Hillary proposes to double spending on Alzheimer's research to $2B yearly.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)

She's the first candidate on either side to propose a plan for Alzheimers research, with a flood of Alzheimers cases expected as the baby boomers age. The investment in research is also hoped to be of benefit to Parkinson's patients and people with other neurodegenerative diseases.

Her proposal includes a plan to pay for it.

https://www.quora.com/How-close-are-we-to-a-cure-for-Alzheimers

Hillary's statement:

It’s been more than a century since the first case of Alzheimer’s was identified, and a cure has evaded scientists ever since. But today we are living on the brink of real breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s research. Based on the conversations I’ve had with the nation’s leading Alzheimer’s researchers, I firmly believe that with the right investments and leadership, we can prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer’s disease by 2025—and we can even make a cure possible by that time.

That’s why I’ve proposed rapidly ramping up our investment in Alzheimer’s research to $2 billion per year—the level that leading researchers have determined is needed to prevent and treat the disease and make a cure possible in 10 years. This investment will also help us address a range of other neurodegenerative illnesses, like Parkinson’s disease and dementia, and it will help us understand the link between Alzheimer’s and other conditions like Down syndrome.

We’ve learned nearly everything we know about Alzheimer’s in just the last 15 years. Thanks in part to significant federal funding, researchers are beginning to identify the genes and other biological factors that make some people more susceptible to the disease, along with promising methods of preventing and treating it. But it will take a dramatic new investment to accelerate the progress we’re making and one day conquer this disease once and for all.

There is so much to learn and so much work to be done to find a cure for this dreaded disease. As with any research, we never know for sure what the results will be. But the progress we’ve made is encouraging—and the stakes are high. Throughout my career, I have met so many families caring for a loved one whose memories and mental function are slipping away. It’s heartbreaking.

And it’s financially straining for families. A few months ago, I met a man in New Hampshire whose mother has Alzheimer’s. He can’t afford a full-time caregiver, and he has to work. So he does the only thing he can think to do: He takes his 84-year-old mother to work with him every day so that he can keep an eye on her and keep his job.

It’s imperative that we find prevent, treat, and one day find a cure for Alzheimer’s—and I have never been more optimistic that, by making the necessary investments in scientific discovery, we can make that happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/politics/hillary-clinton-alzheimers-cure/

There are currently 5 million Americans living with Alzheimer's, according to the Alzheimer's Association, with that number expected to grow to nearly 15 million by 2050.

Clinton's $2 billion number is not random, according to aides. The research advisory council to the congressionally backed National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease have said $2 billion a year could make a cure possible by 2025.

Alzheimer's disease is not a new area of interest for Clinton. During her eight years in the Senate, Clinton co-chaired the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/22/hillary-clinton-proposes-doubling-spending-on-alzheimers-research/

This past fall, Hillary Clinton met Keith F. Thompson, a librarian in New Hampshire who explained that he couldn’t afford full-time care for his 84-year-old mother who has Alzheimer’s. Grasping Mrs. Clinton’s hands, Mr. Thompson said that he had to take his mother to work with him.

Mrs. Clinton began to tear up at his story, which she has retold on the campaign trail ever since. On Tuesday she did something about it.

Mrs. Clinton proposed a $2 billion-a-year investment in Alzheimer’s research, more than double the amount in the recently passed appropriations bill, to combat the sixth-leading cause of death in the United States.

The plan, which would be paid for by changes in the tax code, emerged out of conversations with voters who regularly ask Mrs. Clinton about Alzheimer’s at town-hall-style events in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[pnwmom]

2. IMO you are been deceived by the Rethugs and their media aides. nt

[MADem]

3. I know so many people who are dealing with this issue.

You know them by the exhaustion on their faces. It really is a long, terrible goodbye.

She has been talking about this issue for some time, now:

[pnwmom]

4. Me, too. And the burden usually falls to people who are themselves

beginning to decline in their own health.

[MADem]

13. Yes. It's a terrible thing to see the thousand yard

stare on someone pushing seventy or more. So worn out...

[AikenYankee]

16. Amen. nt

[sheshe2]

29. " The thousand yard stare"

Yes, exactly MADem. May my dad rest in peace, it was painful to watch.

[Eric J in MN]

5. 'would be paid for by changes in the tax code'

Is she more specific?

[pnwmom]

6. I haven't found the proposal itself, but it sounds like she was. nt

[elias49]

7. Yeah. She sounds good.

Sounds like one hand clapping.

[pnwmom]

8. Where is Bernie's proposal? Or any other candidate's? It's much easier

to criticize than to do the work of putting forth a detailed proposal.

[elias49]

15. Trump has proposals up the butt, too

Proposals are worth the paper they're written on.
President Obama had great aspirations too. But talk is cheap.

[MADem]

17. What is the point you are trying to make?

That you prefer Trump? That proposals don't matter? You want to ding Obama? That you don't like Clinton's approach to this issue?

What's your goal in this thread? It's entirely unclear, save for the negativity.

[elias49]

19. It isn't MY thread.

And if it really isn't clear to you, you could read it again.

[MADem]

21. It sure isn't your thread!!!!

But how many more ways can you derail and disrupt it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. It is not clear to me either. Can you please elaborate?

Thank you in advance.

[pnwmom]

37. All Bernie has is proposals. That's all any candidate has.

Not a single one of them is the incumbent President.

[Armstead]

20. How will she get it through a GOP Congress?

I have decided to start using the tactic used against Sanders agenda by pinting out tgat this wonderful plan is a pony that the big bad GOP Congress will never allow.

Bernie has stated and proposed his healthcare agenda many times. You can be assured that improving research resources for Alzheimers and all health issues will be a priority.

[MADem]

22. She has been raising money to elect more Democrats, and fewer Republicans

to public office.

She raised eighteen million for general election downticket races.

See, that's how you overcome a GOP Congress--you throw them out.

Is she the only Democratic candidate who raised any general election money for the DNC this quarter? Why, yes, I think she is!

[Armstead]

25. Well you sing a different tune than many supporters of Clinton

According to the constant refrain here, we are doomed to a gerrymandered GOP Congress for another decade, and therefore Sanders' ponies will never see the light of day.

Good for Clinton for raising money, but how is she raising it? By plugging into the same money matrix that has neutered the Democratic Party for so many years?

[pnwmom]

43. How is Bernie NOT raising any money for other Dems, and yet certain

that he will be able to pass any legislation at all?

[Armstead]

67. Why raise money for politicians wgho have already been bought by his opponent?

And if Sanders were to become president, do you think the Democrats in Congress would be so petty to side with the GOP just because it's Bernie who is president?

[NCTraveler]

75. Please read your first sentence, then your second.

[Armstead]

76. that's what I meant

Sanders has to focus on working for the nom. Since Clinton has already received endorsements of Congressional Democrsts, why should he also wasre precious time and resources to try to win them over?

But if he were to harness enough people power to get the nom, than I would hope the Democrats wouldn't go against their perennial claim of how important it is to stop the GOP.

And if Sanders were to get elected I would hope the Dems would also walk their talk and work with him

[MADem]

65. She's raising it by doing rubber chicken dinners. Same as everyone else does.

It's not "secret," and it's common.

Sanders never had to compete before 2006. When he was up against big money in his Senate run, he sure didn't refuse all the help he got from various 'evil' PACS, to include the DSSC and (gasp) HILLPAC. He didn't turn down all the donors she sent his way, either.

There are a lot of people out there who like to rub shoulders with politicians (even if they don't end up supporting them) and who are willing to lay down tens of thousands of dollars to buy a "table," bring their pals, listen to some (sometimes) nice music at dinner and a speech, and then go get a nice high quality Grip and Grin pic to hang on their wall. They don't all have to be loyal to the candidate. The DNC was entirely willing to put these together, and all BS had to do was show up.

You can haul in a little more scratch if you're willing to do a private little salon, either before or after, with hors d'ouvres and cocktails and "personal" chitchat that makes the Moneybags able to pretend that they know the person.

You can crab and cry and scream and wail about the "money matrix" but if you think for a solitary second that the GOP are going to eschew that little matrix out of ... what? The UNSAVORINESS of it all? I have a bridge to sell you. We NEED to win this for one reason and one reason only--and it ain't the "Stop--In The Name of Love" Supremes.

We can get rid of CU and big money one way, and one way only--through the Supremes.

Congress does NOT have the will, and they'll never have it--ever. Just won't happen. Why? Because they want to get RE-ELECTED. They vote against their jailors, errr, donors, and they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

The only crew that doesn't have to worry about elections is the Supremes--and we need to flip them over. It would go a LONG way towards salvaging THEIR reputation, too--right now, they're a bunch of fucking assholes who think it's OK to abrogate the will of the American people and decide, like Ataturk's generals, who will lead us. If they rule that MONEY does NOT equal speech (because, in effect, it mutes those of us without resources and creates an un-level playing field, disadvantaging those without cash) they might regain some of their lost regard.

We can't do that --nominate justices that will pass scrutiny--unless we have a POTUS who understands how to thread the needle in the Senate--and Sanders just does not have that skill. You can kinda tell by the number of super delegates he's (cough failed to nab cough) aquired in that chamber. They are just not WITH him. They never will be.

[Armstead]

66. Sanders has his hands full building a grassroots campaign and trying to gain visibility

At this point, that's his priority, and that's fine with me. I'd rather he focus on that at this point than kiss the ass of people who buy tickets for more than the yearly salary of many of us proles to have a photo tken with him, to raise money for candidates who have endorsed his status quo oppponent.

And, to repeat my original point, the other mantra of Clinton supporters is that we're locked into a GOP Congress for years to come. Don't argue with me about that. They're the ones you should be addressing, if you think that can be changed.

[MADem]

68. No, no and NO. He AGREED to do this. Don't tell the teacher you didn't have time to do

your homework, but you still want an A and you want to be class valedictorian, to boot.

If he wants to be a member of our Party, the Party that PAYS for the convention, that puts it on, that does all the work to make it happen, he needs to adjust his priorities and his focus.

It's not all about Bernie--it's about Bernie AND the Party, and if he can't find that balance, he's going to fall off the beam.

As for a GOP Congress, one hand washes the other, both wash the face. Sanders has NO downticket appeal. The fact of the matter is this--he has never ONCE campaigned for a Democrat-- he has not fundraised, he hasn't gone out and given a speech, or sat on the stage at a rally-- for anyone other than himself. He allowed his name to be attached to an email letter....ONCE. But he has never put himself out there, he has never once extended himself to help Democrats. OTOH, Democrats HAVE helped him (Hillary Clinton did in 2006, quite specifically and others have helped too). He needs to understand--and he hasn't 'gotten' this yet, I don't think--that to get love, you have to give love.

Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until 1996--pretty much the OPPOSITE of our crew. Yet she had no trouble committing to the party, campaigning for people running for Congress, building a name for herself, and making herself a key element of the infrastructure of the party to the point that Harry Reid carved out a Senatorial leadership role for her. She is a heavy hitter for this reason. Sanders does NOT have that same weight. He doesn't have loyalty, and his superdelegate count proves that. Do you seriously think that if Warren were running, and not Sanders, that she'd be in the same boat as he when it came to Supers? Of course not--she'd be snapping up enamoured delegates left and right. Why? Give love, get love. And she has given PLENTY. Sanders, though--not so much...not at ALL, in fact.

[pnwmom]

38. He has stated his healthcare agenda and, no, it wouldn't automatically

include a doubling of research spending for Alzheimers. Obama just increased the spending and Sanders hasn't said anything about needing even more research.

[JackInGreen]

9. Get back to me when it's more than a proposal

A lot of folks snowed around here by 3rd way fairytales with no follow through.

[pnwmom]

10. And what does Bernie offer beyond proposals?

[JackInGreen]

11. A career of progress in his state

And fighting for good legislature, hills done a lot of same, I don't see a trail of broken promises and excuses behind bernie though, it's all I see behind hill, that and a nice big price tag "this idea could be forgotten, for $$$$$"

[pnwmom]

12. You don't know much about her then. Her constituents in NY were very happy

with her representation, and -- after 55% voted her in in 2000-- re-elected her in 2006 with 67% of the vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Hillary_Clinton

Bernie, by comparison, got 71% in 2012.

So they were in the same ballpark, though the NY State electorate is much larger and more diverse.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders

[MADem]

24. The state that abandoned a single payer concept because

it was proven to be completely unaffordable and a jobs killer?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

[Armstead]

26. Which demonstrates a fatal flaw in Obamacare

By tossing it to the states, with a token "well if you children in the states want to try to do better go ahead" Obamacare set back the cause of truly universal healthcare. Among other screwups it has created a system in which citizens of some states are more equal than otehrs, depending on the whims of current state governments.

Don't blame Sanders and don't blame Vermont for the Democratic party's refusal to stand for what should be a basic -- and very practical -- solution.

[pnwmom]

39. That's funny. I wonder why Bernie voted FOR the ACA then.

Could it possibly have been because he thought it was the best we could do then?

Yes, that's what he said.

How we forget.

[Armstead]

63. He held out until almost the last day and was politically smart...

He held out for siomething better until almost the end, when it became almost inevitable.

BUT HE ALSO pulled a politically brilliant move. He knew he was one iof the "make or break" votes, and he used that leverage to at least pressure Obama and the Dems to include funding for free community health clinics.

[MADem]

80. HUH?????? No one is "tossing it to the states."

The states are taking the initiative to try and go further themselves, because Congress isn't ready for anything more than what we have now. Hell, Congress is trying, right NOW--once AGAIN--to repeal what we have now. And that is not the fault of "the Democratic Party" either.

The states, in taking the initiative, however, are STILL depending on federal largesse to bring their plans over the line. Vermont couldn't make it work. We'll see how Colorado fares (that weed money might come in handy, yet--though if more states jump on the Legal-Weed-Sell-It-And-Tax-It bandwagon, fewer people will be coming over the line to buy their goodies, so they might want to not rely on any one funding stream to buoy that vessel).

No one is blaming "Sanders" or "Vermont" either -- pointing out the OBVIOUS is hardly "blaming." One doesn't "blame" the sky for being blue, or grass for being green.

It is what it is--the money is not there. There is no political will--amongst arch-liberals, never mind the "Waaah, it's MINE" conservatives--to spend that kind of scratch on universal insurance, in essence.

That's the tough fact that needs to be addressed. And no one wants to do that, they'd rather talk about assigning "blame" and claiming that "if only" this-or-that, everything would be coming up roses.

Americans just aren't used to being taxed at rates like people are used to being assessed in places like UK. Americans aren't used to paying as much for simple things--from groceries to gasoline-- as they are in UK. It will be a challenge to get people in America used to coughing up that much disposable income, when many people are griping that they don't have enough to make ends meet NOW.

No shooting the messenger.

[Armstead]

81. There has been no real leadership or salesmanship on it from the political class

People aren't ready for it because all they have heard are either lies and smears from the GOP and.....basically nothing from Democrats for years. And the Clintons did a lousy job before abandoning the issue.

That is why there is "no political will" for something that most countries have found a way to handle.

And that, in my opinion is inexcusable. Families have to struggle to pay their health care, which frequently leaves people under-covered and mired in corporate bureaucracy, and the accompanying government bureaucracy, when they try to actually get care.

If instead of abandoning the issue for over a decade -- and then picking the wrong time to try and rush through a half-assed GOP inspired plan, the Democrats had continued to push for change -- even incremental change -- we'd be a lot further along by now. If instead of running away from even the baby steps of a public option the Democrats had educated people, worked out workable plan and sold it as hard as the GOP fought it, we'd at least be further along.

Sorry if I sound rigid and dogmatic about this but I have been tracking (and professionally covering) and seeing firsthand the deterioration of health care coverage since the 80's, and it makes me angry. I am hopeful enough to believe a solution is possible -- but only if we stop using the status quo template and yield to political blackmail; and corruption, and actually try to do something worthwhile and necessary -- and fight the opposition as hard as they fight to bock it.

[MADem]

82. "Talk" and "sales" doesn't create "money" where there is none or not enough.

You can't blame "lies" and "smears" and what-have-you for the conclusion that VT came to--that it was UNAFFORDABLE.

The bottom line is this--the MONEY is not there.

You do sound "rigid and dogmatic" as well as full of blame where it's just not deserved. Look, everyone says they WANT this--but no one wants to PAY.

"Oh, that sounds GREAT....how much? Well FUCK that. then!" is usually the arc of the conversation (pardon my french). And if you think "Obamacare" costs too much, universal care will cost much more.

Look at the bullshit the concept of "Obamacare" has had to endure--here at DU, too, from people who many bow to as PARAGONS of so-called "liberal thought"--with gripes about COST. "Screaming liberals"--the ones who always took the high ground and looked down upon those who they regarded as 'insufficiently progressive and/or liberal" -- were screaming here about how much they had to pay for their plan, and berating Obama up one side and down the other. Like they actually thought universal care would be cheaper! The only difference is, it would be taken straight out of their paycheck, they wouldn't have to be writing any check or whipping out a credit card.

Everyone wants it, no one wants to foot the bill.

As for incrementalism, whenever I tout that, and I do, frequently (because I understand the sense of the electorate, people do not love rapid change), I always get called some version of a Third Way Republican or worse here.

It's all about the MONEY. No one wants to pay. That is the unfortunate bottom line--they want "someone ELSE" to donate the lion's share. That's just not going to happen.

[Armstead]

83. You have half a point

You're absolutely correct. It's human nature to complain about paying for stuff. That's not ideological. Nobody likes paying taxes, even liberals.

And I am not against "incrementalism" and taking smaller steps toward a goal. I personally think, for example, that Obamacare was too ambitious. I would have preferred to see them wait a year or two, seed the ground of public opinion -- and let the nation move somewhat beyond the trauma of the 2008 crash -- before tackling it. And focus first on the aspects that were less controversial, such as the pre-existing conditions. (Even if that mean providing some protective subsidies for insurance companies if need be.)

In the meantime use, yes, "salesmanship." And seed the ground of public opinion regarding steps to "socials insurance" through a public option expansion in which people could voluntarily choose to buy into Medicare on a sliding scale. And keep that simple, without a lot of formulations and requirements for qualification to protect private insurers.

I'm optimistic enough to believe that such incrementalist steps in a clear direction would build public support and counteract the lies of the GOP and lobbies, and allow for progression to a system (whether mixed or single payer) that would truly provide universal affordable (not free) access to healthcare on a more economically viable basis.

And I'm pissed at the consistent refusal of the party of Social Security, medicare and other public programs and protections to take those steps for fear of actually standing for a straightforward goal (and standing for people instead of a corrupt system).

I'm referring to my own feelings. But that reflects a lot of people, and not just the "super liberals" you love to berate. For example, my semi-conservative brother was angered at the private system --- and he ultimately was killed because he was pushed out of the hospital too soon and his wife was left with a pile of debts. And myu best friend, who is a staunch Republican conservative actually agrees with me on this.

[MADem]

84. Hillary Clinton started that "salesmanship" thing re: universal health care back in 1991.

You'd think she'd catch some "incrementalist" love for that, but hell no--she's excoriated.

As is Obama for (usually) "Not --waaaaah---taking it FAR enough!" Like he could haul that carcass without Congress's help, or something! OR...and as I've said, I've seen that shit here--everyone has--"He took it TOO far! My plan sucks!! I can't afford this!! I'd rather pay the fine, and how DARE he FINE me!!! Impeach!!!!"

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. Obama and Clinton understand the art of the possible, and they made friends in Congress. They are (Insert Fondly-Intentioned Swear Words of Your Choice) Who Get Shit Done. It matters to one's effectiveness, this ability to schmooze and make deals.

I don't "love to berate super liberals" and it's not cool to keep bringing this discussion back to characterizing ME. YOU need to stop doing that. Every time you "argue" by snarking at me, I am going to point it out. It shows that you can't argue from facts, but only from insults, every time you do that. This is NOT ABOUT ME. It's about "what the traffic will bear." And I can promise you this--any attempt to sell a UK style NHS to Americans without a successful test bed at the state level, AND a corralling of expenses in a major way (and unlike UK, "government doctors" will not go over here at all), is just a non-starter. If you can't sell that shit to Left of Left DUers, you have no hope in hell of selling it to the McCain-Palin or Romney-Eddie Munster crews. Or anything in between those extremes.

[Armstead]

85. And...

1)I'm not snarking at you specifically, except when you snark at people who hold my views, and use insulting dismissive like "wahhh" to characterize criticism and disagreement with the status quo.

2)The Clintons did a lousy job of "salesmanship" and they constructed an overly complicated plan that tried so hard to protect the existing private system that even Democrats in favor of broadening coverage couldn't support it because it was so obscure and confusing. And then, with a couple of exceptions, they threw the whole issue under the bus....As for Obama, I mentioed my "wahhh" opinion about that above.

3) I don't define the "art of the possible" as being limited to" What will corporate America and the GOP approve of? I think Democrats should have principles, stand for therm and fight for them and actively sell them....Compromise is fine, except when it is counterproductive to the end goal. And creating a bureaucracy to force people to buy overpriced private insurance that mixes the worst aspects of both and gives "swing voters" a bad taste of what they dislike about both "socialism" and crony capitalism.

4)Obviously cost controls are important too. But that's not mutually exclusive to the goal of providing affordable universal coverage.

[MADem]

86. You ARE 'snarking at me specifically.'

If I can avoid calling you--'specifically'--names, you should be able to return the courtesy.

And again, we find ourselves in "Damned if you do/don't" territory. Surely you cannot possibly believe that Obama and the last Clinton administration withheld the miracle of Health Care For All out of a sense of laziness, churlishness, or an unwillingness to "sell" the concept. That they "lacked principles?" Really?

It was a TOUGH sale....or have you completely forgotten "Harry and Louise?" The wingnuts spent millions on that campaign, to the enrichment of assholes like Bill Frist. It's just blatantly unfair to suggest that Dems, from leadership on down, were "happy" about that--because they weren't.

[Armstead]

87. I respond in the tone of posts

I am often able to discuss things non-snarkily with people I disagree with...as long as they are respectful of me or those whose views I share collectively.

I am.not implying the Democrats are happy about the Healthcare mess. But I do get angry when I see the contrasting determinstion of the GOP constantly proactively pushing their opposing agenda.....They lost the fight over Obamacare, but instead of giving up, they keep on fighting it relentlesly...And their persistence may ultimately pay off....At the very least they are still driving the conversation on their terms.

I simply would like to see the Democratic Party be equally determined to push for universal coverage with equal committment.

[MADem]

88. I have not gotten personal with YOU--ever. You refuse to afford me the same courtesy.

Repeatedly. You persist in making the conversation about me.

That speaks volumes. Every time you do it, I will mention it, as I said.

The only way the GOP persistence (I think "perverted obsession" is a better term) will pay off is if we fail to elect a Democrat to the Presidency. They "drive the conversation on their terms" and most people observing this "drive" believe that they are worthless a-holes who don't have a clue as to priorities or desires of their electorate. They get away with the posturing and bullshitting because they--like most legislators--are skilled in bring home the bacon. Much can be forgiven if those needing absolution are carrying pounds of pork.

[pangaia]

27. Because the state....

Ah, forget it. I'm not even going to bother.

[MADem]

77. Because the state said it would crush business and tax people out of the state.

It was UNAFFORDABLE.

That's the governor's assessment--not mine. He was the guy who RAN on getting it to happen; BS had his back on this and was motivated to see it succeed--he was touting it as the Test Bed, like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the test bed for Commonwealth Care AKA Romneycare--Proof of Concept for Obamacare.

The difference between VT and MA is that MA was able to make it work. VT could not. It's not like they didn't try, it's not like they didn't run through every possible iteration that they could think of to make it work.

It was just too expensive.

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin

Single-payer systems often rely on taxes, rather than set premium contributions. And that links the price of health insurance to how much someone earns. The proposed 9 percent income tax, for example, would be far more expensive for that $100,000 worker than the $30,000 earner.

That new taxes are unpopular, even in Vermont, is not a surprise. But if Shumlin could have told Vermont businesses, "You'll pay slightly less than you used to for health care — it'll just be a tax rather than a premium," his plan may have just barely squeaked by.

But he couldn't: the proposed taxes would ask higher earners to spend more on health care than they do now — in some cases, far more.

"An 11.5 percent tax would look great if I'm a low-wage employer," said Schoen. "But I'm a high-wage employer, 11.5 percent is going to be way higher than what I used to pay to buy insurance."

"You'd think that, if there was any state where this could fly politically, it should have been Vermont," said Matthew Dickinson, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "But in this case, the price was so big that even a state as solidly blue as Vermont wasn't able to swallow it."

When I interviewed Shumlin in March, he said that whether or not Vermont succeeded at its single-payer push would have huge national ramifications. Back then, his state had the potential to serve as a model. It could be what Romneycare was in Massachusetts: a template for national reform. But if single-payer couldn't succeed in deep-blue Vermont, Shumlin and others mused, how could it possibly move forward anywhere else?

[pangaia]

78. Vermont is TOO FUCKING SMALL !!!!

[MADem]

79. Small was supposed to be an "asset" to test the premise.

Now "small" is bad?

Please.

How soon everyone forgets all these hopeful "it's all done save the pesky details" blurbs:

http://archive.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110915/BUSINESS08/110914020/Seven-reasons-single-payer-health-care-will-great-Vermont-business

Seven reasons single-payer health care will be great for Vermont business

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/9/5557696/forget-obamacare-vermont-wants-to-bring-single-payer-to-america

Forget Obamacare
Vermont wants to bring single payer to America

They didn't think they were "too fucking small" when they took the time and shouldered the EXPENDITURE to launch these studies--they were convinced that they had this in the bag. When Gov. Shumlin got up to announce he was pulling the plug, everyone thought he was going to announce implementation--everyone was So Damn CERTAIN.


Something or someone has to PAY for this--perhaps the Magic Solution is weed, which provides a new source of revenue for a state like Colorado, freeing up tax dollars for other purposes:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obamacare-colorado-single-payer-health-care-215780

If Colorado can't bring this home, what will the excuse be then? They're considerably larger than VT in every way.

[MoonRiver]

14. She can't do more than propose things

until she is elected president!

[Armstead]

28. Just like Sanders

So why is it okay when she does it, but when Sanders proposes things they are just "ponies"?

[MoonRiver]

30. I have never put down Bernie's proposals.

A lot of people feel his proposals, or some of them are unrealistic. Part of this is in regard to comparing him with FDR, who was governing under very different circumstances.

[Armstead]

33. The circumstances are not all that different

Times may be different, but the underlying dynamics are very similar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251967581

[MoonRiver]

35. Economically this country is nowhere near the Great Depression.

Plus FDR governed with a Democratic Congress and relatively cooperative and sane Republicans.

[pnwmom]

41. Sanders hasn't made Alzheimers research a priority at all, given the

proposals he has made public.

Why isn't it one of his "ponies"?

[Armstead]

48. I suppose because he hates people with Alzheimers...

or at least doesn't care about them.

He doesn't consider that part of that improved healthcare system he keeps babbling about.

[pnwmom]

49. Maybe it's because he's been so busy TELLING people exactly what they need

that he hasn't been LISTENING.



This is a real need, beyond single-payer (which Medicare and Medicaid recipients already have), and it's been off his radar screen so far.

[Armstead]

53. I suspect the potholes on my street are off his radar too

Bernie listens plenty. He is in campaign mode at the moment.

But every time he proposes something certain people (ahem) accuse him of promising ponies that can't possibly be delivered past a GOP Congress.

But I suppose those critics would make an exception if he specifically mentioned Alzheimers. Sure ruight.

[pnwmom]

55. Unbelievable that you could compare Alzheimers to potholes on the street.

Wow.

Thank goodness Bernie isn't as thoughtless or as unfeeling as some of his supporters.

[Armstead]

72. My point is that there are many many individual issues.....

In terms of health, there's cancer, heart disease, diabetes and many many others.

Neither Sanders nor Clinton has made it a point to address every single disease and health issue.

Nor have they addressed every iotehr issues that concern individuals or specific groups (including the potholes on my street). That does not mean they don't care about them, or would ignore them in office (except the potholes on my street).

Just because Sanders has not specifically made a proposal for Alzheiners doesn't mean he would not deal with it if elected, just as it doesn't mean that Clinton could automatically put through this specific proposal.

[pnwmom]

73. Name one that is as expensive to care for as Alzheimers, as life-threatening,

and as close to a cure as recent Alzheimers research indicates.

[Armstead]

74. I'm not going to get into a "which disease is worse" test for political purposes

Alzheimer's is an awful disease and it's important to find a cure.

Good for Clinton for mentioning it and presenting an idea for it. But it's just one aspect of the much larger picture.

Cancer is an awful disease, etc. etc.

A ranking of diseases has nothing to do with the merits either candidate.

[MADem]

18. Like free college for everyone? nt

[sheshe2]

31. KnR

Thank you for this thread. It is so very important, pnwmom.

[riversedge]

32. "Below the radar, Clinton is connecting" TWEET about this ...

"Below the radar, Clinton is connecting" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/03/the-media-are-bored-but-below-the-radar-clinton-is-connecting.html … … #p2

[PyaarRevolution]

34. A very strong preventative measure for Altzheimer's.

Hillary and all the candidates should suggest taking Turmeric every day. It's one of the most powerful antioxidants out there and has had a dramatic effect towards keeping Alzheimer's down in India. One province in India has Alzheimers occurring with a number at 4%.
Couple that with smoking Marijuana once a week, a powerful anti-inflammatory, and I'm sure you can knock it down even lower(read a book by an accomplished man with at least two Doctorates in relevant subject areas). I'm considering smoking it once a week now even though my first trip wasn't good just to stave it off. The idea of getting Alzheimers terrifies me.

[Karma13612]

59. you are fortunate that you have pot as a preventive measure in your arsenal. wish

more states would make it legal.

[BlueCheese]

36. One thing I really like about Clinton

Her policies are grounded in research and consultation with the experts.

She talked to researchers in Alzheimer's disease to find out how much more funding they could use. She didn't just throw out a number. You could say, only $2 billion a year? Why not $4 billion? But she talked to the community and found that they don't have enough capacity to use that much money right away.

[Live and Learn]

40. Why just Alzheimers? There are a multitude of diseases that we need to be funding research for.

Single payer would help foster an environment to do so.

[pnwmom]

42. We already have single payer for the group most affected by Alzheimers. MEDICARE.

We also have Medicaid, another form of single payer, that is paying for nursing home care of millions of people afflicted with Alzheimers.

Extending single payer to younger people -- which I support by the way -- would do NOTHING in and of itself to increase Alzheimers research.

We need a commitment and an investment from the government in this research, no matter what we do with single payer.

But why the focus on Alzheimers? The article discusses that. It is a hugely expensive condition, which the government is burdened by (through Medicare and Medicaid) and we are about to face a tsunami of cases, due to the aging of the baby boomers. Meanwhile, researchers believe that due to recent advances, we are on the cusp of cracking the case and a cure is a real possibility. The hope is that by making an investment now, we can lower costs in the relatively near future -- while improving the lives of millions of people and their families.

[postatomic]

45. What you said

It's going to be a MAJOR health issue very rapidly.

[Live and Learn]

47. Medicare is not single payer. Not everyone is eligible to Medicare and Medicare,

while a good system has not stopped the ridiculous medical costs or increased government sponsored research of diseases. If it was expanded to cover everyone, it would help.

Single Payer for all is the only answer!!!

[pnwmom]

50. Single payer is a method of paying for healthcare costs. It wouldn't address

the problem of needing research for Alzheimers. We already have Medicare, which covers almost all the people with Alzheimers. Extending this single payer program to younger people, while I support it, wouldn't do anything to help people with Alzheimers.

Most developed countries around the world have single-payer and yet they haven't done the research necessary to prevent or cure Alzheimers.

[Live and Learn]

54. It is a step toward it. First we have to get medical costs under control and Single Pyer would.

And once again, why only Alzheimer's? There are plenty of other diseases and world events killing people.

Alzheimer's while a terrible disease affects the elderly. In the meantime, children are dying of asthma and other diseases and may not even have an environment to live in when they reach the age to be worried about Alzheimer's.

[pnwmom]

56. No. We don't have to do other things first. We can make Alzheimers an immediate

priority, along with other priorities.

And Alzheimers doesn't only affect the elderly who have it -- it affects entire families. And it is hugely expensive, and this research, if successful, will save the government money in the long run.

One of the excuses they give for not having single payer is that Medicare/Medicaid is so expensive. And because of the coming wave of Alzheimers cases, that cost is about to go through the roof.

http://www.alzheimers.net/2013-09-25/alzheimers-research-funding/

Sadly, there’s an oft preconceived notion that diseases that affect the young are more important to address. And there’s also the fear and the well-known stigma that goes along with Alzheimer’s. Because it’s a disease that affects the mind, caregivers can be reticent or ashamed to admit that their loved ones are afflicted.

The Biggest Malady in the United States is Getting Worse

Alzheimer’s care costs $200 billion each year, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. And as the Baby Boomers age, we’re looking at a massive problem that’s only going to increase.

The number of people 65 and older with Alzheimer’s is estimated to reach 7.1 million by 2025, a 40% increase from the 5 million age 65 and older currently affected. By 2050, the number of people 65 and older with Alzheimer’s is projected to nearly triple, to 13.8 million, unless treatments or cures are developed, according to Banner Alzheimer’s Institute.

As Guy Eakin, vice president of scientific affairs for BrightFocus Foundation, an organization that provides funding for early stage, investigator-led research, points out, “the total U.S. healthcare cost for Alzheimer’s is expected to grow to $1.1 trillion per year by 2050. “

[Live and Learn]

57. So where is she on the other priorities? That is what I am asking. nt

[Armstead]

51. We need a reevaluation of our research system

We have -0- as part of the corporate free market over all ethic of the last 30 years -- moved toward a system in which medical research is under the thumb of Big Pharma and For Profit Healthcorps. Even "independent" research is dependent of the largess of corporation for funding, because we have moved away from public funding for pure research.

If we are really serious, we should reevaluate the system, and make research more about helping cure and/or effectrively treat disease, rather than "market development" and privately held patents.

[pnwmom]

52. I agree. n/t

[Live and Learn]

58. +10,000 nt

[Karma13612]

60. let's just hope the supposed medicinal cure is affordable. We all know how

ridiculous big pharma is with drug prices.

You want the drug? Pay thru the nose, or just die with Alzheimers...

I am sorry, but I am so fed up with advances in medicine that the American people can't afford to take advantage of.

"Meanwhile, researchers believe that due to recent advances, we are on the cusp of cracking the case and a cure is a real possibility. The hope is that by making an investment now, we can lower costs in the relatively near future -- while improving the lives of millions of people and their families."

[pnwmom]

61. I agree. I think that any drugs made possible by government research

should have their prices regulated.

[Karma13612]

64. Hmmm, I like that idea. Eom

[PyaarRevolution]

70. Facepalm.

Did you even read my comment on the power of Turmeric and how it can help prevent Alzheimer's? That is a good way to help prevent Alzheimers for young people

[pnwmom]

71. I did. But you didn't include a link for research. n/t

[postatomic]

44. Thank you

[elias49]

46. Haha. She's been 'developing proposals' for 30 years!

BFD.
If she didn't have a pile of 'proposals' a mile high, I'd say she was sincere.
Nothing makes her sparkling new.

[riversedge]

62. Alzheimer’s is the 6th leading cause of death in the United States — #HillaryInNH Jan 3

Hillary is at her 3rd Town Hall in NH today--and has brought up her proposal at all of the town halls



Hillary for NH ?@HillaryforNH 5m5 minutes ago

Alzheimer’s is the 6th leading cause of death in the United States — #HillaryInNH

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Yet, opposes single payer.

[Orsino]

89. Sounds great.

I don't even need to be bamboozled by promises to "pay for it"... but taxing stock transactions a little more heavily could do that.

This is good work that needs doing.