Kamala Harris has raised donations from 38,000 people within 24 hours which beats Bernie’s record

[McRocket]

I assume she does not care (enough) about a balanced budget, bringing the troops home and removing the Fed's 'full' employment' mandate...so, I hope she loses. Same with all the candidates.

My guess is she could care less about deficits or bringing the troops home and does not have a clue what the Fed 'full employment' mandate even means (though I doubt the vast majority of politicians/citizens do either) to the economy.

Beyond that - single payer is a mistake (and she seems for it). It's better than what America has now, but it is a mistake (I lived in Canada for years - I know). Dual-payer is the answer...with the government looking after those who need it and the private sector, everyone else.

Let me ask you this. Canada’s healthcare system is flawed, but why do Canadians prefer their healthcare system over ours? Single-payer isn’t perfect, but it’s a massive improvement to what we have now.

Well, I said it is better than what America has now (if you are poor - worse if you are rich/have great insurance).

But Americans are different than Canadians. The latter are generally less objectionable to government control. The former are mostly about freedom.


Let me ask you this:

Do you think Americans are going to like being trapped in hospitals - possibly for months at a time - not being allowed to leave the hospital while waiting for life-saving operations?

Because that happens in Canada...all the time.

The difference between healthcare for profit and government healthcare is the former depends on customer satisfaction for profit. The latter could care less about customer satisfaction or profit. So they treat you like a number.

I don't think the average American will put up with that for long. I think the poor ones will grin and bear it (because they will have free healthcare). But the rest will probably not.


With all due respect, you cannot know what single-payer is like unless you have lived with it for some time.
If you never get a complicated illness/injury - it can be great. But if you do - it can be a nightmare.

Well, sure, the upside of the American healthcare system is that the quality is great and the treatment can be immediate if you have the coin to pay for it. But Because the middle class is shrinking and the poor are only getting more poor, that doesn’t even mean shit for most Americans. Sure, in Canada big procedures are put off because of a waiting list and that’s a problem, but at least when it comes to immediate healthcare in Canada it’s completely affordable. That kind of care is much more frequent and thus the system works even if it isn’t perfect.

Fair enough.

But you did not answer my question.

Do you think Americans are going to like being trapped in hospitals - possibly for months at a time - not being allowed to leave the hospital while waiting for life-saving operations?

Because that happens in Canada...all the time.

That never happens in a for-profit hospital because it costs SO much for a patient just to stay in a hospital overnight. SO they let you wait at home for the operation (as it should be).
But in Canada, they don't care about waste or patient satisfaction. So the doctors will cover their legal asses and often not let you leave until your operation (in case something happens to you due to your condition). Which could take weeks/months.

And when I say 'trapped'. I mean 'trapped'.

You cannot leave or the doctor's threaten to push you down the waiting list for your operation. You cannot go for a walk around the hospital. You cannot leave the building. And sometimes you cannot even leave the floor.

That happened to a friend of mine (waiting for a bypass operation). He was trapped for over a month, completely miserable and he did not know when the operation would be.
And he was not hooked up to any machines. He could move around and take care of himself. He should have been allowed to go home. But they would not let him...just to cover their legal asses. He just lay there, hour after hour, day after day, week after week...trapped.
Finally, after a (IMO) botched operation...he died.

THAT is single-payer (granted, at/near it's worst - but it is not an uncommon story). Virtually no rights, no choices and you are treated like a number.

I mean that does sound like a nightmare scenario for your friend, but I would be curious to know just how common it really is.

Long waits for surgery and medical treatment costs Canadians

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

I do not know exactly how common it is. But I can tell you that almost everyone on the cardiac floor of that hospital - and it was by far the largest one in that province - were in similar situations to him. Sitting around, waiting for their operations/procedures, not being allowed to leave (unless they were moved down the list) the floor - let alone the hospital, not knowing when their operations would happen.

But the fact is, there is no legal or economic reason why that is not common. The doctors are kings in single-payer. What you want is TOTALLY irrelevant. You have ZERO choices so you MUST do whatever they ask. Now, you can refuse a procedure - but that is about it when it comes to your rights.

In single-payer you are treated like a number. No one gives a shit about you (unless they are nice) and all the doctors/nurses really care about is not getting into legal/procedural trouble (again, unless they are nice).

I will give you another, less drastic example.

I went to an emergency room in a small hospital (different than the one above) at like 5 in the morning. There was only myself and an elderly woman waiting. The woman was in a lot of pain and there were NO patients in the emergency ward. But the doctor did not report until 8 a.m. (unless there was a life-threatening emergency - which neither of us were). This woman had a stomach ailment that she had for years and it was much more comfortable for her to lie down.
I went and asked the receptionist if the old lady could go in the back (where I had seen all the beds were available). She said 'sorry - we are not supposed to do that'.
So, this woman sat on a chair in a near empty waiting room for hours - in a TON of pain - instead of waiting on a bed. ALL because of a legal/rule technicality. Not for the woman's health...STRICTLY for procedural reasons.
The beds were like 10 feet away through one door. And there were nurses there. But because of some STUPID regulation, this woman in pain was not even allowed to lie down.

In a for-profit hospital, that would NEVER happen. As soon as someone posted it on the web - it would go viral and that hospital would be in deep shit for mistreating a senior woman so shabbily. They go on profit and they cannot have patients mistreated like that.

In Canada, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. I could have posted that on line and NOTHING would have happened...because the hospital could care less about public relations as they have no competition.
So long as the hospital does nothing illegal...they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT. Treat people as bad as they want.


Again, unless you have tried it yourself, you cannot know the hell that single payer can be.

 

[basquebromance]

as AG, she helped Californians weather the foreclosure crisis. she has a tremendous record

 

[Billy000]

Let me ask you this. Canada’s healthcare system is flawed, but why do Canadians prefer their healthcare system over ours? Single-payer isn’t perfect, but it’s a massive improvement to what we have now.

Well, I said it is better than what America has now (if you are poor - worse if you are rich/have great insurance).

But Americans are different than Canadians. The latter are generally less objectionable to government control. The former are mostly about freedom.


Let me ask you this:

Do you think Americans are going to like being trapped in hospitals - possibly for months at a time - not being allowed to leave the hospital while waiting for life-saving operations?

Because that happens in Canada...all the time.

The difference between healthcare for profit and government healthcare is the former depends on customer satisfaction for profit. The latter could care less about customer satisfaction or profit. So they treat you like a number.

I don't think the average American will put up with that for long. I think the poor ones will grin and bear it (because they will have free healthcare). But the rest will probably not.


With all due respect, you cannot know what single-payer is like unless you have lived with it for some time.
If you never get a complicated illness/injury - it can be great. But if you do - it can be a nightmare.

Well, sure, the upside of the American healthcare system is that the quality is great and the treatment can be immediate if you have the coin to pay for it. But Because the middle class is shrinking and the poor are only getting more poor, that doesn’t even mean shit for most Americans. Sure, in Canada big procedures are put off because of a waiting list and that’s a problem, but at least when it comes to immediate healthcare in Canada it’s completely affordable. That kind of care is much more frequent and thus the system works even if it isn’t perfect.

Fair enough.

But you did not answer my question.

Do you think Americans are going to like being trapped in hospitals - possibly for months at a time - not being allowed to leave the hospital while waiting for life-saving operations?

Because that happens in Canada...all the time.

That never happens in a for-profit hospital because it costs SO much for a patient just to stay in a hospital overnight. SO they let you wait at home for the operation (as it should be).
But in Canada, they don't care about waste or patient satisfaction. So the doctors will cover their legal asses and often not let you leave until your operation (in case something happens to you due to your condition). Which could take weeks/months.

And when I say 'trapped'. I mean 'trapped'.

You cannot leave or the doctor's threaten to push you down the waiting list for your operation. You cannot go for a walk around the hospital. You cannot leave the building. And sometimes you cannot even leave the floor.

That happened to a friend of mine (waiting for a bypass operation). He was trapped for over a month, completely miserable and he did not know when the operation would be.
And he was not hooked up to any machines. He could move around and take care of himself. He should have been allowed to go home. But they would not let him...just to cover their legal asses. He just lay there, hour after hour, day after day, week after week...trapped.
Finally, after a (IMO) botched operation...he died.

THAT is single-payer (granted, at/near it's worst - but it is not an uncommon story). Virtually no rights, no choices and you are treated like a number.

I mean that does sound like a nightmare scenario for your friend, but I would be curious to know just how common it really is.

Long waits for surgery and medical treatment costs Canadians

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

I do not know exactly how common it is. But I can tell you that almost everyone on the cardiac floor of that hospital - and it was by far the largest one in that province - were in similar situations to him. Sitting around, waiting for their operations/procedures, not being allowed to leave (unless they were moved down the list) the floor - let alone the hospital, not knowing when their operations would happen.

But the fact is, there is no legal or economic reason why that is not common. The doctors are kings in single-payer. What you want is TOTALLY irrelevant. You have ZERO choices so you MUST do whatever they ask. Now, you can refuse a procedure - but that is about it when it comes to your rights.

In single-payer you are treated like a number. No one gives a shit about you (unless they are nice) and all the doctors/nurses really care about is not getting into legal/procedural trouble (again, unless they are nice).

I will give you another, less drastic example.

I went to an emergency room in a small hospital (different than the one above) at like 5 in the morning. There was only myself and an elderly woman waiting. The woman was in a lot of pain and there were NO patients in the emergency ward. But the doctor did not report until 8 a.m. (unless there was a life-threatening emergency - which neither of us were). This woman had a stomach ailment that she had for years and it was much more comfortable for her to lie down.
I went and asked the receptionist if the old lady could go in the back (where I had seen all the beds were available). She said 'sorry - we are not supposed to do that'.
So, this woman sat on a chair in a near empty waiting room for hours - in a TON of pain - instead of waiting on a bed. ALL because of a legal/rule technicality. Not for the woman's health...STRICTLY for procedural reasons.
The beds were like 10 feet away through one door. And there were nurses there. But because of some STUPID regulation, this woman in pain was not even allowed to lie down.

In a for-profit hospital, that would NEVER happen. As soon as someone posted it on the web - it would go viral and that hospital would be in deep shit for mistreating a senior woman so shabbily. They go on profit and they cannot have patients mistreated like that.

In Canada, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. I could have posted that on line and NOTHING would have happened...because the hospital could care less about public relations as they have no competition.
So long as the hospital does nothing illegal...they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT. Treat people as bad as they want.


Again, unless you have tried it yourself, you cannot know the hell that single payer can be.

So what is the ideal healthcare system then? You said duel payer which I am not familiar with but I wonder if that’s the same as two tier where people can pay more money for better healthcare options in a private market. Corporate lobbyists have corrupted our healthcare system. It’s just too risky to give private industry control over healthcare.

 

[Claudette]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

LMAO She's going to need every dime.

 

[Indeependent]

After Kavanaugh, Independents will spit on her picture.

Yeah, maybe Tobin and Squi and weird calendar fetishists. Other than that I think you're overplaying any amount of popularity Kavanaugh has.

It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh; it has to do with “Bitch Face”.
Hopefully, she’ll run with Spartacus.
What a fucking loony pair.

I see, so you don't have much to offer except that you're going to provide whatever it is you just did because they may end up running against Trump.

By the way, if you're concerned about independents, you should see how Trump is cratering with them.

I’m sure you hang out with people who have opinions that don’t mesh with yours.

 

[Billy000]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

LMAO She's going to need every dime.

Yeah, that’s what happens when you have principle and not a super pac.

 

[Intolerant]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

We already had one failed experiment. We don’t need another one.

 

[Intolerant]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

LMAO She's going to need every dime.

I’m sure some of the loons will donate.

 

[BS Filter]

Talk about being in it for the money. One of the best con games ever, running for President.

 

[Billy000]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

LMAO She's going to need every dime.

I’m sure some of the loons will donate.

lol plenty of loons already have.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I assume she does not care (enough) about a balanced budget, bringing the troops home and removing the Fed's 'full' employment' mandate...so, I hope she loses. Same with all the candidates.

My guess is she could care less about deficits or bringing the troops home and does not have a clue what the Fed 'full employment' mandate even means (though I doubt the vast majority of politicians/citizens do either) to the economy.

Beyond that - single payer is a mistake (and she seems for it). It's better than what America has now, but it is a mistake (I lived in Canada for years - I know). Dual-payer is the answer...with the government looking after those who need it and the private sector, everyone else.

So you want the Nixon\Kennedy plan?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

LMAO She's going to need every dime.

I’m sure some of the loons will donate.

lol plenty of loons already have.

Have you?

 

[TNHarley]

Im not surprised.
The left get more radical every damn day.

 

[Billy000]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

LMAO She's going to need every dime.

I’m sure some of the loons will donate.

lol plenty of loons already have.

Have you?

Not yet. I want to see more of her first.

 

[Billy000]

Im not surprised.
The left get more radical every damn day.

By going the grassroots route?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

LMAO She's going to need every dime.

I’m sure some of the loons will donate.

lol plenty of loons already have.

Have you?

Not yet. I want to see more of her first.

So, some loons have yet to donate, got it...

 

[TNHarley]

Im not surprised.
The left get more radical every damn day.

By going the grassroots route?

Im talking about support for that radical. Purely identity politics bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Catholic hating skank

 

[Billy000]

Im not surprised.
The left get more radical every damn day.

By going the grassroots route?

Im talking about support for that radical. Purely identity politics bullshit.

How exactly does she represent identity politics?

 

[Billy000]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Catholic hating skank

Lol where do you get this shit from?