Although I'm in favor of single payer healthcare I have a problem with Medicare for all. Bernie and others talk about how it will cover all healthcare costs. Do they not know what Medicare does and does not cover and what it costs. First of all it does have premiums (part B costs $135.5-$460.5 per month and only covers 80% if the costs). There are also deductibles, and it doesn't cover all and prescription drugs or cover dental, vision or hearing. If you want full coverage you need supplemental insurance. My supplemental insurance is about $2,100 per year in addition to the Medicare premiums.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
ladysbff
Member
I'm positive they are aware of what Medicare does and does not cover and what it costs. I am aware of this simply by the fact that both of my parents are retired. I'm sure the professional policy advisers on Bernie's team have a much deeper knowledge of the ins and outs of health care policy and costs than you or I. But as a current user of Medicare, you, of course, have the best first-hand experience of how the current system works (and doesn't work) and how important it is to make improvements to it for the people who depend on it - folks like you. And also folks unlike you, who are on a fixed income and can't afford supplemental insurance.
I'm not a fan of Bernie at all, however, it is critical for our economy to overhaul our healthcare system. We pay more than anyone else in the world and still have worse health and lower life expectancy. Why is that?
It’s Not Just Poor White People Driving a Decline in Life Expectancy
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2756159
Combined, the studies confirm that downward trends in life expectancy, which declined after 2014 for 3 successive years, represent a US health disadvantage compared with peer high-income nations, despite the United States having the highest per capita health care spending in the world.
Medicare for All
Stop the pharmaceutical industry from ripping off the American people by making sure that no one in America pays over $200 a year for the medicine they need by capping what Americans pay for prescription drugs under Medicare for All.
We need a nation of healthy workers to maintain current standards of living and that is not likely if we do nothing. Creating Medicare for All is a good first step towards a more robust single payer healthcare because people are already familiar with and using Medicare in this country. Personally, I'm okay with modest improvements (strengthening Medicare) towards the end goal (completely overhauled, efficient, sustainable single payer healthcare).
What is your proposed (viable) alternative?
ladysbff
Member
Related....
The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal | Nature Climate Change
The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal
Initially, there was low public awareness of the GND but majority support for it across party lines. Four months later, voters had become much more familiar with the GND and partisan polarization had increased significantly due to a sharp decrease in support among Republicans. In fact, Republicans who had heard the most about the GND were the least likely to support it. In contrast, support for the GND remained high among Democrats, and did not vary substantially across degrees of familiarity.
We also identify a likely mechanism: a ‘Fox News effect’. That is, among Republicans, Fox News viewing was a significant predictor of both familiarity with the GND and opposition to it, even when controlling for alternative explanations.
The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal | Nature Climate Change
The development of partisan polarization over the Green New Deal
Initially, there was low public awareness of the GND but majority support for it across party lines. Four months later, voters had become much more familiar with the GND and partisan polarization had increased significantly due to a sharp decrease in support among Republicans. In fact, Republicans who had heard the most about the GND were the least likely to support it. In contrast, support for the GND remained high among Democrats, and did not vary substantially across degrees of familiarity.
We also identify a likely mechanism: a ‘Fox News effect’. That is, among Republicans, Fox News viewing was a significant predictor of both familiarity with the GND and opposition to it, even when controlling for alternative explanations.
Last edited:
Thank you for a great post. It got me thinking, somewhat outside the box. Let’s put a special health tax on all drive-through and fast foods. Something like an extra 20% for drive-through, perhaps an extra 10% for any food delivered in less than 15 min, but for dine-in. Sounds crazy? Yes, but I will guess that most of American’s health problems are from weight. I’m not trying to fat shame since I’m technically obese when looking at the scientific charts. However, out in public I feel positively skinny.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
They are criminal for trying to hide the truth about climate change, which they've known about for decades.
ladysbff
Member
Well, based on your reply I guess you don't want to talk about Medicare for All anymore. I'm still curious to what your alternative is.
I'm not familiar with what Bernie says, since as I mentioned he's not my cup of tea, but let me take a stab at answering this without just Googling it...
Tobacco company executives could be considered guilty of criminal behavior because they purposefully downplayed the direct link between their product and declining human health even after credible evidence showing this link became available. Humans died because of their product and their false advertising around the healthfulness of their product. Whether that should amount to criminal charges - murder, manslaughter, etc - is outside the scope of this discussion. Per you and per Bernie, let's say they are indeed criminals.
If Bernie is comparing oil company executives to tobacco company executives, as you say, I'm assuming it's because they also purposefully downplayed the direct link between their product and declining human health even after credible evidence showing this link became available. However, unlike tobacco (except for second-hand smoke), oil negatively affects the health of all humans through the toxification of shared air, water, and soil resources. Smog, freshwater destruction, and soil acidification are three examples of how pollution caused by oil consumption negatively impacts human health.
What does Bernie think they should do? I don't know, I'm not familiar with the minutia of his rhetoric, but if I were to apply the same logic to oil that society has applied to tobacco - it starts with education of the public that their purchasing and consumption of the product has negative affects on human health. Using tobacco as an example, this education has led to 50 years of declining tobacco use. Luckily when it comes to oil there is actually an even better solution than education: decarbonization, bio-plastics, and non-polluting renewable energy.
ladysbff
Member
While I don't eat fast food myself and agree that weight is probably the biggest contributor to poor health in this country - I think the outsize impact this would have on low-income folks could cause socioeconomic upheaval and food insecurity. People depend on fast food for cheap calories. They may be slowly killing themselves eating meals that are nutritionally deficient... but if it's a choice between that and going to bed hungry... I'd probably be eating fast food, too.
Healthy food (that resequesters carbon in the soil via regenerative agriculture - ie organic) needs to be affordable and accessible to all
One of the biggest (if not the biggest) health problems today is asthma, which is caused by pollen, ICE exhaust, and industrial smoke (and of course smoking--anything). The pollen we can't do much about but it's seasonal, while the ICE exhaust and industrial smoke are year round and when added to the natural pollen it's a real issue. It's certainly been proven that if you live near a busy street your chances of getting severe asthma are much greater. I do agree that a fast food tax would pay for the health system, but I'm not sure that overweight is the biggest problem, although it's certainly a problem.
I can’t “like” your post, so true. Meanwhile, this Thanksgiving holiday I must endure lousy “traditional” food, picking what I can without annoying the hosts too much. Once home, I will return to sensible, fresh homegrown vegetables. I’m still harvesting arugula, lettuce (without e.coli), dill, cilantro, bok choy, carrots, beets, chard, collards, plus previously harvested sweet potatoes, squash, tomatoes, onions, and garlic.While I don't eat fast food myself and agree that weight is probably the biggest contributor to poor health in this country - I think the outsize impact this would have on low-income folks could cause socioeconomic upheaval and food insecurity. People depend on fast food for cheap calories. They may be slowly killing themselves eating meals that are nutritionally deficient... but if it's a choice between that and going to bed hungry... I'd probably be eating fast food, too.
Healthy food (that resequesters carbon in the soil via regenerative agriculture - ie organic) needs to be affordable and accessible to all
Disclaimer: Left of center on average here. Bernie is not one of my favorites among the democratic candidates, although would vote for him easily over POTUS. And when it comes to energy, I am far left on the political spectrum, including any of the current candidates.
Can't speak to any claims of what Bernie may have made regarding Oil Company Executives are criminals and equates them to Tobacco Company executives. But I would not equate the two.
Smoking has no upside. It is bad for the consumer, second hand smokers, and a detriment to society with increased health costs and decreased productivity.
Oil products, on the other hand, have raised billions out of poverty, so there is (rather was) an enormous upside. But the huge negative externalities of oil can also not be ignored, especially when there are no good excuses for transition to renewables now.
It is therefore that we must acknowledge costs/benefits, and exit oil at a brisk pace. Poverty will not backslide in the process, those gains are already locked in and will continue with renewable energy deployment and development.
Can't speak to any claims of what Bernie may have made regarding Oil Company Executives are criminals and equates them to Tobacco Company executives. But I would not equate the two.
Smoking has no upside. It is bad for the consumer, second hand smokers, and a detriment to society with increased health costs and decreased productivity.
Oil products, on the other hand, have raised billions out of poverty, so there is (rather was) an enormous upside. But the huge negative externalities of oil can also not be ignored, especially when there are no good excuses for transition to renewables now.
It is therefore that we must acknowledge costs/benefits, and exit oil at a brisk pace. Poverty will not backslide in the process, those gains are already locked in and will continue with renewable energy deployment and development.
ladysbff
Member
Wow, your garden sounds amazing! Maybe the next time I'm in the Tri-Cities area I can see if you have anything going to seed that needs immediate picking...
ladysbff
Member
One could argue that tobacco did the same by being foundational to the success of the United States...
I like your optimism and very much hope that will be the case...
Tobacco was an important crop in the South as it pertained to their agrarian economy and as a percent of their GDP, but it had a minor impact on the U.S. as a whole. The economic foundational development in the U.S. occurred as a result of manufacturing/industrialization in the North and the (second) industrial revolution that evolved from there.
ladysbff
Member
Tobacco in the United States - Wikipedia
Jamestown - the impact of tobacco
Critical to the success of early settlements like Jamestown, helping form the Virginia colony, whose future independence helped found the United States... Not to mention it fomented the rise of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which largely built this country...
Not sure what this has to do with "One could argue that tobacco did the same by being foundational to the success of the United States..." as a response to "Oil products, on the other hand, have raised billions out of poverty"
Would not argue against the horrors of the slave trade...
The tobacco trade subjected more to poverty in the U.S.; the U.S. economy rose despite the South which was ultimately defeated in the civil war. By the late 19th century the industry of the North raised the U.S. to the largest economy in the world. The South and tobacco only slowed that down.
ladysbff
Member
Sorry for any confusion, I was still replying to this. I would equate the two, because I don't think oil single-handedly raised billions out of poverty.
ladysbff
Member
Well, we may differ on our thoughts here, and that's okay. I am speaking to the causal relationship between the initial success of Jamestown due to its tobacco agriculture, which led to the success of more colonies as the British gave American-grown tobacco a monopoly, which led to the fomentation of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which led to cotton and sugar and more tobacco, which created economic activity to tax, which led to the American Revolutionary War, which led to the creation of the United States. Of course tobacco wasn't the only reason, but it was a major one. And of course it isn't as important as oil, which is apart of the everyday global lived experience, but that doesn't mean the two can't be equated in the way Bernie has equated them.
On that note, I finally looked up the initial claim re: oil executives being criminals:
Bernie Sanders wants to take fossil fuel companies to criminal court
There is already a precedent for this happening: Former VW C.E.O. Martin Winterkorn Is Charged by Germany in Diesel Scheme
Last edited:
Right, as I noted, I was not sure what Bernie may have or may not have said. Was just going on economic history and theory with regard to my oil/tobacco claims in terms of benefit/harm and equivalence.
Interestingly, with the assertion that "Oil products, on the other hand, have raised billions out of poverty" one could also say that they directly contributed to that population explosion that followed the second industrial revolution. So it's a weird "catch-22" situation.
Perhaps best to agree to disagree and move on.
Thanks, I had forgotten about asthma (a very good friend has it). You’re very much correct, except one minor detail. Plants that generate wind-spread pollens are often much more problematic than plants that are pollinated by pollinators (bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, insects). Humans have definitely impacted and significantly increased wind pollen (grasses, trees, shrubs) vs. flowering plants. Drive by any yard in America and you will see more of the former. Furthermore, wild flowering plants are often replaced with hybrids that cannot be pollinated. One reason: flowers change shape/color after being pollinated and are no longer pleasing visually to many. Thus, humans are very much to blame for the pollution, exhaust, nanoparticles, micro-particles, as well as increased pollens. Yes, I’ve simplified the discussion, and no one solution will solve all problems. I used to think that having everyone bicycle to work would eliminate pollution, but it won’t.
- Status
Similar threads
