the ground knew that wasn’t entirely true. We continue to see patients who dangerously delay their care because of cost concerns or insurance obstacles.
At least 27 million Americans remain uninsured, and for tens of millions with insurance, sky-high copayments and deductibles (which average $5,300 in the bronze plans sold on the ACA exchanges) mean they’d be bankrupted by a serious illness. Many more people have narrow network coverage that won’t pay for care at top cancer centers or academic hospitals.
Meanwhile, giant insurers and hospital conglomerates with a single-minded focus on their bottom line increasingly dominate health care. And doctors and nurses contend with insurers’ growing demands for mind-numbing electronic documentation. These trends predated the ACA, but the law accelerated them. The ACA has also fueled medical merger-mania and the health system’s administrative complexity and cost.
The alternative we and our colleagues developed (which has now been endorsed by 2,227 other physician colleagues) appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health. It calls for radical change: a single-payer national health program, essentially an expanded and improved version of Medicare for all, much along the lines that Bernie Sanders has advocated.
The single-payer plan we propose would cover everyone for all medically necessary care – including dental care, prescription drugs and long-term care – without copayments or deductibles. In contrast to private insurers’ narrow networks that restrict patients’ choice of doctors and hospitals, the single payer would cover care from any doctor or hospital.
Our nation can readily afford such expanded and improved coverage if we replace the current wasteful patchwork of insurers with a streamlined single-payer system. At present, private insurers’ take 12.3 percent of total premiums for their overhead; only 88 cents of every premium dollar ever reaches a doctor, hospital or pharmacy. And insurers inflict massive paperwork on doctors and hospitals, which spend about one-quarter of their revenues on billing and administration.
In contrast, insurance overhead is only 1.8 percent in Canada’s single-payer system, about the same overhead as in our Medicare program. And Canadian hospitals have administrative costs less than half those of their U.S. counterparts. That’s because Canadian hospitals are paid annual global budgets, like U.S. fire departments, instead of billing separately for each Band-Aid and aspirin tablet. Billing is also simple and inexpensive for Canadian physicians.
Overall, a single payer would save about $500 billion annually by trimming administrative spending to Canadian levels. Moreover, as in other nations, the single payer could use its purchasing power to lower drug prices, saving tens of billions more each year. These savings could fully cover the new costs of the coverage expansions we propose, a conclusion in keeping with past estimates by the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and private consulting groups (including one that’s owned by an insurance company).
Contrary claims, including those contained in a report published by the Urban Institute this week, are fraught with flawed assumptions and grossly underestimate the savings a single-payer system would assure.
We and our colleagues recognize that, despite widespread public support for Medicare for all, passage of our proposal is unlikely absent sweeping changes in the makeup of Congress. But the same can be said about any salutary health reform; Congress has resisted even modest tweaks to the ACA.
Yet as physicians we feel obliged to offer our best advice. Our health care crisis can be solved. We have the resources needed to provide excellent care for all Americans; an abundance of hospitals and sophisticated equipment; superbly trained doctors and nurses; prodigious research output; and generous health care funding. Yet only thoroughgoing single-payer reform can realize the healing potential that is currently thwarted by our dysfunctional health care financing system.
The authors are internists who teach at the City University of New York at Hunter College and Harvard Medical School. They co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonpartisan organization that advocates single-payer reform.