The US economy is a house of cards. Consumer debt, corporate debt, and government debt are all at ALL TIME highs. Environmental protections are being gutted. Trump's policies only exacerbate these problems. When the bubble bursts, it will be an ugly, ugly situation.
The way I see it, the US population can either choose a few more years of a sugar-high economy with a ticking time bomb attached to it, or they can choose to defuse the bomb by electing a democratic President and congress.
I think the bubble may burst elsewhere first, before the US.
Consumer debt in Canada is out of control.
Americans will think 4 years down the road, not more. They are programmed for that. Trump's environmental policies are a long term disaster, but not in next 4 years.
Not to be grim, but given Bernie’s age and normal life expectancy, it isn’t far fetched that he could die or become sick in office in his first term. And imo, when choosing a nominee, you have to be thinking 2 terms.
Who he chooses as a running mate will be a big deal since there is a reasonable possibility that person may be sworn in as president at some point as well.
Remember when many here argued that exact thing when it came to McCain?
All those posters are strangely quiet all of a sudden....
Remember when many here argued that exact thing when it came to McCain?
All those posters are strangely quiet all of a sudden....
Different situation. If McCain had died while in office, Palin would have been a much worse president than him. If Bernie dies while in office, I can't imagine his running mate could any worse than him.
I think the bubble may burst elsewhere first, before the US.
Consumer debt in Canada is out of control.
Debt to disposable income is a deceptive stat, especially in this case, because massive debt had to be racked up in order to create the economic conditions that allowed for disposable income levels to rise. That and, any kind of downturn in the economy could suddenly cause that debt ratio to sharply increase.
Quote:
Americans will think 4 years down the road, not more. They are programmed for that. Trump's environmental policies are a long term disaster, but not in next 4 years.
Older Americans, sure. But I don't think it's as true for younger Americans.
Remember when many here argued that exact thing when it came to McCain?
All those posters are strangely quiet all of a sudden....
When your primary criteria for a u.s. president is not a hopelessly corrupt, warmongering piece of s*** , you're going to have to start being flexible with your expectations,.
Older Americans, sure. But I don't think it's as true for younger Americans.
Not sure at what age is younger.
No candidate in the 'middle' beats Trump. I see it playing out 3 ways only.
1. Sanders energizes section of voters who otherwise don't bother. This may be 'younger' Americans.
2. Swing states vote Bloomberg instead of Trump. 'Younger' Americans sit this one out, again, like 4 years ago.
3. 4 more years.
Yale, University of Florida, and University of Maryland researchers have crunched the numbers for Sander's Medicare for All plan and found it would save the US $450 billion and over 68,000 lives annually. Those numbers are in conservative scenarios. Optimistically the savings and lives saved would likely be better.
Quote:
The Medicare For All plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year and would prevent tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, a new study shows.
The analysis, conducted by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, found that transitioning the U.S. to a single-payer health care system would actually save an estimated $450 billion each year, with the average American family seeing about $2,400 in annual savings. The research, which was published Saturday in the medical journal The Lancet, also found that Medicare for all would prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year.
"Our study is actually conservative because it doesn't factor in the lives saved among underinsured Americans—which includes anyone who nominally has insurance but has postponed or foregone care because they couldn't afford the copays and deductibles," Alison Galvani, an author of the study and researcher at the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek.
Overall, the new research anticipates annual savings of about 13 percent in national health care costs, while providing better health care access to lower-income families. According to the study, about 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, while an additional 41 million people do not have adequate health care coverage. Taken together, about 24 percent of the total population does not have health care coverage that meets their needs.
"The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations," the authors wrote in the study.
Yale, University of Florida, and University of Maryland researchers have crunched the numbers for Sander's Medicare for All plan and found it would save the US $450 billion and over 68,000 lives annually. Those numbers are in conservative scenarios. Optimistically the savings and lives saved would likely be better.
I don't think anyone is argueing universal healthcare is a good idea, just that Americans wont vote for it, there is absolutely no argument against gun control either but you cant get elected as a dog catcher there if you run on a platform of strict gun control
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Yale, University of Florida, and University of Maryland researchers have crunched the numbers for Sander's Medicare for All plan and found it would save the US $450 billion and over 68,000 lives annually. Those numbers are in conservative scenarios. Optimistically the savings and lives saved would likely be better.
I don't think anyone is argueing universal healthcare is a good idea, just that Americans wont vote for it, there is absolutely no argument against gun control either but you cant get elected as a dog catcher there if you run on a platform of strict gun control
If Americans are, as you say, are incapable of voting in their own collective self interest then the they are no longer capable of making political compromise. Meaning the US and its institutions are already dead, they just don't know it yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
It won't save ME money or save MY life. People will pay more for their plan rather than pay less into a collective pool.
Also general numbers dont show everything. Like Canada keeps creating jobs and unemployment keeps going down. But not for Albertans.
Alberta is a different beast, we've had decades of government mismanagement tying us to oil without serious attempts to diversify or save those resource profits. Yet we keep picking them knowing their long term strategy and outcome. Though mind you we really need more than two viable political choices to choose from. #electoralreform
See, I would have thought the end was when he dropped out.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
... Why? He's just going to sit on their debate panels and say, "Pete said X, if it was me, I would have said Y".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno