Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

[_honorentheos]

"Partisanship" is not what is shaking Western democracy. Right-wing authoritarianism is. People who can't tell the difference are helping the latter accomplish their goals.

Definitely partisanship. It just gets worse when both sides behave equally atrociously.

I will say, you are an interesting person as a libertarian supporting Sanders style healthcare. What's the angle? I would think it would scare the atheism out of you, having the government dictate prices, the number of different types of doctors entering the system, controlling wages, etc. It's not making sense.

[_Some Schmo]

I will say, you are an interesting person as a libertarian supporting Sanders style healthcare. What's the angle? I would think it would scare the atheism out of you, having the government dictate prices, the number of different types of doctors entering the system, controlling wages, etc. It's not making sense.

I don't think you see the connection between having a person's basic needs met and the opportunities that provides.

How much freedom does a person have if they are constantly looking over their shoulder at their health with no way to pay for it?

I'm not saying I think that's EA's position, but I don't think the link between individual freedom and stability/security is that obscure.

[_honorentheos]

I will say, you are an interesting person as a libertarian supporting Sanders style healthcare. What's the angle? I would think it would scare the atheism out of you, having the government dictate prices, the number of different types of doctors entering the system, controlling wages, etc. It's not making sense.

I don't think you see the connection between having a person's basic needs met and the opportunities that provides.

How much freedom does a person have if they are constantly looking over their shoulder at their health with no way to pay for it?

I'm not saying I think that's EA's position, but I don't think the link between individual freedom and stability/security is that obscure.

We agree that freedom from concern about basic needs is fundamental to the ideals of small "d" democracy. I'm not arguing against the need for reform. I just don't get how EA could be behind Sanders and his plan that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services executive control over setting prices, determining the number of doctors and type of doctors that come out of medical schools, and otherwise exhibits every aspect of central government control rather than using markets that almost defines what it means to be libertarian. Sanders plan was the least market-friendly, most government-centralized option put forward yet here he is defending it. It's unusual.

[_Chap]

We agree that freedom from concern about basic needs is fundamental to the ideals of small "d" democracy. I'm not arguing against the need for reform. I just don't get how EAllusion could be behind Sanders and his plan that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services executive control over setting prices, determining the number of doctors and type of doctors that come out of medical schools, and otherwise exhibits every aspect of central government control rather than using markets that almost defines what it means to be libertarian. Sanders plan was the least market-friendly, most government-centralized option put forward yet here he is defending it. It's unusual.

Maybe, but there is a possible explanation.

Perhaps EAllusion just forgot to perform his usual morning task of singing "I am a libertarian - and libertarians just believe <that markets are always the best solution>", and decided to look at the problem of finding a practical solution to providing citizens with freedom from concern about basic needs in regard to health care, without reference to the beliefs normally thought to be obligatory upon persons who generally prefer to describe themselves as 'libertarians'.

And when he came to the conclusion that universal socially funded provision looked to be the least imperfect option, he just shrugged and went with it, saying 'Oh well, I never said markets were always the best solution for everything'.

He might have comforted himself in that temporary apostasy by remembering that nobody (to my knowledge at least), however libertarian they may profess to be, finds it unacceptable that the Secretary of Defense exercises executive control over determining the number of soldiers and type of soldiers that come out of military schools, and the number of guns (etc.) and type of guns (etc.) that shall be provided for the armed forces, and otherwise exhibits every aspect of central government control rather than using markets that almost defines what it means to be libertarian.

People sometimes act in weird ways like that.

[_EAllusion]

I'm not behind Sanders' plan. Because I think bad criticisms of it are bad doesn't mean I support it. Quite the contrary, because I oppose it, I'm especially sensitive to bad criticism of it acting as a strawman for supporters.

Bernie Sanders will give everyone AIDS!

That doesn't seem correct.

Oh, you're a socialist now?!

What I desire out of the health care system has zero chance of passing. I think a variety of universal options are superior to the current US system, which is awful. As a practical matter, I'd be willing to compromise on universal health care to get other things I want if I was an elected official. Because I'm not, I can just observe and hope the least worst things happen.

[_Chap]

I'm not behind Sanders' plan. Because I think bad criticisms of it are bad doesn't mean I support it.

Bernie Sanders will give everyone AIDS!

That doesn't seem correct.

Oh, you're a socialist now?!

What I desire out of the health care system has zero chance of passing. I think a variety of universal options are superior to the current US system, which is awful. As a practical matter, I'd be willing to compromise on universal health care to get other things I want if I was an elected official. Because I'm not, I can just observe and hope the least worst things happen.

That's sorta what I was thinking you might have thought.

Someone once said 'Politics is the art of the possible', which, combined with the question 'Which is the least worst possible outcome, starting from where we are now?' is in my view always a better approach than starting from the position 'Let's see: I have these strong abstract beliefs (in lbertarianism/socialism/<my religion> etc.). What do those beliefs dictate that I should do in the real world?'

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ea,

What do you desire to see out of our healthcare system?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion,

What do you desire to see out of our healthcare system?

- Doc

A dismantling of subsidized employer provided health insurance, repeal of most current laws surrounding health care funding, UBI, and government provided medical insurance against catastrophic medical bills within a defined level of service coverage.

Won't happen. The current system in the US is an absolute disaster that manages the worst of both worlds in terms of cost and outcomes.

[_honorentheos]

He might have comforted himself in that temporary apostasy by remembering that nobody (to my knowledge at least), however libertarian they may profess to be, finds it unacceptable that the Secretary of Defense exercises executive control over determining the number of soldiers and type of soldiers that come out of military schools, and the number of guns (etc.) and type of guns (etc.) that shall be provided for the armed forces, and otherwise exhibits every aspect of central government control rather than using markets that almost defines what it means to be libertarian.

That was a pretty bad argument. The military is the end user of soldiers. The Pentagon isn't exerting executive control in the sense they are attempting to replace the market with central control. They are the source of demand, and effectively the market end user, of soldiers and military grade weaponry.

[_EAllusion]

One of the fun things about critiques of socialism or lack of it is that different Western democracies have socialized different aspects of their economies. This brings members of these different societies into conflict about what can and cannot work based on their failure of imagination. So you have people who live in countries with socialized sector X who think X will just disappear if it is not controlled by the government even though other nations get along just fine and you have poeple in countries who haven't socialized sector X who think it's doom and gloom if it happens even though other nations get along just fine with it.

That these things can involve trade offs and relative differences in efficiencies just escapes them.

If the post office wasn't socialized in the United States, I could easily see critics of a proposal to do so claiming it will usher in an authoritarian dystopia. Yeah, no it won't. Take your criticism down a few notches.