How likely is this going to take over within the next 10 - 20 years? Is it even feasible?
Socialized Medicine
- Thread starter HueySmith
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,168
- Reaction score
- 12,356
Unlikely. Insurance companies and lawyers have too much to lose and too strong of lobbies. More likely to see an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid and a two tier system.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 11,508
- Reaction score
- 15,392
Define "socialized medicine". A true single-payer system? Not a chance. If it was implemented it would be doomed to fail anyway (especially since there are only 2-3 true single-payer systems in the world anyway). A "medicare for all" type of plan which would act as a safety net for those without insurance? Probably. Certainly much more feasible depending on coverage requirements, though I'm doubtful it would actually have a significant impact on healthcare outcomes in the US anyway.
7
787593
We could afford it if everyone in DC were leprechauns and were willing share that gold 
But actually tho:
But actually tho:
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 72,628
- Reaction score
- 115,670
Stay with the good side of the Force!
3
321931
I honestly think that socialized medicine will be a thing once the boomers go out of power.
I think the next generation of politicians will be the voice for change and advocate for this kind of system. Think about it, the millennial generation has experienced first hand bankrupting healthcare costs, ridiculous housing prices, and absurb tuition hikes. I think after all this "experience", they will be the voice of change and want to change it all. You have more and more younger democrats all running on these platforms.
I could def. see a change within 10-20 years.
Just my opinion.
BeautifulSmiles523
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 66
Not that I disagree about what will happen but I sure hope not.
It all depends on the voter turnout in the Democratic primary next year. We know Bernie Sanders has the young, the working-class, and those who are aware, "done their homework" and fed-up with the 2-party system. The older Democrat voters, 45+, who watches corporate media(CNN and MSNBC) are the ones who can delay the changes and are falling over Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. We already entered the Anti-Establishment era of U.S. politics.
Last edited:
BeautifulSmiles523
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 66
Bernie Sanders doesn’t seem to understand much about economics however. I hope his plan isn’t put into action.
Bernie Sanders' economic plan is pretty much bringing back Keynesian economics and putting regulations on Wall Street such as re-installing Glass-Steagall or a 21st Century version of it. As well, implement new taxation reforms on Wall Street and rising back taxes on corporations and putting anti-trust laws meaning breaking up monopolies and preventing merges. And, of course, a healthcare reform is that massively popular among Americans.
Basically, he wants to save capitalism from corporate capitalism and as well, shifting a shareholder economy back to a labor economy like it was before neoliberalism became a staple in the U,S, politics.
USA is better off with Bernie Sanders as president. The only thing stopping him is older Democratic voters in the primary who are still voting the "old ways" as in watching misleading and dishonest media from cable TV, liking the platitudes, cliches, politicians giving cheesy smiles and long "intelligent" responses to dodge questions and confuse voters.
If Sanders do win the nomination, it's pretty much a landslide victory in the general election for him and a Republican bloodbath in the House of Rep. As we know, his policies aren't going to be pass during his first years but he will campaign on them, especially Medicare-4-All, once 2022 rolls by and will put a lot of public pressure on politicians like Chuck Schumer.
There's already signs that HMOs are really afraid as they launched an anti-M4A ad last month. 4-5 years ago, HMOs, established politicians and even the ones here, would laugh at the idea of UHC. Now, they know people know the deal and they know that UHC is the answer and there's a strong grassroots movement for Medicare-4-All than any other policies. So, HMOs are at the point where they have to do something about it and going to spend a lot of millions of dollars on stopping(hypocritical of them).
It's just my speculation. DNC is already conspiring to stop Bernie Sanders from winning and as well corporate media smearing him and trying to not mention him on the news.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
Yeah, the DNC is afraid Sanders is gong to win and that's why they're campaigning against him...
You think DNC's donors want Bernie Sanders winning the nomination or even being on the debate stage preaching his platform that consist of universal healthcare, Wall Street regulation and taxation, cutting the military budget, raising corporate tax rate back to normal, labor law reform, and such?
He pretty much reformed the Democratic Party back to its FDR roots without winning the last nomination with no charisma and no money. Why do you think corporate-approved Democrats like Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker came out supporting Medicare-4-All all of a sudden? They know and even the Democratic establishment know that they can't compete on that and with Bernie Sanders' record which is something that Hillary Clinton struggled with as Sanders, an unknown Senator from a small state, won 23 primaries/caucuses. Half the Democratic Party supporters are on the progressive side or the Bernie-wing of the party especially the growing voter block of the millennials and so forth as they are less influenced by corporate media and more demanding.
Only thing that the establishment has is the media of CNN and MSNBC that brainwash older Democratic voters to think candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris, are the better candidates.
As Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have proven, we're in the Anti-Establishment era of U.S. politics. But it all depends next year's turnout in the Democratic primary. Sanders has to win by overwhelming the vote like Trump did in 2016 in the Republican primary.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
Hillary Clinton has always had to fight against being Hillary Clinton.
The DNC doesn't like Bernie because he can't beat a Republican. Period.
Hillary Clinton won due to name recognition among older Democratic voters and the whole process of the 2016 primary acted as a campaign-arm for Clinton. But she greatly struggled against Bernie Sanders because several reasons.
1) She's a bad politician, meaning she's bad at lying and bad at speaking in flowery language unlike her husband and Obama. We've seen that in her campaigns in 2000, 2006 and 2008 primary.
2) Unlike her husband and Obama, she was labeled as an "insider" once she entered the presidential race - an ultimate insider matter of fact.
3) Atrocious actions, as Secretary of State, and horrible voting record that hardly compares to Sanders'.spotless record.
4) She had no policies. She relied on platitudes and cliches while dodging questions at all cost when it came to policy.
On Trump's 2016 campaign, he ran as a leftist, an "outsider," a protectionist unlike the standard Republicans of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio that Republican voters were fed up with and overwhelmingly gave Trump the primary that RNC couldn't stop.
Same thing happened in the presidential campaign, Trump ran as a leftist, an "outsider" and a protectionist, especially in the Upper Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania.where Clinton neglected. Now the presidential election had a low voter turnout compared to 2008 and 2012 as many Americans felt two candidates were terrible.
Now, you say a politician like Sanders can't beat a Republican. If you think about it, running left-populism always wins against right and centrist. Here's some examples
1) Trump winning the Republican primary and presidential election.
2) Bill De Blasio, though governs as a neoliberal-centrist, but during his mayoral campaigns for NYC, he ran as a hard unapologetic leftist. He's doing the same thing in this Democratic primary if you look at the debates. But in general, he's a fraud.
3) Obama in 2008 and 2012. A neoliberal-centrist who campaigned as a leftist, "outsider," and protectionist in states with high number of blue-collar workers in 2008 and the same in 2012 thanks to Mitt Romney outsourcing jobs in the middle of a campaign.
4) Sherrod Brown, who ran as an unapologetic leftist in his campaigns for Senate. Now in the neighboring state of Indiana, Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, ran thru the right as a neoliberal-centrist and lost his re-election.
5) Ross Perot, bless his soul, ran as a protectionist and got like 18%.of the vote in 1992.
Left always win against right. At this moment, Trump is pretty much done in the Upper Midwest and him and his advisers are alarmed about it as his voting base has shrunk. If Sanders, a union guy, wins the nomination, it's going to be landslide victory for Sanders with his kind of platform.
The only hard part for Sanders is winning the nomination. He already progressive states of Washington,Oregon, and the Northeast and "union" states of the Upper Midwest. The only states he might struggles are the centrist states of the South and California and New York.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
That's quite an impressive amount of utterly wrong statements you've pieces together there
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
Snark aside, let's look at some of this.
First, left does not always win against right. Otherwise we'd have no Republicans in the White House or the Senate.
Second, M4A has gained in popularity because its the primary. Candidates always go more extreme in the primary. They almost always settle down after they win the nomination.
Third, Obama ran as a centrist. If you look at his campaign, especially the primaries and general election of 2008, he was trying pretty hard to appeal to moderates and even some Republicans.
Fourth, what happens within the boundaries of a blue state for state offices has little bearing on the Presidential election so let's leave De Blasio out of this.
Fifth, in what world did Trump ran as a leftist? He was anti-illegal immigrant, anti-ACA, anti-news media.
First, left does not always win against right. Otherwise we'd have no Republicans in the White House or the Senate.
Second, M4A has gained in popularity because its the primary. Candidates always go more extreme in the primary. They almost always settle down after they win the nomination.
Third, Obama ran as a centrist. If you look at his campaign, especially the primaries and general election of 2008, he was trying pretty hard to appeal to moderates and even some Republicans.
Fourth, what happens within the boundaries of a blue state for state offices has little bearing on the Presidential election so let's leave De Blasio out of this.
Fifth, in what world did Trump ran as a leftist? He was anti-illegal immigrant, anti-ACA, anti-news media.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
I mean, he did say he was going to cover everyone...
Of course, like much that comes of his mouth, it was mostly BS. You knew it was BS the moment he said “I don’t care if it’s gonna cost me votes”.... ha. However, this was probably one of the few times he pandered to the opposite side, as he clearly stated. He probably also knew no one would generally give a crap either and he was right.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
If memory serves he said he was going to cover everyone and do a better job than the ACA
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
Without knowing what specifics you are talking about...
Human history and US history would suggest otherwise.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
Yes, Repeal and Replace. Of course, he had no idea what that actually meant nor looked like... though In several of his comments, the Replacememt would have been more left than the ACA in its current form.
However, the eventual strategy of Repeal and Replace became Wound and Whither.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
No argument, but I did originally say he was anti-ACA not anti-getting-everyone-covered-somehow
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
Fair enough
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 25,167
- Reaction score
- 34,976
I think the more appropriate language might be "progressive" vs "conservative" - and I don't mean that in the common association whereby people consider that progressive = liberal/left. Younger people generally want "change" or "progress" even if they are culturally or fiscally conservative.
I'm talking a little about observations from anthropology. Some suggest there is an evolutionary basis whereby younger generation wants change, older generation acts as a buffer to that. The net effect hopefully contributing to a beneficial balance of adapting where changing conditions require, yet conserving existing and useful ways of doing things. Delving further it also makes sense why we observe the tendency to these attitudes amongst different generations and the effect of age on openness to change.
My point being that you can have a progressive Republican and a conservative Republican as far as plans for policy, and I don't know if that is what the poster meant here.
Keep in mind, certain conditions as far as stability in a society, such as war or economic depression, can more or less predispose to radical change vs status quo.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
I’m still not sure that clarifies anything. Was Julius Caesar a progressive or conservative?
Until that can be answered definitively, the “Left always beats the right” or any derivation is pretty meaningless.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 25,167
- Reaction score
- 34,976
Julius Caesar could probably be declared a progressive, given the massive amount of political change he enacted. Nevermind that the change was one that resulted in a military dictatorship, and as such, could be defined as a move towards the right. It was not a socially or politically conservative move, period.
This goes for how to think about any political uprising or revolt, even if instigated by the right or militant groups.
This goes for how to think about any political uprising or revolt, even if instigated by the right or militant groups.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
Well, if that’s the case, Caesar’s progressive Roman Republic was defeated by his assassination and a conservative Roman Empire, which was far more successful, arose in its ashes via his own bloodline.
I’m not suggesting that anything about the Roman Empire could necessarily be ascribed to a particular political belief, just the initial of left always beats right is kinda a stupid argument.
This has gotten quite off topic though from the OP.
Last edited:
BeautifulSmiles523
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 66
Keynesian economics only work as a stop gap. FDRs policies were economically terrible. There is a difference in churning a wartime economy short term and a sound economic strategy.
Much prefer someone who studies the Austrian School of economics.
Much prefer someone who studies the Austrian School of economics.
Seems like you don't know much of the history of the U.S. politics in the second half of the 20th Century.
Don't want to go into details but President Franklin D. Roosevelt reformed the Democratic Party into the working-class party with his New Deal platform which consisted Social Security and banking regulations such as the Glass-Steagall, and bringing in Keynesianism, or left-wing economics and earlier form of democratic socialism. Keynesianism is pretty much government putting money back into the economy(jobs) and letting labor unions have bargaining power while providing some public services for its citizens. With that, and under FDR and future Democrats, the economy shifted to a labor economy, having a steady "boring" economic growth for decades while Democrats dominated Congress, especially the House of Representatives., much of the second half of the 20th Century because they tackled on the real issues: jobs, wages, labor laws, education, economics, which Republicans could never compete on. Doing so, labor unions were big contributors to the Democratic Party and the Democrats were responsive to the public's demand and needs.
Single-payer, or universal healthcare, was part of the discussion in American politics. FDR and Truman wanted a government-run healthcare system but couldn't do it. It became a topic in the 1970's, led by Ted Kennedy, after Medicare & Medicaid were passed in the 1960's as part of President Johnson's Great Society. During this time, universal healthcare seem to be the next step. But we had a turning point.
With the labor unions and working-class people controlling the economy and politics and the influences of public-interest groups and the consumer right movement both led by Ralph Nader, then-corporate lawyer, then later Supreme Court judge, Lewis Powell, wrote an essay to his one of his friends in the Chamber of Commerce, known as the Powell Memorandum, that is seen as a declaration of war on the American People(class warfare).
In that memo, Powell said that the United States was heading to a "slippery slope to socialism" and American corporations needed to act aggressively to get in power. The paperwork became a blueprint to the American conservative movement and to the current problems we have today. Powell pointed out that the American corporations needed to shape the public's opinion on free enterprises and business, make conservatism appealing to the young, control the media, and of course, dump money in the "political arena."
Of course they succeeded, by rigging the oil prices and global economy thanks to the Yom Kippur War that caused "stagflation," Doing so, the media started to blame labor unions, claiming the American people made too much, blaming social programs etc. Then, we elected Jimmy Carter an president, an unknown Democrat who is considered to be another Dwight Eisenhower, socially liberal but fiscal conservative, and as well being anti-union and a business owner as he deregulated the airline and trucking industry, busted unions that crippled their influence in the Democratic Party and wanted to shift the economy from labor to shareholder(neoliberalism). During his presidency, he had a bumpy relationship with established Democrats who wanted to pass policies that benefit Americans such as Ted Kennedy and his universal healthcare bill and Tip O'Neil's infrastructure projects and job-training programs.
As unions were crippled,by 1979 and the start of the 1980's, the Democratic Party decided take in campaign contributions from corporations and became corrupted, or we call it "fiscal conservative," like the Republicans as we elected a corporate mouthpiece of St. Reagan who overdrive neoliberalism of deregulation, corporate tax cut, union-busting, and austerity with the ridiculous economics theory known as the Laffer's Curve.
To the 1990's, we had Bill Clinton who everyone has a misconception of him as a "liberal president." Socially liberal, yes. But his actions is considered to be more Republican-like and done that Republican presidents, Reagan and Bush Sr., couldn't do with the Democrats shifting more to the centre-right due to corporate contributions.
- Bush Sr tried desperately multiple times to pass NAFTA in the House(full of Democrats), Bill Clinton signed it and destroyed unions and the traditional support of the Democratic Party.
- Signed the hardcore criminal law reform that exploded the prison population.
- Signed the welfare reform.
- Signed the Telecommunication Act of 1996, a deregulation and the reason why we have 6 companies owning all the media outlets instead of 50.
- Signed to re-appealed Glass-Steagall Act which is was St. Reagan's mission that was accomplished.
Same goes with Obama. He made Bush Jr's tax cut permanent which Jr couldn't do.. Under Obama, he did what a Republican president(or what they say when they're the minority) would do: bailed out Wall Street with a slap on the wrist, cut government jobs, cut the budget deficit of $1.4T in half, double the stock market, outsourced jobs, deported a record number of immigrants and passing of the right-wing healthcare reform while having the super-majority in his first 2 years which he and the Democrats could pass any kind of legislation. Basically, Obama and the Democrats kept the status quo and to my opinion and those who know political science, the Democratic Party pretty much became the conservative party. Conservative meaning "Don't change things! Don't change things too much!" but being socially liberal while the Republican Party keeps shifting to the far-right with their economics that is almost complete shameless corporate front full of tools with no policies other than deregulation, tax cut to corporations and the wealthy, and an agenda to privatize Social Security and Medicare while the Democrats conspires to those, especially with the military spending increase.
Mind you, I didn't add any hypothetical or "what if" scenarios to this post. just straight-forward facts, not some madeup junk that libertarians spewed over when it comes to economic crashes. If we say: what if Ted Kennedy incident didn't happened in 1969? Most likely Ted Kennedy would have won the presidential election in 1972 or '76 with his universal healthcare bill. Or what if: Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader join the Democratic Party in the 1990's?
Again, many people see Democrats as liberal but in reality, they're socially liberal but fiscally conservative as the Dems are refrained to make changes due to their donors' wishes. Generally, the Democrats are paid to lose as they struggle to reach out to moderates, low-income Republicans and to the growing younger voters with their neoliberal-centrist message of "We don't make changes but we don't hate gays and blacks. So, vote for us!" while the Republicans.... well, all they got is marketing.
So, you have to understand, under Obama and Pelosi, the Democrats lost about 1000 seats as the party keeps running to the right of the center. In an election, voters vote to those to the right than those who are on the center, that contributes to few reasons, Republican voters always come to vote and the majority becomes apathetic which both parties and corporations have successfully accomplished to silence out the leftist message.
Now, on your points, I explained your first point. We have no major party that represents the left ideology, explained to you how the Democrats dominated Congress for decades by appealing to the working-and-middle class and I've shown you a few examples on how candidates wins an election by going to the left as economic-populist: using the protectionist language, promising to create jobs, repair public works, expand social programs and services etc.
#2: Medicare-4-All gotten popular because it's popular and it was continuously preached by Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and has became the focal point since then to the present. If it wasn't popular, corporate Democrats such as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and even Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be in favor of it. And I do understand what you're saying about being favor that is popular then switch stance once in the general. That's called the "general election pivot." But you got Bernie Sanders in the race, we all know he's not going to pivot and going to fight for those policies, especially Medicare-4-All.
Here's a good example of a pivot and "left wins over right & centre" point: last year, in my state Florida, in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, Andrew Gillum promised to support Medicare-4-All and even got Bernie Sanders to come to Florida to publicly support and endorsed him, and won the primary over the centrist Gwen Graham but immediately pivoted his stance to "public option," aka centrist talking point, in the general election and narrowly lost the governor race to a Trumpster. If he kept going with Medicare-4-All, most likely he would won by energizing voters and peeling away Republican voters in the process.
#3 Obama is a neoliberal-centrist. That's true. But you have to understand, again, when he campaigned in the Upper Midwest, he spoke the protectionist language of not outsourcing jobs, creating jobs and programs, etc. Which he did not and even pushed for TPP, and got lucky with Romney's gaffes in 2012.
#4. In state offices, if you want to rely on the coattail effect that's good or rely on voter base of the location. But if you want to win an election as a nobody, you have to go straight to the public, knock on doors, pass out flyers, talk to citizens on the streets. That's how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the primary over top-ranking corporate Joe Crowley last year. There's already democratic socialists in state and local offices like Lee Carter and Julia Salazar and even in the reddest states like Texas. Though winning an election with a grassroots campaign is hard.
#5 Again, Trump used the protectionist language in the Upper Midwest like Obama because he and his team knew they cannot rely on the traditional Republican states alone. He spend a considerable amount of time in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, promising to bring back jobs, promising to keep the jobs in the country, be against TPP, promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare. Of course he used that "Build the Wall" rhetoric but mainly to his targeted audience depending what state he was campaigning. and as well campaigning as an "outsider" and ending corruption which many American were fed up with. Remember, he used that same language in the primary and didn't even pivot in the primary and ended up running against a neoliberal-centrist ultimate insider of Hillary Clinton. Both of these candidates didn't wow the crowd and we had a low voter turnout. Republican base stay the same while Trump won with lesser votes than Romney in 2012 and Clinton ended up losing tons of votes from Obama.
Now, as we see, people want change, especially the young. They want a complete overhaul of the political system and in a time where the establishment cannot control due to the existence of the free-flowing information in the Internet where people are becoming more aware and getting their news from independent media. So, next year's primary, it's break or delay. There's no stopping changes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
That's a great paragraph that doesn't address my points in the slightest nor is anything I don't already know. Well done.
Meaning you have no argument other than one-liner much like Swanson.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
No, meaning you wrote a lot of words that don't actually mean anything
D
deleted927028
Awesome write up. Too much invaluable information. I can’t disagree with anything you have said.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
I already explained to you how the center-left Democrats dominated U.S. politics and, under left-wing economics, the U.S. had a steady "boring" economic growth for decades. Yet, you want to ignore the facts, and think it didn't happened much like the thoughts of that liberatarian Ron Paul.
In your world, you think economic crashes happened when government gets involved in the market and think right-wing, or liberal, economics, is what caused prosperous times, back then, when labor-oriented Democrats dominated politics. Come on, get realistic. That 19th Century economics you guys preach about is what caused multiple boom-bust economic cycles before the Great Depression ever happened.
Look, unlike Swanson and that guy from the dental forum, just admit it about Medicare-4-All.
Just say "I know M4A is the solution to our healthcare crisis. It'll help millions and millions of Americans and it'll help the economy in many ways. But I'm against it because I have a libertarian view."
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
Once again you write a lot of words that are completely wrong.
I'm not a libertarian.
I've never commented on why recessions happened, or periods of economic stability either for that matter.
Medicare for all would have some potential good points and some potential bad points. And it is a solution but it is by no means the solution.
Keep trying though, you'll get it one of these days.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 1,465
You have no idea what you’re talking about..trump absolutely ran as a populist (leftist) which is why he crushed his opponents and Clinton. He was protectionist in trade policy, was for protecting Medicare, was for universal healthcare, was an isolationist in terms of foreign policy..so yes he was certainly a leftist in rhetoric but now that he’s president things have certainly changed which is not surprising for him
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
Populism isn't a left-wing idea. In our history alone it's been use by both sides, so swing and a miss there.
Isolationism in the last 120 years has not been a left wing idea. Both sides had isolationist members. The group responsible for us not joining the league of nation's contained 2 Democrats and 14 Republicans. Same thing with the Neutrality acts of the 30s. Plenty of support on both sides with slightly more Republicans than Democrats. So strike 2 there.
Similar thing with protectionism. In the first half of the 20th century, Republicans we're for it, Democrats against except Teddy Roosevelt who liked tariffs. LBJ was for a single tariff against VW but that was entirely to prevent a UAW strike right before the election. Since then basically no one has been pro-tariff until Trump. Strike 3.
Not really sure if preserving Medicare can be considered a left wing idea as neither Romney nor McCain wanted to get rid of it (in fact Romney made a big point of not changing it).
Trump claiming that everyone would get some kind of health coverage is very much a left wing idea so I'll give you that one.
So let's tally up. You got 1 right, 1 maybe, and 3 wrong.
Better luck next time.
D
deleted480308
It won’t actually help millions, and it will actively hurt many. It’s both a bad idea morally and economically
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
What confuses me is that most of the countries that get pointed to when talking socialized medicine have private options but for some reason many of the current Democrat candidates are against that idea. I'm not sure why.
D
deleted480308
I an generally wary of ideas “so freaking amazing” that they must be made mandatory with all other options removed and enforced at gun point
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
Agreed. If its that good, everyone will join even if its not mandatory.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 38
I'm sorry, but why would Medicare go away? And if you think about it, everyone DOES get some type of health coverage these days if you consider the indigent, the Medicaid population, etc. It is very easy to get Medicaid these days. Many hospitals and clinics have sliding-scale fees and things of that sort. Philanthropists' donations to the medical community pay many bills as well. So although there might not be "free" medical tx for everyone, there is always enough money to go around.VA Hopeful Dr said:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,968
- Reaction score
- 56,431
Huh?
D
deleted480308
that's not true
Tell that to the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to increasing the military budget, corporate handouts, and bailouts. But it comes to spending on the citizens, it's always the same ol' excuses of "Oh, we can't. We don't have any money" and somehow magically come up with funds to give out to corporations and military.
D
deleted480308
Printing on deficit doesn’t mean we have the money and there are people who are literally not covered by anything other than emtala
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
DNC “Medicare for All” or GOP “Repeal Obamacare”... on face value... those are some incredibly crappy platforms.
D
deleted480308
Straight cancelling obamacare is great policy but maybe not a winner election wise and almost definitely not what the republicans would do if they win
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 16,915
- Reaction score
- 47,682
“Great” is certainly relative.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
