Home | About | Donate

Democratic Voters Rank Bernie Sanders as 'Most Qualified' 2020 Candidate to Solve US Healthcare Crisis

I’d bet big money that neither Bernie nor Tulsi will be allowed to run.They’re already getting the Ron Paul treatment from controlled MSM.


Official narratives trump facts in Murrka.

1 Like

He is the best candidate for all of the issues. Vote Bernie 2020 !!!


“Will healthcare be the #1 issue in 2020 prez, senate and house elections?..OR…”

Nominally, healthcare has topped voter concerns for…I don’t know…I’ll guess it’s been at or near the top for two decades…perhaps longer, going back to the first Clinton WH…

How that concern is understood by progressives, liberals, and the right wing respectively - and how that concern factors into those three groups’ greater public policy attitudes all of which shape their vote - is the question.

IMO, short of more or less a movement tied to a particular candidate, healthcare topping the list of ‘concerns’ will not by itself carry as much weight as progressives like myself want…

The Sanders-led insurgency has moved medicare for all - vs. simply ‘healthcare’ - from the margins to a central question among Democrats, and also among some low income Republicans. But if the Democratic candidate does not offer a healthcare program that mobilizes and gets that low income electorate behind Medicare for All…the right will have one less reason to vote Democrat…the liberals, one less reason to vote at all…

What the poll clearly demonstrates is the 75% of democratic voters are clueless about health care and the problems within the system. On the other hand, the 75% may not have a clue as to the candidates positions on health care. The insurance cartels plan to keep it that way and all the candidates but Sanders are in on the swindle.

19% who think that Biden has the solution is just pure stupidity. He has made it clear that he plans to do nothing but tweak the ACA. I don’t think there are 19% of any population that thinks the ACA is a good plan. No one but the most loyal of Obama supporters continues to approve of the ACA and they approve only because their loyalty is blind.


Amy has had her share of close calls. I’ve seen her with press pass in hand, being battered and arrested as she tried to report from the ground at marches and demonstrations.


thank you baska,
Yes, health care for all is the most important issue for families, elderly, children.
I have written and got smacked across the head with how to pay for it, reduce the
waste (50%, same as pentagons) and improve quality - measure results.

We have been down the path, 3 years ago, where a false story becomes fact because it is repeated a few times each day by an opponent and broadcast 24/7.

We have been down the path of 'there you go again."

NBC, polling mostly democrats in 2016, caused dems to slack off, not do voter registrations, make few campaign appearances - and lose. NBC also used 2008 Obama exit polls as their model and ignored demographic precinct changes - such as deaths and folks moving out for jobs.

Strongly suggest polls be to cell phones, internet users, house visits. Even great grandmother has a cell phone now. And note the party and persuasion the responder has. When applying to the bell curve, do not stop at 2 sigma.

1 Like

“What the poll clearly demonstrates is the 75% of democratic voters are clueless about health care and the problems within the system.”

I agree. This is particularly disappointing given the near-half (43%) that voted for Sanders in the 2015/16 primaries when single payer was central to his campaign.

I speculate that - to some extent - the poll does not simply reflect views of healthcare, but abhorrence of Trump and - wrongly, imo - views of electability.


If Bernie wins maybe he can get third parties to participate.

Indeed. Young Nick Brana summed up the whole issue in 2016 http://bit.ly/democrats-stop-progressives

The question no one seems to be able to answer on Medicare for All is how hospitals will be able to survive. Everyone knows that hospitals generally only make money off of commercial payors, and lose money on every Medicare and Medicaid patient they receive because the reimbursement rates are too low. Sanders’ plan doesn’t involve increasing reimbursement rates because it’s the only way he can show theoretical “savings.” Once you increase reimbursement rates to compensate hospitals for the drastic change in payor mix, the purported on-paper savings is wiped out.

So which is it going to be: are we going to protect hospital foreclosures across the country or are we going to save our country money (supposedly)? The math doesn’t allow for both.

This is why large, one-size-fits-all government plans tend to end up costing far more than the original projected cost, because the vast unintended consequences lead to far higher costs. In this case Sanders, if grilled on this question, would have to say that he’d need to increase reimbursement rates to hospitals, which would invite the immediate response that his projections for total cost are way off…

“The question no one seems to be able to answer on Medicare for All is how hospitals will be able to survive.”

We don’t need for profit hospitals any more than we need for profit health insurance. Neither are here for our health and well being. As they continue to demonstrate, there purpose is profit over health. Our health care system will improve dramatically once they’ve all closed their doors and hospitals are placed back under the oversight of our communities.

Nice troll though. Keep up the good work. I’m sure you’re being paid handsomely by the for profit medical community.


Yes, electability as defined and governed by the DNC rather than true electability.

Blue No Matter Who except representatives of the people and planet. For all their bluster about BNMW I am convinced, the DNC fears a progressive President even more than Trump.

1 Like

I personally rank Bernie Sanders as the best Presidential candidate for not only the issue of Healthcare, but each and every other issue from gun control to a better education for the countries children, because:

What this country should be leaning towards is a Social Democracy:
Which is, as we all know, a political, social, and economic doctrine, that supports economic and social ideologies, promotes social justice, within a framework of a sensible but liberal democratic policy, but supported by a capitalistic economy, which is extremely better than what we have now:**

**A plutocracy: A society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income.

“The question no one seems to be able to answer on Medicare for All is how hospitals will be able to survive.”

You’re ignorant - the question has been answered a lot. But ‘you only find what you look for,’ as they say - and you’re not looking for existing answers re the feasibility of hospital funding under a Medicare for All system, you’re looking to spread the hospital lobby’s alarmist propaganda.

Although hospital funding is discussed in Medicare for All bills, advocates have appropriately focused mainly and first on the private insurance industry that jacks up hospital administrative costs and would be one area of hospital cost savings under M4A.

(Oops, Abelson accidentally left that hospital cost saving under M4A out of her NYT article, didn’t she - now how did that happen? Kind of like she forgot to mention that while the hospital lobby is against M4A, doctors are increasingly getting behind it…weird, huh, since according to hospitals it’s their jobs and paychecks on the line…)


1 Like

Each of us, regardless of our Anti-Malware, anti-trackers, whatever, are sent to blog aggregators telling us happy-lies AI discerns we want to hear. iPhone, Android, Windows… metasearch, browser, browsing history, purchase history, location, credit score, age, gender, race… we’re being SEOd into alternative universes; totally unaware of consensus reality. If you bought a HTC at B&H, run Bitdefender, use Firefox, revise your privacy settings, block cookies and history, opt-out of everything… it’ll simply change back.

1 Like

We need direct democracy before progress is taken farther beyond our reach.

1 Like

So who sent you here to catapult the propaganda supporting the clucking jerks that have taken over the healthcare system in this country (I’m talking CEOS and other filthy rich individuals)?

Sorry at this point having suffered greatly under this fucking system I have no fucking patience left, or patients…pardon the clucking pun.

Yes, that was a clucking emotional outbreak. Deal with it.

Ok. So I read all of your attached articles. They claim that the savings from the administrative burden of having so many different payors would more than offset the severe decline in revenue. I call BS on that. In some cases that will happen. In many other cases it won’t. The answer isn’t the same across the board. Big hospitals will recover to some extent. The small ones will die. The small ones are the ones that exist in rural, poorer areas. So the people most vulnerable are not without healthcare and will probably see even more consolidation in the provider industry.

But the one PNHP article is insane. It literally describes communism/socialism, in which it advocates for no prices at all. That’s crazy. Without prices you can’t know anything about how we’re applying our resources and spending. It’s a recipe for disaster across the entire continuum of care and the entire supply chain. When the USSR applied this logic to its entire economy it collapsed.

So, to recap…we now agree administering private insurance costs hospitals a lot…

…we agree M4A will reduce these administrative costs…

…we agree it is legitimate to factor in these cost savings to hospitals when calculating the costs/savings of M4A…

…and we agree that - certainly where hospitals with larger profit margins are concerned - administrative savings will likely offset the reduced profits due to medicare-type payments…

…and I’ll take it as an area of implicit agreement - since you do not challenge it - that at these hospitals M4A will carry out its purpose of providing better care to all people for less money.

‘Ah, but even if M4A reduces costs and improves health outcomes for many US’ers, what about rural hospitals with razor-thin profits?’ you now ask. ‘Surely, administrative cost savings will not offset the money lost from private insurance patients - meaning rural hospitals will fail…and the poorest and neediest will suffer more.’

If you review the articles I linked, they point to various, sometimes overlapping ways of supporting rural hospitals. The one I’ll focus on is regulating hospital profits again - as was practiced in the US through the 1970s (and as is done here w/electric utility profits, and w/hospitals in other European nations) - but, within the framework of M4A, achieving this regulation by reducing medicare/medicaid payments for hospitals with bigger profit margins, and lowering it for hospitals with smaller profit margins.

Will that free up enough money without unacceptably raising the price tag for M4A? I don’t know…but something like this has already been argued - see the admittedly challenging Gaffney piece, among others, pointing to the crucial point that if you are posting in good faith, and honestly want to provide better healthcare to all Americans, including the poor, you will seriously evaluate such solutions rather than labeling M4A unfeasible or communist.