Let's get real. In order to control healthcare costs, Bernie proposes,

among other things, to force doctors, hospitals, and drug and medical device companies to reduce their charges.

How does he expect to accomplish that? Yes, we should repeal the Medicare law that prevents the government from negotiating over drug prices. But how do we know we'll be able to negotiate them low enough?

And how do we know we can force doctors and hospitals to work for lower reimbursements?

We already have doctors who are refusing Medicaid patients, and some refuse both Medicare and Medicaid. Won't Medicare for all still result in a two-tier system, with the best doctors choosing to move to private pay only?

We can't force doctors to work for the government. Maybe in Bernie's socialist dreamworld, but not in the US under the constitution we have.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health-plan_us_569ff110e4b076aadcc50807

To help pay for his plan’s unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.

That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, he’d have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacare’s architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.

Two lessons from Obamacare

The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the “public option” -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.

Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didn’t want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenue.

SNIP

But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isn’t a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. It’s a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.

Oregon progressive radio host decries extreme vitriol of Bernie supporters, ends show.

Bernie supporters have been calling in, referring to Hillary as "fascist," "spawn of Satan" and worse.

http://www.wweek.com/2016/01/20/carl-wolfson-says-hes-ending-his-xray-fm-radio-show-because-bernie-sanders-supporters-have-gotten-too-nasty/

Portland progressive talk-radio host Carl Wolfson has felt the Bern. And he says the personal attacks of Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters are causing him to cancel his show.

Wolfson announced this morning on Facebook he's ending his morning politics talk show on XRAY.FM, citing the toll on his health and finances, the declining state of political discourse and the "vitriol of so many Bernie supporters" in the Democratic presidential primary race against Hillary Clinton.

"I have too little faith in politics to continue," he says.

"Carl in the Morning" debuted in March 2014 on KXRY 91.1 FM, better known as XRAY. It marked a return to the airwaves after Wolfson's left-wing drive-time talk show was dumped by Clear Channel, which turned KPOJ-AM 620 into a sports talk station in 2008.

SNIP

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver endorses Hillary, says she's the ONLY candidate

from either party who has reached out to Flint in an effort to help.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-flint_us_569e609ee4b04c813761785f

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver (D) endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, repeatedly thanking her for the work she and her campaign have done on the water crisis facing the Michigan city.

"We want a friend like Hillary in the White House," Weaver told reporters in a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign Tuesday morning. "That's exactly what we need to have happen."

Weaver didn't necessarily intend to make endorsement news Tuesday. After she praised Clinton, a reporter told the mayor that her comments sounded like she was backing the former secretary of state.

"Yeah, it does sound like it, doesn't it? I want Hillary," Weaver said, chuckling.

"As far as what Hillary Clinton has done, she has actually been the only -- the only -- candidate, whether we're talking Democratic or Republican, to reach out and talk with us about, 'What can I do? What kind of help do you need?'" she added.

Clinton has elevated the crisis in Flint, where city residents have been drinking tap water with dangerously high levels of lead, by bringing it up on the campaign trail and giving it increased national attention. Last week, she sent two of her top campaign aides to Flint to assist city officials. And during Sunday's Democratic debate in South Carolina, Clinton brought up the issue again.

SNIP

WSJ/NBC poll shows Hillary's lead widening to 25 points over Bernie.

A picture book taken off the market after Scholastic apologized for its depiction of slavery.

If Bernie is the nominee, and runs on a platform of replacing Obamacare

with his version of Medicare, including the $14 trillion cost structure he is advocating, then both the Democrats and the Republicans will be running against Obamacare.

To the average voter, who doesn't spend a lot of time on DU, that will send the message that the parties agree that Obamacare is bad and needs to be tossed out. The only question is, which replacement plan is better.

There is a serious risk that they will believe the Rethugs that their fantasy plan is better because they're not talking about spending $14 trillion or raising middle class taxes -- no matter what cost-saving disclaimers we put out there.

Adding a Medicare OPTION to the ACA would be building on the ACA and making it better.

Saying that it needs to be completely replaced risks losing all the gains we so painfully made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-new-health-care-plan-is-his-biggest-attack-on-the-rich-so-far/

Last fall, the Wall Street Journal estimated Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care plan would cost the government a whopping $15 trillion over a decade. Sanders' campaign objected - loudly - over that price tag. On Sunday evening, just before the Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina, Sanders finally released details of his plan, including a headline price tag. It was $14 trillion.

Picture books that call slaves "servants" and show them smiling?

If more African American people had jobs in the industry, would this kind of mistake (or deliberate action) have happened?

On edit: Scholastic has apologized and taken the book off the market.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/18/smiling_slaves_at_story_time_these_picture_books_show_why_we_need_more_diversity_in_publishing_too/

We will not be able to argue in the General that nominee Ted Cruz isn't eligible

unless we want to lose the Latino vote.

So as tempting as that may be, we should forget about this. If the Rethugs use it to kill off his candidacy, fine. But if we pick up this weapon it will just backfire on us.

Bitcoins: today's preferred form of ransom payments.

This happened to a friend. Fortunately he had backed up files so he could just tell them to Fk off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/business/dealbook/for-ransom-bitcoin-replaces-the-bag-of-bills.html?action=click&contentCollection=DealBook&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article


In a modern day version of a mob shakedown, hackers around the world have seized files on millions of computers, taken down public websites and even, in a few cases, threatened physical harm. The victims — who have ranged from ordinary computer users to financial firms and police departments — are told that their only way out is through a Bitcoin payment that is sometimes more than $20,000.

SNIP

Bitcoin has made the delivery of ransom more seamless and untraceable for criminals because the virtual currency system is run by a decentralized network of computers that collects no personal information about users. Unlike the days of bulging briefcases, Bitcoin payments can be made without an in-person meeting. What’s more, Bitcoin transactions are designed to be irreversible, so victims cannot reclaim their money as they could with a credit card or PayPal transaction.

Early Bitcoin users quickly realized that the currency could be useful for ransom payments. But in late 2013, the threat spread far beyond the virtual currency community when the first version of Bitcoin-fueled ransomware, known as CryptoLocker, began to spread around the globe.

The software encrypted all of the files on a computer and offered a key to unlock the files in exchange for a Bitcoin payment. Victims were directed to several websites where they could buy Bitcoins through a bank transfer.

Where has Sanders said that his Medicare for all plan would expand Medicare

to cover 100% of expenses, both medical and hospital, versus the 80% it currently covers?

Right now, Medicare recipients who don't also qualify for Medicaid must buy private insurance to cover the remaining 20%. So Medicare-for-all wouldn't be enough for many people who couldn't afford the additional private insurance. Where has he addressed how the 20% of costs would be covered?