2020 Democrat hopefuls

[Crazyhole]

The question I have asked many times and have never gotten an answer to is:

If single payer healthcare is so great, why havent we seen any states do it? Why does it have to be the whole country at one shot? Why not do like Sweden, where municipalities collect taxes for health coverage and pay them out to hospitals as people receive care? One would think that a state as liberal as Massachusetts with such a high median income would have made that leap already. There's nothing to stop them.

 

[Cubs79]

The question I have asked many times and have never gotten an answer to is:

If single payer healthcare is so great, why havent we seen any states do it? Why does it have to be the whole country at one shot? Why not do like Sweden, where municipalities collect taxes for health coverage and pay them out to hospitals as people receive care? One would think that a state as liberal as Massachusetts with such a high median income would have made that leap already. There's nothing to stop them.

Not all states can afford it, and keep in mind a lot of the wealthier states pay more to the federal government than they receive back. So, maybe some would consider it if they werent already paying the feds, who then turn around and use a lot of their money in poorer states.

 

[Crazyhole]

Not all states can afford it, and keep in mind a lot of the wealthier states pay more to the federal government than they receive back. So, maybe some would consider it if they werent already paying the feds, who then turn around and use a lot of their money in poorer states.

Hmmmm. So it can be unaffordable when rich people subsidize poor people (Rich states subsidize poor states)? I thought that was the goal.

 

[Cubs79]

Hmmmm. So it can be unaffordable when rich people subsidize poor people (Rich states subsidize poor states)? I thought that was the goal.

Yeah, but if it were federal those states would also be receiving the benefit from it. If it isnt federal then they have to pay for it entirely themselves, while still subsidizing poor states.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Yeah, but if it were federal those states would also be receiving the benefit from it. If it isnt federal then they have to pay for it entirely themselves, while still subsidizing poor states.

This is nonsense. If Single Payer made the actual finance sense that the Bernie Bros assure us it does, then states could easily accommodate for the cost even with meeting the requirements for Medicare/Medicaid that these very liberals from these very states pushed for as Federal law.

Also, if extremely wealthy left wing states can't afford it due to "other" costs, why the hell would you assume the Federal Government could? States don't have responsibilities to the republic such as providing a national armed forces. There will always be other costs that have priority - that's the point. If MFA for all were such a slam dunk then it'd be perfectly self sustaining and other costs of a State would be irrelevant. But it's not.

And thanks to a recent Emory Economics study, we now know that even the Bernie claim that we'd pay sky high more taxes BUT net a gain in not paying premiums/deductibles is nonsense and a stated lie attached to MFA.

 

[fried-chicken]

This is nonsense. If Single Payer made the actual finance sense that the Bernie Bros assure us it does, then states could easily accommodate for the cost even with meeting the requirements for Medicare/Medicaid that these very liberals from these very states pushed for as Federal law.

Also, if extremely wealthy left wing states can't afford it due to "other" costs, why the hell would you assume the Federal Government could? States don't have responsibilities to the republic such as providing a national armed forces. There will always be other costs that have priority - that's the point. If MFA for all were such a slam dunk then it'd be perfectly self sustaining and other costs of a State would be irrelevant. But it's not.

And thanks to a recent Emory Economics study, we now know that even the Bernie claim that we'd pay sky high more taxes BUT net a gain in not paying premiums/deductibles is nonsense and a stated lie attached to MFA.

It's too easy for rich people to claim residency in a different state. I don't think many would renounce citizenship in the same way.

 

[UCFKnight85]

CNN releases the audio from the post debate interaction between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

Warren: “I think you called me a liar on national TV”

Sanders: “What?”

Warren: “I think you called me a liar on national TV”

Sanders: “No, let's not do it right now …”

 

[fried-chicken]

Trump said "he's a mexican." When talking about a Hispanic natural born American judge from Indiana. A comment that implies you're only American if you're white.

No one cared.

Bernie said that the country is too misogynistic to elect a female president. OUTRAGE! SCANDAL! WEEKS OF MEDIA COVERAGE!

Al Franken resigned from the Senate over some joking pictures.

And on the right we confirm a sexual predator to the supreme court and the president endorsed a pedophile for the Senate.

It sometimes sucks to be the party that holds our leaders accountable but it keeps us from ending up like the republicans with politicians plotting attacks on our own ambassadors and some being labeled terrorists and others having dozens of their campaign staff sent to prison.

Sometimes the correct path isn't the easy one.

 

[UCFWayne]

honest question, bernie has been a person in power for how long now? why hasnt his state implemented his plan? surely he couldve started there considering how long hes been in power.

not to mention that, but what about california? house/senate guys from there are always talking about this stuff. why havent they tried it there first? surely they would be a good test case for the rest of the nation.

 

[Crazyhole]

honest question, bernie has been a person in power for how long now? why hasnt his state implemented his plan? surely he couldve started there considering how long hes been in power.

not to mention that, but what about california? house/senate guys from there are always talking about this stuff. why havent they tried it there first? surely they would be a good test case for the rest of the nation.

Vermont tried. They got pretty deep into the process and then figured out it was too expensive and that they would lose businesses.

 

[Boosted87]

Speaking of those examples, what actually happens now in those situations?

Great question - I'm not an expert by I think there's generally two scenarios - people that seek and get care anyway and those who simply forgo the care. For those we seek and get care, they end up in massive debt. Something like 66% of personal bankruptcies in the US are due to medical debt.

The other side is just to understand how we ration in the US. We pick on Canada for longer wait times for non-emergent procedures, but that's just a different form of rationing. In the US, uninsured or under-insured individuals simply forgo care that if they had adequate insurance or could afford the care, they would seek out.

To me, medical bankruptcies are silly. Why? Because the providers have to make up that lost revenue somewhere. Logically, they have to be negotiating rates with insurers at a levels to cover that lost revenue. So effectively, all of us with private insurance are already subsidizing that care. Bypassing necessary care does not seem like a good way to ration healthcare as a long-term solution if you want a healthy society.

Is single payer some great panacea of healthcare? No. Would individuals who work for big corporations with great insurance suffer a net loss? Probably. But it seems like the most pragmatic path as a longer term solution. We already cover the most expensive demographic with Medicare.

 

[Boosted87]

honest question, bernie has been a person in power for how long now? why hasnt his state implemented his plan? surely he couldve started there considering how long hes been in power.

not to mention that, but what about california? house/senate guys from there are always talking about this stuff. why havent they tried it there first? surely they would be a good test case for the rest of the nation.

I honestly don't believe it's possible at a state level and I think it's a terrible idea to try. Prescription drug prices is the easiest way to think about why I say that. If you want to sell a drug in France, you have to work with a national board and establish a price. That gives the government massive power to negotiate prices. If a state like Vermont dried to do that, they just wouldn't have the market power to negotiate prices like the US Govt would. Drug companies could easily just say fine - we won't sell to you. A large state like California would do much better obviously, but having a single entity negotiating on behalf of 320 million people to establish the cost of insulin is far different than 50 different states in different positions of leverage doing the negotiating.

That said, we all know how massively expensive this would be. We run a federal budget deficit. We spend more on all sorts of things federally compared to the revenue we draw in. Single payer no doubt adds to that, and I don't think the state's have the ability to run the deficits you'd need to keep the the system functional for long enough to sort it all out.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Trump said "he's a mexican." When talking about a Hispanic natural born American judge from Indiana. A comment that implies you're only American if you're white.

No one cared.

Bernie said that the country is too misogynistic to elect a female president. OUTRAGE! SCANDAL! WEEKS OF MEDIA COVERAGE!

Al Franken resigned from the Senate over some joking pictures.

And on the right we confirm a sexual predator to the supreme court and the president endorsed a pedophile for the Senate.

It sometimes sucks to be the party that holds our leaders accountable but it keeps us from ending up like the republicans with politicians plotting attacks on our own ambassadors and some being labeled terrorists and others having dozens of their campaign staff sent to prison.

Sometimes the correct path isn't the easy one.

Lies and crying aside, the media made a huge deal about the Mexican judge thing.

Sorry your parties' pathetic, despicable attempt to smear Kavanaugh didn't work.

 

[UCFWayne]

I honestly don't believe it's possible at a state level and I think it's a terrible idea to try. Prescription drug prices is the easiest way to think about why I say that. If you want to sell a drug in France, you have to work with a national board and establish a price. That gives the government massive power to negotiate prices. If a state like Vermont dried to do that, they just wouldn't have the market power to negotiate prices like the US Govt would. Drug companies could easily just say fine - we won't sell to you. A large state like California would do much better obviously, but having a single entity negotiating on behalf of 320 million people to establish the cost of insulin is far different than 50 different states in different positions of leverage doing the negotiating.

That said, we all know how massively expensive this would be. We run a federal budget deficit. We spend more on all sorts of things federally compared to the revenue we draw in. Single payer no doubt adds to that, and I don't think the state's have the ability to run the deficits you'd need to keep the the system functional for long enough to sort it all out.

if it cant work at the state level, especially california, why would it suddenly work nationwide?

california has a large population and the 5th largest economy in the world. why cant they make it work? why cant the 5th largest economy in the world make state wide healthcare work?

deep down you know it cant work. it will ultimately fail and those invovled, the people, will ultimately suffer for it.

 

[Crazyhole]

if it cant work at the state level, especially california, why would it suddenly work nationwide?

california has a large population and the 5th largest economy in the world. why cant they make it work? why cant the 5th largest economy in the world make state wide healthcare work?

deep down you know it cant work. it will ultimately fail and those invovled, the people, will ultimately suffer for it.

Sweden couldn't make it work on a national level so they dropped it down to a municipal level and it works because private insurers bid competitively for those towns' coverage. Even at that rate, is expensive just like Medicaid is expensive for each state and has to rely on federal funding.

Medicare for all is basically taking us back to Sweden in the early 90s, which they ran away from.

 

[Boosted87]

if it cant work at the state level, especially california, why would it suddenly work nationwide?

california has a large population and the 5th largest economy in the world. why cant they make it work? why cant the 5th largest economy in the world make state wide healthcare work?

deep down you know it cant work. it will ultimately fail and those invovled, the people, will ultimately suffer for it.

California would have the best shot absolutely. But they'd still be an outlier fighting the inertia of 50 other states and the other ~90% of the population. Everyone with a vested financial interest in maximizing profit through the current system (drug companies, health insurers, etc) would have a substantial interest in seeing the effort fail. Politicians at a national level would politicize it to no end, with many making it their personal mission to ensure it's failure.

At the National level, you could literally borrow (or print) your way through the transition period when all your projections and analysis end up being wrong. Or if they're right but a recession strikes at just the wrong time and tax revenue falls below expectations. I see this more as a moon shot type project where it only works because the full weight of the Federal Government has decided it's the path forward. I think the risks - particularly when you factor in all the political interests that are going to want you to fail - are far too great even for a huge state like CA.

We spend 2x per capita the next highest nation on healthcare while ranking near dead last in OECD countries for patient outcomes. It's naive to think it's some panacea that solves all issues but it's equally naive to ignore data and declare it impossible.

 

[Boosted87]

Sweden couldn't make it work on a national level so they dropped it down to a municipal level and it works because private insurers bid competitively for those towns' coverage. Even at that rate, is expensive just like Medicaid is expensive for each state and has to rely on federal funding.

Medicare for all is basically taking us back to Sweden in the early 90s, which they ran away from.

See I actually think this is a great discussion. I find single-payer to be the most obvious end game based on our current track. I also think there's probably better implementations than MFA. I'd rather have a candidate who says they're going to form a committee of economists and policy experts to examine all the other systems implemented worldwide and present a report and recommendation for what system is best long term - free of influence from all the vested interests in the current system.

 

[Crazyhole]

See I actually think this is a great discussion. I find single-payer to be the most obvious end game based on our current track. I also think there's probably better implementations than MFA. I'd rather have a candidate who says they're going to form a committee of economists and policy experts to examine all the other systems implemented worldwide and present a report and recommendation for what system is best long term - free of influence from all the vested interests in the current system.

I guess to me is that the crux of the issue is that government isn't suggesting that they can provide better outcomes in healthcare, they're saying they can do a better job of paying the bills. Health insurance companies already dont make any money when you look at their income/outlay, they make money by reinvesting premiums in other profit making ventures in the interim. Literally all they are offering is to not have people make money processing payments. Unless they can bring costs down, which comes back to the providers, it won't make a difference. The irony of this is that they tried that back in the 90s when HMOs were a thing, but the quality of care was so bad that people were willing to pay more out of pocket for better care.

So our options are:

1. Great care that comes with no price controls

2. Price controls that lower quality of care

 

[Boosted87]

I guess to me is that the crux of the issue is that government isn't suggesting that they can provide better outcomes in healthcare, they're saying they can do a better job of paying the bills. Health insurance companies already dont make any money when you look at their income/outlay, they make money by reinvesting premiums in other profit making ventures in the interim. Literally all they are offering is to not have people make money processing payments. Unless they can bring costs down, which comes back to the providers, it won't make a difference. The irony of this is that they tried that back in the 90s when HMOs were a thing, but the quality of care was so bad that people were willing to pay more out of pocket for better care.

So our options are:

1. Great care that comes with no price controls

2. Price controls that lower quality of care

Mostly agree. You're right that insurance companies have thin (3-5%) profit margins. But they also have significantly higher administrative costs than Medicare. There's bickering about the right way to measure it, but as a % medicare spends like 3% on administrative costs where private insurance is 3-4x higher. Obviously medicare services a different population so we shouldn't assume apples to apples.

I'm sure the totality of that difference has many factors, but I don't see insurers having any incentive to drive down costs as an industry. They are just a middle man. While they compete with each other and negotiate rates with providers, the fastest way to a 10% increase in profit is a 10% increase healthcare spending nationwide.

But your'e right - driving down costs is require more systemic change than just socializing insurance and that isn't discussed nearly enough.

 

[UCFKnight85]

See I actually think this is a great discussion. I find single-payer to be the most obvious end game based on our current track. I also think there's probably better implementations than MFA. I'd rather have a candidate who says they're going to form a committee of economists and policy experts to examine all the other systems implemented worldwide and present a report and recommendation for what system is best long term - free of influence from all the vested interests in the current system.

If they were smart, that committee should say that each State is best suited to implement and run its' own medical and insurance programs and recommend that they do that, while drastically scaling back the role of the Federal Government. People love to point at countries within Europe, ignoring the fact that the EU taken as a whole is more representative of the US, and pretty much every country in Europe has a different health care model. There is no one, single EU-wide health care and insurance system.

 

[UCFWayne]

California would have the best shot absolutely. But they'd still be an outlier fighting the inertia of 50 other states and the other ~90% of the population. Everyone with a vested financial interest in maximizing profit through the current system (drug companies, health insurers, etc) would have a substantial interest in seeing the effort fail. Politicians at a national level would politicize it to no end, with many making it their personal mission to ensure it's failure.

At the National level, you could literally borrow (or print) your way through the transition period when all your projections and analysis end up being wrong. Or if they're right but a recession strikes at just the wrong time and tax revenue falls below expectations. I see this more as a moon shot type project where it only works because the full weight of the Federal Government has decided it's the path forward. I think the risks - particularly when you factor in all the political interests that are going to want you to fail - are far too great even for a huge state like CA.

We spend 2x per capita the next highest nation on healthcare while ranking near dead last in OECD countries for patient outcomes. It's naive to think it's some panacea that solves all issues but it's equally naive to ignore data and declare it impossible.

california is bigger than alot of countries. you are saying they cant make it work. why should i believe you that it would suddenly work at the national level?

 

[Crazyhole]

Mostly agree. You're right that insurance companies have thin (3-5%) profit margins. But they also have significantly higher administrative costs than Medicare. There's bickering about the right way to measure it, but as a % medicare spends like 3% on administrative costs where private insurance is 3-4x higher. Obviously medicare services a different population so we shouldn't assume apples to apples.

I'm sure the totality of that difference has many factors, but I don't see insurers having any incentive to drive down costs as an industry. They are just a middle man. While they compete with each other and negotiate rates with providers, the fastest way to a 10% increase in profit is a 10% increase healthcare spending nationwide.

But your'e right - driving down costs is require more systemic change than just socializing insurance and that isn't discussed nearly enough.

There it is, and it's why I blame employer based and group insurance for where we are at. If you don't have to consider how the cost of healthcare will affect you personally, you dont care what a hospital charges or what procedures they recommend you have done. As a private buyer of insurance and largely a private payer, I've always taken into account what their service would cost and do a cost/benefit analysis. Obama was right when he said "sometimes you have to consider whether the expensive surgery is worth it when painkillers may be cheaper". People freaked out about that comment because it came across like government should have the power to make that decision, which was the correct response to it, but if taken at its core it's totally accurate and something people should consider on a personal basis.

 

[Boosted87]

california is bigger than alot of countries. you are saying they cant make it work. why should i believe you that it would suddenly work at the national level?

My post explained why I think it's substantially more challenging - especially politically - for a single state so stand up a single payer system while the rest of the country operates on private insurance. If any state could succeed, it's California due to scale. But there's a substantial difference in California trying to do something like negotiate drug prices with a hostile House or Senate potentially working to undermine their efforts with the support of the Pharmaceutical lobby as opposed to a national directive supported by both houses of congress and POTUS.

 

[Boosted87]

There it is, and it's why I blame employer based and group insurance for where we are at. If you don't have to consider how the cost of healthcare will affect you personally, you dont care what a hospital charges or what procedures they recommend you have done. As a private buyer of insurance and largely a private payer, I've always taken into account what their service would cost and do a cost/benefit analysis. Obama was right when he said "sometimes you have to consider whether the expensive surgery is worth it when painkillers may be cheaper". People freaked out about that comment because it came across like government should have the power to make that decision, which was the correct response to it, but if taken at its core it's totally accurate and something people should consider on a personal basis.

I bought private plans for about 7 years - one year pre-Obamacare until about a year ago. I largely agree with you that tying insurance to employment is one of the worst things we've ever allowed to happen. Putting a wall between consumers and the actual costs of their insurance and care effectively neuters any chance for free-market principles to operate.

My general support for single payer is a pragmatic choice - not an idealistic one. I think a single-payer system is better than than the Frankenstein we've evolved to today - particularly since we can study other implementations worldwide. I think health-insurance costs (or the risk you assume without insurance) is a massive roadblock to entrepreneurship and small business formation.

So while I'm sympathetic to a roll back and reintroduction of free market principles, I don't see that as a politically possible outcome. I wish Democrats supporting MFA would talk about the benefits to entrepreneurs and small business owners. Sell the virtues of leaving your current job to start a business without immediately incurring a $1,200 per month COBRA premium or unknown-cost-until-tax-time Obamacare policy. There's a huge pro-business selling point for single-payer that Democrats seem to completely ignore.

 

[UCFWayne]

My post explained why I think it's substantially more challenging - especially politically - for a single state so stand up a single payer system while the rest of the country operates on private insurance. If any state could succeed, it's California due to scale. But there's a substantial difference in California trying to do something like negotiate drug prices with a hostile House or Senate potentially working to undermine their efforts with the support of the Pharmaceutical lobby as opposed to a national directive supported by both houses of congress and POTUS.

if it cant work for california, deep down you know it wont work on a national level.

 

[UCFWayne]

i think its great than the dnc is changing their debate stage requirements for an old white billionaire instead of changing it for their minority candidates that they cared so much about.

 

[fried-chicken]

i think its great than the dnc is changing their debate stage requirements for an old white billionaire instead of changing it for their minority candidates that they cared so much about.

Bloomberg is good to keep around. Not mad that he's on the stage. He can't win but he's allowed to spend as much money as he wants while he's running and his ads are all aimed at Trump. He makes Trump look poor.

 

[fried-chicken]

Plus, the rule was kind of dumb.

Bloomberg is not accepting donations, at all, like from anyone. He's 100% self funding so he can not owe any favors. The debates required a donor number. They have eliminated that rule and just made it polling.

At this point he would be blocked from every debate going forward regardless of his poll numbers.

Candidates have done some dumb shit to try to qualify. Buttigieg had a give away for the lowest dollar unique donation. A tactic designed to pump up donor count and lower average donation amount.

It's a good change. Keep Bloomberg money aimed at Trump.

 

[Crazyhole]

Plus, the rule was kind of dumb.

Bloomberg is not accepting donations, at all, like from anyone. He's 100% self funding so he can not owe any favors. The debates required a donor number. They have eliminated that rule and just made it polling.

At this point he would be blocked from every debate going forward regardless of his poll numbers.

Candidates have done some dumb shit to try to qualify. Buttigieg had a give away for the lowest dollar unique donation. A tactic designed to pump up donor count and lower average donation amount.

It's a good change. Keep Bloomberg money aimed at Trump.

So you're ok with a billionaire buying the presidency?

 

[fried-chicken]

So you're ok with a billionaire buying the presidency?

That's not what's happening. He is running his campaign in a way that he would never qualify even if he was polling at 90%

 

[Crazyhole]

That's not what's happening. He is running his campaign in a way that he would never qualify even if he was polling at 90%

He's running his campaign in a way that he can avoid the debates and never be challenged. I thought the left hated it when billionaires use their money to influence politics to their own benefit.

 

[fried-chicken]

He's running his campaign in a way that he can avoid the debates and never be challenged. I thought the left hated it when billionaires use their money to influence politics to their own benefit.

That's right. This isn't that.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's a good change. Keep Bloomberg money aimed at Trump.

Liberals: Billionaires should not be able to buy influence in political campaigns!!

Also liberals: Please Mike Bloomberg, spend your billions to take down Trump!!

 

[UCFWayne]

dnc - old rich white billionaires are terrible and the reason this country sucks.
also the dnc - this old rich white billionaire should be allowed into the dnc debates.

ololoolollololololololol

 

[UCFKnight85]

NBC News Poll today:

Fifty-two percent of all voters say they have a positive view of capitalism, versus 18 percent who have a negative opinion.

The numbers are reversed for socialism, with 53 percent having a negative view and 19 percent a positive one.

WSJ Poll today:

Democratic primary voters have a net-positive impression of socialism (40 percent positive, 23 percent negative), and Dem voters ages 18-34 view it even more favorably (51 percent to 14 percent).

But key general-election groups like independents (-45 net rating), suburban voters and swing-state voters have a much more negative impression of socialism.

Hence why I am so giddy at the prospect of the Dems putting a socialist, communist loving senile dude up for President. He would get crushed. A proper vetting of his bullshit combined with a constant reminder of why people outside of dipshit young liberals hate socialism, and you've got an easy Trump victory in November.

 

[fried-chicken]

Them is the rules. Don't get mad when your own ****ed up laws allowing unlimited political influence for billionaires are used against you.

Bloomberg keep those ad buys coming. He's out spent Trump by 1400% so far. Maybe if he spends Trump's entire net worth on ads republicans will realize that their rules are ridiculous.

 

[fried-chicken]

NBC News Poll today:

Fifty-two percent of all voters say they have a positive view of capitalism, versus 18 percent who have a negative opinion.

The numbers are reversed for socialism, with 53 percent having a negative view and 19 percent a positive one.

WSJ Poll today:

Democratic primary voters have a net-positive impression of socialism (40 percent positive, 23 percent negative), and Dem voters ages 18-34 view it even more favorably (51 percent to 14 percent).

But key general-election groups like independents (-45 net rating), suburban voters and swing-state voters have a much more negative impression of socialism.

Hence why I am so giddy at the prospect of the Dems putting a socialist, communist loving senile dude up for President. He would get crushed. A proper vetting of his bullshit combined with a constant reminder of why people outside of dipshit young liberals hate socialism, and you've got an easy Trump victory in November.

Ain't no one a socialist. No one is arguing for socialism. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the word doesn't mean you can misuse it and no one will notice.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Ain't no one a socialist. No one is arguing for socialism. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the word doesn't mean you can misuse it and no one will notice.

Reminder: the poster above is referring to a guy who calls himself a socialist. He self identifies as one. Yet here is Shook Chicken insisting he’s not.

this is going to be so fun.

“Nationalizing 1/6 of our economy isn’t socialism! It’s reform democratic capitalism or whatever!”

 

[firm_bizzle]

Bloomberg is the embodiment of capitalism.

 

[fried-chicken]

In socialism there is no private property. The means of production are controlled by the government. There are no privately owned businesses.

No one is campaigning on that. Of course you know that's true and you're just using the boogie man word to describe everytime the government does anything for the people.

Notice that you don't call things the government does for businesses socialism. I never see you bitching about farmers getting a bailout from Trump as socialism. Isn't it odd that you're such a good little GOP foot soldier that you selectively enforce "socialsim" as anything that helps regular people with basic needs but when a company gets tax credits or incentives or when farmers need a bail out you never say a word.

What dems are campaigning on are ideas and policies that are in place in 99% of the developed world in capitalist countries. You cannot name a major capitalist country without the current den platform already implemented.

I guess Germany, Japan, UK, Canada, etc etc etc are all evil socialist nations.

Just because the GOP is using this messaging to influence the dumb bumpkin trailer trash in America doesn't mean that will work when you parrot it to people who know what they are talking about save the socialism talk for people that need to use their teeth to count to 20 and have to switch to fingers when they run out.