Sanders

The Nevada Democratic party presidential debate was held on Wednesday Night, February 2020.

It was clear that few of the candidates made any significant new policy statements to sway anyone to change who they are supporting, with the exception of Bloomberg. He blew the debate in several ways, most importantly showing he can’t hold his own on the debate stage against a much milder version of attack than Trump will be throwing at the final candidate in the general election later this year. The Republicans will tear him apart in that campaign now that they know he is incapable of responding without a production crew and script writers propping him up and polishing it all in post production before the public sees it.

The remainder of the candidates on stage spent more of their time attacking each other’s policy stances and history than explaining their own, because at this point they have all already explained those as well as they intend to.

The most important thing for any non-Republican primary voter to consider is that regardless of policy stances, if the current Senate majority is not flipped, not one of these candidates will get any of their plans pushed through Congressional approval, and that means everything they hope to accomplish will have to be accomplished by Executive Order.

So the questions we must answer are:

Which candidate has the best chance of drawing enough disenfranchised voters back to the polls to defeat Trump in November, especially in the traditionally politically red and purple states with the most vital electoral college votes?

And,

Which candidate will inspire enough general election voter turnout to swing the Senate majority and defeat other Republican Trump supporting candidates further down ballot in the House, Governor’s races, and local elections.

Based on all current polling the progressive and moderate voters are divided nearly equally among the six current candidates, each will eventually coalesce behind two specific candidates much like in 2016.

So, instead of endorsing a specific candidate based on my views, here we will explore the best for you to vote for based upon your own views.

If you are a progressive liberal, your choice is between Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Either candidate will have the entire corporate lobby political infrastructure working overtime against them in favor of Trump if they win the party nomination. Sanders also carries the heavy political baggage of the willful ignorance of most American voters when it comes to an understanding of the Democratic Socialism label he has given himself. However, he is a massive draw for voters under the age of 40. Warren though, will be a bigger draw for female empowerment voters, especially those wanting to send a message against Trump’s incessant misogyny.

If you are more of an establishment moderate, Amy Klobuchar is your best bet. She has a proven track record of success in Republican states with far less of the earned and unearned political negative baggage that Biden carries along with him. She will also have the female vote support in general election for the same reasons mentioned above for Warren. Biden, deserving or not, has been damaged with those disenfranchised voters by Trump’s attacks, his own background of patriarchal misogyny, and guilt by association for all the closeted racists. To make matters worse, he exudes the same sense of entitlement that so badly damaged the Clinton campaign in 2016.

If you are a Democratic Corporatist, Pete Buttigieg is your most viable alternative. He has the corporate backers and he has the ability to remain calm and stoic under attack. His primary drawback will be inspiring homophobic voters to turn out for the down ballot races. As much as that shouldn’t be an issue, it is dangerously naive to believe it won’t be.

If you are a disenfranchised Republican that isn’t a homophobic, racist, toxic misogynist, then Buttigieg is still your best bet.

If you are a disenfranchised Republican that does have homophobic, racist, or toxic misogyny tendencies then your only choice from the six candidates on that debate stage would be Mike Bloomberg.

Regardless of whether your preferred candidate wins the primary or not, if you want to put an end to Trump, his policies, his criminality and crimes against humanity, and those that enable and protect him. You must not only show up and vote for the candidate that did win, you must also vote all those down ballot races. And you need to encourage others to do the same.

Finally, just so they are not left out, if you still identify as a Republican voter, your primary choice has been predetermined for you, but if you want to overcome your party’s de-evolution into morally bankrupt criminality and treasonous actions, clear those incumbents out of the down ballot races.

People on both sides of the political isle are making a big deal out of the sudden Democratic support for Bernie Sander’s annual “Medicare for All” bill.

This is something he has proposed almost every year since he’s been in Congress. This is the first year the party is showing support for it.

First let’s look at this bill from the Democrat’s perspective:

Nobody in the party expects this bill to pass through a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House to reach the Oval Office for signature by a Republican President.

For Democrats, this current bill’s only purposes are to force Democrats to decide if they’re going to align themselves for the 2018 midterms with the populist progressive base that rose up within their party last year or that entrenched corporatism of the health care lobbyists and their deep donor pockets.

With that in mind, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Warren, Booker and others are aligning with Sanders, while Pelosi and her camp are still for maintaining the ACA as is instead of using it as a launch pad to something even better. Even Clinton, today, came out against the Medicare for All bill, and Sanders who introduced it..

The folks at Fight For Healthcare are even keeping a running list of which Democrats have supported the bill and which have not along with the tagline:

“If your senator isn’t supporting medicare for all, call & ask them “Why not?”

But for anyone that’s been following along with the political climate for the last few years, there should be few if any surprises on that list.

For the Republicans, this is a perfect opportunity to continue the intentional conflation of socialized medicine with Socialism. It will serve as their own rally cry for 2018, as they scream:

“How can we afford it?”

“Who’s going to pay for it?”

“Where’s the money going to come from?”

“Not my taxes!”

But this is nothing new either, we already have decades of proof from the Nixon era on, but especially since the advent of “Reaganomics.” that the price tag for compassion is far to steep for Republicans to tolerate.

So let’s take a moment to answer those questions, because the Democrats, including Sanders don’t seem to be doing a great job of doing so in a coherent and meaningful manner.

From a fiscally conservative standpoint, how can we afford not to?

If the populace had access to Medicare for All for fundamental care, it would immediately eliminate the need for ACA subsidies for health insurance assistance, all of which could be instantly diverted to this pool of money as well.

It would lower the cost of actual health care through nationally negotiated single payer rates.

It would eliminate the necessity for mandatory insurance penalty taxes from the ACA.

It would eliminate the need for employers to carry insurance plans for their employees, as well as the necessity to pay the employer portion of the premiums for those plans. This would allow them to free up money to pay higher wages or hire more workers, both of which boost the economy.

It would eliminate the need for employees to pay exorbitant health care premiums for care they can’t afford to use anyway because of the massive deductibles. This would in essence give a net income raise to all of our citizens as their disposable income would greatly increase each month as a result. Thus making a living minimum wage, a lower requirement for employers to shoulder. Consider how significant a portion health care and health care insurance play in the current cost of living in our nation.

That release of corporate obligation in health care would also free employers over any concern due to religious objection as to what care is available to their employees.

It would also allow for the closure of quite a few corporate welfare tax loopholes over health care expenses. The proceeds from which could be diverted into the funds for Medicare for All instead of back to the corporations.

It would eliminate the requirement for “in network” insurance limitations and confusing variable fees for the populace.

It would make insurance valid anywhere in the United States without having to absorb those out of network fees. Thus making the workforce more open to relocation and travel as well as making leisure travel more likely for people have avoid it for due to concerns over availability of care.

It would lead to people pursing the use of more preventative care to avoid illness instead of focusing on reactive care only after they become ill. This will mean that employees will require less sick days and health will be less of a factor in creating non-productivity due to untreated chronic illness at work.

The availability of preventative care for all would greatly lower the risk pool for more expensive medical needs.

It wouldn’t take a significant new additional Medicare tax on income for people and/or businesses to cover it, and that new would be more than offset by both the individual savings of the people and their employers.

Finally, it wouldn’t even end the Insurance business as many will ask you to believe.

Even now, those on Medicare can pursue additional supplemental insurance for elective procedures and other issues. There is no reason those options will not continue, and continue to be quite lucrative for the companies that offer them.

A healthier populace.
Increase in Net Income for everyone (for many the difference between poverty and middle class) as a result of lifting insurance costs
Increase in corporate profits for all businesses already carrying health insurance for their staff for the same reasons, leading to more profits, the ability to hire more or pay more, as well as increase marketing and reinvestment in the company
Economic boost from businesses investing more and populace with more disposable income.
Removal of insurance as a middle man to prevent care, so insurance can become a supplement for add-on and elective services.

How can we honestly accept that not moving to Universal Health Care is the fiscally conservative option?

Finally, there is the wild card in this entire political battle over health care.

While Trump campaigned heavily on ending the Affordable Care Act — that dreaded ‘Obamacare’ — but he also mentioned more than once the promise that he’d improve health care and get everyone covered with better care.

If the bill does make it to his desk, I give it a better than 50-50 chance that he signs it, because doing so allows him to claim he ended ‘Obamacare,’ while also punishing all those Republicans who have openly disparaged him throughout his campaign and presidency.

It will play right into his narrative of being an outsider.

And the change will directly benefit every one of his own personal business interests.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: