Private sector is why there is even a government sector...lol. Doesn't go the other way. There wouldn't be fantasy phones and everything else without the private sector. Man we have become government leeches.
2020 Democrat hopefuls
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Private sector is why there is even a government sector...lol. Doesn't go the other way. There wouldn't be fantasy phones and everything else without the private sector. Man we have become government leeches.
We should really just nationalize every major industry and let the government run those companies, divide those profits, and manage all of the businesses of the United States.
It's worked so well in Venezuela. Viva La Socialism!
It is a give and take. Take away the government, and we don't have a private sector that resembles anything close to what we have now either. And again, you guys seem to discount how much research is actually funded by the government, that private companies then put to use in their products.
Absolutely nobody is calling for that. We are talking about one area of one industry, and even then we are talking about making it more accessible, not completely nationalizing it.
And Venezuela is much more complex than what you are giving it credit for.
Then what exactly are you arguing for? That "one industry" represents 20-22% of our entire economy with a GDP of $20 Trillion.
Healthcare and health insurance are not the same thing. Nobody is trying to nationalize the hospitals. At most some people are wanting to nationalize health insurance, but even then most people are just wanting it subsidized so people can afford treatment when they get sick.
And it still will. The government isn't taking over the hospitals they are taking over the payments
If Medicare is so evil and socialist then I want to see a Republican arguing for it to be taken away from old people. They would surely be better off with a market based solution. In fact I want to see them willingly relinquish it.
By "some people" you mean half the DNC Presidential field. And we have been subsidizing health insurance for 60-70 years in this country. We run the largest welfare and entitlement program in the history of mankind, every single year.
lol nothing of the sort is happening.
You keep ducking the question but no blue states have done this, why is that?
What do you prefer? Would you like to get rid of insurance for old people and children? I am honestly asking. The people who use medicare are old, and the people who most use Medicaid are kids and disabled people.
And yes, we have been subsidizing healthcare for decades in the country, just like most developed nations on the planet. We just don't do it as well as a lot of places.
Last edited:
I shouldn't have to explain this to you but I'm not surprised that I do.
States don't control Medicare money.
States don't control ACA money.
A state can't opt out of collecting those taxes so their citizens would need to pay for a state single payer and the federal programs that they wouldn't be using.
This is total disingenuous bullshit. If there were to be a MFA, it would require more revenue from the States to begin with. That means that there's absolutely no reason why CA couldn't come up with their own MFA system, baseline it upon state tax revenue, and do it. This has nothing to do with what is currently being allocated for Medicare or ACA or anything. This is an entirely new required tax revenue stream to put every citizen on a government health plan that isn't already covered by one today.
You've yet to explain where we'd find $3.5 - $4 Trillion in additional tax revenue without utterly destroying our economy. You keep mentioning flawed figures related to private consumer spending which tells me you don't really know how the economy works and why you can't just estimated consumer spending and do a 1-1 with government allocation to do the same thing.
Medicare for All is amazing yet no blue state can find the will or money to pass it.
High Speed Rail is needed nationally yet California had to abandon it for being too costly and too wasteful
Amazing how these "can't miss" liberal ideas are never adopted by states run by liberals.
you keep making the blanket statement that everyone that has seen the positive effects of it are unemployed which is not true
+1
you are spot on. Any proposed system is destined to turn into a mess when the States are not on the same page.
as far as the Dem candidates go I think Beto hasn't given much detail(intentional at this point in the cycle in my opinion) but when/if he does my guess is that his plan will be similar to Gwen Graham's Public option and not a Bernie for all plan. That's where I think he settles if he were to win the nomination.
Last edited:
It isn't political at all. It seems to me they aren't the ones making it political, it's the politicians and city leaders. Chic fil a is simply doing company business and establishing company policy with the value structure of the owners.
All the California rich people are still scrambling to figure how they can hide all those illegals in their basements who do their landscaping for $10 an hour. Priorities
Haha - I pretty much feel the same way he does - about a lot of things. Democrats are too busy yelling at everything instead of laying out what they actually want to do about it.
That's where he is different. He's level headed when speaking about policy. Something that's lost across all spectrums of political ideology these days.
too shook to admit that your party is corrupt even against itself. stay shook.
The party yahoos who favored Hillary in the 2016 primaries are long gone. To be fair, many of the 2016 Trump Campaign players are also gone (in jail as convicted felons.)
But Trump himself is still around so I think your party has a clear advantage on the corruption front.
i hope trump turns the tables and starts some fbi/doj investigations of his own.The party yahoos who favored Hillary in the 2016 primaries are long gone. To be fair, many of the 2016 Trump Campaign players are also gone (in jail as convicted felons.)
But Trump himself is still around so I think your party has a clear advantage on the corruption front.
btw, if they are long gone, care to explain the current jussie smollet situation?
I don't think this is true at all. Warren most certainly lays out policies, Klobuchar has laid out policies, Sanders can be vague but typically lays out the nuts and bolts of his policies, etc etc. There are some candidates who will need to do better on this for sure, but for the most part you can find policy positions pretty easily for the major candidates. Plus, Clinton was about as much of a policy wonk as a candidate could possibly be, and still lost the general election to a guy whose plan for healthcare was "something terrific". So there is a balance between laying out policy and being an exciting candidate.
Stoking hatred for rich people and yelling about 70% top marginal rates are not policies.
Tax plans are absolutely policies. Just because you don't agree with someone's policies, doesn't mean they aren't policies. But also, if that is all you have seen them doing then that is kind of on you, because they have most certainly been talking different issues.
No, what I mean is that promising that you're going to deliver Medicare for All, free college, and/or Green New Deals and do it all simply by soaking rich people is not a policy. It's a lie and a blatant one. But that's mostly what we've been getting so far from this group.
Candidates run on all sorts of issues that end up not coming true, obviously they are policy proposals at the campaign stage. Presidents don't operate on their own, so obviously no candidate can actually guarantee any proposal will get worked out and pushed through congress, they are telling you what their goals are. So if you don't agree with Warren's tax policy for instance, that is fine, but to say she doesn't have a policy proposal is simply not true.
Fine- I stand corrected. She has a policy and that policy is based upon fantasyland math.
Too bad these democrat candidates can't come up with real, clear-cut, non-fantasyland programs, right?
We need A REAL ONE like Trump just announced for health care that is gonna be "FAR better than Obamacare" that will include "coverage for pre-existing conditions."
You know, I could have sworn that the pre-existing conditions thing was the wildass, crazy part of the ACA that Republicans have been trying over and over to repeal -- as well as suing the Gov. about -- for years. How's that work? But, nevermind, our Master Planner in Chief is on a roll.
Ugh. I hate to day it but I get where 85 and others are coming from to an extent when it comes to dems. I read an article about how since Buttigieg’s is still a white male, his gayness doesn’t count. Like WTF? Democrats need to get over this sh!t if they want to win the White House.
This isn’t a race to see who’s more disadvantaged than the other.
This is why I love Buttigieg so much. He’s SUPER liberal but still sensible. Identity politics will NOT win you the White House. I’m as liberal as they come but I can’t deal with dumb sh!t like that.
This isn’t a race to see who’s more disadvantaged than the other.
This is why I love Buttigieg so much. He’s SUPER liberal but still sensible. Identity politics will NOT win you the White House. I’m as liberal as they come but I can’t deal with dumb sh!t like that.
Don’t you worry. I can guarantee you that any new healthcare program implemented by Trump will definitely at least include TDS as a pre-existing condition.
I mean it has to right? Otherwise, half of the country’s workforce is going to be deprived of care for the most serious mental illness this century. At least
That article got universally shit on. Every member of the media doesn't speak for all the democrats despite what dumb shit Trump and 85 would have you believe. Some times the media writes insane stuff and it's ok to mock them for it.
Read the comments
I know. I know. There was another one about “coastal elites” and how people don’t want some small town mayor doesn’t deserve to be president. That sort of thinking is bad.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Offseason fodder: P4 non-conference game most interested- Latest: hootyhoogoknights1
-
