Rx

because last time I checked,both the right leaning CATO institute and left leaning amherst had similar numbers of 32 trillion over 10 years,and both agreed that our current system would cost an estimated 39-34 trillion,respectively,over the same time span.

I gather the new number is..new?
and I am gonna go ahead and drop a fiver it is born from a political campaign.

That is the number that Elizabeth Warren is using. She says it will take over $20-trillion in new spending, for a total of $52-trillion. It is from a political campaign, hers. But, the dollar amount is only part of the problem. How do you motivate people who are satisfied, for most part, with how the system works for them, to turn the world on its ear? I worked in health care management and public affairs on a local and regional basis over about 35-years. The flaws in the plan will make our physician shortage into a crisis. And, that is only one of its problems. I see it as eye candy for the Bernie-Bots. They will not carry an election against the motivated Trump base which will emerge looking for blood, after the primaries.

Yep, what you said. Nothing made up in the 52 tril quote.

How about my other point? I am a wonk, so I am interested in this and other plans. But, are we surrounded by motivated acolytes carrying Elizabeth on their shoulders and cheering after her announcement?

and it is ignoring some glaring facts.
while you make an astute observation of trumps motivated base,you ignore the very motivated sanders supporters.
Bernie just had the largest influx of private,single small donations and held one of the largest rallies to date.

and as I predicted,biden has been tanking due to his bad case of clintonitis,and warren has seen a massive surge from the Clinton camp (yes,they still exist),and upper middle class,educated white breads,because those folks LOVE themselves some good ol' technocrat.that and warren is not averse to taking herself some delicious corporate/wall street money.(the DNC are like junkies)

the democratic establishment are not a warren fan.
but they are the ideological equivalent of the republicans of 2016,where the republicans did everything to "anybody but trump" campaign strategy.except now it is "anybody but Bernie".

having glossed over her health care plan,i can see why.
I have to admit,it is far more progressive than I would have anticipated.

the establishment had high hopes for beto.which you can plainly see in his first days.
then they hung their hat on kamala,but tulsi single handedly nuked her entire run.
*how's that "top tier candidate" going for ya kamala?
now they,along with their media lackies,are doing their best to promote mayor pete.they know biden won't make it till the end,and while they still don't want warren..they are TERRIFIED of sanders.so they have been hedging their bets and courting warren .

which is smart.
because the faith and confidence in the democratic party leadership is almost non-existent.of which they are entirely to blame.

warren is probably going to be the compromise if I had to call it now.
and that in no way translates to a win in 2020.
the only one right now that has the broadest appeal and crosses party lines is tulsi gabbard.sanders would do well due to his ability to make a cogent case.
americans are not as interested in a technocrat like warren as educated white breads are.

but with the bumbling democratic leadership,and this impeachment deal (which will fail).it would take a monumental effort to beat trump in 2020.

still a lot of time till then,so we shall see,but if I had to call it today?
trump 2020

incremental politics does appeal to a certain portion of the population.
I am a wonk in political economics,it is my wheelhouse.i didn't work in health care for decades.so I will bow to your experience and expertise.

however,i do not subscribe to the "YES! we can't" philosophy.
which can be confirmed by our own history when faced with staggering adversity.
with the political will,there is a way.

I am glad you have solid health insurance and are satisfied.
my experiences are anecdotal,and not positive.(or rarely positive to be more accurate).

Actually, I would be the first person to say I am lucky. Today is my 71st birthday and I take one tiny, cheap pill per day, for a slightly low thyroid function. I also was able to continue to purchase my Federal Employees Health Plan group insurance, so that I do not have the expenses and disappointments that come with Medicare. It is a mid-20th century answer to 21st century healthcare. In the mid-1950s outpatient care and drugs were an after throught and not covered. Today, they are still not covered but are the growing bulk of care delivered. That is the biggest problem. It should provide free ambulatory care and outpatient drugs and require us to purchase hospital treatment insirance.

I think that your point was that the Bernie Bots would sustain the Democrats, through to victory. He is going to lose the nomination, and Warren will probably lose also. Unless a unity movement emerges, they will throw away their votes like they did last time.

how you twisted that into that somehow sustaining the democrats is fairly confusing.

and calling Bernie supporters "Bernie bots" is incredibly dismissive and condescending.i am not interested in rehashing the 2016 primaries and consequent elections,but I will say that the democratic leadership,along with Hillary Clinton,are solely responsible for the 2016 loss.

the democratic party is experiencing an ideological civil war (the republicans experienced theirs due to the tea party).we can see this ideological insurgency in the form of justice democrats primarying incumbent democrats across the country,the "squad" and,of course,bernie sanders.

I refuse to place blame on the American people for the absolute trainwreck that has become the democratic party.the American people may be politically unsophisticated,but they are not dumb.

there is a reason why the democratic leadership is almost universally reviled,and it has nothing to do with the American people.now notice I am being specific with my words...democratic leadership..not democrats,liberals etc etc.(felt the need to address that.some people engage in this weird identity politics where they identify as the "party". and if I am critical of the party,they conflate that as attacking them.i assure you this is not what I am doing).

and it appears she is suggesting a regressive flat tax (but attempts to avoid that label by sticking a dollar amount),with massive loopholes.

this isn't really my wheelhouse,but wouldn't this put an unreasonable pressure on businesses and those who make less money yearly? along with the loopholes,which would adversely shift the responsibility on a federal and state level?

am I on the right track here? or am I just reading it all wrong?
since you were in that realm for 35 years,i was hoping you could clarify this in a way that would be easier to digest.

appreciate any insight you could offer.
and thank you ahead of time.(if you decide to take the time to walk this pleb through the dark waters of policy).

It appears that you are talking about Warren's tax plan.We now have a hodge podge system of taxes, fees and borrowing that are masquerading as a flan to fund the Federal Budget. This is where the real revolution needs to happen. I am a fan of Keynesian approaches. People like Jeff Bezos get off on making billion dollar donations. Encourage them. A progressive tax system with deductions for people who do things to boost the economy or do things that the government might otherwise have to do, like we had in the 50s and 60s, before Reagan made doing nothing except being rich earn a tax deduction, would be a great start, in my opinion.

While I would lie if I said I do not prefer one party over the other at this point, I'll put my 35-years of experience working in health care management on the local and regional levels, in prvate non-profit and Federal employment, over yours when it comes to analyzing the viability of plans. What we have now is good for the most part. But, it could be imporved. What Sanders and Warren have suggested would be a widespread health care and economic disaster, costing us much more, if we even try to replicate today's level of care, to repair after the fact. Warren has the organizational and leadership skills necessary to determine how to finance our national healthcare. Redesigning the system for delivery is a Hurculean task for the trained and experienced, which she is neither. Her plan is the best, by a long shot.

I can usually spot a novice or less knowledgeable person talking trash because they use the "Blunderbust," approach. They load some gun powder in, then some fodder, then some shot and hope when they pull the trigger all of it will spew out at an accelerated rate and something magical will happen. We do not need a total system replacement. We need what is broken fixed. And, there is plenty to do in doing that.

There is a story told in engineering schools about how the paths on a large quad were so perfectly planned out, that they met the needs of most studends traversing from one part of campus to the other. The designer said that he left the field empty for the first month. Then he built paths following the trails the students carved out in the dirt using the most efficient routes. That is like to our national health care system. It is a maze of the most workable routes for bringing health care to sick people. Because it is a human effort customized for the needs of one human by another, on the fly, it will never fit into rigid boxes.

What we concern ourselves with, instead, is how to deliver this care as efficiently and cost effective as possible so that there is more of it to go around. We must guard against paying too much balanced against underfunding and creating a shortage. We need a means tested public option that is free or low cost to lower income folks. The Federal government should became the third party provider of all prescription drugs. Transferring the funding and risk for this from private insurance, via a surtax. We could do away with the co-payments and other problems that are killing us. (Out of room to type)

How you can suggest that the Bernie Bots will carry the Democratic Party to victory, with one breath, then excuse them for their demonstrated lack of commitment to one party over another, might be dizzying to some. But, I have no delusions concerning the lifelong demonstration in narcissism as a performance art, by Mr. Sanders. He doesn't know and doesn't care if his "revolution," will do harm or good. LIke a petulent child, he just cares that it makes him the center of attention, and gets him a private jet to flit around in. I put little value in the political motivations of young, inexperienced people, but Nate Silver found out a few months ago that 8% of Democrats would choose only Sanders, if they had to choose only 1. They are more likely to be in "blue," states. So, that minimizes their impact. Sanders matters less this time around, although he still has the cool jet, spewing a large negative carbon footprint of greenhouse gasses, that his young donors pay for..

The pool of people I concern myself with are "liberals." They take on many interations, from blue collar men, to college educated women, to educators and healers. They are less motivated by radical politics, than in returning America to normalcy. They wandered far afield last time, and lived to regret it.

I just saw a poll of the six states the Democrats must win in 2020. Warren wins one. Sanders wins 3. Biden wins four and is even with Trump in a fifth. This is our reality.

and it still ignores my main point.
sanders motivates and inspires.

your personal opinion on his intentions and motivations,even if you include nate silver's take (hehe..nate silver..i use 538 but holy good lord jesus did that man get everything wrong in 2016).

I can produce polls that show that the only candidate that takes out trump head to head is sanders.what does this mean?
well,not a whole lot taken in context.

we appear to be talking past each other here my friend.
you are a liberal democrat.nothing wrong with that and no judgement on my part.
however,i have clearly stated the contrast of someone who identifies as liberal and the democratic leadership.
unless you think the leadership is liberal,and in that case we would disagree.

a centrist,moderate democrat will not fill seats,or get people fired up to venture out to vote.i could make a solid case for this but this site is atrocious in engaging on that level.but suffice to say,while sanders will most likely not get the nod..he does fire up people and get them motivated to engage in politics,and no matter how you cut it...that is a great thing for our country.

you may feel different,and that is totally ok.

Sanders is a guy who has no values. If he did, he would not be running for office representing a political party that he openly disparaged for decades. He is a viable candidate, if you squint your eyes, really want him to be, and ignore his sexism and other flaws. He took over 40% of the Iowa Caususers in 2016. His favorability rating has recently dropped 15% and his unfavorability is rising. For the informed, pragmatic progressive, the shine appears to be wearing off of his star.

I try to remain practical and pragmatic at all times. Anyone who was not in a deep coma when Bill Clinton's Universal Health Care plan went down in flames, or suffered through the machinations that were necessary to get the less than Universal ACA, has to know that Medicare For All is a non-starter. In that it is not popular with conservatives, moderates, independents and many liberals, it hardly seems to be the "Big Idea," that will propel either Sanders or Warren to the top. After all, only 40% of Democrats see MFA in a positive light and almost no Republicans do. That makes MFA a loser for Democrats in 2020. If disappointed progressives vote Green, Republican or not at all is their choice. They now know the stakes.

would you like to be alone with yourself?
appears you don't need me for this conversation.

and on a side note,it is a proper courtesy to upvote commentary with those you are engaging with,although in this case only tangentially.even if you disagree with them.