It may be a good idea to give the president a line-item veto so Senator Jerk can't slip legislation into a bill to build a statue of themselves in front the state capitol, even if it means giving it to the current president.

The conservative politicians probably do believe in science. It's just that it doesn't personally benefit them to follow science so they just claim it's untrue and try to convince their voter base of that so they can continue to have their wallets lined by their lobbyists.

And only conservatives claim Democrats are advertising free stuff. Democrats and liberals know quite well that healthcare will cost money. It's just yet another tactic by conservatives to anger their voter base by saying Democrats want free stuff. Universal healthcare is 100% feasible. Most countries do it no problem. We'd just be cutting out the middle man reducing one source of inflated prices and force medical providers to not drastically overinflate the prices of their services. No more $150 for an IV bag or $1,000 for someone to fix a prescription up. Go back to charging what the service actually costs and not 10,000 what it really costs.

Well, many Democrats are using the word "free"...as in "free universal healthcare", or "free college".

And, to that end, it actually will be "free" for anyone whose taxes won't go up to pay for it. Correct? Which, I believe, taxes will go up on everyone "middle class" and higher.

Ok. How? And putting hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs in the process. And who's to say it won't end up like the VA system, or worse? Do you think if we had "universal" healthcare that the government wouldn't try to exercise MORE control over us? If the government has complete and total control over our healthcare, don't you think it stands to reason that they could (eventually) dictate to us what and how much to eat, and how often to exercise, and what minimum types of exercise to get? And if you don't, maybe you get fined or something.

Ask yourself this: Do you trust Congress to make these decisions?

The middle class is already subsidizing tax breaks for corporations. If I have to pay for "free stuff", I'd rather have it go to the needy than the greedy.

What is "greed" in this context?

Is it an income level? A behavior? What makes a corporation greedy? What makes a person greedy? Is Bill Gates greedy?

What about the jealous? Or the, "It's not fair you have more than me, so some of it should be redistributed to me." argument?

No, Republicans are calling it free. Democrats are calling it Universal Healthcare. Public education. Stop monetizing necessities.

Maybe if the uber rich didn't get to skip out on taxes and have the middle class pay for the welfare of the uber rich's employees that are paid diddly squat and aren't being given basic benefits by their employers, the middle class wouldn't get taxed to death. The problem isn't the bottom 50 percent not paying enough taxes. It's the top few percent who pay about jack squat.

You do realize if suddenly 300 million people are getting their "insurance" through the government, suddenly that's a crap ton of jobs open for those people who work for the blood sucking, rip off insurance companies. And short of Republicans trying to restrict what women can do with their bodies and preventing them from taking ordinary medicine because they don't understand basic anatomy, I don't think it could possibly be any worse than America's shit tier capitalist system in place now.

Semantics.

Who are the "uber rich"? I notice that Elizabeth Warren's "wealth tax" proposal starts at a level far above HER wealth. Why do you think that is?

Further, as I've stated many times before, if she's that wealthy, nothing is stopping her from donating large sums of money to help people with healthcare, food, education, etc.

Heck, if I recall correctly, some millionaire guy recently paid for the college education of everyone at a college.


The question here is: How much do you trust our elected representatives? Because that's what you'd have to do -- completely -- to go with the "universal healthcare" model.

You have a valid point vis-a-vis the insurance companies, but I think there could possibly be other ways to "fix" those issues.

I like how you're complaining about Whataboutisms in another thread while basing other entire threads on whataboutisms.

As for tired point you're trying to make which is just yet another variation of "Rawr, no one better get free stuff to make their lives better on my dime!"; Do you even know what Warren's plan is or how it will work? I'm guessing not. There are some very valid criticisms to be leveled against her plan but "rawr democrats don't understand mathz" isn't one of them. That's just repeating oft used political bullshit that's been laying around in the sun for decades as is.

It's one of the premier dipshit arguments Republicans make whenever anyone proposes anything that might actually help someone else at the expense of wealthy people's profits.

In what way? If the math doesn't work, it doesn't work. If you believe the math works, by all means, show me the data with real numbers.

You're correct. I don't. I doubt she does, either. Honestly, I think "Mayor Pete", if I were to vote Democratic, has the more valid approach anyway. After all, if the Democrats are all about "my body, my choice", isn't that was "Mayor Pete" is offering? With Warren's plan, there is no choice. You MUST be on this program.

There's simply not enough "rich people" money to go around. She's re-framing things in the form of "costs". Because every single time she is asked about taxes going up for the middle class, she changes it to "costs". At least Bernie's honest about it.

So who are these wealthy people? And are there enough of them? And how much of their money are they entitled to?

Bill Gates' net worth is approximately $100 Billion. He does a ton for charity. He pays more in taxes than many of us would see in multiple lifetimes. How much of that $100 billion would he have to give up? Even if he gave up every dollar of it, that is a small fraction of the FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS per year that the plan is anticipated to cost.

It's not really semantics if one involves earning something and the other doesn't.

Walmart gets billions of dollars in subsidies to make up for Walmart's low pay and benefits. So does Amazon. All those bank bailouts but not the people affected by predatory lending? When you profits are in the hundreds of millions or billions, there's no reason we should be taxing the working class so the businesses can have even higher profits. Paying a livable wage and benefits is the cost of business, not the taxpayers job.

It's a sad time we live in where private citizens have to step in to provide what should be available to anyone regardless of income.

I trust politicians more than I trust insurance companies and businesses whose number one priority is screwing us over as much as possible to bleed our bank accounts dry.

....your thread premise is literally going from Republicans not understanding science to "Yeah well what about Democrats not understanding math".


So you're criticizing something you admit you do not understand and capping it off with a juvenile shot at abortion rights?




All things you would know if you bothered to read about her plan instead of complain about it out of your own ignorance.



3.4 trillion per year by independent estimate. 2 trillion by her own. How the plan pays for these things is, again, something you would actually know if you bothered to learn about a topic before complaining about it. But for reference 300b per year comes from the wealth tax component.

Bill Gates would pay 6.379b a year with the wealth tax. Which is, notably, below what he publicly stated he would be willing to pay. As he stated he pays 10b as is and would be willing to pay 20b. So he'd be paying 16.379b. Him and Warren were recently discussing things on Twitter.

You're also not going to find much sympathy with "Won't someone please think of the billionaires?!" either. =p

So are you implying that "the rich"/"the wealthy" don't earn it? Do you have a 401(k) at your job? Did you earn the gains from the money? Yes? No?

I think it's a non-sequitur to compare Wal-Mart/Amazon to the bank bailouts. Truthfully, I wasn't for them. That said, my wife was, I believe. She has a degree in economics, and is fairly liberal, by the way. She explained to me why she felt it was a good idea for that to happen.

Though I will agree with you about Predatory Lending. That needs to be reigned in.

Then let's do as I previously suggested: Have the government put out a list of every job in the country, and assign a salary to it. Then let the government dole out the money. Then everyone's on a government job (or at least paid by the government). Let's see what the government believes these jobs are worth.

Um, taxation on line 1...

Besides, forced altruism isn't altruism. Being generous with other people's money isn't being generous.

We have a society now that thinks "the government should pay for it". Do they know where that money comes from? The government, in those instances, doesn't make money. It's a tax collection and distribution system. A "middle man", of sorts. With a LOT of bureaucracy rolled in.

Do ya? Look, a lot of health insurance companies are already starting to put restrictions on people (i.e. smoking, rock climbing, etc.). You don't think the government wouldn't do the same thing? Need I remind you in NY Michael Bloomberg wanted to ban sugary drinks and extra-large drinks? You don't think that can't happen at a federal level? What about mandatory daily exercise? You for that?

As I've said before: Simply because something is a good idea (i.e. daily exercise) doesn't mean it should be mandatory.

The problem with this and many similar arguments against universal healthcare is it requires you to ignore that basically every other first world democracy on the planet has universal healthcare. And has had it for decades without any kind of weird draconian mandates about exercise or soda. There's overwhelming evidence that it works and ample models to draw upon as a road map.

It's right there in the word: Universal. Not conditional.

The real risk with America is doing it in half measures to try and placate the shitlord politicians that benefit from money made off of the current system. It has to be universal just like everyone else. If you try to do it as a hybrid system the shitlords will find ways to continue to profit off of people's misery.

No one's going to mandate exercise. But someone's certainly going to try and find a way to keep charging $500 for an IV bag at behest of the lobbyists that line his pockets.

I'll give you that. Consider, though, Unions have healthcare. Congress has cushy healthcare. Do you think that either of those groups is going to want to give that up?

You're correct in your assertion that "universal" means "universal". That means the wealthy and the poor, the privileged and disadvantaged alike. We can't complain under a "universal" system that "rich people don't need it, because they can already afford to go". Nor could we have carve-outs for Congress and unions.

I don't believe for a second that wouldn't happen.

Ya sure about that? They might not mandate it, but they can certainly heavily incentivize it. Just like they can incentivize it if you're at what they deem to be a healthy weight.

Did you know that a lot of very in shape pro athletes are considered overweight and/or obese, based upon what they "should" weigh?