Medicare for all

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0


Brits hilariously attempt to guess what healthcare costs for services in the US, discuss their own NHS. I would love to see their reactions when any of you attempt to say how the NHS anecdotally sucks and how we can't do what they do.
We can do it but the outcomes are not good.
Ridiculous wait times to see a specialist.
Ridiculous wait times between diagnosis and treatment.
If we cover and pay for everybody then what will happen is that you and I will never use the service that we're paying for because we will expect to have the same level of medical care that we have right now so we'll still have to pay for private insurance to have something that will actually save our lives instead of having to wait six months for a life saving treatment that is standard for us today.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
Whoa, holy shit. Did not expect this from JOHN DELANEY.

Talk about the Overton Window. When a corporate shit bag neoliberal like Delaney is on board, you know the winds have changed. One of his business he started was in the healthcare industry too.


I wonder what the odds are that someone hacked his Twitter.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
https://www.mintpressnews.com/91-percent-scientific-papers-medicare-for-all-save-money/264189/

91% of peer-reviewed papers find that Medicare For All would save public money, cover everyone.

Remember, even the Koch brothers think tank validated this. What I want to know is why is there even 9% doesn't agree?

M4A in the end is a very conservative principle: fiscally responsible and promotes economic growth and job creation. It's why NIXON said he wouldn't be opposed to a nationalized healthcare system, he just had other things he wanted to carry the baton for.
 

viviajm

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
May 14, 2004
16,057
2,865
0
78
Liberty, MO
legal residents, green cards, etc that are not US citizens should absolutely have access to a M4A healthcare system, if that's what you're asking.

But I also believe that tourists and illegals should be helped in emergencies. Friend of mine is a Volvo dealer and went to Sweden for work. He broke his leg, they set it, gave him drugs, tests, etc, his out of pocket was well under a hundred bucks and he's not paying "half his paycheck" into the system on taxes. Should absolutely be the same here.
That's a dream that we can't afford and would take our healthcare system to the lowest common denominator. As I have posted many tiems, it is far more reasonable and affordable to imporve what we have.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
That's a dream that we can't afford and would take our healthcare system to the lowest common denominator. As I have posted many tiems, it is far more reasonable and affordable to imporve what we have.
Dont bother Viv. Nick isn't interested in listening to anyone that doesn't agree. And why would he? You and I would be footing the bill and Nick gets his family covered for free.
 

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0
Dont bother Viv. Nick isn't interested in listening to anyone that doesn't agree. And why would he? You and I would be footing the bill and Nick gets his family covered for free.
Disagree that he shouldn't bother. You never know who else might be reading and you don't want nick's stupid ideas to go unchallenged and become accepted as fact.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
No one has answer for this. I'm not surprised.

We're declining in life expectancy and the costs are by far the most.

This is what a for-profit based health care system provides, it's no surprise.
I have the answers...and have posted them often in the past. You conveniently ignore them. This is what happens when gov't sticks their nose in an industry and F's it up.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
I have the answers...and have posted them often in the past. You conveniently ignore them. This is what happens when gov't sticks their nose in an industry and F's it up.
Nope.

You can't explain why our for-profit system has us declining in life expectancy with sky-rocketing costs per person.

You never once explained that graph and you can't now.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
Nope.

You can't explain why our for-profit system has us declining in life expectancy with sky-rocketing costs per person.

You never once explained that graph and you can't now.
I can and have, but here it is again since your memory is a little spotty. Our current system has little to do with life expectancy. Americans' general lack of taking care of themselves is...You can have the gold medal insurance, but it doesn't fix the fact that you live on greasy pizza, beer, and meth. It doesn't fix the fact that you suck at driving responsibly...that you are prone to casual sex and therefore STDs. The obesity rates alone should be enough for everyone to see this. America's life expectancy sucks because we don't take care of ourselves.

You can make the argument that access may have something to do with it and you may have a point. But shitty-ass life decisions is by far the bigger factor.

Back to sky-rocketing costs, that has everything to do with the gov't sticking their nose into the industry. The decades-long trend of cutting medicare and medicaid reimbursement is why healthcare costs are going up. That along with increases in illegal immigration, American HC expectations, and a tendency to sue the pants off every doc for a hangnail. None of that is the fault of the healthcare industry.
 

viviajm

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
May 14, 2004
16,057
2,865
0
78
Liberty, MO
I can and have, but here it is again since your memory is a little spotty. Our current system has little to do with life expectancy. Americans' general lack of taking care of themselves is...You can have the gold medal insurance, but it doesn't fix the fact that you live on greasy pizza, beer, and meth. It doesn't fix the fact that you suck at driving responsibly...that you are prone to casual sex and therefore STDs. The obesity rates alone should be enough for everyone to see this. America's life expectancy sucks because we don't take care of ourselves.

You can make the argument that access may have something to do with it and you may have a point. But shitty-ass life decisions is by far the bigger factor.

Back to sky-rocketing costs, that has everything to do with the gov't sticking their nose into the industry. The decades-long trend of cutting medicare and medicaid reimbursement is why healthcare costs are going up. That along with increases in illegal immigration, American HC expectations, and a tendency to sue the pants off every doc for a hangnail. None of that is the fault of the healthcare industry.
The is no doubt that illegal immigrants are a huge burden. Workers at all level that have reported wages have a deductions for medicare part A. The disabled get medicare long before 65. The children of parents on medicaid get coverage. The segment that has the hardest time with healthcare costs are those who adults who are unemployed, can't pay premiums, and are adult. Children get healthcare via the state. But each single issue can be corrected versus chaning the whole program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawker-2001

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0
Why Medicare for All could come with a 42% national sales tax

Rick Newman
Senior Columnist
Yahoo Finance

If you’re a Democrat who supports “Medicare for All,” pick your poison. You can ruin your political career and immolate your party by imposing a ruinous new sales tax, a gargantuan income tax hike or a surtax on corporate income that would wreck thousands of businesses.

This is the cost of bold plans.

Supporters of Medicare for All, the huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone. Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.


Okay, that won’t do it. So what will? CRFB outlined a variety of options. A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.

Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody. Or, the government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon. Or here’s a good one: Just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.

The best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting. Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage. It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.

The upside to these impossibly draconian scenarios is that nobody would pay anything for health care, except in the $7,500 example. And it’s possible that Medicare for All would cover health care for more people at a lower total cost than we spend now, meaning the average cost per person would go down. The problem is transitioning from what we have now to whatever Medicare for all would be. And it’s a giant problem, like crossing the Mississippi River without a bridge or a boat. The other side might look great but you’ll die before you get there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawker-2001

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
Why Medicare for All could come with a 42% national sales tax

Rick Newman
Senior Columnist
Yahoo Finance

If you’re a Democrat who supports “Medicare for All,” pick your poison. You can ruin your political career and immolate your party by imposing a ruinous new sales tax, a gargantuan income tax hike or a surtax on corporate income that would wreck thousands of businesses.

This is the cost of bold plans.

Supporters of Medicare for All, the huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone. Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.


Okay, that won’t do it. So what will? CRFB outlined a variety of options. A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.

Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody. Or, the government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon. Or here’s a good one: Just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.

The best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting. Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage. It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.

The upside to these impossibly draconian scenarios is that nobody would pay anything for health care, except in the $7,500 example. And it’s possible that Medicare for All would cover health care for more people at a lower total cost than we spend now, meaning the average cost per person would go down. The problem is transitioning from what we have now to whatever Medicare for all would be. And it’s a giant problem, like crossing the Mississippi River without a bridge or a boat. The other side might look great but you’ll die before you get there.
LOLOL.

Took me a few seconds to lookup the think tank that is speculating. CRFB is bipartisan, yes, but fiscally conservative. It's initiatives are "entitelment" reform. Looks at the list of it's current and past board members, conservative neoliberals a mile long.

If you bother to read the 7 page report that Bernie has proposed to fund it, a 42% sales tax increase is not one of them.

If you bother to read the Mercatus study - the KOCH BROS funded study, it concluded, confirmed and concurred that M4A saves money overall over time.

M4A in the end promotes economic growth, job creation, less government spending. It gives hundreds of dollars per month per employee.

It's a very conservative ideal overall.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
I can and have, but here it is again since your memory is a little spotty. Our current system has little to do with life expectancy. Americans' general lack of taking care of themselves is...You can have the gold medal insurance, but it doesn't fix the fact that you live on greasy pizza, beer, and meth. It doesn't fix the fact that you suck at driving responsibly...that you are prone to casual sex and therefore STDs. The obesity rates alone should be enough for everyone to see this. America's life expectancy sucks because we don't take care of ourselves.

You can make the argument that access may have something to do with it and you may have a point. But shitty-ass life decisions is by far the bigger factor.

Back to sky-rocketing costs, that has everything to do with the gov't sticking their nose into the industry. The decades-long trend of cutting medicare and medicaid reimbursement is why healthcare costs are going up. That along with increases in illegal immigration, American HC expectations, and a tendency to sue the pants off every doc for a hangnail. None of that is the fault of the healthcare industry.

Nope you haven't and you can't. I'm still waiting.

The data doesn't lie. We're declining year over year with life expectancy and the money we spend per person is way above every other country.

All you got is to blame personal responsibility.

Weak.
 

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0
LOLOL.

Took me a few seconds to lookup the think tank that is speculating. CRFB is bipartisan, yes, but fiscally conservative. It's initiatives are "entitelment" reform. Looks at the list of it's current and past board members, conservative neoliberals a mile long.

If you bother to read the 7 page report that Bernie has proposed to fund it, a 42% sales tax increase is not one of them.

If you bother to read the Mercatus study - the KOCH BROS funded study, it concluded, confirmed and concurred that M4A saves money overall over time.

M4A in the end promotes economic growth, job creation, less government spending. It gives hundreds of dollars per month per employee.

It's a very conservative ideal overall.
Cool story bro. Too bad it also kills the economy through hyper inflation as a price for change.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
LOLOL.

Took me a few seconds to lookup the think tank that is speculating. CRFB is bipartisan, yes, but fiscally conservative. It's initiatives are "entitelment" reform. Looks at the list of it's current and past board members, conservative neoliberals a mile long.

If you bother to read the 7 page report that Bernie has proposed to fund it, a 42% sales tax increase is not one of them.

If you bother to read the Mercatus study - the KOCH BROS funded study, it concluded, confirmed and concurred that M4A saves money overall over time.

M4A in the end promotes economic growth, job creation, less government spending. It gives hundreds of dollars per month per employee.

It's a very conservative ideal overall.
Of course it is...THAT'S THE POINT! Conservative fiscal responsibility is a good thing...it's how the gov't SHOULD run. The alternative is a massive, out of control National Debt and no way to pay it off...without a tax increase.

I have no doubt Bernie doesn't include a sales tax increase. He's a liberal and doesn't give a rats ass whether we balloon the debt or not. I'm pretty sure you don't give a damn either so this discussion is probably moot.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
Of course it is...THAT'S THE POINT! Conservative fiscal responsibility is a good thing...it's how the gov't SHOULD run. The alternative is a massive, out of control National Debt and no way to pay it off...without a tax increase.

I have no doubt Bernie doesn't include a sales tax increase. He's a liberal and doesn't give a rats ass whether we balloon the debt or not. I'm pretty sure you don't give a damn either so this discussion is probably moot.
That's my point. It's a great thing. M4A in the end is a very conservative principle in many ways, assuming it works out the way it was designed.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

I've broken this down before but here is the document for funding options. It's not all just taxing the rich. Multiple options don't involve "taking money". For example one source of revenue is no more tax credits for medical expenses because.. no one will have paid to begin with.

Again, he's entirely honest about it, there will be a payroll and income tax increase but most individuals and 100% of all employers come out ahead.

With all due respect, I've seen you and every other opponent of it on this board just call it free shit and throw out all source of baseless assumptions and accusations with zero substance. Many have said it didn't have X, Y, and Z, when it did in fact cover that.

Talk to any business owner and see if they'd prefer to subsidize and negotiate health insurance for all their employees.. Nope. talk to any conservative over 65 and ask if they're willingly not participating Medicare as it is now.. nope.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
Again, he's entirely honest about it, there will be a payroll and income tax increase but most individuals and 100% of all employers come out ahead.

With all due respect, I've seen you and every other opponent of it on this board just call it free shit and throw out all source of baseless assumptions and accusations with zero substance. Many have said it didn't have X, Y, and Z, when it did in fact cover that.

I have repeatedly offered substance, which you consistently ignore. So it's pretty rich for you to type this.
1. you just admitted there would be a tax increase when you've repeatedly said in the past that there wouldn't be.
2. You also say individuals will come out ahead, which is crap. The vast majority of people with insurance has it mostly paid by employers...by using the income tax methodology the individuals will now be paying for it...that's not coming out ahead using any kind of math I've seen.
3. I recall Obama saying that costs would go down once the ACA was passed...didn't happen, they in fact went up faster. But under Bernie, it'll happen no problem...:rolleyes:

The real difference here is that you believe every word that comes out of Bernie's mouth without the use of any critical thinking on your part. That's the flaw...Bernie's a politician who's a master at promising the world to get elected...and you lap it up. Any critical analysis of the plan shows massive holes in the logic. Add into that the fact that our gov't is ridiculously bad at doing ANYTHING better than private industry, and its borderline mental illness to think this can work.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
Again, he's entirely honest about it, there will be a payroll and income tax increase but most individuals and 100% of all employers come out ahead.

With all due respect, I've seen you and every other opponent of it on this board just call it free shit and throw out all source of baseless assumptions and accusations with zero substance. Many have said it didn't have X, Y, and Z, when it did in fact cover that.

I have repeatedly offered substance, which you consistently ignore. So it's pretty rich for you to type this.
1. you just admitted there would be a tax increase when you've repeatedly said in the past that there wouldn't be.
2. You also say individuals will come out ahead, which is crap. The vast majority of people with insurance has it mostly paid by employers...by using the income tax methodology the individuals will now be paying for it...that's not coming out ahead using any kind of math I've seen.
3. I recall Obama saying that costs would go down once the ACA was passed...didn't happen, they in fact went up faster. But under Bernie, it'll happen no problem...:rolleyes:

The real difference here is that you believe every word that comes out of Bernie's mouth without the use of any critical thinking on your part. That's the flaw...Bernie's a politician who's a master at promising the world to get elected...and you lap it up. Any critical analysis of the plan shows massive holes in the logic. Add into that the fact that our gov't is ridiculously bad at doing ANYTHING better than private industry, and its borderline mental illness to think this can work.
1. Overall the employer and consumer comes out far far ahead. Remember, John Roberts ruled the ACA was constitutional because the mandate was considered a tax. Call it what you want or don't call it what you don't want to call it, but the first sentence is true.

2. Consumer pays a little more based on income in taxes whether they ever go to the doctor or not. But it's going to be less than the cost of private insurance every year, unless they're in the 1%. They are no longer one accident or illness away from bankruptcy and regardless they get the treatment they need - no denails.

99% of individuals that were paying for insurance, employer subsidy or none, end up paying less. The unemployed that weren't paying for insurance get covered and the unemployed that were paying for insurance are saving a boatload.

Employer pays a couple more points in payroll taxes every paycheck. Tax increase yep. But they come out so far ahead without providing or even dealing with that benefit.

Regardless, any way you want to call it, 100% of employers come out ahead and 99% of Americans come out ahead.

3. Obama said a lot of things that was wrong. You can keep your doctors, you can keep your hospital, costs would go down, etc. All ended up being wrong.

But this isn't Obama. This is Bernie.

Yes, you have a perfectly valid argument that legislation wouldn't pass and he'd have to go for some compromise if he won both chambers of congress and it gets bastardized like with Obama and what we're picking over now changes in a theoretical Bernie administration.

Bernie obviously would like to govern via bona fide legislation but the fact is, he could accomplish a lot of what he wants via executive action and the whole point of his political revolution is get the centrists on board or on record, he's lit a fire and people in line with their views are winning primaries over the centrists (AOC, Omar, Tlaib, et al).

Keep in mind that with Bernie on the ballot, voter turnout in general for the Dems would be higher than the last two elections, and could exceed 2008 levels and they'd all vote down ballot.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
1. Overall the employer and consumer comes out far far ahead. Remember, John Roberts ruled the ACA was constitutional because the mandate was considered a tax. Call it what you want or don't call it what you don't want to call it, but the first sentence is true.

So your response is, 'nu-huh'. Got it. As Roberts said, it is a tax, which mean our politicians lied to us again....and Bernie is now lying to us as well. That is relevant whether you want to admit it or not. And its relevant to whether we should trust a multi-trillion dollar overhaul to a politician that lies to our face and gov't that is incompetent.


2. Consumer pays a little more based on income in taxes whether they ever go to the doctor or not. But it's going to be less than the cost of private insurance every year, unless they're in the 1%. They are no longer one accident or illness away from bankruptcy and regardless they get the treatment they need - no denails.

No denials my ass....it'll just be couched differently. Statements like this is where I shake my head the most...the naivete to think there will be no denials, no lack of treatment. GMAFB. Not only will there be both, treatment they do get will be months in the waiting.

And again, the naivete to think HC will cost less...with all historical evidence to the contrary.


99% of individuals that were paying for insurance, employer subsidy or none, end up paying less. The unemployed that weren't paying for insurance get covered and the unemployed that were paying for insurance are saving a boatload.

Employer pays a couple more points in payroll taxes every paycheck. Tax increase yep. But they come out so far ahead without providing or even dealing with that benefit.

Regardless, any way you want to call it, 100% of employers come out ahead and 99% of Americans come out ahead.

You keep declaring all this like its gospel...with nothing to back it up. It might as well be a Bernie campaign flyer posted on this board.


3. Obama said a lot of things that was wrong. You can keep your doctors, you can keep your hospital, costs would go down, etc. All ended up being wrong.

But this isn't Obama. This is Bernie.

Bernie IS Obama reincarnated. Both Liberal Dems, both without any economic experience or interest in gaining it, both without a healthcare plan that has any fiscal considerations taken into account. They're practically butt buddies.

They are no different. I take it back, Bernie is more dangerous because he's better at convincing naive children that he can conjure effective healthcare out of thin air.
 

cornstalk

Sophomore
Gold Member
Nov 22, 2003
1,827
383
0
I have the answers...and have posted them often in the past. You conveniently ignore them. This is what happens when gov't sticks their nose in an industry and F's it up.

No one has answer for this. I'm not surprised.

We're declining in life expectancy and the costs are by far the most.

This is what a for-profit based health care system provides, it's no surprise.
I really do not know the answer, but life style has a lot to do with
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
1. Overall the employer and consumer comes out far far ahead. Remember, John Roberts ruled the ACA was constitutional because the mandate was considered a tax. Call it what you want or don't call it what you don't want to call it, but the first sentence is true.

So your response is, 'nu-huh'. Got it. As Roberts said, it is a tax, which mean our politicians lied to us again....and Bernie is now lying to us as well. That is relevant whether you want to admit it or not. And its relevant to whether we should trust a multi-trillion dollar overhaul to a politician that lies to our face and gov't that is incompetent.


2. Consumer pays a little more based on income in taxes whether they ever go to the doctor or not. But it's going to be less than the cost of private insurance every year, unless they're in the 1%. They are no longer one accident or illness away from bankruptcy and regardless they get the treatment they need - no denails.

No denials my ass....it'll just be couched differently. Statements like this is where I shake my head the most...the naivete to think there will be no denials, no lack of treatment. GMAFB. Not only will there be both, treatment they do get will be months in the waiting.

And again, the naivete to think HC will cost less...with all historical evidence to the contrary.


99% of individuals that were paying for insurance, employer subsidy or none, end up paying less. The unemployed that weren't paying for insurance get covered and the unemployed that were paying for insurance are saving a boatload.

Employer pays a couple more points in payroll taxes every paycheck. Tax increase yep. But they come out so far ahead without providing or even dealing with that benefit.

Regardless, any way you want to call it, 100% of employers come out ahead and 99% of Americans come out ahead.

You keep declaring all this like its gospel...with nothing to back it up. It might as well be a Bernie campaign flyer posted on this board.


3. Obama said a lot of things that was wrong. You can keep your doctors, you can keep your hospital, costs would go down, etc. All ended up being wrong.

But this isn't Obama. This is Bernie.

Bernie IS Obama reincarnated. Both Liberal Dems, both without any economic experience or interest in gaining it, both without a healthcare plan that has any fiscal considerations taken into account. They're practically butt buddies.

They are no different. I take it back, Bernie is more dangerous because he's better at convincing naive children that he can conjure effective healthcare out of thin air.
I'm telling you two things here: a definition of what his plan is, and I keep having to repeat it because I keep seeing criticisms of non-existent things and things that have zero relationship to his plan.

Multiple people aren't understanding what he wants. So I have to keep explaining it.

Obama and Bernie have little room to be further apart.

Obama is a neo-liberal right-center democrat. Forget what he campaigned upon in 2008, that was all rhetoric to get elected. I've written in another thread but the cliffs notes:

Obama was mostly an extension of GWB's presidency: increased the drone attacks, increased the surveillance state, expanded the # of countries bombed, all things started by GWB and all things expanded, improved, and increased by Obama. All things Bernie has been screaming out against since the beginning. Obama opened the arctic for drilling, the famine and illegal participation in the war in Yemen started on his watch.

Bernie would never compromise on any of the above. Like AOC said the other day, there is no left party in the US.

We've got Republican and Republican-Lite when it comes to our parties. With all due respect, to say Bernie is Obama reincarnated couldn't be further from the truth. Obama had a trial balloon to see if he could get away pulling out an anti-endorsement of Bernie, but Bernie was too popular and Obama wouldve hurt his legacy so he didnt.

he's terrified of a Bernie administration; it would wipe his legacy. Why do you think Hillary said what she said in that documentary that we found out about yesterday? It backfired on her. Those democrats would rather have Trump for four more years than Bernie in, no joke. He's an anti-establishment populist that wants to govern for the people and not for the million dollar consultants in the Democratic party that make money regardless.
 

viviajm

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
May 14, 2004
16,057
2,865
0
78
Liberty, MO
I'm telling you two things here: a definition of what his plan is, and I keep having to repeat it because I keep seeing criticisms of non-existent things and things that have zero relationship to his plan.

Multiple people aren't understanding what he wants. So I have to keep explaining it.

Obama and Bernie have little room to be further apart.

Obama is a neo-liberal right-center democrat. Forget what he campaigned upon in 2008, that was all rhetoric to get elected. I've written in another thread but the cliffs notes:

Obama was mostly an extension of GWB's presidency: increased the drone attacks, increased the surveillance state, expanded the # of countries bombed, all things started by GWB and all things expanded, improved, and increased by Obama. All things Bernie has been screaming out against since the beginning. Obama opened the arctic for drilling, the famine and illegal participation in the war in Yemen started on his watch.

Bernie would never compromise on any of the above. Like AOC said the other day, there is no left party in the US.

We've got Republican and Republican-Lite when it comes to our parties. With all due respect, to say Bernie is Obama reincarnated couldn't be further from the truth. Obama had a trial balloon to see if he could get away pulling out an anti-endorsement of Bernie, but Bernie was too popular and Obama wouldve hurt his legacy so he didnt.

he's terrified of a Bernie administration; it would wipe his legacy. Why do you think Hillary said what she said in that documentary that we found out about yesterday? It backfired on her. Those democrats would rather have Trump for four more years than Bernie in, no joke. He's an anti-establishment populist that wants to govern for the people and not for the million dollar consultants in the Democratic party that make money regardless.
What is Bernie running on besides "Medicare for all" "Free healthcare for all". I hear nothing about jobs, trade, peace in the Middle East, relations with the likes of Putin, Xi, and Kim, support of Israel, China taking control of the South China Sea and the retaking of Formosa, protection of our borders and other immigration issues to name a few. Bernie is a one trick pony. Hopefully this fall will be the end of both he and Hilary as far as Presidential conversations. I just want them to be figures in the past rather than present/future.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
What is Bernie running on besides "Medicare for all" "Free healthcare for all". I hear nothing about jobs, trade, peace in the Middle East, relations with the likes of Putin, Xi, and Kim, support of Israel, China taking control of the South China Sea and the retaking of Formosa, protection of our borders and other immigration issues to name a few. Bernie is a one trick pony. Hopefully this fall will be the end of both he and Hilary as far as Presidential conversations. I just want them to be figures in the past rather than present/future.
Every time you say this I reply that you're not going to see this coverage on your Fox News. And even if you look at traditional liberal media, they hate him and black him out.

Watch the youtube where he's on the Joe Rogan Experience and find out for yourself.

To say he is a one trick pony just illustrates you very little about him. The only exposure you have is negative coverage, most of which isn't even true.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
I'm telling you two things here: a definition of what his plan is, and I keep having to repeat it because I keep seeing criticisms of non-existent things and things that have zero relationship to his plan.

Multiple people aren't understanding what he wants. So I have to keep explaining it.

Obama and Bernie have little room to be further apart.

Obama is a neo-liberal right-center democrat. Forget what he campaigned upon in 2008, that was all rhetoric to get elected. I've written in another thread but the cliffs notes:

Obama was mostly an extension of GWB's presidency: increased the drone attacks, increased the surveillance state, expanded the # of countries bombed, all things started by GWB and all things expanded, improved, and increased by Obama. All things Bernie has been screaming out against since the beginning. Obama opened the arctic for drilling, the famine and illegal participation in the war in Yemen started on his watch.

Bernie would never compromise on any of the above. Like AOC said the other day, there is no left party in the US.

We've got Republican and Republican-Lite when it comes to our parties. With all due respect, to say Bernie is Obama reincarnated couldn't be further from the truth. Obama had a trial balloon to see if he could get away pulling out an anti-endorsement of Bernie, but Bernie was too popular and Obama wouldve hurt his legacy so he didnt.

he's terrified of a Bernie administration; it would wipe his legacy. Why do you think Hillary said what she said in that documentary that we found out about yesterday? It backfired on her. Those democrats would rather have Trump for four more years than Bernie in, no joke. He's an anti-establishment populist that wants to govern for the people and not for the million dollar consultants in the Democratic party that make money regardless.
You've seriously lost it. Bernie would never compromise? There's no left party in the US? Obama is right of center? You either take too many drugs or not enough...not sure which way to go.
 
Last edited:

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0
I'm telling you two things here: a definition of what his plan is, and I keep having to repeat it because I keep seeing criticisms of non-existent things and things that have zero relationship to his plan.

Multiple people aren't understanding what he wants. So I have to keep explaining it.

Obama and Bernie have little room to be further apart.

Obama is a neo-liberal right-center democrat. Forget what he campaigned upon in 2008, that was all rhetoric to get elected. I've written in another thread but the cliffs notes:

Obama’s terrified of a Bernie administration; it would wipe his legacy.
You must’ve been sleeping when Trump became the one who wiped away Obama’s legacy.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
You've seriously lost it. Bernie would never compromise? There's no left party in the US? Obama is right of center? You either take too many drugs or not enough...not sure which way to go.
1. Bernie would never compromise and start illegal wars in Yemen; expand the surveillance state; increase drone attacks; open the arctic for drilling. Absolutely not. You have no grip on reality. I'm so sorry to break this to you.

2. There is no leftist party in the US. Bernie Sanders and AOC are centrists from a global perspective; mainstream Democrats are right-center or center of right.

3. The sooner you come to grips with this, the sooner you may begin to eventually understand how things really work.

Hawker-2001 is the perfect example of what happens when you watch cable news and don't ever leave you bubble. I used to be that way too.
 

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0
1. Bernie would never compromise and start illegal wars in Yemen; expand the surveillance state; increase drone attacks; open the arctic for drilling. Absolutely not. You have no grip on reality. I'm so sorry to break this to you.

2. There is no leftist party in the US. Bernie Sanders and AOC are centrists from a global perspective; mainstream Democrats are right-center or center of right.

3. The sooner you come to grips with this, the sooner you may begin to eventually understand how things really work.

Hawker-2001 is the perfect example of what happens when you watch cable news and don't ever leave you bubble. I used to be that way too.
You expect Americans to trust a guy who honeymooned in Moscow????

I'm not sure what's more pathetic. A guy who thought that was a good idea or a voter who would vote for this idiot in spite of it.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
1. Bernie would never compromise and start illegal wars in Yemen; expand the surveillance state; increase drone attacks; open the arctic for drilling. Absolutely not. You have no grip on reality. I'm so sorry to break this to you.

The reality is he's never been in the position to make those decisions, so you're out of your damn mind to say with any certainty what he'd do. You don't know jack shit about what he'd do...Hell BERNIE doesn't know what he'd do until he's actually in that position.


2. There is no leftist party in the US. Bernie Sanders and AOC are centrists from a global perspective; mainstream Democrats are right-center or center of right.

And you're living in your bong. Jeezus...


3. The sooner you come to grips with this, the sooner you may begin to eventually understand how things really work.

You got some serious balls telling others how things work...you haven't been on this Earth long enough to tell me where the pisser is.


Hawker-2001 is the perfect example of what happens when you watch cable news and don't ever leave you bubble. I used to be that way too.

You're that way now...seriously, what are you smokin'?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjabrad

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
1. Bernie would never compromise and start illegal wars in Yemen; expand the surveillance state; increase drone attacks; open the arctic for drilling. Absolutely not. You have no grip on reality. I'm so sorry to break this to you.

The reality is he's never been in the position to make those decisions, so you're out of your damn mind to say with any certainty what he'd do. You don't know jack shit about what he'd do...Hell BERNIE doesn't know what he'd do until he's actually in that position.


2. There is no leftist party in the US. Bernie Sanders and AOC are centrists from a global perspective; mainstream Democrats are right-center or center of right.

And you're living in your bong. Jeezus...


3. The sooner you come to grips with this, the sooner you may begin to eventually understand how things really work.

You got some serious balls telling others how things work...you haven't been on this Earth long enough to tell me where the pisser is.


Hawker-2001 is the perfect example of what happens when you watch cable news and don't ever leave you bubble. I used to be that way too.

You're that way now...seriously, what are you smokin'?!

You have no remote clue how the Democratic Party is right now.

You said Bernie was Obama was re-incarnated. I tried to respectfully correct you, but once again you throw the gloves off.

The most comical thing said around here was when JT said that Bernie and Warren both wanted to end Capitalism as we know it, but now I think you saying that Bernie is Obama reincarnated might overtake that.

You also screamed and shouted that Suliemani never fought ISIS, LMAO.

You can't tell the difference between Rahm Emmanuel, Cheri Bustos, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat leaders from the very few progressives they attempt to crush.

Have you ever heard of Dan Lipinski? Of course you didn't. Look him up.

There is no left party in the United States. There are small coalitions like DSA and to some extent, the Working Families party that aren't a third party but caucus together within the Democratic Party to push for reform.

If you think the current DNC as a whole is left, WTF do you think Marxists and Anarachists are?

 

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0
You have no remote clue how the Democratic Party is right now.

You said Bernie was Obama was re-incarnated. I tried to respectfully correct you, but once again you throw the gloves off.

The most comical thing said around here was when JT said that Bernie and Warren both wanted to end Capitalism as we know it, but now I think you saying that Bernie is Obama reincarnated might overtake that.

You also screamed and shouted that Suliemani never fought ISIS, LMAO.

You can't tell the difference between Rahm Emmanuel, Cheri Bustos, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat leaders from the very few progressives they attempt to crush.

Have you ever heard of Dan Lipinski? Of course you didn't. Look him up.

There is no left party in the United States. There are small coalitions like DSA and to some extent, the Working Families party that aren't a third party but caucus together within the Democratic Party to push for reform.

If you think the current DNC as a whole is left, WTF do you think Marxists and Anarachists are?

Slanted world view.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
Slanted world view.
You guys read Breitbart and watch Fox News. You have the slightest clue about the inner workings of the Democratic Party, it's leadership, its direction nor its history for that matter.

The irony is that you view Pelosi as an arch enemy and she's actively working with you have the time.

I'll say it once more, very soon you're going to be pining for the days the current leadership today is in power, but AOC is the tip of the iceberg.
 

Hawker-2001

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
16,043
2,005
0
Kansas...land of milk and honey
You have no remote clue how the Democratic Party is right now.

I won't argue with that. They're not following any logic I'm aware of beyond 'get Trump'.


You said Bernie was Obama was re-incarnated. I tried to respectfully correct you, but once again you throw the gloves off.

You haven't been respectful about any of this...so stop acting like I threw anything.

The most comical thing said around here was when JT said that Bernie and Warren both wanted to end Capitalism as we know it, but now I think you saying that Bernie is Obama reincarnated might overtake that.

The comical part of this is that's not what I was saying...I was comparing the two for purposes of talking about healthcare and you extended it to everything else.

You also screamed and shouted that Suliemani never fought ISIS, LMAO.

I never screamed a damn thing, but thanks for going back to one thing I got wrong and screaming it from the rafters. That makes you a first class douche more than it says anything about me. And it barely is wrong given what you call help in this instance.


You can't tell the difference between Rahm Emmanuel, Cheri Bustos, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat leaders from the very few progressives they attempt to crush.

You're right...I can't tell the difference and don't really care enough to know. If you think so little of yourself as to align with the Democrat Party, then there's really not that much more to say.

Have you ever heard of Dan Lipinski? Of course you didn't. Look him up.

Didn't need to. Already know who he is...so what? You think bringing up one of the more conservative Dems means anything? I group the Dems together because for the most part they act together. Just like you group the GOP together with their most conservative/radical right groups and paint them with the same brush. Neither is technically accurate, but I don't feel the need to write a book on all the differences every time we talk about party politics.


If you think the current DNC as a whole is left, WTF do you think Marxists and Anarachists are?

I never once said the DNC as a whole is left, I said your statement that there is no left in the DNC is ridiculous. You're the one that took it there, so you can build your straw man someplace else. I can think of a few places.
 

bjabrad

Hall of Fame
Dec 5, 2005
33,565
8,128
0
You guys read Breitbart and watch Fox News. You have the slightest clue about the inner workings of the Democratic Party, it's leadership, its direction nor its history for that matter.

The irony is that you view Pelosi as an arch enemy and she's actively working with you have the time.

I'll say it once more, very soon you're going to be pining for the days the current leadership today is in power, but AOC is the tip of the iceberg.
I watch and read everything. My nose isn't stuck up the ass of America haters like Obama or Bernie.

Pelosi has a funny way of working with the GOP while she's trying to remove Trump from office.

You need psychiatric treatment. If you're already under care you need a new Dr.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com

Read the thread. This is from a former career insurance exec. Bernie's biggest impact so far is the electorate is being able to pull the wool away from their eyes. Win or lose, Bernie has let everyone know what the big swindle is.
 

viviajm

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
May 14, 2004
16,057
2,865
0
78
Liberty, MO
Medicare for all is not affordable. Period. Bernie and Warren have tapp-ed into a group that wants something for nothing. Bernie won't be able to bring that ship to port.
 

nick77

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2003
11,456
1,589
0
112
Chicago
www.richardsimmons.com
Say that to the millions of people like this guy

Imagine getting a tax cut for nearly $6k every year. But wait! There's more! Also having the piece of mind you'll never get kicked off health care. Never getting denied treatment. Never going bankrupt over injury, accident, or illness.

The beats of burdens would vanished overnight. Suicide rates would drop overnight. Depression rates would drop overnight.

The number of people having those fears and stressed out over that but is against this is ZERO.
 

Latest posts