Socialized Medicine - Bernie Style

[TakeYouToTasker]

The GOP is a bunch of tired old elephants sitting in the comfy chairs of exclusive men's clubs. And why not if you can get away with it.

 

It has never been a party of substance for conservative values outside of Goldwater's disaster, Reagan and somewhat W.

You're confusing Old Guard Republicans with the current build of the Party; and while you've adequately described Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, you've managed to either ignore, or conflate with them, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and members of the Liberty Caucus which is making your observations useless.

[row_33]

You're confusing Old Guard Republicans with the current build of the Party; and while you've adequately described Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, you've managed to either ignore, or conflate with them, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and members of the Liberty Caucus which is making your observations useless.

 

Cruz, Paul and the LC are totally outside of useful political capital.

 

They will not lead anyone anywhere.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Cruz, Paul and the LC are totally outside of useful political capital.

 

They will not lead anyone anywhere.

An assertion which ignores the rapid growth of libertarianism in and outside of government over the last 12 years. They've grown so much that they've moved to Republican Party to a place where they are unable to legislate or govern, because they can't move without getting the libertarians on board, and they can't get the libertarians on board without a libertarian agenda.

 

Further, stagnation of this sort doesn't hurt the libertarians politically with their base, because they're doing what their base wants of them. The people who elect libertarians don't want them to play nice with big government players in either party. They aren't even interested in "this far no further" politics. They demand libertarian reforms within government, and celebrate the failure to advance any agenda outside of that scope.

 

And again, they're growing rapidly.

[B-Man]

 

They’re from the government and they’re here to help you….......... again…

 

 

 

In other words - let's spend $5 Trillion we don't have to lower care-quality for all, on gov't run healthcare we know doesn't work!

[row_33]

An assertion which ignores the rapid growth of libertarianism in and outside of government over the last 12 years. They've grown so much that they've moved to Republican Party to a place where they are unable to legislate or govern, because they can't move without getting the libertarians on board, and they can't get the libertarians on board without a libertarian agenda.

 

Further, stagnation of this sort doesn't hurt the libertarians politically with their base, because they're doing what their base wants of them. The people who elect libertarians don't want them to play nice with big government players in either party. They aren't even interested in "this far no further" politics. They demand libertarian reforms within government, and celebrate the failure to advance any agenda outside of that scope.

 

And again, they're growing rapidly.

 

Libertarians are filthy rich and/or insane.

 

No practical use at all.

 

So you grew 10% over the last 20 decades, from 20,000 to 22,000? Big whoop.

 

Political poison, makes anyone who has a clue about reality cringe and vote for anyone else

 

Keep dreaming...

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Libertarians are filthy rich and/or insane.

 

No practical use at all.

 

So you grew 10% over the last 20 decades, from 20,000 to 22,000? Big whoop.

 

Political poison, makes anyone who has a clue about reality cringe and vote for anyone else

 

Keep dreaming...

Ignorance on full display.

 

Which is why we're growing, and holding you hostage along the way. Libertarians represent about 20% of the current Republican Congress, up from one or two fringe members over the last 12 years. That's massive growth.

Edited September 14, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[ALF]

Should people without health insurance who need it, have affordable access ?

 

Those workers who earn too much to qualify for medicaid , no employer insurance , who live pay check to pay check and can not afford health and dental insurance.

Edited September 14, 2017 by ALF

[DC Tom]

Should people without health insurance who need it, have affordable access ?

 

Those workers who earn too much to qualify for medicaid , no employer insurance , who live pay check to pay check and can not afford health and dental insurance.

 

No.

[ALF]

 

No.

 

What should those families do ?

[Tiberius]

Should people without health insurance who need it, have affordable access ?

 

Those workers who earn too much to qualify for medicaid , no employer insurance , who live pay check to pay check and can not afford health and dental insurance.

Can't they sign up for Obamacare?

[ALF]

Can't they sign up for Obamacare?

 

So far but the republicans are trying to take that away

[Azalin]

The GOP is a bunch of tired old elephants sitting in the comfy chairs of exclusive men's clubs. And why not if you can get away with it.

 

It has never been a party of substance for conservative values outside of Goldwater's disaster, Reagan and somewhat W.

 

Republicans down here in Texas are widely considered to be a rather conservative lot.

[grinreaper]

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/14/bernie-sanders-medicaid-for-all-bankrupt

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced new legislation yesterday to expand Medicare to everyone in the United States. The bill, which came with 15 Democratic co-sponsors, envisions universal coverage, paid for by tax increases, that would be far more generous than what is offered by any other first-world government-run health care system offers.

Notably absent from Sanders' proposed single-payer system was a detailed plan to pay for it. The senator said he would lay out the tax hikes necessary to fund his new system in separate legislation.

That may be because enthusiasm for single payer tends to die down pretty quickly once people get a sense of what sort of tax increases would be necessary to fund it. An Urban Institute analysis of a previous version of Sanders' plan estimated that it would cost $32 trillion over a decade.




Back in 1987, a much younger Bernie Sanders apparently had that sense too. He warned that expanding Medicaid, the jointly run federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled, to everyone in the country would "bankrupt the nation."

"If we expanded Medicaid [to] everybody. Give everybody a Medicaid card—we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that, you know, we would bankrupt the nation."

[GG]

Should people without health insurance who need it, have affordable access ?

 

Those workers who earn too much to qualify for medicaid , no employer insurance , who live pay check to pay check and can not afford health and dental insurance.

 

The honest reality is that this group is very small. Most of the uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to, because they're young, don't make a lot of money and still feel invincible. Not many people can afford $1,000/mo health insurance. But that's what's mandated by many states' laws.

 

The best solution is to tailor plans for them to provide catastrophic coverage at a reasonable cost.

[ALF]

 

 

The best solution is to tailor plans for them to provide catastrophic coverage at a reasonable cost.

 

If Obamacare were repealed , Hospital coverage at the very least I could approve.

[GG]

 

If Obamacare were repealed , Hospital coverage at the very least I could approve.

 

You mean go back to where it was

[B-Man]

LEMMINGS: Democrats Follow Bernie Sanders Off a Cliff.

 

Matthew Continetti:

 

The “Medicare for All Act of 2017” would repeal Obamacare, along with most other private and public insurance, and replace it with a government-run, one-size-fits-all, centrally directed system of reimbursement for medical expenses. Sanders, who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, holds the same opinion of health insurance as he does antiperspirants:

“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”

Senators Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Warren, who in addition to cosponsoring the bill may soon be fighting each other, as well as Sanders, for the Democratic nomination, are generals re-enacting the last war. They saw how well Sanders did against Clinton, they have marched in the anti-Trump “resistance” movement, and they want to inoculate themselves from accusations of ideological heresy.

Which is why they embrace the thin-skinned and irritable senator whose wife is under federal investigation. What the copycats forget is the future in politics is never a straight-line projection of the present, much less of the bizarre circumstances surrounding the 2016 Democratic primary. “Medicare for All” might strike Warren &co. today as legislation worthy of support for reasons both moral and self-interested. In time, however, palling around with Bernie Bros may become a liability.

For one thing, the policy is remarkably vague. “Mr. Sanders did not say how he would pay for his bill,” writes Robert Pear of the New York Times. “Aides said he would issue a list of financing options.” The “options” are not included in the bill—but they are enough to raise the hair on the back of one’s neck.

The experiences of Vermont, whose single-payer system collapsed several years ago, and of California and New Jersey, whose true-blue legislatures can’t carry single payer across the finish line, and of Colorado, which voted overwhelmingly against a similar plan last year, suggest the tax increases necessary to sustain expanded coverage frighten even Democrats.

 

 

[row_33]

 

Republicans down here in Texas are widely considered to be a rather conservative lot.

 

Yup for Texas. Also not exactly a hotbed for GOP leadership.

[Azalin]

 

Yup for Texas. Also not exactly a hotbed for GOP leadership.

 

Aside from Cruz getting the 2nd most delegates in the last primary, and a two-term president from 2000-2008.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Azalin

[row_33]

 

Aside from Cruz getting the 2nd most delegates in the last primary, and a two-term president from 2000-2008.

 

this is your hill to die on?

 

okay.................................

 

Who gives a crap about Cruz, he is not remotely a national political figure.

 

And the Bushes are Connecticut well-bred folk, not Texans for real.