Hacker News Reader

Comment by djb_hackernews | Hacker News Reader

I am a Bernie supporter, but I have 2 issues: 1) I'm having a hard time understanding how such a policy shift could happen purely from the POTUS 2) Even if it did happen and we got single payer, I have a feeling it'd just turn in to another benefit for the employer. When employers no longer provide health insurance they'll just keep the money for themselves and the employees won't see the actual benefit, just the higher taxes. If my employer is currently paying 13k/yr for family coverage and all of a sudden doesn't have to, I doubt they'll be adding that, or even some percentage, to my salary.

View on HN

I don't think your employer would either, no matter who they are. They will take advantage of the system like everyone else. We all benefit from roads, power, water, etc. Bernie is trying to reduce the cost of health care by taking profits out by controlling the costs. If you have an organization that is paying for 300+ million people's insurance, that organization has tremendous leverage. I understand that this is a very complex subject, but that's his position and I support it too. In other words, Bernie sees health care as an investment, in the infrastructure of the well-being of the American people. (I think this last sentence is poorly worded but I gave it my best effort)

(added, post edit) Also, the masses will benefit tremendously from it. He estimates about a $4,000 yr savings for middle class. You might not get any benefits from your employer but you're not voting for your employer, you're voting for your rights (Bernie says health care is a right).

As for this: > 'such a policy shift could happen purely from the POTUS' That's never been Bernie's rally cry. He's calling for a political revolution. Essentially, for young voters and progressives to actively engage in the political system and to vote for progressives (and to encourage others to do so as well).

This is a solid video about it all by Robert Reich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfIhonVoFSg

I remember him saying something about politicians looking out the window and seeing calls for change.

A policy shift through POTUS is intended to happen with the President acting as a leader of people as opposed to a POTUS that does the standard job of President.

This hasn't happened in my lifetime, and was said was going to happen when Obama was initially elected, and never occurred.

It's an unknown property. To have a POTUS that actually regularly talks to the population directly and asks for their support and effort to force politicians to change. I think a similar example in concept, but not in policy is Hugo Chavez when he had a weekly program to the people.

It's difficult to say what effect this would have, I have absolutely no idea for or against. I think anyone who thinks they do is speaking more from their personal opinions and less about what will actually happen.

--Edit - I said "It's just never been tried in a country like the US", and then I remembered FDR's fireside chats, which are perhaps a better direct correlation than Hugo Chavez.

I'm also curious about #2 here: Some would certainly be offset by the new employer paid taxes... but my employer currently pays significantly more than the proposed tax in premiums now (of which I directly pay almost nothing). When I plug my numbers into http://berniecare.org for example, it says I'll pay $800 more. I know this is a very simplistic calculator, but it definitely seems like this plan would give some employers an opportunity to effectively cut salaries by a sizable chunk. Does anyone know if it has been studied or a transition like this has been observed before?

There's some interesting assumptions in berniecare.org buried in variables.

Would be nice if they exposed the assumptions instead of burying it in JS.

http://berniecare.org/dist/bundle.js

1) It can't. Unless Bernie gets several hundred like-minded people elected to the House and Senate, this is going nowhere.

2) Depends on how much competition there is between employers, but it could happen the way you fear, especially in a soft economy.

Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any action the D-President does.

We've already seen this with Obama. It's not hard to see them doing more of the same.

It's worth noting that any tax increase has to start as a bill in congress, so it wouldn't so much be Republicans stopping the action of a D-President as just not doing what he/she wants them to do.

Which...sounds like how the system is supposed to work? Checks & balances and all...

Well, it depends.

The POTUS is the head of the executive branch. And as far as I understand it, can order anyone of that branch to do stuff. That's also how "executive orders" work: because the POTUS is their boss.

It's also what Obama's doing to break the gridlock: make rules that you have to go to SCOTUS to solve, or pass bills that supersede them.

Sure, there are lots of things that can be done by executive orders. Changing tax rates, however, is not one of them.

But "Fees" are well within the POTUS purview.

So, make "Fees" that are means-tested (charge exorbitant those whom are rich). They aren't considered taxes. They're 'something else' (bullshit, but that's what the courts say).

> But "Fees" are well within the POTUS purview.

No, they aren't. (Except to the extent that fees have been authorized by statute and the authority to adjust them given the executive in the statute, but that clearly isn't what you are referring to, since you are talking about arbitrarily introducing new fees.)

The executive has very little independent (that is, not dependent on Congressional action) domestic policy authority.

What court ruling are you referring to that says that POTUS can unilaterally impose fees of this kind without the consent of congress?

Bernie may be a democratic socialist, but he has decades of experience bringing together both sides of the aisle to pass legislation. His opponents may not agree with him, but they respect him.

In contrast, Hillary is pretty much universally hated among Republicans. In my opinion she has a much lower chance of getting anything done if elected.

What evidence do you have to support Bernie could bridge the gap better than Hillary?

When they were both in the Senate they voted 93% similarly. In addition, Bernie is liberal/progressive (far left) and Hillary is more moderate/liberal. On the spectrum, Hillary's politics are closer to Repubs than Bernie is. And Hillary is essentially a Bill Clinton in ideology, which is someone who enact legislation that's a hybrid of dem/reb lib/consv ideologies.

> Unfortunately, my founded belief is that if a Democrat gets elected president, the gang of Republicans that shut down government will also act to stop any action the D-President does.

Which is a good reason for people voting for a candidate for President not to ignore the other races on the ballot, and a good reason for people who care about the policies embraced by their favorite Presidential candidate to not only advocate for that candidate, but advocate for down-ballot races as well. (And this applies just as much to any other candidate, of either party, as it does to Sanders.)

Indeed, unless enough people get annoyed at the situation and vote for different Congresspeople over the next couple of elections. Might require fixing gerrymandering first though

"Congresspeople" has got to be the most ridiculous, awkward word in use today. Member of Congress is must better and is still 100% gender neutral if that's what your aim is. Both members of the House and Senate can be referred to as your representative (small 'r') in Congress.

I recently joined a startup in the political/advocacy arena, and the word I've been using is "legislator".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com