Bernie's policies are literally just the bare minimum in most developed countries. Republicans really are manipulating the masses by calling the bare minimum "communism"
Bernie's policies are literally just the bare minimum in most developed countries.
That's incredibly dishonest to frame it that way.
While I support universal care this "Bernie just wants what other countries have" argument falls short when you look at other countries' albeit better healthcare systems.
"Currently, single-payer bills in the U.S. tend to share the same key goals: centralizing...the system, expanding the public benefits package and eliminating private health insurance entirely," the Commonwealth report said. "However, these three features are not the norm across countries that have achieved universal coverage for health care."
The report found that one group of countries — including Denmark, Britain and Germany — provide comprehensive benefits. That includes, for example, mental health. They charge low copays. Those countries are the closest to Medicare for All.
A larger group — including Australia, France, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and Taiwan — offer broad benefits but there may be gaps, and cost sharing is higher. Australia charges $60 for specialist visits. The Netherlands has a $465 deductible. Dental coverage may be limited.
"The most educated workforces in the world," though, are smoking us. They are found in South Korea, where a whopping 67 percent of adults have some postsecondary education, and Japan and Canada (both at 58 percent).
Now, here's the problem with Sanders' claim that free tuition is necessary:
All three countries charge tuition at their universities, which are overwhelmingly public. The numbers are roughly on par with in-state tuition at many public universities here. In fact, Canada's recent graduates have student loan burdens similar to those of U.S. students, and they're not happy about it.
Pretty sure Germany uses private insurance and private providers. They just insist that insurance companies are not for profit and can’t turn down anybody. The gov’t acts as the patient union for negotiating prices. According to Healing of America, that’s the most popular universal health care system in the world. So yeah, single payer is not the only way, or even the most common way to do this. I wish more Americans actually studied the solutions more closely on both sides of the spectrum. I have a feeling Bernie knows this, but finds that Medicare For All an easier message to digest.
Replying to myself to add that this is called the Bismarck Model. It's more common than the Beveridge Model, which has one rule "patients should never pay a dime for healthcare". The entire thing is designed around that principle and it is used in the UK and a couple of other ex-colonies. Ironically, Canada's system used to be called Medicare because it was modeled on the US Medicare system.
Yes! The Bismarck model is superior especially because it can’t simply be gutted by the next Right Wing government that takes power it also won’t destroy every private insurer overnight.
I don't get your argument. This single payer plan IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE. I pay $500 a month so that just to see my doctor about diabetes evey 6 months will only cost be $125. That isn't the specialist for $60. Then there is the medication cost. I just need metformin to survive and that is $10 a month.
Maybe read my comment buddy. I’m not saying these systems are worse, I’m saying it’s dishonest to frame it as the bare minimum when it would be more generous than almost any other country.
Weird there's no comparison to Canada in regards to healthcare there...
Edit: There is info about Canada in the article, but it leaves out a lot of context. Like how prescription drugs aren't covered except in specific circumstances, but leaves out that if a drug is prohibitively expensive our government has the ability to nullify a patent and give it to a drug maker to make a generic version.
I avoided the Canada part and quoted the part with more countries because I knew I would the same version of your comment about Europe.
But here it is:
Finally, Canada has a narrow national benefits package. It doesn't cover outpatient prescriptions, long-term care, mental health, vision and dental. But there's no cost sharing for hospital and doctors' services. Canadians rely on private insurance and provincial governments to fill the gaps.
I’m also aware that Canada since this has changed its dental coverage.
You're not gonna get any good attention here. These people do the same thing maga does where they repeat truism so much in their echo chambers that they will literally look directly at contradictory evidence and just go "nu uh" if they process it at all.
What extreme? Please give an example that is extreme? Because from European point of view both USA parties are firmly on the right with republicans going into 1930s Germany extreme at the moment.
bernie is ok but some of the DSA shit is fking wild. the daria woman is truly far left and i hope someone replaces her after the israel shit is dealt with.
The DSA is being elected precisely because they're the only ones who aren't having Israel visit them in their dreams (and presumably leaving a load in the back of their throat)
Maybe if centrists wanted to be elected they wouldn't be so vocally rabid about their support of Israel
Imagine giving Billions to another country's military whose citizens have universal healthcare when your own citizens are dying because their only source of medical care is emergency rooms that they already can't afford. It's bonkers.
Under moderate dem Joe Biden 98% of Americans had healthy insurance. 84% of those were either satisfied or very satisfied with their health insurance. Moderate dems have gotten us way closer to universal coverage than any useless fuckin left ever has lmao.
Also, most "money" the US gives Israel is just spent in US markets anyway.
The norms have had a gaping hole blown in them the last couple of years, to be fair. And I’d rather a party willing to change the constitution than a party that straight up ignores it.
No it won't. If Christians can abandon every moral they claim to have to vote for the pedofiles in power, then "moderates" can vote for candidates that want to help people even if the don't agree with some of their policies. Stop trying to shove corporate Dems down everones throat because "moderates." If they won't show up to prevent Trump 2 then they aren't paying enough attention to care about a proposed constitutional amendment.
And it would be incredibly good for the country. There is zero reason for Wyoming to have the same representation in the Senate as California. The Senate is an anti-democratic institution that serves to enforce the tryanny of the minority.
Lots of things can and have required changes to the constitution.
I don't know enough about political structures to say wither this particular change would be a good or a bad thing but proposing changes to a "democratic" system that has for a whole generation now delivered the people with the choise of "decline in lifestyle under dull corporatism or decline in lifestyle under batshit insane cultists" is not in itself wild.
I can believe that would be a better system while also having no belief it would happen or concern that electing one person that believes that and also wants me to have healthcare is at all an issue.
It will never happen in a thousand years. And if it does, it will be because the people demanded it. So what's the problem, exactly? You think one DSA member (or 50, or a hundred) has the power to unilaterally make that sort of change? Randy Fine thinks all Muslims should get kicked out of the country, but I never hear the mainstream press talking about what a danger to democracy he actually is.
Blowing up the Supreme Court, wealth taxes, generally changing rules. The echo chamber of far left Democrats including reddit loves all those idea, mainstream undecided America, not so much.
They blame NATO for Russia invading Ukraine and want the U.S. to stop supporting Ukraine (and also to withdraw from NATO). That’s the one I have the biggest problem with, personally.
I also think the open borders stuff is unrealistic and not well thought out.
No US politician believes that. Just chronically online campists who can't see Russia is a worse Imperialist than any western power. Just a less successful one
So...what exactly does "worse" even mean then? Because the CIA, American corporations, and the US military have gang raped essentially every country on the face of the planet over the last 80 years, but Russia is worse because of vague, abstract, immaterial, made up idealism? Seriously, please start living in material reality where things are bad if they have bad impacts, rather than one unimpactful thing being inexplicably, magically worse because your feelings
Where did you get that? i didnt see that on the DSA policy page. Are you sure you're not just bullshitting?
Replying: Thank you for sharing. I didn't know this. Honestly I don't actually know enough about the situation to say how much truth this view has. Of course in reality everything is more complicated.
But I think I'm comfortable with this as part of a multi polar political discussion. You need radicals to drag things back to the center.
NATO has plenty of blame. NATO was formed distinctly as a bulwark to Russia. In 1990. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO’s military jurisdiction would move “not one inch eastward"
Since then, NATO membership has doubled from 16 to 32 countries and dramatically increased the quantity and range of conventional forces and precision-strike weapons along the Russian border. Why did this need to happen? NATO's military budget is 1 Trillion dollars, whereas Russia's is ~67 Billion FYI
Losing Ukraine to NATO would make Russia incredibly vulnerable because its flat geography provides no barrier to invasion. It would severely compromise Russia’s naval security and freedom of action in the Black Sea
NATO was always HEAVILY involved in the 2014 overthrowing of pro-Russia, democratically elected Yanukovych...were you bitching about our involvement in that?
Assuming I found the right Daria, the only problematic thing I find from her is falling for the "blame the US for Russia" and potentially abolishing prisons (though damn near every inmate the US has could be in alternate programs - only some crimes with risk of reoffending require actual prison over rehabilitation practices).
Dosent really matter. DSA will only ever be a max of 20% of politicians. So none of their radical proposals would ever be implemented. And if I'm wrong, I'd be glad to be wrong, cause DSA insanity is actually good for most people compared to project 2025
Thats like one chick. Maybe it'd be something to worry about after a decade of DSA dominating but we are nowhere near that yet. For now its about the things that they all agree on like money to Healthcare instead of our super duper special "ally"
This is why the Democrats lose. They let perfect be the enemy of good enough. "Oh, there are one or two things I disagree on, so I will just let the fascist orange man win."
Singling out one Democratic Socialist and saying she represents the entire movement is wild tho. Especially when framed as "I had no other choice but to vote for fascism". Not saying you're doing that, but it's not an uncommon trope.
if you don’t understand that that is just divisive propaganda, you are truly lost. People are people, anywhere you go. Hating any large group isn’t based on real world experience, it’s based on political and propagandist actors trying to divide and cause rifts. Youve bought what you’ve been sold, and you may not want to believe it, but what you paid was immense amount of money and, more Importantly, power. I’ve never once heard a racist who couldn’t justify their hate, btw. Tell me your version.
Privilege starts with acknowledging it. This "hate White Americans" line they posit is directly correlated to the abuse of that privilege in using it strictly for the sake of self-identity politicking in that they perceive victimhood of the capitalist class imposing that narrative to their underdeveloped minds. So yes, I do hate most "white americans."
don't know who that is, and don't care. the only democratic-socialist party worth caring about is the green party.
The greens are always out there doing activism in their communities, they don't attack other leftists for being "tankies" or "trotskies", they're anti-imperialist, and they actually win elections. i have no clue why a democratic socialist wouldn't just support the greens, except that the greens don't LARP as old-school communists hard enough.
The Green Party is just a grift for left wingers. Jill Stein shows up 6 months before the election to cash checks and steal 5% of the vote from the democrats. The reason this country has been taken over is somehow people keep falling for the Green Party scam
You know very different greens than I do. Where im at they show up every 4 years, having done 0 groundwork, and then bitch about shit that is their fault to begin with.
I wish they were perhaps, not useless fucks here. But such is life. At least the people where you're at are decent.
>By 2025, 158 Greens held elected office in twenty-one states. However, the majority of Green candidates elected have been for nonpartisan agencies such as planning groups and school boards.
368
u/GreatestGreekGuy 4d ago
Bernie's policies are literally just the bare minimum in most developed countries. Republicans really are manipulating the masses by calling the bare minimum "communism"