OT: COVID-19 thread #3

[Ice Man]

Have any non-populist leaders from major countries contracted the virus? Never mind, that was a genuine question when I asked but after googling it is now rhetorical. The answer is No.

[PlayerUp]

that we will pick a better leader in November.

Weakest presidential candidates in history?

Both are awful candidates. Good news is both parties likely will redeem themselves and have better candidates in 2024/2028

[dougthonus]

He will receive literally the absolute best health care someone can possibly receive. I expect him to show few symptoms and play it off. Johnson and Bolsonaro both had it, and their populist fanbases were undeterred.

I hope Biden did not contract it from him.

I think he's going to say "look, i recovered, no big deal", which is true for most people who get it, probably for 95% of people (even older people) it isn't a big deal.

It ignores the fact that it becomes a really big deal though if tons of people get it and for the 5% that don't fall in that category.

[MrSparkle]

that we will pick a better leader in November.

Weakest presidential candidates in history?

Both are awful candidates. Good news is both parties likely will redeem themselves and have better candidates in 2024/2028

Everyone keeps making Biden into a complete sham of a candidate, but it’s not like his record and resume are some kind of embarrassment to the world.

For one thing; sure he’s not a charismatic or eloquent speaker. He did have a legitimate speech/stutter problem that he overcame greatly, so the Fox/Trump narrative that he’s sleepy and old and confused is just that - a narrative. He actually does have a stutter issue, and more power to him for being able to hold a debate on the highest stage against a troll and sham of a candidate.

Secondly — Trump and his base’s 2nd biggest attack on Biden has been Hunter. I thought he handled that brilliantly in the debates, despite the chaos.

Everything else Trump, Fox and Clear Channel push is propaganda nonsense. He’s a perfectly fine and experienced candidate for moderates around. He’s not a great candidate for progressives, but he’s building a staff that is more liberal than Obama’s.

[chefo]

Against my better judgement to chime in on this, but here it goes:

I don't know why the current commie-types like the US 'socialists' are referred to as 'progressives'. Absolutely nothing 'progressive' about their views that I can think of.

When I think progressives, I think classical liberals--live and let live, individual rights across the board, equality before the law, right to free speech and discourse, free markets. That's what a liberal is in the rest of the world.

The US 'progressives' literally fit zilch from the above. I'll tell you how to live your life and what you should believe in. Individual rights--sure, but more of them to the intersectional 'victims'; using the law to go after opponents and protect allies (that's banana republic justice, BTW); censorship of free speech and violent one at that, cancel culture; socialism bordering on outright communism and statism. I'm going from the US socialist party's website here. I mean they talk of 'democratically' nationalizing the energy industry (20% of GDP), the healthcare industry (20% of GDP), heavy industry, housing (?!) and abolishing the insurance industry. Between state, local and the Feds, the government already controls 40% of GDP. Let's get another 40-50. I mean, that would make even the French communist intellectuals blush with envy.

I mean, for real? I don't want these types anywhere near positions of influence and power.

They seem to me just a regurgitation of the failed philosophies of the 1920s and 1930s--an odd blend of fascist and communist. These were called 'progressive' back then too, BTW, but for a different reason. Until that time, the state had never before assumed absolutist power over it citizens, even during the absolutist monarchies of the 16-18th centuries. It was new and many, including in the UK and US, actually considered 'statism', either in its nationalist variety (fascism, nazism) or its international variety (Soviet communism) a superior government alternative to free markets and democracy. That was then.

I think these regimes did enough carnage globally to demolish the idea of the state being the absolute arbiter of every aspect of life, but it looks like to me that everybody seems to believe that if it was them, they'd be the benevolent dictator-type and not resort to the atrocities that an all-powerful state ALWAYS perpetrates against any dissenters.

I'm actually scared a bit because today Double-speak is everywhere and it's so deeply ingrained that people just can't seem to realize all the contradictory ideas they hold as dogma, co-inhabiting their minds. Department of 'Defense'; fighting some god-forsaken war, in some god-forsaken place, viewed as 'patriotism'; 'progressives' that want to limit freedom of expression, 'feminists' that shame women and denounce the feminine, ANTIFA that behaves like Nazi brown shirts, propaganda at all times, from every direction. The extremes that almost always manage to F things up on a societal scale have been waging a war for people's minds and, from my vantage point, they are WINNING.

How can I tell? People are willingly letting themselves be labelled and grouped by others. Just to point out the obvious--power junkies have always existed, and always will, and the only way for them to get a high is to control others. If there's nothing to control, they'll manufacture something because that's what they live for. Think about that before you let others define you and tell you what you should believe in. Don't be what the Russian KGB used to call a 'useful idiot'.

Anyhow, if that floats your boat, great. Just realize that what our predecessors have built in the Western world is nothing short of a miracle in historic context, despite all of its warts, and I'd be very careful with trying to burn down the system. Why? Because most people don't have a clue how bad it can get outside of that gilded prison, where college kids, who'll be global 1% if they get a real job, are getting triggered by ANY speech and are shouting how oppressive the system they live in is because they can't see how they can be 0.0001%.

Yeah, I don't feel for them, you can probably tell.

There have always been people who want to bring down society, no matter how prosperous or (in)just. They've been called anarchists for centuries. As a married man with little kids, I don't want these spoiled punks with mommy and daddy issues anywhere near power. Selfish of me, guilty as charged, but nobody has EVER been better off after going down the path that the current extremists want to go down on.

My 2 cents.

[Ice Man]

Everyone keeps making Biden into a complete sham of a candidate, but it’s not like his record and resume are some kind of embarrassment to the world..

I will go further. No living U.S. Senator, whether in office or not, deserves to be compared to Donald Trump. Every single one of them is several levels better than Donald Trump. Ted Cruz is several levels better, Elizabeth Warren is, Mitch McConnell is, Joe Biden is. Even Carol Moseley Braun is. It's not even close.

[Dresden]

I don't want these spoiled punks with mommy and daddy issues anywhere near power. Selfish of me, guilty as charged, but nobody has EVER been better off after going down the path that the current extremists want to go down on.

My 2 cents.

A "spoiled punk with daddy issues"---that describes our current president to a T.

And "nobody has ever been better off after going down the path...."---sure, except Northern Europe, one of the best places on earth to live, where people live the longest, are the happiest, and are the most pleased with their form of government.

[Ice Man]

They seem to me just a regurgitation of the failed philosophies of the 1920s and 1930s-

There's no need to bring history into this. American progressive policies mimic the approaches of modern Western Europe. That is the progressive goal, to become like Sweden or the Netherlands or (to a lesser extent) the United Kingdom. You can like those approaches or not (clearly not in your case), but there's no denying their sources.

[Dresden]

Or you can look at FDR's New Deal, which ushered in such things as social security, the federal housing authority, the NLRB, and established a minimum wage and other protections for workers and farmers.

[PlayerUp]

Everything else Trump, Fox and Clear Channel push is propaganda nonsense. He’s a perfectly fine and experienced candidate for moderates around. He’s not a great candidate for progressives, but he’s building a staff that is more liberal than Obama’s.

Nothing has changed on that end. It has always been like that. Since as far back as I can remember conservative media has created propaganda's. How come this time it's sticking well with the moderates? It's because they fear that Biden is too weak and the progressive moment is growing will sway Biden towards the far left.

Now you may respond and say otherwise but it's not you who needs prove otherwise, it's Biden to the American people. Biden meeting with Bernie and agreeing to progressive ideas may actually have hurt him more than it helped. If there is another debate, Biden should be more focused on what he will do for the moderates (the majority), ease peoples minds he will not go far left. Step up, show you're a better person and don't go to Trumps level attacking. We shall see in 30+ days if I'm right or not but I think fear is ultimately what could cause the moderates/silent voters/non serious voters to vote republican.

I have alot of hope though for 2024.

[PlayerUp]

Everyone keeps making Biden into a complete sham of a candidate, but it’s not like his record and resume are some kind of embarrassment to the world..

I will go further. No living U.S. Senator, whether in office or not, deserves to be compared to Donald Trump. Every single one of them is several levels better than Donald Trump. Ted Cruz is several levels better, Elizabeth Warren is, Mitch McConnell is, Joe Biden is. Even Carol Moseley Braun is. It's not even close.

Donald Trump is in a league of his own. He isn't a politician or professional. He is a shady business man.

[Dresden]

Biden tested negative, fortunately.

[chefo]

I don't want these spoiled punks with mommy and daddy issues anywhere near power. Selfish of me, guilty as charged, but nobody has EVER been better off after going down the path that the current extremists want to go down on.

My 2 cents.

A "spoiled punk with daddy issues"---that describes our current president to a T.

And "nobody has ever been better off after going down the path...."---sure, except Northern Europe, one of the best places on earth to live, where people live the longest, are the happiest, and are the most pleased with their form of government.

@Ice Man and Dresden. Thank you for your responses.

On Trump, I just view him as a very skillful internet troll. The best way to handle his outbursts is not to play his game. He does not have legislative power--he can't take away anything from anybody. I know the narrative is 'Orange Man Bad', but he can't really do much to affect your personal life. Only Congress can.

On the Vikings, I'm sorry, but the US 'progressives' are nothing like the Nordics. The Swedes and Danes are NOT socialists, let alone communist. The Swedes gave it an honest try the same time the Brits did (1960-1980), and almost went bankrupt just like the Brits. Ever since, they've been going 180 and fast. No government ownership of productive assets. No heavy-handed regulation of business. Even public transportation was privatized, if memory serves me right. Egalitarian education, but then you're left to make your own choices--you probably know that the Nordics have the biggest concentrations of gender-specific choices in terms of job choices in the world, not just among developed nations. None of that let's force people into stuff they don't want to do just because of societal 'equity'.

The Danes are probably the least statist people you can meet. Having high personal taxes and being a statist where the government runs things en-masse are not the same things. Despite being in the EU, the Danes had less regulations and lower corporate taxes than the US until very recently. They'll never allow people to shut them up. And by the way, the vast majority of people in the US will never agree to some of the compromises that come with certain decisions that the North in Europe has made.

Sure, college for 'everybody' sounds nice, right? Except in Northern Europe you're tracked starting in late Middle School and if you're not deemed bright enough you're forcefully sent to trade school. They've made the choice to only college-educate the top fifth in terms of cognition in their society. In the US, nearly 60% of high school graduates give college a try; it's just that half drop off for different reasons before graduating. That's why you see student debt pentuple the last 15 years, when the government decided that everybody with a pulse should get a college loan--that's as socialist as a policy as any ever implemented and it has wrecked the financial life of an entire generation.

'Free Healthcare'--also sounds nice. I mean who can say no to that? Ask anybody who's lived in the UK what happens if you have an actual major medical emergency. Not a cold, or you scraped your knee. Something really bad. That new drug that treats your MS. Sorry, can't have it. Some bureaucrat decided it's too expensive for the medical system. Need a specific cancer treatment? Sorry, first open slot is in 4 months. Granny is sick? Tough luck--we don't have the beds and nurses to take care of her--ship her back home, even if she'll die sans care. I'm not exaggerating either, nor is this anecdotal evidence.

And the cost to all of the above in Scandinavia? 50% taxes on income over the poverty level. For everybody. That would double or triple the tax burden of the bottom 75% of people in the US, while limiting the availability of the services they're actually paying for to fewer people. Some people may think that a desirable outcome, I don't.

Anyhow, the system has a lot of warts in the US, especially in terms of healthcare, and BTW, it's not that hard to fix, if people actually wanted to fix it. It's just that they won't because these corporate contributions to both Democrats and Republicans are just too sweet to let go of.

I think Harvard did a study--no matter who was in power in Congress and the White House, the legislature in 85% of the cases did what's right for corporate America, no matter if it hurt the average citizen. The only times Congress EVER sides with their constituents was if the decision would also work for the corporations that pay them.

So yeah, I'd get rid of corporate $ in politics pronto, just like the Nordics. And I would go a step further. No board seats when you retire, no consulting or lobbying allowed.

One last point--people need to separate the cause and effect when talking about societies. The Swedes and Danes were homogeneous, small societies. They are also very hardy northerners, very fit as individuals, especially compared to a place like the US where 2/3 of adults are overweight or obese, and have a thousand-year common history that helps them swallow some of the things they don't like (i.e. extreme taxes). A mere decade after that homogeneity was even a bit upset by a large inflow of refugees and you that social contract already starting to crack.

Anyhow, the mild left does not scare me one bit. I don't like some of their ideas, but if other people can live with them, so can I. But as much as people gave Hillary grief for her personal short-comings, the mild left she personified lost control of the Democratic party. Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Green New Deal. I actually read that thing and it reads like the editors at the Onion wrote it. It's that bad. You want to have a burger? Sorry, cows and other livestock are the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world so we'll just wipe them out. No meat for you!

The Democratic party has also become the champion of cancel culture (which I detest) and recently what I view as race-baiting for political gain. Before anybody feels the desire to correct me, know that since W won the White House, racial targeting has been a disclosed, written DNC strategy. I can't support a strategy that aims to divide and conquer a society because it will either merit a reciprocal response which will make everything worse or will result in the party in power picking winners and losers.

[Ben Wilson25]

One constant I’ve found in engaging folks who use socialism as a bad word is that the vast majority can’t give a definition of socialism or how it differs from communism or fascism.

[chefo]

One constant I’ve found in engaging folks who use socialism as a bad word is that the vast majority can’t give a definition of socialism or how it differs from communism or fascism.

If that's directed at me, I grew up in 'developed democratic socialism'. For me socialism is not just a pretty theory, my family had to live it for decades. The very early militant 'communists' threw my grandpa in a concentration camp just because he was college educated... can't have educated non-indoctrinated people running their mouths. They also nationalized (stole) everything my family had, under the barrel of a gun, on both sides of my family.

Then I had to live through the decade of depression after socialism collapsed my country's economy. Ever sat in a food line for 5 hours in -15 degree weather? How about your kids, if you have any? Live in a state where they ration electricity and water? Ever lived in fear that you can't feed your family, not because you can't afford it, but because there's no food? Probably not. By the way, we also built a wall (as well as mine fields)... to keep people in.

Most people's imaginations are not big enough to even believe some of the absurdities socialism brought about in Eastern Europe over its 45 year trial run.

And communism is just an extreme version of socialism, where there is NO private property allowed. Even the Soviet communists went away from that extreme after it starved their country. Fascism, in its implementation, was not that far off from authoritarian socialism either. The only difference is fascists allowed private profits, albeit under government directives. Fascists and Nazis were also nationalist, where Soviet-style socialists and communist are by definition internationalists.

Anyways, we're not changing each others' views on a random ball forum online. As I said, I've lived socialism, not just read about it in a superficial, low-resolution publication. But I also believe that anybody should be free to believe whatever they feel like, so long as it's not hurting others.

To each their own.

P.S.
Socialist theory of markets and communist history were a part of the curriculum for kids as young as 9. As soon as we were old enough to read properly, they began indoctrinating us.

[Ben Wilson25]

One constant I’ve found in engaging folks who use socialism as a bad word is that the vast majority can’t give a definition of socialism or how it differs from communism or fascism.

If that's directed at me, I grew up in 'developed democratic socialism'. For me socialism is not just a pretty theory, my family had to live it for decades. The very early militant 'communists' threw my grandpa in a concentration camp just because he was college educated... can't have educated non-indoctrinated people running their mouths. They also nationalized (stole) everything my family had, under the barrel of a gun, on both sides of my family. Then I had to live through the decade of depression after socialism collapsed my country's economy. By the way, we also built a wall (as well as mine fields)... to keep people in.

Most people's imaginations are not big enough to even believe some of the absurdities socialism brought about in Eastern Europe over its 45 year trial run.

And communism is just an extreme version of socialism, where there is NO private property allowed. Even the Soviet communists went away from that extreme after it starved their country. Fascism, in its implementation, was not that far off from authoritarian socialism either. The only difference is fascists allowed private profits, albeit under government directives. Fascists and Nazis were also nationalist, where Soviet-style socialists and communist are by definition internationalists.

Anyways, we're not changing each others' views on a random ball forum online. Anybody should be free to believe whatever they feel like, so long as it's not hurting others.

To each their own.

It wasn’t directed at you, just an observation about these types of discussions. I don’t think the majority of conservatives OR liberals could give you an accurate definition of socialism and studies have borne that out. I just think nuance is completely absent from current discourse and there is definitely a reflex in certain quarters of the right to throw out socialism without either acknowledging the difference between pure socialism and democratic socialism or that no mainstream democratic politician that I’m aware of is anywhere near advocating pure socialism.

[molepharmer]

I posted this on another board. Thought people here may be interested.

Big takeaways:
- True infection fatality rate is 0.3%
- 1/3 of people are asymptomatic
- Spike protein antibodies stick around for a while. Nucleocapsid protein antibodies disappear quickly. Since many antibody tests in the US are type N, the number of false negatives are very high.

Hadn't seen this posted.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-antibodies-do-not-fade-quickly-new-study-finds-2020-09-01

TLDR:
- Iceland did a big antibody study on 30,000 people.
- Found that 1/3 of positive had no symptoms
- True infection fatality rate was 0.3% and is consistent with other studies
- Antibodies do not disappear in the short term. People tested positive for months.

Side comment: No idea what antibody they are testing for. Other articles I have read indicate that (N) type antibody tests fade quickly whereas the RBD and S tests are more durable over time.

Edit add, found the write up:

We measured SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies in up to 30,576 persons with six established assays, targeting pan-immunoglobulin (pan-Ig: IgM, IgG, and IgA) antibodies against the nucleoprotein (N) (Roche); pan-Ig antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) in the S1 subunit of the spike protein (pan-Ig anti–S1-RBD) (Wantai); IgM and IgG antibodies against N (IgM anti-N and IgG anti-N) (EDI/Eagle); and IgG and IgA against the S1 subunit of the spike protein (IgG anti-S1 and IgA anti-S1) (Euroimmun). Thresholds for positivity were supplied by the assay manufacturers. We used the two pan-Ig antibody assays to evaluate seroprevalence, requiring positive results for both assays for a test result to be considered positive (Fig. S1 in Supplementary Appendix 1). To quantify antibody levels among qPCR-positive persons, we assayed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 using IgG anti-N, IgM anti-N, IgG anti-S1, and IgA anti-S1.

and I love the internet

IgG anti-N, IgM anti-N, IgG anti-S1, and IgA anti-S1 antibody levels were correlated among the qPCR-positive persons (Figs. S5 and S6 and Table S5). Antibody levels measured with both pan-Ig antibody assays increased over the first 2 months after qPCR diagnosis and remained at a plateau over the next 2 months of the study. IgM anti-N antibody levels increased rapidly soon after diagnosis and then fell rapidly and were generally not detected after 2 months. IgA anti-S1 antibodies decreased 1 month after diagnosis and remained detectable thereafter. IgG anti-N and anti-S1 antibody levels increased during the first 6 weeks after diagnosis and then decreased slightly.

Let's be honest. I'm an idiot. The fact that I'm aware that (N) antibody tests are useless off the top of my head means that someone like Fauci should know it and that the CDC should be recommending against it. Most of the antibody tests in the US are anti-N and as a result, generate mostly false negatives.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116

And yes, the I realize that the New England Journal of Medicine is a far right wing media source and all but can we please get the 0.3% thing in the public eye?

Anybody in the scientific community who has worked with antibodies is well aware of their limitations. They are merely a tool to work in concert with other tools. Ab tests aren't necessarily for letting a specific individual know if they have Covid. There are better, more specific and selective means for individuals. The Ab tests are more for population studies or for a large sample size, to see if there is some trend.

An example for when a Ab test would be useful would be if, for example, you have 100 unknown samples. Rigorous specific testing with each sample isn't realistic, perhaps due to time, cost, reagents. So you run all 100 samples through an Ab screen which narrows the likely positives down to a more manageable number, for example, 10. You know you may have some false positives in those 10 and you also know you may have thrown out some true positives in the eliminated 90. But at least you now have the sample size down to where you can run your better rigorous specific diagnostic tests.

fwiw - You'll notice in the NEJM paper that the authors state who supplied their Ab (e.g. Roche, EMI, Euroimmun). It's because one supplier's Ab may not be the exact same as a second supplier's Ab. When we ordered Abs in the lab, it was not uncommon to order from a couple of different sources. The authors touch on this a bit in their conclusions

These discrepancies may be explained partly by differences in the specificity and sensitivity of the assays used as well as differences in the design and performance of the semiquantitative assays used, including the antigen targeted and the analytic sensitivity and range, as well as differences in the study populations.

[dougthonus]

I mean they talk of 'democratically' nationalizing the energy industry (20% of GDP), the healthcare industry (20% of GDP), heavy industry, housing (?!) and abolishing the insurance industry. Between state, local and the Feds, the government already controls 40% of GDP. Let's get another 40-50. I mean, that would make even the French communist intellectuals blush with envy.

I mean, for real? I don't want these types anywhere near positions of influence and power.

You have packed in a lot of topics, but most of them seem like non specific generalized things where you are upset about certain voices, and this is a more concrete topic.

I'm not sure why you think socializing health care is some radical thing that can't work or is some crazy radical thing. It literally works in many (almost all?) other first world nations. The insurance model is actually fairly awful and provides no value whatsoever.

Granted, a single payer system doesn't fix all of our issues as there are many others, but having socialized, single payer insurance for everyone is probably a step in the right direction of having reasonable access to health care for everyone and has certainly been shown to be viable in many other countries.

[chefo]

One constant I’ve found in engaging folks who use socialism as a bad word is that the vast majority can’t give a definition of socialism or how it differs from communism or fascism.

If that's directed at me, I grew up in 'developed democratic socialism'. For me socialism is not just a pretty theory, my family had to live it for decades. The very early militant 'communists' threw my grandpa in a concentration camp just because he was college educated... can't have educated non-indoctrinated people running their mouths. They also nationalized (stole) everything my family had, under the barrel of a gun, on both sides of my family. Then I had to live through the decade of depression after socialism collapsed my country's economy. By the way, we also built a wall (as well as mine fields)... to keep people in.

Most people's imaginations are not big enough to even believe some of the absurdities socialism brought about in Eastern Europe over its 45 year trial run.

And communism is just an extreme version of socialism, where there is NO private property allowed. Even the Soviet communists went away from that extreme after it starved their country. Fascism, in its implementation, was not that far off from authoritarian socialism either. The only difference is fascists allowed private profits, albeit under government directives. Fascists and Nazis were also nationalist, where Soviet-style socialists and communist are by definition internationalists.

Anyways, we're not changing each others' views on a random ball forum online. Anybody should be free to believe whatever they feel like, so long as it's not hurting others.

To each their own.

It wasn’t directed at you, just an observation about these types of discussions. I don’t think the majority of conservatives OR liberals could give you an accurate definition of socialism and studies have borne that out. I just think nuance is completely absent from current discourse and there is definitely a reflex in certain quarters of the right to throw out socialism without either acknowledging the difference between pure socialism and democratic socialism or that no mainstream democratic politician that I’m aware of is anywhere near advocating pure socialism.

About the lack if discourse-- I agree. It kills me, personally, that people refuse to listen to each other.

On the nuances, I honestly tried to figure out what putting 'democratic' in front of everything changes. It still talks of state control of resources, and I don't know how 'democratic' changes that. I'm open to suggestions, but I read the entire platform, and listened to Bernie quite a bit (BTW, he is less extreme that the platform, as written) and I still can't figure out how one gets to the end point without forceful seizure or destruction of private property, which so long as there is a Constitution in the US, would be deemed illegal and immoral.

BTW, this comes from somebody who can live with single payer healthcare, even if it's not my first choice, so long as it is not half-assed, like the current system which somehow manages to get the worst of both monopolistic capitalism and socialism in a single system.

[chefo]

I mean they talk of 'democratically' nationalizing the energy industry (20% of GDP), the healthcare industry (20% of GDP), heavy industry, housing (?!) and abolishing the insurance industry. Between state, local and the Feds, the government already controls 40% of GDP. Let's get another 40-50. I mean, that would make even the French communist intellectuals blush with envy.

I mean, for real? I don't want these types anywhere near positions of influence and power.

You have packed in a lot of topics, but most of them seem like non specific generalized things where you are upset about certain voices, and this is a more concrete topic.

I'm not sure why you think socializing health care is some radical thing that can't work or is some crazy radical thing. It literally works in many (almost all?) other first world nations. The insurance model is actually fairly awful and provides no value whatsoever.

Granted, a single payer system doesn't fix all of our issues as there are many others, but having socialized, single payer insurance for everyone is probably a step in the right direction of having reasonable access to health care for everyone and has certainly been shown to be viable in many other countries.

I think it's a fair option, so long as people understand what the consequences and trade-offs are. I think that's the best one can do--put forth the alternatives, their real pros and cons, and let people decide what works for them. I'm not defending the current system where I pay a new car's worth of premiums, with horrible deductibles, every year.

I just feel that a single payer, without other reforms, will bankrupt both the 'single payer' and the hospitals in this country. Single payer also almost always results in a deficit of services and options.

If people are OK with that, great. The odds are the Feds will tax me less than what I'm currently paying. I just happen to believe that if you open up the health insurance companies as federally-chartered mutuals and not as shareholder entities, and remove the middlemen between pharmacies and drug companies, and reform hospital and drug pricing, you'd get a vastly superior outcome. Simple as that.

I also realize that all these reforms will not happen because the interested parties leech hundreds of billions from the system every year.

As I said--put forth honest proposals and let people have a say in it. That's a perfectly fine solution.

P.S.
On the variety of topics--Socialists like Bernie and AOC are nowadays considered the 'progressive' and dominant wing of the Democratic party. They have their full platform published on their website for everybody to read. Two clicks away. My concerns are not just some 'generalized thing' when the Democratic party, the larger of the two major parties, is headed that way at WARP speed, say with the Green New Deal. I don't like that the Democratic party endorses some of the utter absurdities on the BLM platform like bringing down the patriarchy and dismantling the nuclear family. I don't like that the first reaction to the violence, looting and rioting was to say it was justified.

As I wrote above--in many regards, I am as liberal as they come, because I grew up in an oppressive regime where personal freedom, the right to speak up and the opportunity to make your own choices were non-existent. I also saw how that whole experiment ended. I would hate to have spent my entire adult existence trying to make something of my life, only to witness a repeat of that--and in that way, I'm very selfish and probably a quite irrational. Trends in society continue unless they are reversed. And some of current trends are cringe-worthy to me.