The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[grokit]

How is bernie a novice? Objective comparison:

"Bernie Sanders first rose to elective office in 1981 and holds an elected position to this day. Sanders has served as an elected official for a total of 34 years and counting, which is 19 more than the average 2016 presidential candidate (15 years).

"Hillary Clinton first rose to elective office in 2001 and stepped down from an elected position in 2009. Clinton has served as an elected official for a total of 8 years, which is 7 less than the average 2016 presidential candidate (15 years)."

On experience, bernie gets a 4.5/5 to hillary's 3/5 rating, or 30% better overall.

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton

edit: it's more about judgement than experience anyways

 

[CarolKing]

I learned something today. The Republican and the Democratic Primary belongs to the individual parties. It's up to the democrats and the republicans to decide amongst the party. The American people have nothing to do with it. Thank you CNN for explaining it to me.

The actual election come November the people vote. Then it depends on the electoral college. Each state has so many electoral votes depending on their population.

Donald Trump can cry and complain but the rules are rules. He needed to be aware of them beforehand.

 

[Gunky]

So Bernie is a novice way to the left.

I agree that Bernie is essentially a novice. He has spent a lot of years in Congress but they were all as an independent kibitzer. He had a special arrangement as a pet socialist the democrats humored on policy matters and kept on a short leash for procedural votes. So yeah he has decades of "experience" but experience doing what? Mainly repeating the same year of jeering from the sidelines. He has never actually sponsored significant legislation or played an important part in governing the country.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Ted Sheeran is Cruz's doppelgänger. I posted a pick of a guy from a Christian Rock band that looked like Cruz some pages back.

Here it is.

well, THAT's some lame-ass shit right there...
-------

I agree that Bernie is essentially a novice. He has spent a lot of years in Congress but they were all as an independent kibitzer. He had a special arrangement as a pet socialist the democrats humored on policy matters and kept on a short leash for procedural votes. So yeah he has decades of "experience" but experience doing what? Mainly repeating the same year of jeering from the sidelines. He has never actually sponsored significant legislation or played an important part in governing the country.

Not actually true: it turns out he's the "king of amendments" - efforts to lessen, broaden, specify the effects of legislation...in addition to being a real "mensch in the trench" when it comes to the actual political horse-trading.

It's not a sham: they actually ARE afraid of Bernie. They WANT to run against Hillary - they've been wet-dreaming this for DECADES.

 

[Gunky]

Yeah, 'king of amendments'. But if you look through the list they are pretty much all niggling, small bore changes, like removing $5 million from FDA budget and giving it to Meals on Wheels. Government by kvetching. Tinkering around the edges. No doubt some worthy stuff there but is this national level leadership? Cuckoo activism, slipping wish-list items into other people's bills and getting away with it - are these the skills we want in the leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

For example, here are his accomplishments in 2003-2004:

• Increase funding for weatherization assistance grants by $15 million with offsets from other energy conservation activities. H.Amdt.255 to H.R.2691 (Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004)
• Prohibit the use of funds in the bill to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors of the Veterans Integrated Service Networks from conducting outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their respective networks. H.Amdt.336 to H.R.2861 (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004) enacted as H.R.2673 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004)

I mean really. These are no doubt things he can be proud of but are they really the sort of thing that would serve to recommend him to us as qualified and prepared for the presidency of the united states?

 

[ClearBlueLou]

the world is saved and obstacles overcome by persistence in small things; bright lights and big noise are no indication of virtue. Flashy, splashy politicians excite my suspicion, not my enthusiasm.

...and yes, I consider him to be AT LEAST as qualified as his primary opponent, and I believe those exact examples demonstrate his qualities as a candidate and potential chief executive. Contrasts very favorably to HRC's untiring attempts to photobomb every major event of the last 25 years - which I do not see as a qualification.

I hadn't expected to see RW talking points negging Bernie, but I suppose I should expect it from here on in. I enjoy your points and basically agree with you, FTR.

 

[Farid]

Yeah, 'king of amendments'. But if you look through the list they are pretty much all niggling, small bore changes, like removing $5 million from FDA budget and giving it to Meals on Wheels. Government by kvetching. Tinkering around the edges. No doubt some worthy stuff there but is this national level leadership? Cuckoo activism, slipping wish-list items into other people's bills and getting away with it - are these the skills we want in the leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

For example, here are his accomplishments in 2003-2004:

• Increase funding for weatherization assistance grants by $15 million with offsets from other energy conservation activities. H.Amdt.255 to H.R.2691 (Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004)
• Prohibit the use of funds in the bill to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors of the Veterans Integrated Service Networks from conducting outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their respective networks. H.Amdt.336 to H.R.2861 (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004) enacted as H.R.2673 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004)

I mean really. These are no doubt things he can be proud of but are they really the sort of thing that would serve to recommend him to us as qualified and prepared for the presidency of the united states?

Well if you compare Sanders' accompishments in 2003-2004 to Hillary one big thing stands out. In 2003 Sanders voted against the Iraq war, Clinton voted for it. I'd rather have four years of nothing get done under Sanders than four years of neocon foreign policy under Clinton. You keep touting Clinton's accomplishments from her experience, but you cannot ignore her mistake of supporting the Iraq war. Especially if you're going to attack Sanders' voting record during the 2003-2004 period. I'd rather vote for a potato and have nothing get passed then vote for a person who wants to invade Iraq, Syira, and Iran.

If Clinton is elected and proposed invading Iran, I bet much of the support would come from the Republicans. That's the kind of across the isle cooperation that Clinton accomplishes. So if you are going to support her for being good at "getting stuff done", maybe you should address what exactly is getting done. Because I'll agree Clinton was willing to work across the isle to pass the Patriot Act, and to authorize military action in Iraq.

 

[howie105]

How about considering a change in approach given how things are going now. I don't care who gets the big seat as long as the majority rules, however both parties seem to have built firewalls that work against that concept at the party level. Justifications and firewall architecture are explained differently depending on the party but the results are still what they are. My thought is if they can track me well enough to accept account payments electronically they can accept, process and protect my vote for a candidate or an issue electronically. Please note I not saying the power players would do it right but that such a process is within reach and that it would make our democracy a lot more democratic, for good or evil.

 

[Gunky]

...and yes, I consider him to be AT LEAST as qualified as his primary opponent, and I believe those exact examples demonstrate his qualities as a candidate and potential chief executive. Contrasts very favorably to HRC's untiring attempts to photobomb every major event of the last 25 years - which I do not see as a qualification.

You do realize how utterly minuscule $5 million tweaks are compared to a US economy involving tens of trillions of dollars? If you believe those exact examples demonstrate Bernie's qualities as a candidate for chief executive I guess there is nothing to say except maybe you need to think a little bit about what presidents actually do. Once again, I totally get that Bernie supporters are in love, but come on... There is virtually nothing in his record that can be called 'leadership' beyond giving speeches. The skill set that he employed to insert amendments into bills is nothing at all like the skill set Lyndon Johnson used to move his legislative agenda through congress. If you are honest you will admit that basically nothing in Bernie's experience in congress prepares him for the presidency. It's like somebody who has learned to pedal a tricycle being touted as the next big thing in the Indy 500. The whole Bernie infatuation reminds me of nothing so much as the way repubs swooned over Sarah Palin when she first became prominent on the national scene. They were in love, too.

Bernie has always had the luxury of not having to govern. He has been able to get by on a few vague bullet points because his role has precluded any of his 'big' ideas actually being enacted. Now he wants us to elect him prez. His policy positions are paper thin because he started out as a message candidate and never expected to win anything. People are looking for some superhero to save them and now have decided this avuncular, rumpled back-bencher is it. Much the same sort of fantasy and wishful thinking is going on in republican land over Donald Trump. Supporters believe in this individual and forget that democracy is a team sport. Let us just put this fellow in the top spot and he will be like the wind bending all the leaves and branches to his will. To think so is to labor under a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works. Faith-based governing! Or should I say idolatry?

 

[howie105]

Sanders is a socialist, so even getting getting a lunch order filled is somewhat of an accomplishment.

 

[Adobewan]

I've read through her accomplishments and I'm not exactly sure what Hillary's done that elevates her over Bernie in the eyes of the die-hard Hillary supporters.
Some on the forum might be persuaded if you made the case for her.

And while we're at it, and I hope this isn't off-topic, but could someone please clarify how the Affordable Care Act differs from making being uninsured illegal?
Seems many on the left are boasting about more Americans being covered now, but it's really that they have been forced to under threat of fines.
The thing that baffles me is, while rates are rising, wait times for appointments are longer, and doctors are spending less time per patient, there were no Republican votes for the ACA. That in itself isn't surprising, but what is, is the Dems didn't need to get Republican votes. So why was the plan compromised? Why not just go for Single Payer as many Dems have suggested and vote it through?

 

[grokit]

I've read through her accomplishments and I'm not exactly sure what Hillary's done that elevates her over Bernie in the eyes of the die-hard Hillary supporters.
Some on the forum might be persuaded if you made the case for her.

And while we're at it, and I hope this isn't off-topic, but could someone please clarify how the Affordable Care Act differs from making being uninsured illegal?
Seems many on the left are boasting about more Americans being covered now, but it's really that they have been forced to under threat of fines.
The thing that baffles me is, while rates are rising, wait times for appointments are longer, and doctors are spending less time per patient, there were no Republican votes for the ACA. That in itself isn't surprising, but what is, is the Dems didn't need to get Republican votes. So why was the plan compromised? Why not just go for Single Payer as many Dems have suggested and vote it through?

As I remember it, the dems actually did need republican help to pass the aca. The resulting deals with the devil resulted in the sham that ended up being the current affordable care act, which seems to care about corporate profits first and foremost. Yes it helped more people get insured, but it needs major tweaking to be sustainable. When they gave up single-payer and their bargaining position on drugs, it went to hell.

 

[Farid]

Even if I put my ideological beliefs aside, I could not vote for Clinton because I think that electing her is handing the election over to the Republicans. She has way too much baggage. For instance if Joe Biden was running, as much as I loathe him for his sponsorship of the rave act and for his support of the Iraq war, I would vote for him against Sanders if he had a better chance against Trump than Sanders in the primary. I would be a pragmatist and do what I know is best for the party.

Framing Bernie supporters as ideologues is wrong. We need to be realistic when we consider the possibility of Hillary running in the general. The fact is she would be destroyed. Classic conservatives like my grandfather would probably not vote if it was Biden vs. Trump, but if it was Hillary vs. Trump he might have voted Trump despite disliking the man. My grandfather was a WWII vet who harbored absolutely no racist feelings, but voted Republican. His memory reminds me every day that Republicans are not our enemy, but our fellow Americans, and they too want what is best for this country, even if we disagree.

 

[His_Highness]

As I remember it, the dems actually did need republican help to pass the aca. The resulting deals with the devil resulted in the sham that ended up being the current affordable care act, which seems to care about corporate profits first and foremost. Yes it helped more people get insured, but it needs major tweaking to be sustainable. When they gave up single-payer and their bargaining position on drugs, it went to hell.

I couldn't agree more! What I went through and learned about the ACA was a real eye opener. I'm not an 'employee' so every area of the independent search for health insurance was dealt with. I drank a gallon if the F'n ACA koolaid with respect to increasing the participants will decrease the cost.....and then the attempt to find health insurance began....

To start off with...I didn't need to be forced to buy health insurance because I know my family and I need it. What I also didn't need was the cost to go up so drastically along with a significant drop in what I would get for that increased cost. Then the reports started coming out about how even the folks who couldn't afford health insurance before the ACA, (who now have health insurance), COULDN'T AFFORD TO USE IT OR PAY THEIR MEDICAL BILLS because of the high deductibles. I thought the ACA was supposed to put an end to the number of people getting health care AND/OR NOT PAYING THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT for the care received. This was supposed to reduce the overall cost too. It's called the 'AFFORDABLE care act' isn't it?

UnitedHealthCare is dropping out of the ACA but will continue to provide health insurance. My guess is United will find a way to cherry pick who they wish to insure from the young and healthy at lower cost ..... leaving even more of the sicker, older, high cost insured folk using the ACA. This is just another nail that will cause the ACA to falter.

The ACA was a good experiment....What we need is Bernie to close down the experiment and make single payer the goal.

 

[cybrguy]

You obviously have no concept of what the ACA is, who it was created for, or how incredibly helpful it has been to millions of Americans. This is NOT the place to discuss it, but I will say that I had to give up insurance as a self employed person because it was over $900 a month for just me and I couldn't afford that. I have insurance now that costs me less than $300 a month and has already saved my life once. Millions have insurance who didn't have it before. There is no longer any such thing as an uninsurable person (which I was in most states). There are limits on how much an insurance company can charge and no limits on what an insurance company may have to pay to keep you healthy. No lifetime limits. And millions included in medicaid at little or no cost to them, people who HAD been left to die.

These are only a small part of the benefits of the ACA. Saying it is a bad program that has done nothing to help people is the height of ignorance.

Can it be improved? Of course, and the Dems have ALWAYS intended to do that. The end goal is very likely similar to Bernie's concept of medicare for all. But anyone who believes that all we need to do is flip a switch, or elect Bernie to make that happen is fooling themselves in a big way.

 

[grokit]

Anybody that thinks we don't need to break up the big banks is either in on the scam, or needs his head examined is seriously uninformed. Check this out:

"According to a recent analysis by Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the assets of just four giant banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo – amount to 97 percent of our the nation’s entire gross domestic product in 2012."

from:
Robert Reich: Bernie does have a plan to break up the big banks. That’s why the establishment is so rattled
The former secretary of labor explains why the Democratic Party is eager to write the Vt. senator off as a kook

 

[Adobewan]

You obviously have no concept of what the ACA is, who it was created for, or how incredibly helpful it has been to millions of Americans. This is NOT the place to discuss it, but I will say...

Saying it is a bad program that has done nothing to help people is the height of ignorance.

Can it be improved? Of course, and the Dems have ALWAYS intended to do that. The end goal is very likely similar to Bernie's concept of medicare for all. But anyone who believes that all we need to do is flip a switch, or elect Bernie to make that happen is fooling themselves in a big way.

Who are you responding to?

 

[Adobewan]

As I remember it, the dems actually did need republican help to pass the aca. The resulting deals with the devil resulted in the sham that ended up being the current affordable care act, which seems to care about corporate profits first and foremost. Yes it helped more people get insured, but it needs major tweaking to be sustainable. When they gave up single-payer and their bargaining position on drugs, it went to hell.

These sites say no Republican votes for ACA.
Recent funding votes, yes from a few Repubs, but the passing of the act, no Repubs. I always thought there had to be Republican votes due to the apparent compromises, and even argued with a hard core conservative friend recently about it. Just to be sure I did some searching and it seems he was right:
Who voted for Health Care Reform (Obamacare)
http://www.searchnc.com/who-voted-for-obamacare.html

Congressional Bills and Votes
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/1/396

Reminder: Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote
http://oregoncatalyst.com/25561-reminder-obamacare-passed-single-republican-vote.html

 

[Gunky]

The ACA was a dirty, smelly, rotten bunch of compromises. Having extracted from the democrats the repubs own Romneycare plan and tons of concessions and after a year or two of leading a merry chase, the repubs refused to vote for it as a bloc. I got insurance from it for the first time in years and it is very affordable though I grant that some lost or found the terms less advantageous than prior to the ACA, high deductibles, etc. It can be fixed and we can revisit the 'public option' which could well lead to single payer. But only if people stop voting republican! The last six years they said repeal and replace. Replace with what? Nothing, that's what. The repubs firmly believe that the wealthy in this country can have health care as good or better than that enjoyed by the general population in other developed countries without the ACA or any other health care reform.

 

[Nooky72]

UK magazine article on Thumper Trump

http://www.shortlist.com/news/10-do...e-world-really-needs-to-know-about#gallery-10

 

[His_Highness]

You obviously have no concept of what the ACA is, who it was created for, or how incredibly helpful it has been to millions of Americans. This is NOT the place to discuss it, but I will say that I had to give up insurance as a self employed person because it was over $900 a month for just me and I couldn't afford that. I have insurance now that costs me less than $300 a month and has already saved my life once. Millions have insurance who didn't have it before. There is no longer any such thing as an uninsurable person (which I was in most states). There are limits on how much an insurance company can charge and no limits on what an insurance company may have to pay to keep you healthy. No lifetime limits. And millions included in medicaid at little or no cost to them, people who HAD been left to die.

These are only a small part of the benefits of the ACA. Saying it is a bad program that has done nothing to help people is the height of ignorance.

Can it be improved? Of course, and the Dems have ALWAYS intended to do that. The end goal is very likely similar to Bernie's concept of medicare for all. But anyone who believes that all we need to do is flip a switch, or elect Bernie to make that happen is fooling themselves in a big way.

First - I have an excellent idea of what the ACA concept was and how it played out in reality. I know what we were told it would be and I know what the truth is. I tried to use it and I exhausted every avenue when investigating the options. So I probably understand it better than you since I had to look into it from all the angles.

Second - Who it was created for? I thought it was created for ALL AMERICANS. Including you and your family AND me and mine. Glad it's working for you and your family. It's worse for mine.....much worse.

Third - Pre-condition exclusions, extending the age for children to remain on a parents plan, etc. will be part of single payer if we elect someone who is interested in pursuing something that works for everyone.

Fourth - Millions have health insurance that didn't have it before ..... and can't afford to use it or if they do use it can't pay for the care due to the outrageous deductibles.

LASTLY ... I never said it didn't help people - I did say/imply it's a bad program. It is. We can do better but not if it's for profit. United Health is leaving. Who's going to be left? What's next ... demanding companies participate the same way the population was? When I looked at the ACA options I could not believe how high the cost was, how high the deductibles were and how much less coverage I was going to get for over a 25% increase in cost.

 

[CarolKing]

With "Obama Care" my son was able to get insurance. He had no health insurance because he couldn't afford it.

When I retire I will be a few years away from Social Security. I think I may be able to afford healthcare for those few years before I turn 66. This will be Obama's legacy, it was a start and needs to be built upon. It's not perfect.

I have no plans on working until I turn 66. I'm thankful I may have some options.

 

[His_Highness]

With "Obama Care" my son was able to get insurance. He had no health insurance because he couldn't afford it.

When I retire I will be a few years away from Social Security. I think I may be able to afford healthcare for those few years befor I turn 66. This will be Obama's legacy, it was a start and needs to be built upon. It's not perfect.

I'm glad your son benefited from Obama Care. I also hope you can afford healthcare after retiring...especially since it's not optional and if the trend continues it's gonna cost a ton.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see the ACA as being viable long term. The only way it works is if the for-profit health insurance companies can stay afloat as part of the ACA. I don't see that happening at low rates for the folks who need it the most. It'll be a painful ride to the single payer result through the ACA.

Here's the problem.....everyone must get covered. Once it becomes more obvious that the people who don't need to worry about pre-exclusions, etc. can get coverage directly from the health insurance companies, at substantially lower rates for the same or better coverage than the ACA.....something is gonna break. That's one of the reasons I voted for Bernie.

 

[CarolKing]

Health Insurance needs to be a single payer system. Why should insurance company's be health brokers? They shouldn't be making money off the sick, elderly, poor or the hard working tax payer.

That's a whole different thread.

 

[cybrguy]

Cost Control Measures in Obamacare

Prior to Obamacare, there were two big problems in our health care delivery system: access and affordability. Most of what people know about what has changed since the reforms were passed in 2010 have to do with access. Other than expansion of Medicaid and subsidies, there hasn’t been much discussion about what Obamacare put in place to tackle the affordability problem.

For example, I find that very few people are aware of the provision related to medical loss ratios (what Rick Ungar once called “the bomb buried in Obamacare”). They limit the amount of premium dollars that insurance companies can collect to pay for administration and profit to 15% (20% for those who market to individuals and small groups*). If insurance companies collect more than that limit in any given year - they are required to provide refunds to their customers.

Of course, that is a reform to the way health insurance is provided. I remember that when Obamacare originally passed, Ezra Klein pointed out that when it comes to cost control related to actual health care, there wasn’t a lot of consensus on what would work. And so just about every idea was captured in the law as an experiment (sounds exactly like how Kloppenberg described Obama’s philosophical pragmatism which, “embraces uncertainty, provisionality, and the continuous testing of hypotheses through experimentation”).

As Michael Grunwald writes, the administration is about to launch another one of those experiments.

The experiment the administration will announce today, a program called Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, is intended to shake up the way 20,000 doctors and clinicians treat more than 25 million patients when it goes into effect in January 2017. In a sharp departure from the current “fee-for-service” system, which offers reimbursements per visit or procedure, providers who volunteer to participate will received fixed monthly fees for every patient and bonuses for meeting various quality goals. When their patients stay healthier and require less-expensive care, many primary care doctors will also share in the savings to Medicare, Medicaid or private insurers.
As someone who comes from Minnesota where “managed care” was invented as an alternative to “fee for service,” it is important to point out how this incentive program is different.

Studies have shown that about a third of all healthcare is a waste of money; the joke in the medical world is that nobody knows which third. The “managed care” craze that flamed out in the late 1990s basically empowered HMOs to try to figure it out. In some ways, CPC-Plus uses a similar per-patient payment model, except the primary care doctor rather than the insurer will be responsible for managing the care.
We’ve already seen how incentives in Obamacare have dramatically reduced hospital readmissions - another one of the “experiments” contained in the bill. So it will be important to keep an eye on this one.