The Rams are sending their employees home and canceling pre-draft visits with prospects. They also won't attend any workouts https://t.co/2PJGFS6Td2

— Cameron DaSilva (@camdasilva) March 13, 2020

I simply don’t think that he is capable of beating Trump. If OTOH you, in your heart, believe Biden has a better chance of beating Trump but won’t support him because of your belief in Sanders ideology, then I cannot respect that because that is simply a “statement” vote.

I do believe Sanders would beat Trump and all the polls back it.

For a thousand reasons, I don’t think Biden has ANY chance of beating Trump.

Don’t want to speak for anyone, but, the sense I get from reading this board is that no one here believes Biden has even the slightest chance. I mean outside of you and maybe another.

I could go further. Leaving me and you out of it, I don’t think anyoneelse here (based on my sense of things just from reading) even believes Biden is a worthy candidate. That’s based on his character and his policies.

I am not arguing about that–not in this post anyway–just stating how myself and (I think) others see him. I get the impression that he is seen this way: Biden is identified with far too many simply bad policies, and as a person he does not have the mindset, abilities, or character to be a credible leader.

So you don’t have to worry about people here making an “ideological choice” against a guy they otherwise know to be a solid candidate. Far from it. That is not what’s happening.

…

The NBA has suspended its season.

— Shams Charania (@ShamsCharania) March 12, 2020

waterfield wrote:

wv wrote:

We know whats hurting Bernie. Bernie didnt work for an African-American President.

I didn’t vote for Biden because he worked for Obama. If I was black I would find your comment highly offensive. Not just because it is clearly racist but it also smacks of the very elitism that so many of us find discomforting with the far left. You discount black men and women who might just believe Trump can only be beaten by Biden; that Biden might be able to usher in a democratic controlled Senate; that Biden might be better for the country on issues that we all face. It doesn’t matter whether or not blacks are correct in their views. What matters is that whether you know it or not African Americans actually have VIEWS and OPINIONS. Whites do not have a monopoly on the ability to think. If you want to know what bothers most people about so called “progressives” just re-read the above quote. Its repugnant.

I think you felt slighted as a Biden voter and lashed out at WV, W, but, I also don’t think you have real cause. Plus it’s a board thing, and given that I ask you to slow down on personalized accusations like the ones you’re making.

I freely say some African-Americans political figures like Clyburn (who is a big pharma campaign money recipient) advocate policies that hurt most working african-americans. There are of course many african-americans saying that. Abundantly. So I have no more hesitation saying that myself than I have saying that whites who support Trump vote for policies that hurt most working whites.

In fact I think you are throwing around the word “racist” in an irresponsible way.

. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/bernie-sanders-black-voters/607789/

Jackson, Mississippi is where, in June 1963, the famous civil-right activist Medgar Evers—who led economic boycotts and voter-registration drives in the state—was murdered in his driveway by a white supremacist after an NAACP meeting. The city’s mayor is now Chokwe Antar Lumumba….

When I asked Lumumba about how the primary process could have gone differently for Sanders, he stopped for a moment. Then he considered how Sanders performed in caucuses rather than primaries; perhaps if there were ranked-choice voting, as in the Jackson people’s caucus, Sanders would have won a larger share of black voters. But he kept coming back to a central theme: If only more people knew how radically different their lives could be—perhaps then they would join the revolution.

Is Lumumba saying that (among many many african-american leaders saying that) bad? He is being racist? Does he deserve to be called a progressive ironically, with that word put in slighting, judgmental quotation marks? Obviously not. Are you going to tell him how you would feel about his comment if YOU were African-American? Obviously not.

Let’s keep the board productive and refrain from throwing judgmental anger at one another in personalized ways. Debate candidates, parties, ideas, policies, beliefs, and movements. Don’t make that antagonistically personal.

20 leading economists just signed a letter arguing Medicare for All would generate massive savings for American families

https://www.yahoo.com/news/20-leading-economists-just-signed-191514939.html

Twenty of the nation’s leading economists argued in favor of Medicare for All in an open letter that Business Insider first published on Tuesday.

They argue that existing research suggests there would be massive savings and it would reduce waste in healthcare.

“There’s been too much loose talk that Medicare for All is unaffordable. What’s really unaffordable is the current system,” signatory Gerald Friedman said in an interview.

Twenty of the nation’s leading economists argued in support of Medicare for All in an open letter first published by Business Insider on Tuesday.

“We believe the available research supports the conclusion that a program of Medicare for All (M4A) could be considerably less expensive than the current system, reducing waste and profiteering inherent in the current system, and could be financed in a way to ensure significant financial savings for the vast majority of American households,” the economists wrote in the open letter.

“Most important, Medicare for All will reduce morbidity and save tens of thousands of lives each year,” the group of economists said.

The letter was provided by Business for Medicare for All, an advocacy group pressing for universal healthcare in the US.

The economists aren’t coming out in favor of a specific candidate, though some have individually consulted with Democratic presidential campaigns (at least one has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders).

Instead, they’re making the case that a government-run health insurance system would slash wasteful spending and generate massive savings for most Americans.

Dr. Gerald Friedman, a professor at the University of Massachussetts Amherst, told Business Insider that the best argument for a universal healthcare system is its potential ability to rein in the skyrocketing costs of healthcare.

“There’s been too much loose talk that Medicare for All is unaffordable,” Friedman said. “What’s really unaffordable is the current system. We spend about twice the average for affluent countries in the OECD on healthcare,” referring to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

Friedman also noted that increased spending often leads to worse health outcomes compared to other developed nations.

Among the letter’s signatories are prominent progressive economists like former Labor secretary Robert Reich; Jeffrey Sachs, a leading expert on poverty; Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, two professors at the University of California, Berkeley, who laid out plans for a wealth tax; and Darrick Hamilton, a professor of economics at the Ohio State University and a pioneer in economic inequality research.

Medicare for All is the signature plan of Sen. Bernie Sanders, the remaining progressive candidate in the Democratic primary. It would set up a new government health insurance system that provides comprehensive benefits to Americans and toss out deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket spending. Private insurance would be eliminated as well.

Estimates for a system that ensures benefits on the scale Sanders is seeking is upwards of $30 trillion over 10 years. A recent study from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning organization, suggested it could increase the wages of workers and boost the development of small businesses.

The proposal turned into an ideological faultline in the primary, dividing moderates like former Vice President Joe Biden who sought incremental measures to expand coverage and progressives such as Sanders calling to replace the existing system with something entirely new.

In addition to Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren also rolled out a plan to achieve universal healthcare within four years before dropping out of the race.

Skeptics of Medicare for All argue it’s a progressive pipe dream that won’t be achieved anytime soon. They note it’d be an enormous lift politically even among Democrats, most of whom don’t support the idea, The New York Times reported.

An ongoing poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that while a slim majority of the public supports Medicare for All, backing flips when respondents learn they could lose their private health insurance or pay more in taxes.

The economists in the letter, though, say that “shifting the burden” onto taxation of wealthier households would “magnify savings.”

“A system that cuts costs and shifts financing to income and wealth taxes will dramatically lower this burden, producing significant savings for workers and businesses,” they write.