Medicare for all

Discussion in 'The Slant Political Board' started by viviajm, May 6, 2019.

  1. RMHawk

    RMHawk All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,209
    Likes Received:
    4,330
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Proponents and opponents are overly optimistic or pessimistic. M4A is not happening unless Dems have the WH and overwhelming majorities in both houses of the Congress. Obamacare is a Rube Goldberg contraption that has unduly complicated health care for consumers. A major fix and or credible replacement that can pass Congress and by signed by POTUS is needed. One that does not make consumers virtually captive customers of insurance company bureaucracies as Obamacare does.
     
  2. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    Once upon a time, conservatives preached fiscal responsibility and were against wasteful spending. Then the lobbyists got to them.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    In just 2 minutes Bernie explains how he will expand Medicare to also cover vision, dental, hearing aids and eliminate co-pays, premiums, deductibles, out of pocket expenses and how a tax increase would still leave you paying less than now

    Tweet!
     
  4. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    And then everybody in the US needs to smack themselves in the head for believing any of it.

    "Medicare is the most popular health insurance program in America" MEDICARE IS REQUIRED BY LAW!! What does popularity have to do with anything?!
     
  5. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    Who cares. It's premium FREE (we're talking about Part A).

    You can still flaunt your god fearing rugged individualism and spend money outright on your inpatient care if you want.

    But all this is moot, really. For some weird reason you're against people paying less money overall since they won't have to pay premiums, co-pays, deductibles, out of pocket expenses.

    This is the conservative wet dream here. Less taxes for citizens, small businesses no longer have to subsidize this and get a huge break, and streamlined expenses from the government.
     
  6. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    You got one part right, it is a dream. What I am against is politicians promising to do what anyone with any economic background and half a brain can tell is blatantly false. Yes, I am against it because it isn't true.
     
  7. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Again, why people like you drive me crazy. IT'S NOT PREMIUM FREE! They wrap it up in your taxes instead....YOU'RE STILL PAYING IT AND MORE.
     
    Marlattman84 likes this.
  8. cornstalk

    cornstalk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    213
    I really do not have a problem with MEDICARE FOR ALL THAT DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE, you have to leave private insurance that is how the hospitals and doctors survive because medicare really takes the profit out for doctors and hospitals, you can have the cheapest insurance in the whole world but a shortage of doctors and hospital you have nothing
     
  9. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago

    Paying far far far far far far far far far far less under Bernie's M4A plan than anyone today, aged 65 or not.

    No deductibles
    No co-pays
    No premiums
    No out of pocket expenses

    I can't believe I'm arguing with a conservative the merits of less taxes is a better thing and he's disagreeing.
     
  10. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    Also: Less burden on the businesses, small or large.

    The same reason you advocate against higher minimum wage. Imagine giving businesses hundreds of dollars per employee per month.
     
  11. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    This plan is tax cut. Why are you against tax cuts?

    This isn't just a regular op-ed btw, this is from two renowned economists who wrote a book about this. They reviewed tax data to back this up.

    I'll take this moment to point out that not one person has commented on the Koch Brothers think tank vetting this as well.

    Who would have known that in 2019 conservatives would be fighting tax cuts and cutting breaks for businesses big or small.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/medicare-for-all-taxes-saez-zucman

    Bernie Sanders’s tax proposals would be enough to replace all existing private insurance premiums, while leaving 2.6% of national income to cover the uninsured and spend on other programs. Under such a plan, the 9 bottom deciles of the income distribution would gain income on average, as would the bottom of the top 10%. With smart new taxes—such as broad income taxes exempting low wages and retirees—it is possible to make the vast majority of the population win from a transition to universal health insurance.

    Supporters of Medicare for All are right. Funding universal health insurance through taxes would lead to a large tax cut for the vast majority of workers. It would abolish the huge poll tax they currently shoulder, and the data show that for most workers, it would lead to the biggest take-home pay raise in a generation.
     
  12. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    If you leave out private insurance, its not M4A...it's basically Obamacare.
     
  13. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    Then they should change insurance plans.
     
  14. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Because its not a tax cut. And also because not once in the recent history of our country has our gov't EVER...EVER done something like this for cheaper than the market. And every time they say it'll be cheaper, it turns out they were wrong. So why should I trust these guys that have spent the last 20 yrs lying to us and costing $22T in debt for those lies? Why should I trust a damn thing they say?!
     
  15. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    It's a tax cut.

    Employers are forced to pay hundreds of dollars per employee per month in order to be competitive to attract workers.

    Co-pays, deductibles, premiums, out of pocket expenses is a tax.

    Only difference is the 'big bag government' isn't treading upon you, it's a highly profitable corporation with C level execs raking in tens of millions in bonuses every year.

    Money in, money out. It's a massive tax cut for the consumer and for employers alike.
     
  16. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    No, it's not. Co-pays, deductibles, premiums and OOP expenses are not taxes, they are payments for services. But even if they were it doesn't matter...what's important is which is cheaper and you've provided squat to show that M4A is anything except the next gov't cluster****.
     
  17. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    It's a tax cut.

    It will insure every American, save trillions of dollars in wasteful spending, and ease the burden of small businesses everywhere.

    It will give labor unions more bargaining power for more fair benefits as they no longer have to concede anything for insurance.

    The fact that "The government is too big and ****s everything up is" is the only thing naysayers have is a joke.

    We put 12 men on the moon. Ike built out a national highway system. Every day you drive on a road that works. Traffic lights work. Most of us here went to public schools.

    PS

    It's a tax cut and it was borne of conservative roots.
     
  18. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    One last item that needs discussion. The impact on the economy and business in general.

    With every American covered, which Bernie's plan covers full dental, hearing (+ hearing aids), and vision, people will take advantage of that without having to do without.

    People are going to consume more prescription drugs, dentures, hearing aids (these are not cheap) and all sorts of medical devices that simply weren't being consumed.

    I'd also like to point out that you have a society in general with one less burden. A healthier, happier population leads to improved productivity and less crimes out of destitution and depression in general.

    That is a fact.
     
  19. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    That is a pipe dream. You are seriously delusional if you think it's going to change the health of Society. But then you've already proven yourself to be delusional by the idea that M4A is anything more than a power grab and colossal waste of time and money.
     
  20. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    It works that way in every other industrialized nation on this planet.

    There are flaws and breakdowns in any system, I'm not guaranteeing everything will be perfect 100% of the time but once I again I defer to quite literally, any other industrialized nation that doesn't have a corrupt authoritarian leader.

    It's a simple fact. People will take advantage of services afforded to them.

    No one is getting preventative procedures and checkups done when they have to choose between that and keeping the lights on.

    People are literally dying because they are rationing insulin because they can't afford the regular dosage. This isn't anecdotal, this is systemic.
     
  21. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    I figured it out. 2001 is Rahm Emmanuel. Makes sense. From the conservatism right down to his personality.

     
  22. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    People are literally dying because they aren't taking care of themselves...they are literally dying because of the obesity problem in this country...the multitude of examples why people don't live a health lifestyle. And not one damn bit of that is their health insurance's fault.

    People rationing insulin is a miniscule example and doesn't even tell the whole story. Insulin is cheap...dirt cheap. What is really going on is people want the latest and greatest insulin drugs...which are expensive. All they have to do is buy the 30 yr old Insulin formulas that are tried and true...and cheap.

    Healthcare doesn't need to be 100% perfect all the time...although the likes of you jump at the chance to point to imperfections when trying to push this socialist agenda. It's just about a guarantee that whatever the gov't comes up with for M4A will suck in comparison to what we have now.

    And no, it doesn't "work in every other industrialized nation on this planet". In fact it only works in a few...and those few are countries that are predisposed to socialism. This one is not. Try again...or better yet, spout the party line again. Maybe saying it 20 times will do the trick.
     
  23. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    Insulin may be dirt cheap where you are but not for the rest of the country. People went into Canada and were able to get several months supply for the same insulin that normally was one month supply.

    People are buying insulin designed for dogs because it's cheaper.

    You say you work in the industry, you should know that healthcare prices are extremely hyper local and not uniform; another shining example to have a single payer system by the way, to streamline everything.

    This is far from anecdotal. You give people access to healthcare, they will utilize it for the most part. We're also talking about effectively opening up several industries to have access to millions of new customers by the way.

    And.. party line? Party line, really?

    You don't know by now that both parties are against giving every American access to healthcare, that each party's top brass are bought and paid for, in the back pockets of the healthcare industry?

    Nice try, Rahm.
     
  24. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    Universal healthcare runs into the same problem a universal wage does. To begin with we have 50 states which gives us 50 economies to deal with. Then most states have multiple "markets". For example-Kansas has Johnson County, Whichta, and then smaller rural markets. Call them minor or sub markets. In the USA we have tiered healthcare such as Medicaid for the lower incomes, employer plans, and Advantage and Medigap aka Suplement plans for middle to upper income. Medicaid provides levels depending on incomes and has a "spenddown" program. There is also a coverage for children and the disabled. Extra help with drugs is available to those with incomes under $1581/mo. Sure Medicare needs fine tuning to keep up with the times. But there is coverage for almost everyone, and those that want better can purchase it. That's what capitalism is mainly about. IMO the very first step to improving healthcare is to clean up our immigration system. That is the main drag on our healthcare system.
     
    Hawker-2001 likes this.
  25. Marlattman84

    Marlattman84 Preferred walk on
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2019
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    11
    You realize that MEd Part A only covers in-house care such as hospital and SNF care and does almost nothing to assist outside room and board + therapies. And that is only 120 days out of the calendar year max per beneficiary and THAT is only if the daily copay is made which is around $140 per day right now.

    Yeah. FREE!. LMAO
     
  26. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    Part A is not premium free. To get it "free" you have a deduction into it from your pay check. You need to pay into it at least 40 quarters to get it free. Once you turn 65 and have the 40 quarters you have zero premium. Check your pay stub (if you pay taxes).
     
  27. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    You realize that "Medicare For All" isn't exactly a strictly defined thing but rather a generic term, right?

    Bernie's proposal, which I doubt you've read (and that's fine, just pointing it out), doesn't quite simply remove the age requirement.

    It's a 6 or 7 page pdf and it improves upon the shortcomings it has already.

    No copays
    No deductibles
    No premiums
    No out of pocket expenses

    It's an investment into the workforce, to businesses small and large, and into multiple industries.
     
  28. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    And costs Trillions of dollars more than we have...but that doesn't matter at all...
     
  29. cornstalk

    cornstalk Freshman
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    213

    I can see the investment in the workforce but do not see the investment in the business because if they make too much your going to tax them heavy, if I owned the business I would rather pay there insurance, you know what that is going to be and you can shop around and negotiate with there representative but the taxes the government just tell you what that is going to be and no negotiating
     
  30. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    Here's the deal. As a business owner you're paying a slight increase in payroll taxes but you'd be saving hundreds of dollars per employee per month for the healthcare benefit subsidy.

    Depending how big your business is, your HR person or department no longer has to spend months negotiating plans with multiple companies and determining the number of employees and costs per plan.

    You'd save thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions depending on small or big your company is. Your HR people or person would have a lot more time to work on other things. You could reinvest your savings into better wages, or more attractive benefits, or into R&D or other cost savings for your business; or just sit on the difference and buy a yacht and a summer house.

    This assumes you were offering insurance to your employees as a benefit. Some don't. If that was the case the con here is your payroll taxes increase a couple points. But you're on a more even playing field with other businesses that had offered insurance as benefit in the past.
     
  31. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    His idea sucks. The main problem is that it absolves people of having dsy to day "skin in the game". A glaring example can be found in present day Medicare. At one time Medigap Plan F had only a premium (and still does) but federal surveys showed that people with Plan F will no copays or deductibles went to the doctor "too often". So they came up with plan G that does not cover the Part B annual deductible. Now nonone who turns 65 After 12/31/2109 will be able to buy a plan F. Number 2: there will always be premiums just like there is now, and there will always be out of pocket expenses. Someone will always be stuck with the bill. Bernie's plan will not be affordable-period. Improvements to Medicare, Obama care, and continued employer plans can insure care coverage with options. In this country we have options. Eliminating options and giving people something for non production is a slippery slope to bankrupcy. I still haven't met a Bernie Booster who can actually justify "free medicare for all".
     
    Marlattman84 and Hawker-2001 like this.
  32. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago

    Have you even read his plan?

    You once already knocked it because you said it didn't even cover hearing aids, vision and dental. But you were wrong, because you didn't read it. You just know that the current Medicare system doesn't.

    You then go onto different Parts and criticize them, yet you clearly know nothing of Bernie's plan and how he intends to pay for it.

    I'm seriously not trying to change your mind on anything but you're clearly knocking something you haven't researched and you don't understand.

    You're a conservative in general and consider this is a socialist program, others in your party are against it so you've made up your mind it won't work. Which is totally fine, but criticizing Medicare's flaws today has little or no bearing on Bernie;s plan because his plan is to fix the gaps and shortcomings.
     
  33. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    The bottom line is that there is not a way to pay for it without an extreme raise in taxes. Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is not a solution which is Bernie's solution. Covering everything for everybody eliminates any responsibility to the potential patient. But corrections to the present healthcare system are affordable and should be done.
     
  34. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    It's a tax cut.

    - Employers save hundreds of dollars per employee per month w/o insurance subsidy.
    - Payroll tax increases slightly.
    Net effect: Company comes out far far far ahead in money from the above, but also time and money not having to deal with plan administration and research.

    - Consumer pays no co-pays, deductibles, premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses. This is a tax. It's just paid to corporations instead of the gov't.
    - Whether you're an individual or a family of 4 you're in the black.

    There would be a tax upon extreme wealth. Those that are making $32M or more per year are going to have put up a little more, but it's cool, they'll still afford their private jets, their three yachts, their multiple mansions. Those aren't going away.

    As for 'responsibility' people will be more responsible now that they have regular access to healthcare.
     
  35. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    No you can't. Our present medicare system takes better care of seniors than just about any other country. There is no way anygovernment can supply complete healthcare to all for "free" without onerous taxes. This country is about choices and freedoms to make those choices. Free healthcare for all is a rallying cry by an old man trying to curry votes from man that are just entering adulthood.
     
    Marlattman84 and Hawker-2001 like this.
  36. viviajm

    viviajm Ring of Honor
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Location:
    Liberty, MO
    "The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) on Monday released a paper providing its preliminary estimates for various ways to finance "Medicare for All," as the issue of how to pay for such a health plan has taken center stage in the Democratic presidential primary.

    "Policymakers have a number of options available to finance the $30 trillion cost of Medicare for All, but each option would come with its own set of trade-offs," the budget watchdog group wrote.

    The issue of how to pay for Medicare for All — single-payer health care that eliminates premiums and deductibles — has become a key discussion topic in the Democratic presidential race.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the top tier 2020 hopefuls, recently said that she would release a financing plan for her Medicare for All proposal after being criticized by some of her rivals in the primary race for refusing to give a direct answer about whether she'd raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the massive health care overhaul.

    CRFB said most estimates find that implementing Medicare for All would cost the federal government about $30 trillion over 10 years.

    "How this cost is financed would have considerable distributional, economic, and policy implications," the group wrote.

    CRFB provided several options that each could raise the revenue needed to pay for Medicare for All. These included a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent surtax on income above the standard-deduction amount, a 42 percent value-added tax, mandatory premiums averaging $7,500 per capita, and more than doubling all individual and corporate tax rates.

    The group estimated that Medicare for All could not be fully financed just by raising taxes on the wealthy.

    CRFB also estimated that Medicare for All could be financed by cutting all nonhealth spending by 80 percent, or by more than doubling the national debt, so that it increased to 205 percent of gross domestic product.

    The group said that the financing options it listed could be combined, or that policymakers could reduce the cost of Medicare for All by making it less generous.

    "Adopting smaller versions of several policies may prove more viable than adopting any one policy in full," CRFB wrote.

    CRFB said that most of the financing options it listed would on average be more progressive than current law, but most of the financing options would also shrink the economy."
     
  37. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    Warren has no idea how to finance it because she never was really behind it. Back in April the following said they had a rock solid plan for an implementation of a single payer, M4A:

    Booker
    Gillibrand
    Warren
    Yang
    Harris
    Bernie

    Now there is only one.

    Warren is still trying to convince people behind closed doors she doesn't really want this but she's saying she does to get progressives from Bernie's side to come on over.
     
  38. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    The real problem is you HAVE read it and still don't understand it. You read Bernie's words like they're gospel and don't understand that the real world impacts on healthcare and Society don't work that way. The real point here is that Bernie's 'plan' has no basis in reality.

    Just like you, I've basically given up trying to change your mind, but from the way Viv talks about it, he seems to know a good bit more about it than you do.
     
  39. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,166
    Likes Received:
    1,535
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Yes, because this has happened EVER...
     
  40. nick77

    nick77 All-Conference
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    8,363
    Likes Received:
    813
    Location:
    Chicago
    I've read it, none of you have.

    Of course anyone's plan may not work, but he has a plan and details how he expects it to work.

    It's a tax cut.

    Why are you, a conservative, against tax cuts?
     

Share This Page