I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, utilizing a command economy approach to provide goods and services, shifting responsibilities from states to the federal government, removing individual responsibility in favor of an endless number of "rights" that are to be provided by a federal bureaucracy, redesigning the thrust of our public policy to guarantee outcomes vs opportunities, and more.
Almost all of this is completely antithetical to our federal system, not supported by any generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution.
Anybody on HN who requires that someone "articulate .. concerns" about these things is terribly uninformed about the historic nature of these types of initiatives. I doubt that anything I could write will affect their thinking.
As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. Almost every federal program would be better off as a state or private program.
To be fair, your argument does not quantify precisely. At all. Your argument claims Bernie wants to "nationalize as much economic activity as possible". Health care is the first thing that comes to mind. What activities, in particular, are you concerned with nationalizing? Your argument is emotional and lacking in facts. A better argument would be: "Bernie has proposed nationalizing <X> which would have consequences <Y, Z> and those are consequences leave us worse off than <other option>".
Bernie has advocated during his political career for nationalization of health care, energy sector, banks, utilities, drug companies and "major industries". There doesn't seem to be any limiting principle for Sanders re: the proper role for the national government so I see no reason to believe that he thinks any differently about these things now than in the past. He even brags about his consistency of beliefs over time.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationa...
Regarding Social Security and Medicare, the fact that those programs as constructed are not financially sound is well known and health insurance as well as public retirement plans don't have to be national programs. There is no reason that states couldn't fund those programs if they so choose. The advantage of having those programs at the state level is that it introduces competition. People can vote with their feet and move to states that provide a better mix of taxes/services.
And what are your arguments as to the consequences of nationalizing health care, energy sectors, etc.? Your argument hasn't identified a problem with the nationalizing.
Really? I'm sorry but HN is just not the place to educate someone on all the negative consequences of nationalization of industries and the negative effects of command economies. It isn't like this is an obscure concept or point of view for which I can add any useful thoughts to what is already well known.
Every other first-world country on Earth has nationalized health care, so I don't find it unreasonable for me to question if your argument is sound when presented with no accompanying facts.
Asking for facts and being replied to with the effect "Really?" is far from effective persuasion. Emotional appeals won't work. Facts and data will.
Sure it could be even worse, but is that supposed to be a rationale for accepting his approach? Just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
That you are being incredibly hyperbolic and alarmist when you are equivocating what are minor tweaks to what is, and what will remain a mixed public/private market economy... to full-blown-complete nationalization.
Could you please point to any evidence of Sanders plans to replace a market economy with an entirely centrally planned economy? That's essentially been your assertion, and I'm not familiar of any sources making this claim.
Almost all of this is completely antithetical to our federal system, not supported by any generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution.
Anybody on HN who requires that someone "articulate .. concerns" about these things is terribly uninformed about the historic nature of these types of initiatives. I doubt that anything I could write will affect their thinking.
As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. Almost every federal program would be better off as a state or private program.