[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[AiliailiA]

It fits definition 1 (gradualist basically) but the political definition is definition 2.

Note there are three options regarding ACA, not just two. There's keeping it (perhaps with a few adjustments, Clinton). There's making it irrelevant (by extending Medicare, Sanders). But there's also abolishing it (and replacing it with ... we'll tell you after abolishing it, Republicans).

Option 2 might be better than option 1, but they're both much better than option 3!

Option 2 lacks specifics. I'd much rather we do something along the lines of Japan or the Netherlands.

Option 2 lacks specifics because it's really very simple. Put everyone on Medicare. Really the only complication is whether to give people a rebate from the taxes they paid, if they want better coverage than Medicare and buy it themselves.

Japan I don't know much about. I haven't heard anything GOOD about their system though.

The Netherlands is actually quite a lot like Obamacare: compulsory private insurance, with a safety net (not public option, government pays the private insurance for people who can't afford it). And though it does seem to deliver better health for the money than the US system, imo it's too early to be sure. They used to have public healthcare and their current system is after partial privatization.

[Geilinor]

Option 2 lacks specifics. I'd much rather we do something along the lines of Japan or the Netherlands.

Option 2 lacks specifics because it's really very simple. Put everyone on Medicare. Really the only complication is whether to give people a rebate from the taxes they paid, if they want better coverage than Medicare and buy it themselves.

Japan I don't know much about. I haven't heard anything GOOD about their system though.

The Netherlands is actually quite a lot like Obamacare: compulsory private insurance, with a safety net (not public option, government pays the private insurance for people who can't afford it). And though it does seem to deliver better health for the money than the US system, imo it's too early to be sure. They used to have public healthcare and their current system is after partial privatization.

The thing is that Sanders isn't calling for putting everyone on Medicare and I'm not sure if he wants people to have the option to buy other coverage themselves.

[AiliailiA]

Option 2 lacks specifics because it's really very simple. Put everyone on Medicare. Really the only complication is whether to give people a rebate from the taxes they paid, if they want better coverage than Medicare and buy it themselves.

Japan I don't know much about. I haven't heard anything GOOD about their system though.

The Netherlands is actually quite a lot like Obamacare: compulsory private insurance, with a safety net (not public option, government pays the private insurance for people who can't afford it). And though it does seem to deliver better health for the money than the US system, imo it's too early to be sure. They used to have public healthcare and their current system is after partial privatization.

The thing is that Sanders isn't calling for putting everyone on Medicare and I'm not sure if he wants people to have the option to buy other coverage themselves.

He could hardly prevent it. Like we're going to have a War on Private Healthcare? ... backstreet private hospitals disguised as pedicurists? As I said, the main complication is whether the privately insured will get a rebate.

There's also the question of supplementary insurance: covering only drugs or procedures not covered by Medicare, leaving the heavy spending to the public system. This definitely SHOULDN'T get a rebate.

Given the massive cost of his proposal, I don't imagine he'll want to give any taxes back to help people opting for private insurance (even though they relieve the public system of their costs). He'll just assume they're rich fucks who can afford to pay taxes AND premiums, though actually they may be sick people who can barely afford private insurance but need it because their condition isn't covered by Medicare.

Is there any country on Earth (other than some dictatorship) which has 100% public healthcare and bans private insurance? What kind of crazy shit is that?

[Reploid Productions]

$hillary

You were just told yesterday that this is not okay. You've been told before that this is unacceptable.

*** Penguin Union Nation, WARNED for trolling. *** Aside from reiterating my colleague's past recommendation to read this, I'm also going to recommend that you review the site rules. Continuing to "debate" in this vein will only end in forumbans or account deletions.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Myrensis]

You really don't come into this thread except to whine about Sanders, do you?

Shocking I know, to discuss the Democratic candidates in the Democratic primary thread.

Shouldn't you be crying about how all those stupid people out there who aren't voting for Sanders are DESTROYING YOUR FUTURE and RUINING AMERICA FOREVER!?

[Korouse]

You really don't come into this thread except to whine about Sanders, do you?

Shocking I know, to discuss the Democratic candidates in the Democratic primary thread.

Shouldn't you be crying about how all those stupid people out there who aren't voting for Sanders are DESTROYING YOUR FUTURE and RUINING AMERICA FOREVER!?

I didn't know whining was a synonym for discussion.

[Senkaku]

There's also the fact that Sanders wants to outright ban nuclear energy

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

[Geilinor]

There's also the fact that Sanders wants to outright ban nuclear energy

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

Yes, he does. http://grist.org/climate-energy/bernie-sanders-wants-to-phase-out-nuclear-power-plants-is-that-a-good-idea/

[Major-Tom]

There's also the fact that Sanders wants to outright ban nuclear energy

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

You're surprised that Sanders is taking unorthodox left wing positions that go against most reasonable sentiments? Huh.

[Korouse]

There's also the fact that Sanders wants to outright ban nuclear energy

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

Pretty sure the general gist of it was actually "I think we should focus on clean energy" not "let's ban nuclear energy".

Still, it's pretty dumb not to invest in nuclear energy.

[G-Tech Corporation]

There's also the fact that Sanders wants to outright ban nuclear energy

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

Honestly, I find this information shocking. Sure, I know Sanders came out of the era of OMG nuclear bad, but surely he can't ignore the clear benefits of vast amounts of emissions-free power nuclear offers.

[Faustian Fantasies]

His plan makes total sense in context.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

Honestly, I find this information shocking. Sure, I know Sanders came out of the era of OMG nuclear bad, but surely he can't ignore the clear benefits of vast amounts of emissions-free power nuclear offers.

Let's dispel of this fiction that carbon emissions are the only thing we need to worry about.

[Geilinor]

Honestly, I find this information shocking. Sure, I know Sanders came out of the era of OMG nuclear bad, but surely he can't ignore the clear benefits of vast amounts of emissions-free power nuclear offers.

Let's dispel of this fiction that carbon emissions are the only thing we need to worry about.

Nuclear energy has the lowest death rate per unit of any source, including renewables.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Let's dispel of this fiction that carbon emissions are the only thing we need to worry about.

Nuclear energy has the lowest death rate per unit of any source, including renewables.

Deaths for who?

[Ngelmish]

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

Pretty sure the general gist of it was actually "I think we should focus on clean energy" not "let's ban nuclear energy".

Still, it's pretty dumb not to invest in nuclear energy.

"Let's phase out" nuclear energy is about as blatant as any candidate is going to get about banning an energy source they don't like one way or another. There's much in Sanders' environmental record to admire, but this is just asinine.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Pretty sure the general gist of it was actually "I think we should focus on clean energy" not "let's ban nuclear energy".

Still, it's pretty dumb not to invest in nuclear energy.

"Let's phase out" nuclear energy is about as blatant as any candidate is going to get about banning an energy source they don't like one way or another. There's much in Sanders' environmental record to admire, but this is just asinine.

You mean we should shit out tens of billions on outdated reactors?

[Penguin Union Nation]

Liberal and progressive are not the same thing.

No. They aren't. They are, ideally, interchangeable terms. "Progessive" has just become a term for people afraid to admit they're liberals, because "liberal" has become a bad word because of right wing pundits.

[Ngelmish]

"Let's phase out" nuclear energy is about as blatant as any candidate is going to get about banning an energy source they don't like one way or another. There's much in Sanders' environmental record to admire, but this is just asinine.

You mean we should shit out tens of billions on outdated reactors?

You mean we should start illegal slush funds to produce solar panels circa 2000 energy standards?

You see, I can infer things that you haven't remotely said either. But to answer your question, I think that Sanders is wrong to want to phase it out entirely. Tight regulations, sure. Working at a modern standard, sure. Pursuing other forms of energy, sure. An outright ban on a perfectly good mid-term energy source is asinine, yes.

[Faustian Fantasies]

You mean we should shit out tens of billions on outdated reactors?

You mean we should start illegal slush funds to produce solar panels circa 2000 energy standards?

You see, I can infer things that you haven't remotely said either. But to answer your question, I think that Sanders is wrong to want to phase it out entirely. Tight regulations, sure. Working at a modern standard, sure. Pursuing other forms of energy, sure. An outright ban on a perfectly good mid-term energy source is asinine, yes.

There's logical implications to what people say. Sanders' nuclear policy is to refuse licenses to old plants once they apply for them. For example, if the Diablo Canyon plant applies for a license in 2024, Sanders is going to say "No, because to be eligible for that license, you need to spend billions of dollars on modern renovations to your plant that would be better spent on other renewable resources". So if you're saying that Sanders is asinine in respect, then implicitly, you have to choose between 1) spending billions of dollars on updating nuclear plants or 2) not doing so, in which case you're pro-abolition by consequence.

[Corrian]

I think maybe phasing out some of the old nuclear reactors might be a good idea, since there seems to be unstable ones nearish New York City, but him wanting to outright phase out nuclear power isn't exactly one of my preferred stances by him. Fracking on the other hand, I'm perfectly for banning.

Look, I don't think he's 100% sunshine and rainbows. I disagree with him on things!

Shocking I know, to discuss the Democratic candidates in the Democratic primary thread.

Shouldn't you be crying about how all those stupid people out there who aren't voting for Sanders are DESTROYING YOUR FUTURE and RUINING AMERICA FOREVER!?

There's a difference between discussing and literally every time you post your posts making you sound like a condescending ass. In fact, you do it yet again in this post. I guess it is impossible for you to avoid.

Seriously, I got nothing against you being against Sanders. But the way you go about it is getting extremely annoying. I try my best not to act like that when complaining about Clinton, which I notice whenever she does anything stupid a lot of the Clinton supporters conveniently say nothing about them.

[G-Tech Corporation]

"Let's phase out" nuclear energy is about as blatant as any candidate is going to get about banning an energy source they don't like one way or another. There's much in Sanders' environmental record to admire, but this is just asinine.

You mean we should shit out tens of billions on outdated reactors?

Hardly. We should build new better reactors. Slap tens of billions into breeder reactors, thorium fuel cycle reactors, reprocessing facilities. Given how much we spend on literally useless projects, we can afford to divert some funds to give us affordable, infinite, clean, power.

[Ngelmish]

You mean we should start illegal slush funds to produce solar panels circa 2000 energy standards?

You see, I can infer things that you haven't remotely said either. But to answer your question, I think that Sanders is wrong to want to phase it out entirely. Tight regulations, sure. Working at a modern standard, sure. Pursuing other forms of energy, sure. An outright ban on a perfectly good mid-term energy source is asinine, yes.

There's logical implications to what people say. Sanders' nuclear policy is to refuse licenses to old plants once they apply for them. For example, if the Diablo Canyon plant applies for a license in 2024, Sanders is going to say "No, because to be eligible for that license, you need to spend billions of dollars on modern renovations to your plant that would be better spent on other renewable resources". So if you're saying that Sanders is asinine in respect, then implicitly, you have to choose between 1) spending billions of dollars on updating nuclear plants or 2) not doing so, in which case you're pro-abolition by consequence.

And I, unlike Sanders, don't want to phase the industry completely out. So sure, in comparison to him I want spend more.

[Faustian Fantasies]

There's logical implications to what people say. Sanders' nuclear policy is to refuse licenses to old plants once they apply for them. For example, if the Diablo Canyon plant applies for a license in 2024, Sanders is going to say "No, because to be eligible for that license, you need to spend billions of dollars on modern renovations to your plant that would be better spent on other renewable resources". So if you're saying that Sanders is asinine in respect, then implicitly, you have to choose between 1) spending billions of dollars on updating nuclear plants or 2) not doing so, in which case you're pro-abolition by consequence.

And I, unlike Sanders, don't want to phase the industry completely out. So sure, in comparison to him I want spend more.

Why's that? Genuinely curious of your vision.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Nuclear energy has the lowest death rate per unit of any source, including renewables.

Deaths for who?

Humans