You know that a lot of us would engage with you more thoughtfully if you didn't spend so much of your time defending such an obvious troll. I support a lot of libertarian policies but don't stick my neck out for Rand Paul because he's a ********up. And we can discuss Brexit to our heart's delight - nothing anyone does or says is changing the fact that May's government couldn't find thei way out of an empty room.
I suspect that half of the declared candidates won't even make it to the first vote in Iowa. There's only so much oxygen in the room (and campaign money in the coffers). There will be some backroom dealing to get those with less traction to concede and endorse those with more traction. Castro is the perfect example of someone who won't make it to Iowa. He'll endorse someone else in exchange for a position in the administration. So far Warren is the only one that looks determined to go all the way.
Changes the subject and calls me a troll. Brilliant. Can you actually provide a counter argument? "Wealthy Americans, who have captured our political process" List of countries with a wealthy upper class who still manage to provide universal health care: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care At this point you're the one behaving like a troll by refusing to address my query. Without losing your shit can you tell me why the US democratic system is so dysfunctional it fails to provide something that is virtually guaranteed as a right in every other developed country on the planet.
I'm not asking to design the system. I'd just like the US to stop dragging the global political consensus further and further to the right. We are literally all running out of time. Ensuring all American citizens have access to affordable healthcare would be a great start.
oh man, too good... Even Stevie Wonder could see the direction that was heading. Avoids the topic with questions geared to change the subject and pigeon hole the debate, claim someone else is trolling. LOL totti fan you're a hoot
You’re confusing those nations’ wealth distribution now with what it was when they adopted universal health care. You’re not even trying to make sense, you’re just throwing out ore-canned talking points almost at random.
Can you provide some evidence to support that assertion? In fact I'm calling bullshit because there are a number of African nations on that list.
The walking meme strikes again. he does this so he can pre-empt you asking for evidence. If and when you do then the next tactic is: then he'll be back to us with Stalin = Humanitarian memes. So keep him busy guys!!
At least these lobbyists are acting in their rational own self interests. That's a sizable financial incentive. What baffles me is why so many liberals oppose Med4all. Right-wingers can at least claim opposition on the basis of free market principles. It would not surprise me if Brummie had a financial conflict of interest.
Income inequality is greater in Bolivia: World Bank Gini (higher equals greater income inequality): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality (2015) Bolivia: 45.8% (2016) United States: 41.5% Bolivia is introducing universal health care in 2019: Bolivia-Rolls-Out-Universal-Health-Care-To-5.8M-Uninsured-
She is as tough as they come. You have to be, to survive and rise in San Francisco politics. The race for the democratic nomination is going to be one hell of a ride.
I think some people aren't naive enough to think that we can raise taxes enough to pay for it in the short term. I watched Obama's modest efforts to increase revenue, and saw how that worked out. I'm OK with some form of universal healthcare, but I'm also aware that these efforts have failed before at state level due to underfunding. If a candidate is serious about the idea, I don't want it half assed. I'd rather see a series of tax increases and spending cuts first in other areas in order to put us in a better position to actual make it work. I think the next Dem president will have their work cut out for them just to take us back to Obama's imperfect budget, let alone take on ambitious goals like med4all.
I suppose the assertion that the tax increase would be less than what the average family pays in premiums isn’t a compelling point? No copays.
The problem here is that for the 1%ers who drive policy, the tax increase would be way more than what they pay in premiums. TBH, while I would be in favor of M4A, I also recognize the political challenges involved, and that the political path to it might be a series of incremental steps rather than one great leap forward. One way I could conceive of that happening would be first allowing everyone to buy into Medicare as a public option through the exchanges, then over time, broadening and deepening the subsidies for coverage bought through the exchanges until all folks can get Medicare at no added cost through the exchange. (And yeah, there are co-pays with Medicare.)
But doing the math and getting the electorate to understand it is the hard part. Specially that once a candidate admits that taxes will have to go up, GOP media will pounce on that with attack adds. It does not matter what comes after.