tmccarthy0's picture

    The Eight Page Solution: Bernie Sanders Health Care Scam

    Eight pages that is all he has three pages. Eight pages aren't a policy, eight pages are not a plan, eight pages are for Rubes who don't care about the realities and difficulties which make and developing and implementing health care policies that work. 

    Sanders biggest problem is that he doesn't really have a plan. He does have an outline of what he wants to do, but no plan, and not one technical detail about how to achieve his "Medicare for All" plan. 

    It took a bit more than 70 years for Democrats to actually have the issues at their side at the right time and the right time was in 2009, because we had it all, both houses and the executive branch. Does anyone remember how difficult it was with everything going our way? It wouldn't have mattered whether the President was Obama or Clinton, very similar plans would have been implemented, with the same tweaks to it you see before you. The difference, they'd call it HillaryCare and not ObamaCare. I still wonder why we don't refer to Social Security as Roosevelt security, but whatever... 

    The problem for Mr. Sanders is, he doesn't have full policy development team like the Democratic Party, nor does he seemingly have a plan to develop the legislation fully, with detailed methods of  getting the House and Senate to act, or even an idea of getting them to act. Currently the House and Senate are Republican controlled so if he thinks he can just do it, without them, he's deeply delusional.

    Sanders knows better though, because he is not deeply delusion, but he does know that the angry folks who want him elected are deeply delusional so he can basically say whatever he wants and they believe him. Bernie's hordes are not unlike Trumps hordes, they seem to not really care that this won't happen, because they hope it will. And while Republican's  will no doubt help him repeal PPACA, what they won't do it allow any other policy to be implemented ever.  And then Americans will begin to lose their access to healthcare. 

    The Sanders Plan, have a quick read, because it's tiny and it won't take long.  There are glaring deficiencies in this eight page document.  And it leaves us unable to discuss his actual policies and implementation plans, because the PDF is not a plan, it is merely a statement of what American's should have.  

    "The Plan" is literally one page long. 

    Here it is:

    The Plan

    BETTER COVERAGE Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.

    WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTS As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

    GETTING HEALTH CARE SPENDING UNDER CONTROL We outspend all other countries on the planet and our medical spending continues to grow faster than the rate of inflation. Creating a single, public insurance system will go a long way towards getting health care spending under control. The United States has thousands of different health insurance plans, all of which set different reimbursement rates across different networks for providers and procedures resulting in high administrative costs. Two patients with the same condition may get very different care depending on where they live, the health insurance they have and what their insurance covers. A patient may pay different amounts for the same prescription depending solely on where the prescription is filled. Health care providers and patients must navigate this complex and bewildering system wasting precious time and resources. By moving to an integrated system, the government will finally have the ability to stand up to drug companies and negotiate fair prices for the American people collectively. It will also ensure the federal government can track access to various providers and make smart investments to avoid provider shortages and ensure communities can access the providers they need.

    Better coverage, but without a means of getting to better coverage.  This Plan seems to be feel good statements about things like the disparity in care for people etc, but I don't see exactly where he is going to get health care spending under control. In particular he makes no mention of regulatory action on private hospital costs and the lack of cost controls in the sale of pharmaceuticals. He claims that American's will save money, but of course without serious regulatory actions there will be no cost savings in the Sanders plan. 1. Because there will be no Sanders Plan without a detailed policy. 2. He has no regulatory plan, where is it? What the hell? 

    Questions must be asked of his plan, while tax reforms are imperative, how does he get there? How does he get congress there? Aren't these important questions that he should be prepared to answer? Because if you can't realistically get there and he and congress together dismantle the progress we have currently made, not only do we go backward but we never gain again, because there are no real reforms proposed in his document. 

    The conclusion we come to here is that Sanders has no plan, but he does have a feel good message about things that should be, which makes his entire non-plan a scam, and all those people who have gained access to basic care, not only lose that access, they never get it back again.  How is that a plan?


    a) Don't know about FDR & Social Security, but apparently the Marshall Plan was called that because Harry didn't want "that-goddamn-harry-truman-plan" & wanted it to actually pass Congress.

    b) Cost savings in health care don't come magically - someone has to ram them down the throat of current extortionists. And those folks have invested billions in gaining their privilege - they won't just roll over. The ugly little secret is that we can have single payer and still pay more. 

    c) The top 3 health companies have revenue over $130 billion a year - and mega-mergers are creating new behemoths in insurance. From Forbes for 2014:

    1) CVS Health - $139 billion
    2) McKesson - $138 billion
    3) United Health Group - $131 billion
    4) AmeriSource Bergen - $120 billion
    5) ExpressScripts Pharmacy - $101 billion
    6) Cardinal Health - $91 billion
    7) Walgreens Boots Alliance - $76 billion
    8) Johnson & Johnson - $74 billion
    9) Anthem (Wellpoint) - $74 billion (+ merger with Cigna for $48 billion expected to be approved Q2 2016 - with Cigna having $34 billion/year revenue, they become another $100 billion+ conglomerate)
    10) Aetna - $58 billion (+ now acquiring Humana for $37 billion; with $49 billion rev for Humana, so yet another $100 billion+ )

    Combined that's a trillion in yearly revenue. Good luck rolling over them without a huge fight.

    Easy there, tiger. Bernie is just a candidate for the Democratic nomination. No one is expecting a 1000-page statute. Hillary Clinton's 2008 plan was all of 16 pages, including a lot of filler. Obama's was 15 pages. None of these documents are actually plans. They are campaign materials that include the broad outlines of future plans.

    Secondly, you misunderstand Sanders' political strategy. He knows full well that the current Congress will never pass a single-payer plan. The current Congress won't even pass the most modest of tweaks to Obamacare. Hillary's plan is therefore no more "realistic" than Bernie's--under the current Congress.

    That's why the current Congress has to go. Does Hillary have a plan for overhauling Congress? Bernie does. He's is trying to build a broad national movement that will persuade average Americans to send more progressives to Washington. How do you do that? Not with wonky amendments to our current statutes. To build a national movement, you need big ideas. Single payer healthcare is one of those big ideas.

    Now you may doubt that Bernie can pull it off, which is fair enough, but I don't think it serves the progressive cause to belittle the big ideas. The progressive movement was built on big ideas that seemed impossible to achieve and took decades to bear fruit. When we give up on achieving those big ideas, progressivism will truly be dead.

    Shh.. I know. :)

    Glad to hear it :). Personally, I don't think that I want Bernie to win. I'm just not convinced that he's the guy to lead the movement. But I do want him scare the pantsuit off Hillary, spread the message, and pave the way for the next FDR to lead to the movement.

    Michael - Bernie's the guy to lead the movement because he is leading the movement right now.

    Okay so this is what I object to MikeW, the pantsuit reference, I am pretty sure we can discuss HRC without resorting to another typical attack on a woman's clothing choices.  

    So how about you just want him to continue to pressure her to keep her on the path of not moving rightward or some such thing. :) 

    I object to your objection. Even HRC jokes about her pantsuits.

    Think she also joked about "needing a bit more time" too.

    Or as Obama just graciously noted, "doing everything I did but backwards in heels"

    The words 'congress' or 'legislation' are not in this Sanders document, and 'progressive' is only used in reference to increasing taxes.

    If the Sanders plan has no chance in this Congress, it might be useful to mention it, to better inform low information voters.

    Also, no 'GOP' or 'Republicans'. Who control Congress, a fact which many Americans do not know.

    The replacement of whom would need to start with the next election or 'the plan' will never get anywhere.

    Yeah, I don't think "I have a great plan. Too bad is has no chance in Congress," is a winning message, which is why you won't hear it from Hillary or Bernie. What you may hear instead when we get closer to the election is, "I have a great plan. That's why you have to vote for so-and-so to help me pass it."

    I don't really follow your point in the second bit, but Bernie is playing a long game. It will certainly take more than one election to change Congress.

    "I have a plan that will never pass Congress so I won't mention it or why it won't pass" isn't a plan either. It might get some votes, but as you have mentioned if I recall, incrementalism as with TR, small steps, and no backtracking, is the best strategy. I don't see that with the Bernie plan.

    Actually, I made the precisely the opposite case about TR. His incrementalism accomplished little legislation of lasting importance. He is remembered for his executive actions, which he pursued because Congress wouldn't pass the legislation he wanted, much like Obama.

    The real action happened during Woodrow Wilson's administration after the conservatives had finally been routed from Congress--labor laws, income taxes, woman's suffrage, the Federal reserve, anti-trust legislation, and election reform. Every one of these achievements began as a big, hopeless, never-gonna-pass dream a decade or more earlier. Those dreams mobilized people. The dreams created the Progressive Movement.

    1) I don't see Bernie as proposing all the huge progressive ideas that TR did. He's mostly a 1-trick pony on Wall Street with single payer tossed in as an extra that's somehow overriding the first.

    2) what I do see is Bernie offering to spend a lot more for causes - not quite the same thing as big ideas, but arguably better than surrendering on austerity votes before they come up.

    3) would Teddy have made more progress pushing harder? or simply it had to wait anyway?

    we'll see who gets motivated. maybe a grassroots effort to push progressive causes locally, but haven't Netroots and others been trying this for a while?

    "I don't see Bernie as proposing all the huge progressive ideas that TR did.  He's most a 1-trick pony on Wall Street with single payer tossed in".

    1st trick - Wall Street reform/Glass Steagall

    2nd trick - single payer healthcare (insures everybody, saves taxpayers big, with better outcomes to boot)

    3rd trick - free state colleges paid for with tax on Wall Street transactions (still part of 1st trick?)

    4th trick - end the military adventures (Clinton proposes "more strikes, more planes")

    5th trick - carbon tax thereby disincentivizing fossil fuel consumption (Clinton proposes nothing of the kind)

    6th trick - money is not speech/supports Constitutional Amendment

    7th trick - legalize marijuana/end the drug war

    8th trick - rein in the national security deep state

    9th trick - no more "free trade" deals

    10th trick - living minimum wage

    Yeah you're right PP he's just one-trick pony.

    Ok, some I disagree with (e.g. he's not really saying end military adventures - he's asking us to employ Russia and Iran and Saudi Arabia for them, and his trade policy bit is a mess - $1 trillion pouring concrete like the Japanese tried? - and carbon tax is a bit of a "me too, she neither"), but yes, he's pushing minimum wage hard, and promoting free colleges, etc. So I walk back my assessment. Point Hal.

    1) La Follette started out as a two-trick pony. Reforming Senate elections and regulating railroads were his thing. As the progressive movement got moving, there were a lot more ideas. TR was all over the map, chaotically so, and generally behind the cutting edge.

    2) I agree

    3) Counterfactual history is a fool's game, but I suspect that if TR had been willing to openly attack the conservatives in his party, he would gotten his majority while still president. More to the point, if La Follette and the other progressives hadn't attacked conservatives in their own party, Wilson wouldn't have had the majority he needed for all the legislation that passed. Heck, Wilson might not even have been a progressive. He appropriated the term from La Follette and only embraced the ideology in 1910 when he realized that the country was moving in that direction.

    Re: netroots. This stuff takes a long time. There were grassroots farm and labor parties pushing reforms ideas in the 1880s, which paved the way for the progressives. Arguably, netroots and overs have paved the way for a serious Sanders candidacy.

    MIke you left out the roll social media has played along with netroots. Sanders campaign owns social media right now. Social media has organized much of the ground forces and got Sanders message out when MSM was ignoring him. 

    Do you think Bernie would stump as hard as Hillary would for down-ballot candidates as the nominee? Would red state Dems want him to?

    There are few if any Democrats running for (re)election that I expect Sanders would consider allies for pushing his plan, so "vote for so-and-so to help me pass it" may not be plausible.

    Yes, I'm sure he would. I don't know if you noticed during the last election, but a number of Democratic nominees from red states like South Dakota, Montana, and Texas were prairie populists running anti-Wall Street themes, and I bet they would have been delighted to have Bernie stump for them.

    Not sure I understand the relevance of the Hill link to my question of whether he'd stump down-ballot effectively. Fifty state strategy, Democratic party needs reform and small individual donations (my take, likely not yours) ... and?

    I'd probably add more, but halftime's over. Go Cats! ;-)

    Awesome! My first double post! Is that good luck?

    Nope. Twice is meaningless. It has to be three for anyone to take it seriously. It's the law of threes.

    I tell you once. I tell you twice. What I tell you three times is true.

    Wrong, my man. The Carolina Panthers dominated! Then again, if you're right, I need to do it a two more times to win the Superbowl!

    Let's re-calculate those pages. Bernie's minus cover page has a total length of 6 pages. And Hillary's had a total of 10 1/2 plus a summary/motivational statement and a summary graphic.

    But if you look closer, 2 pages of Bernie's is essentially the summary/motivational statement + "how we got here" (pages 2 & 3). Page 6 is how much it would save a family & business, and it's a doozy:

    The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan. Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies. Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year. Businesses would save over $9,400 a year in health care costs for the average employee. The average annual cost to the employer for a worker with a family who makes $50,000 a year would go from $12,591 to just $3,100.

    So we lop off $5K per family & $9K per employee - who will pay this? (note: this is cost savings, not specifically "single payer" - but I'm of course happy to have real sustainable cost savings)

    Page 7-8 financials - a couple of problems. "The plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year" - uh, by whom? Plus, all tax bracket statements omit whether these are for single, joint, head of household...

    ● A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers. Revenue raised: $630 billion per year. ● A 2.2 percentincome-based premium paid by households. Revenue raised: $210 billion per year....a family of four ...up to $28,800 [will] not pay this tax under this plan. A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.

    So by PP math, if saving $5800 per family raises $210 billion a year, the revenue foregone was something like $2.7 trillion. Okay, that's only $50K families, not all the families who will pay nothing (but then there's still costs to provide them health care). Call it $1.3 trillion for finger-in-the-air generosity. If the savings per employee is 3/4 providing $630 billion, then the foregone revenue is roughly 3x that, or $1.8 trillion. Now I'm up to $3.1 trillion to replace, not $1.4 trillion. Income tax rates are ~$100 billion + change, capital gains changes another $100 billion - so $2.8 trillion being nice? Reduced health expenditures $300 billion, so now at $2.5 trillion? And then it ends.

    But that's the budgeting & financials, not "the plan". Those are on 1 1/4 pages, 4 & 5. Let's summarize:

    BETTER COVERAGE Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered [universal] single-payer health care program [meaning] comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover [simply everything]. Patients will be able to choose [whoever with no out-of-pocket expenses] 

    WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTS ...go to the doctor and show your insurance card.

    GETTING HEALTH CARE SPENDING UNDER CONTROL [describes how expensive current system is] By moving to an integrated system, the government will finally ...negotiate fair [drug] prices .... ...track access to various providers and make smart investments to avoid provider shortages and ensure communities can access the providers they need.

    Bwaaahaaaahaaa haaaa!!! what a plan. Let me summarize it better: we'll

    a) lump all health care under 1 single-pay system,

    b) let you go anywhere with no additional charges or questions asked (fights with insurance companies),

    c) track things better and make smart investments to prevent gaping holes in coverage, while

    d) saving a buttload of money.

    [e) including somehow miraculously an extra $2 trillion from what we raise in various revenues ]

    What could go wrong? It's so detailed, this PLAN, especially the elaboration in part c.

    Funny, I wasn't even laughing before - I was assuming he'd at least released something that addressed a few of the issues, but it's basically combination of tax cuts and tax hikes with a hail-mary consolidation of services in 2-3 sentences. What campaign lackey did they task with writing this at morning coffee?

    Perhaps we can look at how Homeland Security went from $9 billion in 2002 to $41 billion today, presumably by implementing cost savings by integrating different gov divisions to increase efficiencies. And perhaps look at various Harvard Business School case studies on how effective the typical "synergy-producing" merger is. Hint: the field is littered with failures, even from companies that supposedly had their shit together. HP's write-off of Autonomy, Microsoft's write-off of Nokia - just typical examples of "bigger will be better" that didn't quite work out right.

    What campaign lackey did they task with writing this at morning coffee?

    Prior to the last debate, his campaign was being pressured to release his healthcare plan before the Iowa caucuses. So they hurriedly put something together to avoid the criticism during the debate (released it two hours prior) - much like telegraphing his new support for a bill circulating re gun manufacturers/sellers immunity just two days before.

    Yes, but 2 guys/gals in a room for 3 hours can put out a more convincing 6 page brief, and you're saying they had a few weeks. This still makes me appreciate Hillary's wonkishness better - I read her plan, and it has real points - yeah, still short, because no one including journalists or voters are going to digest 200 pages (though you might put out 5-10 pages of the real story and 190 pages of filler to make yourself look smart).

    And his recent support to overturn the Hyde amendment after Hillary came out for repeal.

    That was strategic as well, since he received so much heat for his "Planned Parenthood and NARAL are establishment" remarks (which he rapidly walked back).

    Sometimes it seems like Sanders isn't quite in step with his campaign ... Weaver and DeVine are ruthlessly good at what they do, but Bernie appears both irritated and baffled by the intricacies of a national campaign when it moves beyond his comfort zone. His current healthcare plan - though in its infancy - is Sanders on paper: soaring, inspirational and transformative with no patience for distracting details. Yet in fairness, his staff will likely take care of some of the issues in due time. At least on paper.

    Really, Michael - you're swallowing a lot of kool-aid. Hillary had a plan to build the grassroots nationwide, to create coattails - and abandoned it - she realized her competitors would focus on contested states, and a 50-state push would only dilute her chances. Good thing - she'd be massively behind in Iowa & New Hampshire by now.

    "To build a national movement, you need big ideas." - well, kinda - you need ideas that are high priority and acceptable nationwide, a lot of money &/or effort to communicate them, and a lot of organization to put them in place. The world is full of big ideas. Few succeed. Bernie doesn't even want to take big money - that's fine if he's MLK focused on a few southern states. Not so good if he's trying to dent 50 very diverse states.

    Iowa's largely about ethanol subsidies and growing corn - step on that 3rd rail and you're toast. Virginia has a pretty heavy military and security bent. Michigan's still trying to save its auto industry. Alaska's all about oil. And on and on. Maybe an anti-Wall Street message will work, but with fear of ISIS and Muslims and immigrants, I'm not sure how we fly tasty progressive ideas across the heartland. Sure, "government/Wall Street/rich people are stealing your money, redistribute now" is bound to get more followers than anything else - class grudge warfare. But even there, the number of people against Obamacare is huge - we've let ourselves be hammered, and yet the solution is to throw farther & deeper?

    I think you do yourself an injustice - you've studied progressive movements from long ago, and rather than a glib "was built on big ideas that seemed impossible..." pronouncements, you from anyone would be able to shed a little more light as to similariities and differences of the climate today & in Teddy's or FDR's time, which were the progressive ideas that caught fire, what were the mechanisms that seemed to work & any similarities/trends to note (or contrary-wise, hands-thrown-up-in-the-air "it's mysterious" if our brief dashes to progressivism are largely capricious)

    Even the comparison between Bernie & Obama can be perilously facile - sure, they both tap into student/youth enthusiasm, that hope for a better tomorrow and dismantling the old corrupt curmudgeon club. But you'd also have to account for Obama's tools - his speaking ability, his machine supporters in Chicago, his blackness as a potential for societal breakthrough, having David Axelrod in a fairly new social media environment, high dissatisfaction with the prior regime including the Iraq War, and ultimately the government meltdown. Whatever progressive ideas there were were largely subjective to the observer - people saw what they wanted. What substitutes/close corollaries does Sanders have going for him?

    Bernie has a chance to be Jimmy Carter beating an old-school encumbered Ted Kennedy and a GOP in chaos. It's hard to see where Carter progressivism translated into some new school unless we see Bill Clinton as some kind of apostle, and even that many people see as triangulation and corporate sell-out as much as progressivism. What is the evidence that Bernie's message can gain a serious constituency outside of his initial comfort zones? Where's the historical precedent that should give him hope and us belief?

    Pardon the simplification, but I don't have time to rehash my book in every blog comment. I know less about the New Deal, but the progressive movement did indeed begin on a shoestring budget, run by guys who like Bob La Follette who launched quixotic presidential bids and refused to take corporate money.

    LF had a very specific strategy. He proposed ambitious progressive legislation that had no chance in hell of passing Congress. The bills went down in flames, but LF recorded everyone's Nay vote and went to their districts to campaign against them--regardless of their party affiliation.

    And you know what, it worked. Many of those congressmen lost their seats, and once the conservatives lost their majority, every single one of LF's ambitious, will-never-pass proposals became law. Every one.

    These days, it seems like the only ones who get it are right-wing Tea Party types who vote over and over again for futile bills they know will fail and then use the Nay votes to attack their opponents, grow their movement, and increase their power in Congress.

    But whatever, I'm obviously some kind of "kool-aid drinking"* Bernie fanatic because I had the audacity to say something positive about the guy, so no need to pay attention to anything I write. Carry on.

    * possibly the most vapidly condescending cliche in the blogosphere

    Yes, the Bob La Follette effort looks like a strategy, thanks - that one I see, & yes, rolls with the Tea Party extract-penance approach to keeping people in line, which is how they're taking legislatures.

    Vapidly condescending or not, "Does Hillary have a plan for overhauling Congress? Bernie does." wasn't your most elevated analysis of all time, and smacked of someone a bit enthralled. If Bernie makes it halfway to a Bob La Follette-type "plan", I'll be gratifyingly impressed. I doubt Bernie has the vengeance to go full LF (though his followers would no doubt gladly play subversive ninjas/nannies), but there's more than one way to skin a cat I imagine/hope - any serious plan & effort to take on all 50 states is fine by me. But I'm less taken by cynical John Edwards-style "war on poverty" efforts that disappear as quickly as they arose, and the Obama mass internet organization hardly helped the party once he was in. In other words, talk is cheap.

    I read your book. In fact much of my family read your book. I see parallels all over the place with LF and Sanders. You can give me big ideas and unicorns over what we have had for the last 35+years in politics. It may move faster toward new progressive reforms because of fast communications we have now, then what was available in that era.  LF drew big crowds for his day and so does Sanders. Does anyone know there was a 35 city march for Bernie on Saturday?  Sanders' campaign didn't organize it.  It was done by his ground game groups and supporters. What I saw locally and on Face Book is impressive. Just think what LF could of ignited if he had todays technology. History is being made and we have a front row seat. 

    Health care is incredibly complex so I don't expect a candidate to have more than a fairly detailed outline. The problem with single payer is there are so many stakeholders with skin in the game that will have to deal with major changes if single payer was passed. Often we talk about the pharmaceutical industry as the roadblock to single payer, or any meaningful health care reform. While they are a big factor the largest impediment to single payer is the majority of people who get their insurance through their job. Single payer takes that away and promises something better. Single payer has to take the job based insurance away to be fiscally solvent, that's where the money is. You'll never convince people to give up something they like for the promise of something better. They will fight tooth and claw to keep the employer based insurance they have now.

    We had our chance and we blew it. The ACA should have been an option to buy into medicare, with subsidies for those who couldn't afford it. There could have been provisions for businesses to buy into a Medicare based plan for their employees. Medicare then would have been the foundation that hopefully would have eventually lead to single payer.  We're not going to have another fight over health care especially when democrats have lost control of the house and the senate. We have to swallow what we've got and work to make it better.

    And frankly I don't want another two year fight to get single payer. Even if we achieved the impossible and passed it, it would suck all the energy from every other policy initiative. I want the big fight next year to be over legislation to massively ramp up installation of renewable energy sources. That probably won't happen either but that's my top priority.

    Anything is possible in this election because Sanders could be bringing in many new voters.  Less the half of the people in this country votes.  That leaves a big pool of new voters.  If that happens then some of the gerrymandering won't hold up because it is based on pass voter affiliations. 

    Most everyone here that comments seems to cling to old ideas of demographics. This is a generational change that is happening. It is not set in stone that Congress will remain the same as before this election. Conservative politics is declining. All that big money from the wealthy hasn't helped all that much in this election so far.

    FDR was forced by the general public into social security. Huey Long was the thorn in his side that motivated him into that. Most of the legislation that happened during the FDR's New Deal was push from the bottom up. This is what Sanders is organizing for.

    Medicare for all is what the majority wants in the country. In fact everything that Sanders in advocating is wanted by the majority in this country. It all polls in the majority.  

    The person that is running against Debbie WS is from Sanders's campaign. He is receiving a lot of love from all over the country. She goes down in this election, that will send a strong message. 

    I guess we will see how all this unfolds in the next few months.  

    Latest Comments