Democrats have made a sharp left turn – Here's what's behind it

Jul 2013
56,978
62,480
Nashville, TN
YOU stated they don’t suffer from the issue of the system only helping “some people.” All of my sources stated otherwise. It seems SOME people disagree with you.

Who knew right?




You mean other than addressing their incredibly high cost of living? Yea. That doesn’t apply to people who live there. How’d you make that logic leap?



I wasn’t “smearing” their nations. I was countering a direct statement YOU made.
Lol

Indices Difference
Consumer Prices in Stockholm are 22.24% lower than in New York, NY Consumer Prices Including Rent in Stockholm are 40.53% lower than in New York, NY Rent Prices in Stockholm are 60.51% lower than in New York, NY Restaurant Prices in Stockholm are 16.50% lower than in New York, NY Groceries Prices in Stockholm are 31.96% lower than in New York, NY Local Purchasing Power in Stockholm is 2.01% higher than in New York, NY
Indices Difference
Consumer Prices in Sweden are 0.87% higher than in United States Consumer Prices Including Rent in Sweden are 11.12% lower than in United States Rent Prices in Sweden are 34.32% lower than in United States Restaurant Prices in Sweden are 6.54% higher than in United States Groceries Prices in Sweden are 7.88% lower than in United States Local Purchasing Power in Sweden is 9.59% lower than in United States
Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Sweden

Next!
 
Jul 2013
56,978
62,480
Nashville, TN
Lmao! Why didn’t you provide a link to cost living with? Say? Onward or Oxford Mississippi? Oh? I bet I know why.

Anyway. I’m still wondering if you think a direct copy of the Nordic model is something we should do? Especially based on healthcare alone.
I did the US vs Sweden, not enough for you? And New York vs Stockholm, how many more comparisons do you need, go to my link and you use Bumfuck Mississippi versus Copenhagen if you want to make it look better for yourself.
 
Jul 2013
56,978
62,480
Nashville, TN
Lmao! Why didn’t you provide a link to cost living with? Say? Onward or Oxford Mississippi? Oh? I bet I know why.

Anyway. I’m still wondering if you think a direct copy of the Nordic model is something we should do? Especially based on healthcare alone.
So you haven't read Stiglitz or Piketty. Okie dokie. Hint: they cover more than health care.
 
Dec 2018
4,913
1,868
Florida
So you haven't read Stiglitz or Piketty. Okie dokie. Hint: they cover more than health care.
Do they tell me if YOU believe we should shift to the “Nordic Model” based on healthcare?

Okiedokie. I guess you just don’t want a discussion where you get asked questions like...what about kind of long term impacts of the Nordic model might have on our economy? Why the application of the system would be vastly different on a nation of 325 million?
 
Jul 2013
56,978
62,480
Nashville, TN
Do they tell me if YOU believe we should shift to the “Nordic Model” based on healthcare?

Okiedokie. I guess you just don’t want a discussion where you get asked questions like...what about kind of long term impacts of the Nordic model might have on our economy? Why the application of the system would be vastly different on a nation of 325 million?
Look, there are plenty of other UHC systems out there, several of them might work better for us than the Nordic one. Some like Singapore's, other like Switzerland's some like Australia's. The key is that all of them work better than ours for the population as a whole. And all of them cost much less than ours. Why is it so important to you to denigrate the Nordic countries?
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
Bill Bennett: Democrats have made a sharp left turn – Here's what's behind it

By William J. Bennett | Fox News
Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez insists the Democratic Party is splitting between Democrats who haven't properly addressed policies important to young people and herself; Peter Doocy reports.
It’s been two years since the end of the Obama presidency and in that span, the mainstream Democratic Party has made an extreme shift to the far left. In 2019 the Democrats have put their weight behind increased taxes, universal health care, open borders, and third-trimester abortions.

How do we account for this radical trend?

Great insight by Bill Bennett. Hope this lunacy endshttps://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bill-bennett-democrats-have-made-a-sharp-left-turn-heres-whats-behind-it
It's true that Democrats have turned left. But crazy old Bill Bennett's ramblings notwithstanding, it hasn't been a shift to radical left-wing politics. It's been a return to traditional Democratic positions, after decades of trying to meet the Republicans half-way with Clinton-style triangulation.

Take Ocasio-Cortez as an example. The policy that geriatric pearl-clutchers like Bennett find so radical is the idea that the top income bracket should be raised to a 70% rate. Is that "radical"? Of course not. The top rate was that high or higher for 45 straight years, during the period in American history when general prosperity grew most rapidly. In fact, the top rate has been as high as 94% (when the highest earners had a 3% base rate plus a 91% surtax). 70% is the bottom of that range of taxes that were applied in that nearly half-century-long run. There's nothing remotely radical about it. It's actually kind of old-fashioned.

Similarly, wealth taxes aren't a radical notion. Hell, even Trump used to support one.... and a much higher one than Warren has proposed. He called for a 14.25% wealth tax on people with over $10 million, back in 1999. Plenty of other wealthy nations have wealth taxes. Canada has a form of wealth tax, so does France, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy. Others have had wealth taxes at various points over the last few decades, including Iceland, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, and Sweden. Whether you agree or disagree with such taxes, they're an entirely mainstream tool from the center-left toolbox.

So, why do second-rate intellects like Bennett feel the need to mischaracterize such things as radical? I think it's because they want to shut down debate. They know their arguments aren't very strong, so they want to avoid getting into an argument at all. If they can make people regard non-right-wing ideas as completely out-of-bounds, reducing the Overton Window from the far-right (Mitch McConnell), to the center (Bill Clinton), then they can't lose.
 
Likes: OldGaffer
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
Why the application of the system would be vastly different on a nation of 325 million?
That's an excellent point. The Nordic countries just don't have any hope of using the Nordic model to such great advantage as we could, if we moved to it. After all, they all lack much opportunity for economies of scale. The US has the greatest opportunities for synergies and bulk-buying discounts of any wealthy nation in the world. We should be able to run laps around them with their own system.

It's funny how many on the right pretend to think it works the other way. Yet they'd never fall for such nonsense if it were in a business context. For example, they'd immediately understand that, say, Wal Mart can get better health insurance for its employees at a given per capita cost than can the little mom-and-pop hardware store on the corner. It would never even occur to them, in that context, to pretend that somehow the Mom and Pop hardware store can provide that benefit more cheaply because they're smaller. They aren't idiots, though they may pretend to be dumb when it's convenient. They know larger markets allow for elimination of redundancies, efficiencies from bulk purchases, and greater market power to drive a good bargain. They just go through a charade of forgetting those basics when it comes time to argue for right-wing talking points.
 
Mar 2012
58,026
39,582
New Hampshire
That's an excellent point. The Nordic countries just don't have any hope of using the Nordic model to such great advantage as we could, if we moved to it. After all, they all lack much opportunity for economies of scale. The US has the greatest opportunities for synergies and bulk-buying discounts of any wealthy nation in the world. We should be able to run laps around them with their own system.

It's funny how many on the right pretend to think it works the other way. Yet they'd never fall for such nonsense if it were in a business context. For example, they'd immediately understand that, say, Wal Mart can get better health insurance for its employees at a given per capita cost than can the little mom-and-pop hardware store on the corner. It would never even occur to them, in that context, to pretend that somehow the Mom and Pop hardware store can provide that benefit more cheaply because they're smaller. They aren't idiots, though they may pretend to be dumb when it's convenient. They know larger markets allow for elimination of redundancies, efficiencies from bulk purchases, and greater market power to drive a good bargain. They just go through a charade of forgetting those basics when it comes time to argue for right-wing talking points.
But we do lack an infrastructure for a lot of it. We dont have the numbers of doctors or nurses. There still are communities up here where I live that dont have internet access. So while I agree, other countries laid out their plans first and then put ideas in place. Its apparent from the ACA we didnt do that we started with the healthcare plan and then worried about the infrastructure last. We have states and their govts to take into account. That makes us vastly different from Europe.