Posted too soon.

Thommo wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

He might give Bernie 30% chance of winning, but the bookies don't.

He also says that the chance is not around 10%, although many bookies are offering odds that show it at a lower chance than that (so if you think this guy is right, that's a great bet right there - and perhaps he is).

ETA: For the purposes of later comparison, this guy says he's giving the facts when he says that the future map favours Bernie, implying it's necessarily the case that Bernie closes the gap from here on in. The situation as of now (according to google) is:
2,383 delegates needed for nomination, 2,049 remaining. Hilary 1,243 + 469 delegates. Bernie 975 + 29 delegates. That is a 268 delegate and 440 super delegate lead for Clinton and would seem to indicate a certainty that the 268 delegate lead will be cut (presumably significantly).

Super delegates can and do change their vote. Counting them now is spin, nothing more. If Sanders wins more pledged delegates, and the super delegates swing the vote, it will be the end of the democrat party. There are a lot of people paying attention to corruption, and that number is growing. This is why Sanders does better over time, and Clinton loses ground.

That's an opinion, certainly. I'm not sure it's reliable, and it is only tangentially connected with what I posted, which is that the video says that it is "fact" that Bernie currently has a better than 10% chance of winning, somewhere around 30% while bookies rate it as worse. That it is "fact" that Bernie has a better run in than Hilary does, which means her 268 delegate (note I did not include super delegates in the comparison I made) lead is guaranteed to be smaller come the Democrat convention.

If this guy wants to put his factuality on the line in criticism of the MSM, I think this is a prime opportunity to weigh up his claim. We can see what the facts are when he made this and whether his facts measure up to real life.

I thought the other parts were obvious. The south is more conservative, the rest of the country is more liberal. Sanders got trounced by the conservative states. Now that the race has moved to more liberal states, the ones that support the policies that Sanders holds, seems logical to think Sanders has the advantage. Clinton knows this, which is why she's whining that Sanders is too negative (WTF?) and won't debate him in New York. She doesn't want to face his policies.

Thommo wrote:That's an opinion, certainly. I'm not sure it's reliable, and it is only tangentially connected with what I posted, which is that the video says that it is "fact" that Bernie currently has a better than 10% chance of winning, somewhere around 30% while bookies rate it as worse. That it is "fact" that Bernie has a better run in than Hilary does, which means her 268 delegate (note I did not include super delegates in the comparison I made) lead is guaranteed to be smaller come the Democrat convention.

Clinton's 268 lead in pledged delegates is guaranteed to be smaller by around 40 by the time Washington State, which has voted decisively for Bernie, gets around to allocating its remaining delegates.

There are plenty of small states left that favour Bernie, and a few larger states like NY and NJ that appear to favour Hillary. Fundamentally, it looks like it will come down to California, very late in the piece on June 7, and that looks like a tossup. Given that, it would be reasonable to say that it may continue to be close, and Bernie's more likely than not to not close the gap or pull ahead. But there's not a lot in it, and I think that under 10-1 against or longer odds on Bernie are indeed a better looking bet than 9-1 on for Clinton. Giving Bernie a 30% chance, though, is probably dismissable as overoptimistic at this stage.

Willie71 wrote:I thought the other parts were obvious. The south is more conservative, the rest of the country is more liberal. Sanders got trounced by the conservative states. Now that the race has moved to more liberal states, the ones that support the policies that Sanders holds, seems logical to think Sanders has the advantage. Clinton knows this, which is why she's whining that Sanders is too negative (WTF?) and won't debate him in New York. She doesn't want to face his policies.

What "other parts"? I'm making directed comments about that video. The guy presents himself as a bastion of truth. Whether that's reliable is something we can assess with facts. He tells us his version of the facts and if they measure up - fair enough, he's vindicated, it means we have reason to regard him as a reliable source. If on the other hand his predictions are comparable to (say) Bill O'Reilly's then his criticism of Conservatives as seeing what they want to see suddenly has a new light shone upon it.

For all I know this guy is as much a straight talker with a spin free zone as Bill O'Reilly is. Or perhaps he's right. I'll reserve judgement, but I wanted to post those facts so there's a really easy baseline to judge those claims against in just a few short weeks time.

If you want to predict that Sanders will close the gap we can judge that on the same basis. If you want to evaluate how logical it is to think that "Sanders has the advantage" then we can assess that 268 delegate deficit against the polls in the remainder of the states. Which last time I checked saw Bernie getting less than 50% of the remaining delegates and that 268 deficit increasing, since the populous states are generally leaning Clinton. Given she is ahead, polling better, has the superdelegate and party establishment support I suspect there's at least some logic that would suggest she'd win - and this is backed up by her being the odds on favourite with bookies (i.e. people who put their money where their mouth is).

Acetone wrote:I find it funny how dealing with income inequality is an impossibility but bailing out large corporations which conduct illegal operations and evade taxes is well within the realm of possible.

Dafuq?

The "bailout" avoided a more than likely depression and cost $619 billion. So far $390 billion has been directly returned, $249 billion has been earned by return on investment, and interest and other profits earned amount to $64.4 billion.

Money risked/spent $619 billion. Money returned $683 billion. I'm no math wiz but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that in the long run the "bailout" saved many from loosing their jobs and or their homes and didn't cost taxpayers anything.

It's forgivable for people like you not to know about or understand the myth of the "bailout" but Bernie is another matter. He is privy to all the information and simply lying about it if he is still claiming it to be a give away to the rich.

Yep. It's why Warren would have been a better candidate. She knows that shit backwards.

Thommo wrote:

Willie71 wrote:I thought the other parts were obvious. The south is more conservative, the rest of the country is more liberal. Sanders got trounced by the conservative states. Now that the race has moved to more liberal states, the ones that support the policies that Sanders holds, seems logical to think Sanders has the advantage. Clinton knows this, which is why she's whining that Sanders is too negative (WTF?) and won't debate him in New York. She doesn't want to face his policies.

What "other parts"? I'm making directed comments about that video. The guy presents himself as a bastion of truth. Whether that's reliable is something we can assess with facts. He tells us his version of the facts and if they measure up - fair enough, he's vindicated, it means we have reason to regard him as a reliable source. If on the other hand his predictions are comparable to (say) Bill O'Reilly's then his criticism of Conservatives as seeing what they want to see suddenly has a new light shone upon it.

For all I know this guy is as much a straight talker with a spin free zone as Bill O'Reilly is. Or perhaps he's right. I'll reserve judgement, but I wanted to post those facts so there's a really easy baseline to judge those claims against in just a few short weeks time.

If you want to predict that Sanders will close the gap we can judge that on the same basis. If you want to evaluate how logical it is to think that "Sanders has the advantage" then we can assess that 268 delegate deficit against the polls in the remainder of the states. Which last time I checked saw Bernie getting less than 50% of the remaining delegates and that 268 deficit increasing, since the populous states are generally leaning Clinton. Given she is ahead, polling better, has the superdelegate and party establishment support I suspect there's at least some logic that would suggest she'd win - and this is backed up by her being the odds on favourite with bookies (i.e. people who put their money where their mouth is).

Having the advantage doesn't mean he has enough of an advantage to win. He might only do 5 points better than Clinton, which wouldn't be enough.

Relying on polling isn't a very good strategy this year. How many polls have been off by more than 30 points?

Kyle is a pretty straight shooter. His voice grates on me so I don't watch him much. I find him generally reliable.

Willie71 wrote:Having the advantage doesn't mean he has enough of an advantage to win. He might only do 5 points better than Clinton, which wouldn't be enough.

Relying on polling isn't a very good strategy this year. How many polls have been off by more than 30 points?

Kyle is a pretty straight shooter. His voice grates on me so I don't watch him much. I find him generally reliable.

I still don't see what your point is. I said that we could judge his comments by how accurate they turn out to be. I did not say that all polling even in small and insignificant states would be reliable. I did not say we should rely on individual polls in preference to more reliable methods. I did not say we should rely on polls at all. Only that if you want to talk about who has the "advantage" (something you introduced) then looking at an average of polls is the only sensible way to do that.

If Sanders closes the 268 gap then talking about an advantage would be vindicated. If it widens it proves erroneous. Aside from that his estimates of 30% (and 10% being unrealistically low) can be compared to where estimates based on actual financial gain and loss stand. If you're confident in his abilities, then you've got a real money making opportunity ahead of you. All I say in that situation is have at it. To the bold, the spoils.

In January, Friedman also estimated that Sanders' single-payer "Medicare for all" plan would cost nearly $13.8 trillion over 10 years.


A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money,

Here is the problem with such assertions.
They imply that the 13.8 billion won't be spent without Sanders' plan. Like it's new spending, when it's not.

The money will be spent anyway. The questions are how is it collected and how dispersed. Is what we have more efficient at providing health care to the USA public or might Sanders' plan be better?

I personally believe Sanders' plan is a huge improvement over the current one, which is better than the old one before Romneycare.
How much better will depend on how badly distorted it gets going through Congress.
Tom

Willie71 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Willie71 wrote:I thought the other parts were obvious. The south is more conservative, the rest of the country is more liberal. Sanders got trounced by the conservative states. Now that the race has moved to more liberal states, the ones that support the policies that Sanders holds, seems logical to think Sanders has the advantage. Clinton knows this, which is why she's whining that Sanders is too negative (WTF?) and won't debate him in New York. She doesn't want to face his policies.

What "other parts"? I'm making directed comments about that video. The guy presents himself as a bastion of truth. Whether that's reliable is something we can assess with facts. He tells us his version of the facts and if they measure up - fair enough, he's vindicated, it means we have reason to regard him as a reliable source. If on the other hand his predictions are comparable to (say) Bill O'Reilly's then his criticism of Conservatives as seeing what they want to see suddenly has a new light shone upon it.

For all I know this guy is as much a straight talker with a spin free zone as Bill O'Reilly is. Or perhaps he's right. I'll reserve judgement, but I wanted to post those facts so there's a really easy baseline to judge those claims against in just a few short weeks time.

If you want to predict that Sanders will close the gap we can judge that on the same basis. If you want to evaluate how logical it is to think that "Sanders has the advantage" then we can assess that 268 delegate deficit against the polls in the remainder of the states. Which last time I checked saw Bernie getting less than 50% of the remaining delegates and that 268 deficit increasing, since the populous states are generally leaning Clinton. Given she is ahead, polling better, has the superdelegate and party establishment support I suspect there's at least some logic that would suggest she'd win - and this is backed up by her being the odds on favourite with bookies (i.e. people who put their money where their mouth is).

Having the advantage doesn't mean he has enough of an advantage to win. He might only do 5 points better than Clinton, which wouldn't be enough.

Relying on polling isn't a very good strategy this year. How many polls have been off by more than 30 points?

Kyle is a pretty straight shooter. His voice grates on me so I don't watch him much. I find him generally reliable.

The average error for aggregate polls has only been 3%. The red states are caucuses which are harder to poll since the absymal turnout for those can make demographics hard to predict, but those are also pretty much past.

Are Democratic primary polls accurate? In individual states they are good, with a few exceptions. At an aggregated level, they are remarkably accurate. The delegate-weighted polling margin has a total error of 3.1%. This is better accuracy than one would expect from the reputation of polling these days.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/2 ... rediction/

Even Bernie's guy is saying 1.3 trillion in additional spending each year, for health care alone. That's at the absolute low end of the estimates. Total federal expenditures will just top 4 billion in 2017 already. And that is deficit spending in and of itself. How are we going to pay for that? This is before you add 'free' university tuition, expanded social services. This is why even progressive economists are saying the cost of all his pie in the sky will top 3 trillion ADDITIONAL bucks a year. Hillary's people are estimating an increase in Federal government size of 50%, which I'll go on record now as saying that is woefully underestimated. How in the fuck is that going to work? It's utterly absurd. Complain about the Bush and Obama deficits? You ain't seen shit, son.

GT2211 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Willie71 wrote:I thought the other parts were obvious. The south is more conservative, the rest of the country is more liberal. Sanders got trounced by the conservative states. Now that the race has moved to more liberal states, the ones that support the policies that Sanders holds, seems logical to think Sanders has the advantage. Clinton knows this, which is why she's whining that Sanders is too negative (WTF?) and won't debate him in New York. She doesn't want to face his policies.

What "other parts"? I'm making directed comments about that video. The guy presents himself as a bastion of truth. Whether that's reliable is something we can assess with facts. He tells us his version of the facts and if they measure up - fair enough, he's vindicated, it means we have reason to regard him as a reliable source. If on the other hand his predictions are comparable to (say) Bill O'Reilly's then his criticism of Conservatives as seeing what they want to see suddenly has a new light shone upon it.

For all I know this guy is as much a straight talker with a spin free zone as Bill O'Reilly is. Or perhaps he's right. I'll reserve judgement, but I wanted to post those facts so there's a really easy baseline to judge those claims against in just a few short weeks time.

If you want to predict that Sanders will close the gap we can judge that on the same basis. If you want to evaluate how logical it is to think that "Sanders has the advantage" then we can assess that 268 delegate deficit against the polls in the remainder of the states. Which last time I checked saw Bernie getting less than 50% of the remaining delegates and that 268 deficit increasing, since the populous states are generally leaning Clinton. Given she is ahead, polling better, has the superdelegate and party establishment support I suspect there's at least some logic that would suggest she'd win - and this is backed up by her being the odds on favourite with bookies (i.e. people who put their money where their mouth is).

Having the advantage doesn't mean he has enough of an advantage to win. He might only do 5 points better than Clinton, which wouldn't be enough.

Relying on polling isn't a very good strategy this year. How many polls have been off by more than 30 points?

Kyle is a pretty straight shooter. His voice grates on me so I don't watch him much. I find him generally reliable.

The average error for aggregate polls has only been 3%. The red states are caucuses which are harder to poll since the absymal turnout for those can make demographics hard to predict, but those are also pretty much past.

Are Democratic primary polls accurate? In individual states they are good, with a few exceptions. At an aggregated level, they are remarkably accurate. The delegate-weighted polling margin has a total error of 3.1%. This is better accuracy than one would expect from the reputation of polling these days.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/2 ... rediction/

Yup, sanders underperformed the polls in the south, often by 15 to 20 points. Outside of the south, he has in several states over performed the polls by large margins. Where are we at in the race again? Will the south continue to bring Sanders' average down? I think you are supporting my position here.

What you posted is like looking at IQ. Some think the overall number is important, but most think the differences in the sub scales is important.

OlivierK wrote:

laklak wrote:FFS Australia and Canada combined have a smaller population than California and Florida combined.
That's two freaking states.

Yes. The argument was that the US couldn't do European-style healthcare because it wasn't compact like European countries. The fact that Australia and Canada can, despite the rather obvious fact you've pointed out above, shows that to be bullshit.

75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US Border. That massive arctic shield is largely inhabited. So the population of Canada is not dispersed in the same manner that the US' population is dispersed.

And the same goes for Australia. Most Australians live along the Eastern and South-Eastern Coast. 35% of Australia is effectively desert. Roughly 10% of Australia's landmass is inhabited. Compare this to the US which has 40% of its landmass inhabited.

So Laklak and Scholastic are both correct. Trying to say Canada and Australian did it therefore the US can do it ignores the size of the population difference and the sheer magnitude of the distribution of the population across the entire landmass.

It also ignores the issues of our states.

Take Ontario. It is a massive province and yet for its size has a GDP of 597.2 Billion. My state of Virginia has a GDP of 383 billion. My state of Virginia has half the GDP as the entire country of Switzerland. And we have 50.

State governments for the most part still have a good degree of control over their economies. They run microeconomies within the larger federal economy. And they have to be.

Which leads me to the final distinguishing factor as to why you cannot simply compare Australia and Canada. Social identification. I am a Virginian. I do not see myself as an American unless I am talking to someone outside the country. But for identification purposes my identity is based off of my home state. And a Virginian has different political ideals than a Floridian or a North Carolinian. They may be subtle but our states play a major role in our political, social, and economical IDs.

I am not entirely sure you can say the same for Canadians and Australians.

Willie71 wrote:

GT2211 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

What "other parts"? I'm making directed comments about that video. The guy presents himself as a bastion of truth. Whether that's reliable is something we can assess with facts. He tells us his version of the facts and if they measure up - fair enough, he's vindicated, it means we have reason to regard him as a reliable source. If on the other hand his predictions are comparable to (say) Bill O'Reilly's then his criticism of Conservatives as seeing what they want to see suddenly has a new light shone upon it.

For all I know this guy is as much a straight talker with a spin free zone as Bill O'Reilly is. Or perhaps he's right. I'll reserve judgement, but I wanted to post those facts so there's a really easy baseline to judge those claims against in just a few short weeks time.

If you want to predict that Sanders will close the gap we can judge that on the same basis. If you want to evaluate how logical it is to think that "Sanders has the advantage" then we can assess that 268 delegate deficit against the polls in the remainder of the states. Which last time I checked saw Bernie getting less than 50% of the remaining delegates and that 268 deficit increasing, since the populous states are generally leaning Clinton. Given she is ahead, polling better, has the superdelegate and party establishment support I suspect there's at least some logic that would suggest she'd win - and this is backed up by her being the odds on favourite with bookies (i.e. people who put their money where their mouth is).

Having the advantage doesn't mean he has enough of an advantage to win. He might only do 5 points better than Clinton, which wouldn't be enough.

Relying on polling isn't a very good strategy this year. How many polls have been off by more than 30 points?

Kyle is a pretty straight shooter. His voice grates on me so I don't watch him much. I find him generally reliable.

The average error for aggregate polls has only been 3%. The red states are caucuses which are harder to poll since the absymal turnout for those can make demographics hard to predict, but those are also pretty much past.

Are Democratic primary polls accurate? In individual states they are good, with a few exceptions. At an aggregated level, they are remarkably accurate. The delegate-weighted polling margin has a total error of 3.1%. This is better accuracy than one would expect from the reputation of polling these days.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/2 ... rediction/

Yup, sanders underperformed the polls in the south, often by 15 to 20 points. Outside of the south, he has in several states over performed the polls by large margins. Where are we at in the race again? Will the south continue to bring Sanders' average down? I think you are supporting my position here.

What you posted is like looking at IQ. Some think the overall number is important, but most think the differences in the sub scales is important.

The overall number is what is important since its the overall number that will be basically relevant going forward since you are talking about a large aggregate of the remaining states that you are suggesting way off in the polls.

The polls that have been the biggest errors have been caucus states which frequently don't get polled at all, due to the fact the low turnout makes voter modeling extremely difficult, and the states that do poll have averages relying on scant polling and thus few data points. But we are mostly past those caucus states that are difficult to poll.

Wang covered what Bernie needs here

For national opinion to come into line with what Sanders needs, there would have to be a change from Clinton +9.5% to Sanders +12%. That’s a 22-point swing. To put that into perspective, that is about how much the Clinton-Sanders margin has moved over the last seven months, since the start of August. Going forward, opinion would have to start moving about three times faster. And for this to happen, Sanders would have to start to cut into Clinton’s support, which has stayed in the 50-55% range this whole season. Basically, her support would have to drop to 40%. That simply isn’t going to happen.

The probability of a massive polling error (movement of at least four sigma) is basically zero. However, the real question is whether some unanticipated externality can impose a massive swing across all states at once. I estimate that the probability of such a drastic swing in the remaining 10 weeks of the primary season is quite low – well below 5%. Therefore the probability that Hillary Clinton will have a majority of delegates at the convention is greater than 95%

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/2 ... r-sanders/

GT2211 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

GT2211 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Having the advantage doesn't mean he has enough of an advantage to win. He might only do 5 points better than Clinton, which wouldn't be enough.

Relying on polling isn't a very good strategy this year. How many polls have been off by more than 30 points?

Kyle is a pretty straight shooter. His voice grates on me so I don't watch him much. I find him generally reliable.

The average error for aggregate polls has only been 3%. The red states are caucuses which are harder to poll since the absymal turnout for those can make demographics hard to predict, but those are also pretty much past.

Are Democratic primary polls accurate? In individual states they are good, with a few exceptions. At an aggregated level, they are remarkably accurate. The delegate-weighted polling margin has a total error of 3.1%. This is better accuracy than one would expect from the reputation of polling these days.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/2 ... rediction/

Yup, sanders underperformed the polls in the south, often by 15 to 20 points. Outside of the south, he has in several states over performed the polls by large margins. Where are we at in the race again? Will the south continue to bring Sanders' average down? I think you are supporting my position here.

What you posted is like looking at IQ. Some think the overall number is important, but most think the differences in the sub scales is important.

The overall number is what is important since its the overall number that will be basically relevant going forward since you are talking about a large aggregate of the remaining states that you are suggesting way off in the polls.

The polls that have been the biggest errors have been caucus states which frequently don't get polled at all, due to the fact the low turnout makes voter modeling extremely difficult, and the states that do poll have averages relying on scant polling and thus few data points. But we are mostly past those caucus states that are difficult to poll.

Wang covered what Bernie needs here

For national opinion to come into line with what Sanders needs, there would have to be a change from Clinton +9.5% to Sanders +12%. That’s a 22-point swing. To put that into perspective, that is about how much the Clinton-Sanders margin has moved over the last seven months, since the start of August. Going forward, opinion would have to start moving about three times faster. And for this to happen, Sanders would have to start to cut into Clinton’s support, which has stayed in the 50-55% range this whole season. Basically, her support would have to drop to 40%. That simply isn’t going to happen.

The probability of a massive polling error (movement of at least four sigma) is basically zero. However, the real question is whether some unanticipated externality can impose a massive swing across all states at once. I estimate that the probability of such a drastic swing in the remaining 10 weeks of the primary season is quite low – well below 5%. Therefore the probability that Hillary Clinton will have a majority of delegates at the convention is greater than 95%

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/2 ... r-sanders/

Yes, I understood what he said. Like I said before, I don't know if there will be enough of a shift, but Hillary refusing to debate in New York after getting her ass handed to her in Washington puts a huge dent in her apparent inevitability. How about the bullshit "Sanders' tone" excuse. If she can't handle Sanders, how can she handle the dirty politics of the republicans? Clinton herself does not appear confident she can win, and confidence is a huge issue in selling oneself. How do you measure this in a poll? Polls are snapshots in time. Clinton's list of negatives is piling pretty high now. Will it reach a tipping point? Polls can't tell us that. What I do know is that perception shifts after Sanders blows Clinton out in 5 of the 6 last states. Polls Have limitations.

willhud9 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

laklak wrote:FFS Australia and Canada combined have a smaller population than California and Florida combined.
That's two freaking states.

Yes. The argument was that the US couldn't do European-style healthcare because it wasn't compact like European countries. The fact that Australia and Canada can, despite the rather obvious fact you've pointed out above, shows that to be bullshit.

75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US Border. That massive arctic shield is largely inhabited. So the population of Canada is not dispersed in the same manner that the US' population is dispersed.

And the same goes for Australia. Most Australians live along the Eastern and South-Eastern Coast. 35% of Australia is effectively desert. Roughly 10% of Australia's landmass is inhabited. Compare this to the US which has 40% of its landmass inhabited.

So Laklak and Scholastic are both correct. Trying to say Canada and Australian did it therefore the US can do it ignores the size of the population difference and the sheer magnitude of the distribution of the population across the entire landmass.

It also ignores the issues of our states.

Take Ontario. It is a massive province and yet for its size has a GDP of 597.2 Billion. My state of Virginia has a GDP of 383 billion. My state of Virginia has half the GDP as the entire country of Switzerland. And we have 50.

State governments for the most part still have a good degree of control over their economies. They run microeconomies within the larger federal economy. And they have to be.

Which leads me to the final distinguishing factor as to why you cannot simply compare Australia and Canada. Social identification. I am a Virginian. I do not see myself as an American unless I am talking to someone outside the country. But for identification purposes my identity is based off of my home state. And a Virginian has different political ideals than a Floridian or a North Carolinian. They may be subtle but our states play a major role in our political, social, and economical IDs.

I am not entirely sure you can say the same for Canadians and Australians.

I think you need to look at a map of Canada. Sure, Vancouver and down east there are major populations close to the border, but then coordinate with Edmonton (I'm 1/2 hour north of Edmonton, the most northern major city in the world,) Calgary, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Yellowknife. Even though Vancouver and Toronto are close to the border, they are how many km apart? That doesn't even count coordinating with smaller centres in remote areas across the provinces and territories, who are all guaranteed access to health care. I'll repeat it, everyone is guaranteed access to health care regardless of where one lives. Don't get me wrong, the system has flaws, but no one goes bankrupt and loses their home over a spouse diagnosed with Cancer or MS. We fly people from Edmonton to northern communities for health care specialties, such as forensic psychiatry. I actually provide these services, and the 100 mile idea is BS.

Population size? Economy of scale, except your government legislated an inability to negotiate with drug companies. Why are Americans ok with that?

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

laklak wrote:FFS Australia and Canada combined have a smaller population than California and Florida combined.
That's two freaking states.

Yes. The argument was that the US couldn't do European-style healthcare because it wasn't compact like European countries. The fact that Australia and Canada can, despite the rather obvious fact you've pointed out above, shows that to be bullshit.

75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US Border. That massive arctic shield is largely inhabited. So the population of Canada is not dispersed in the same manner that the US' population is dispersed.

And the same goes for Australia. Most Australians live along the Eastern and South-Eastern Coast. 35% of Australia is effectively desert. Roughly 10% of Australia's landmass is inhabited. Compare this to the US which has 40% of its landmass inhabited.

So Laklak and Scholastic are both correct. Trying to say Canada and Australian did it therefore the US can do it ignores the size of the population difference and the sheer magnitude of the distribution of the population across the entire landmass.

It also ignores the issues of our states.

Take Ontario. It is a massive province and yet for its size has a GDP of 597.2 Billion. My state of Virginia has a GDP of 383 billion. My state of Virginia has half the GDP as the entire country of Switzerland. And we have 50.

State governments for the most part still have a good degree of control over their economies. They run microeconomies within the larger federal economy. And they have to be.

Which leads me to the final distinguishing factor as to why you cannot simply compare Australia and Canada. Social identification. I am a Virginian. I do not see myself as an American unless I am talking to someone outside the country. But for identification purposes my identity is based off of my home state. And a Virginian has different political ideals than a Floridian or a North Carolinian. They may be subtle but our states play a major role in our political, social, and economical IDs.

I am not entirely sure you can say the same for Canadians and Australians.

I think you need to look at a map of Canada. Sure, Vancouver and down east there are major populations close to the border, but then coordinate with Edmonton (I'm 1/2 hour north of Edmonton, the most northern major city in the world,) Calgary, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Yellowknife. Even though Vancouver and Toronto are close to the border, they are how many km apart? That doesn't even count coordinating with smaller centres in remote areas across the provinces and territories, who are all guaranteed access to health care. I'll repeat it, everyone is guaranteed access to health care regardless of where one lives. Don't get me wrong, the system has flaws, but no one goes bankrupt and loses their home over a spouse diagnosed with Cancer or MS. We fly people from Edmonton to northern communities for health care specialties, such as forensic psychiatry. I actually provide these services, and the 100 mile idea is BS.

Population size? Economy of scale, except your government legislated an inability to negotiate with drug companies. Why are Americans ok with that?

Are you saying that 75% of Canada's population does not live within 100 miles of the border or are you saying that the fact that they live along the border doesn't make it easier to have the health care system we have here?

I mean http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/tr ... ada-facts/ says it's true 75% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of the border... And Southern Ontario has like 13 million or something which is like nearly 40% of the population of the country.

IDK if you can dispute that wouldn't affect implementation of ANY policy...

Oldskeptic wrote:

Acetone wrote:I find it funny how dealing with income inequality is an impossibility but bailing out large corporations which conduct illegal operations and evade taxes is well within the realm of possible.

Dafuq?

The "bailout" avoided a more than likely depression and cost $619 billion. So far $390 billion has been directly returned, $249 billion has been earned by return on investment, and interest and other profits earned amount to $64.4 billion.

Money risked/spent $619 billion. Money returned $683 billion. I'm no math wiz but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that in the long run the "bailout" saved many from loosing their jobs and or their homes and didn't cost taxpayers anything.

It's forgivable for people like you not to know about or understand the myth of the "bailout" but Bernie is another matter. He is privy to all the information and simply lying about it if he is still claiming it to be a give away to the rich.

Where did I ever say that the bailout hasn't been recouped?

I don't see that I said that anywhere. But please build a strawman, then tear it down, then act as if I'm the one who made the strawman claim but it's 'forgivable'.

Please direct me to the quotation where I said that.

The parallels are certainly there: the bailout avoided collapse of financial institutions, which were kept in sufficient health to contribute back the cost of the bailout. Likewise, although measures to raise the minimum wage to combat income inequality may come at a cost, they also repay that cost through higher income tax receipts, and lower social support spending. People on $15 an hour don't need as many food stamps as people on $7.

Avoiding financial crisis and collapse at a family level is every bit as beneficial to the economy as avoiding corporate collapse.

Where I work some of the management is on Food Stamps.

I agree avoiding the financial collapse of working families is a useful thing: where people avoid simple health maintenance due to the expense because private insurance is so expensive; people who have poor health sicken and die, hurting the overall efficiency of the workforce; families that go bankrupt over healthcare costs hurts the economy; families devastated by crippling illness and early death; food is purchased according to how inexpensive it is rather than whether it is healthy; people can't afford decent housing; people living paycheck to paycheck can't consume as much, which hurts small businesses; education costs curtails developing better job skills; going into debt for education cuts back on discretionary spending - hurts small business; people exhausted by working two or more jobs...

The view from down here at the bottom of the pyramid, where working people are making sacrifices day in and day out to create wealth for the wealthy, can be a rather damning indictment of the current status quo.

A consumer culture that impoverishes the consumers is cutting its own throat.