President Bernie Sanders

[Mad Jack]

You clearly haven't read Bernie's bill.

I'll try this one more time: under the bill that Bernie filed to implement Medicare For All, if Medicare provides a service then private insurance cannot offer to cover that same service. This means if Medicare pays for an appendectomy, private insurance can't offer coverage for it. The location of that service doesn't matter. Just because a hospitals opts out of Medicare doesn't then mean that insurance can cover the appendectomy at that hospital. What insurance can and can't cover is based on the procedure. If Medicare pays for it at all, insurance can't offer coverage for it.

This is different than Medicare currently where what you describe is allowed.

A private hospital could simply not bill for procedures. Room fee: $5000, Appendectomy: $0. Private insurance could easily exist through the private contracts provision and a little legalese and careful structuring of agreements. There is clearly no mandatory requirement for providers to participate in Medicare within the bill, and private contracts are allowed. This would likely be the area in which private insurers and physicians wanting to operate privately would find a way to work together to forge agreements that aren't in violation of the act.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

A private hospital could simply not bill for procedures. Room fee: $5000, Appendectomy: $0. Private insurance could easily exist through the private contracts provision and a little legalese and careful structuring of agreements. There is clearly no mandatory requirement for providers to participate in Medicare within the bill, and private contracts are allowed. This would likely be the area in which private insurers and physicians wanting to operate privately would find a way to work together to forge agreements that aren't in violation of the act.
View attachment 297901

That might work.

 

[bronx43]

People shouldn't be dying due to lack of care
View attachment 297850

Uh... so, feelings are the reason why libertarianism doesn't work?

Do feelings mean communism works?

I'm not a die hard libertarian, but there are far better arguments against it than that.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

We agree on that. The government already bans meth and heroin and that doesn’t do any good.


However, the government also provides free public K-12 education which works extremely well in many places. It would be nice if they did the same for healthcare with a private option just like schools. I don’t think they should ban private healthcare outright. In that scenario, some health insurance companies might remain but most would disappear because they would become obsolete.

Its likely that socialized medicine will be a thing in the US before I retire (I'm 36) and this is how I hope it turns out - with a robust private option.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

A private hospital could simply not bill for procedures. Room fee: $5000, Appendectomy: $0. Private insurance could easily exist through the private contracts provision and a little legalese and careful structuring of agreements. There is clearly no mandatory requirement for providers to participate in Medicare within the bill, and private contracts are allowed. This would likely be the area in which private insurers and physicians wanting to operate privately would find a way to work together to forge agreements that aren't in violation of the act.
View attachment 297901

So on looking through some old correspondence with my attorney from my DPC days, I actually don't think this would fly.

If you go looking into DPC, you'll see that those doctors have tried something similar.

There was a case in NC where a DPC doctor was doing the common practice of charging a monthly fee that covered all of his services. He had several Medicare patients sign up. Not long after the government sued him. Apparently since that fee did technically include Covered Services, he was in violation of current law.

Now this is all conjecture of course, I can't guarantee how this would play out any more than you can. But based on existing, similar cases I'm doubtful.

 

[deleted941485]

So on looking through some old correspondence with my attorney from my DPC days, I actually don't think this would fly.

If you go looking into DPC, you'll see that those doctors have tried something similar.

There was a case in NC where a DPC doctor was doing the common practice of charging a monthly fee that covered all of his services. He had several Medicare patients sign up. Not long after the government sued him. Apparently since that fee did technically include Covered Services, he was in violation of current law.

Now this is all conjecture of course, I can't guarantee how this would play out any more than you can. But based on existing, similar cases I'm doubtful.

Was the DPC accepting Medicare? If yes then that’s a problem.

You have to make a clean break with Medicare. As I understand it your are either in or out. No in between.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Was the DPC accepting Medicare? If yes then that’s a problem.

You have to make a clean break with Medicare. As I understand it your are either in or out. No in between.

Obviously, but I was taking the way things are current viewed and extrapolating what I think will be the most likely outcome if Bernie's plan were to get passed as written.

Its admittedly somewhat a waste of time since even if Bernie somehow pulls this off, there's no way M4A will be passed in the form that he wants.

 

[pgg]

A private hospital could simply not bill for procedures. Room fee: $5000, Appendectomy: $0.

Is the room fee then going to be $8000 for a lap chole? $17000 for a c-section? $75000 for a CABG? Come on.

Conjuring shady accounting gymnastics like grossly overcharging for A so you can provide service B without running afoul of a law prohibiting you from charging for B is ... shady. And possibly illegal. And the fact that you have to "interpret" away terrible aspects of the proposed law, to the point of guessing how SCOTUS might rule when people get prosecuted for brazenly circumventing them, is a problem.

To then use that logic to actually defend the law you're deliberately circumventing is another layer of ridiculous.


If this is all such a great idea and it's still in the crafting phase, why not just admit that the proposed law is a bad one? Why not simply insist that the proposed law explicitly allow hospitals and physicians to accept either or both M4A and private insurance?

The obvious intent of the provision prohibiting private insurance companies from covering the same things that M4A covers is to prevent a two-tier system from existing. If you want to support Bernie's M4A idea, fine, but don't pretend it's somehow going to result in a system comparable to other 1st world nations that have a mix of public and private hospitals. It won't. It can't.

This is a social justice inspired plan deliberately crafted to ensure that everyone[1] gets exactly the same level of care, even if they have the ability and desire to pay more for better/faster care. There may well be some moral and ethical arguments in favor of such a system. But you're not making those arguments - you're arguing that the law is OK because its rules can be skirted (maybe).


[1] Except the super rich, of course, who can just pay cash or travel abroad.

 

[Mad Jack]

Is the room fee then going to be $8000 for a lap chole? $17000 for a c-section? $75000 for a CABG? Come on.

Conjuring shady accounting gymnastics like grossly overcharging for A so you can provide service B without running afoul of a law prohibiting you from charging for B is ... shady. And possibly illegal. And the fact that you have to "interpret" away terrible aspects of the proposed law, to the point of guessing how SCOTUS might rule when people get prosecuted for brazenly circumventing them, is a problem.

To then use that logic to actually defend the law you're deliberately circumventing is another layer of ridiculous.


If this is all such a great idea and it's still in the crafting phase, why not just admit that the proposed law is a bad one? Why not simply insist that the proposed law explicitly allow hospitals and physicians to accept either or both M4A and private insurance?

The obvious intent of the provision prohibiting private insurance companies from covering the same things that M4A covers is to prevent a two-tier system from existing. If you want to support Bernie's M4A idea, fine, but don't pretend it's somehow going to result in a system comparable to other 1st world nations that have a mix of public and private hospitals. It won't. It can't.

This is a social justice inspired plan deliberately crafted to ensure that everyone[1] gets exactly the same level of care, even if they have the ability and desire to pay more for better/faster care. There may well be some moral and ethical arguments in favor of such a system. But you're not making those arguments - you're arguing that the law is OK because its rules can be skirted (maybe).


[1] Except the super rich, of course, who can just pay cash or travel abroad.

Oh it's not good as proposed and would never pass as such

 

[doctalaughs]

Oh it's not good as proposed and would never pass as such

So why doesn't someone propose something that's actually a reasonable system?

Two-tier public private system is actually a reasonable thing. Public has to be bare-bones, waive your right to sue, no stupid patient satisfaction metrics, extremely difficult to access specialists (ie empower primary care), have a set, unwavering global budget which can never be exceeded, have negotiating for drug prices and a different "standard of care" enshrined into law (ie the latest/greatest cancer drug that provides a few percentage points in survival benefit isn't standard of care).

Pay more for private care which will have lower wait times, "satisfaction" metrics, fancy elective surgeries, newer/brand drugs, private rooms etc. Would probably end up marginally better in terms of survival /mortality etc-- but you get what you pay for. I don't think the actual difference in mortality would be a huge margin (but it would be there).

Bernie is arguing that because some are homeless right now, everyone should be able to stay in the Ritz--- when he SHOULD be arguing that a free motel 7 is standard on the taxpayer dime, and you pay out of your own pocket to upgrade to the Ritz.

 

[Hamhock]

So why doesn't someone propose something that's actually a reasonable system?

Two-tier public private system is actually a reasonable thing. Public has to be bare-bones, waive your right to sue, no stupid patient satisfaction metrics, extremely difficult to access specialists (ie empower primary care), have a set, unwavering global budget which can never be exceeded, have negotiating for drug prices and a different "standard of care" enshrined into law (ie the latest/greatest cancer drug that provides a few percentage points in survival benefit isn't standard of care).

Pay more for private care which will have lower wait times, "satisfaction" metrics, fancy elective surgeries, newer/brand drugs, private rooms etc. Would probably end up marginally better in terms of survival /mortality etc-- but you get what you pay for. I don't think the actual difference in mortality would be a huge margin (but it would be there).

Bernie is arguing that because some are homeless right now, everyone should be able to stay in the Ritz--- when he SHOULD be arguing that a free motel 7 is standard on the taxpayer dime, and you pay out of your own pocket to upgrade to the Ritz.

This would be a great compromise...if only compromise was possible these times.

HH

 

[nimbus]

So why doesn't someone propose something that's actually a reasonable system?

Two-tier public private system is actually a reasonable thing. Public has to be bare-bones, waive your right to sue, no stupid patient satisfaction metrics, extremely difficult to access specialists (ie empower primary care), have a set, unwavering global budget which can never be exceeded, have negotiating for drug prices and a different "standard of care" enshrined into law (ie the latest/greatest cancer drug that provides a few percentage points in survival benefit isn't standard of care).

Pay more for private care which will have lower wait times, "satisfaction" metrics, fancy elective surgeries, newer/brand drugs, private rooms etc. Would probably end up marginally better in terms of survival /mortality etc-- but you get what you pay for. I don't think the actual difference in mortality would be a huge margin (but it would be there).

Bernie is arguing that because some are homeless right now, everyone should be able to stay in the Ritz--- when he SHOULD be arguing that a free motel 7 is standard on the taxpayer dime, and you pay out of your own pocket to upgrade to the Ritz.

I think it’s equally likely that the bare bones public option would have better outcomes.

 

[vector2]

So why doesn't someone propose something that's actually a reasonable system?

Two-tier public private system is actually a reasonable thing. Public has to be bare-bones, waive your right to sue, no stupid patient satisfaction metrics, extremely difficult to access specialists (ie empower primary care), have a set, unwavering global budget which can never be exceeded, have negotiating for drug prices and a different "standard of care" enshrined into law (ie the latest/greatest cancer drug that provides a few percentage points in survival benefit isn't standard of care).

Pay more for private care which will have lower wait times, "satisfaction" metrics, fancy elective surgeries, newer/brand drugs, private rooms etc. Would probably end up marginally better in terms of survival /mortality etc-- but you get what you pay for. I don't think the actual difference in mortality would be a huge margin (but it would be there).

Bernie is arguing that because some are homeless right now, everyone should be able to stay in the Ritz--- when he SHOULD be arguing that a free motel 7 is standard on the taxpayer dime, and you pay out of your own pocket to upgrade to the Ritz.

It was only 10 years ago that Lieberman threatened to filibuster ACA if a public option were included. Trump and his party removed the individual mandate and are currently still challenging the ACA in its entirety in court. A two-tiered system is as likely as M4A right now

 

[Mad Jack]

So why doesn't someone propose something that's actually a reasonable system?

Two-tier public private system is actually a reasonable thing. Public has to be bare-bones, waive your right to sue, no stupid patient satisfaction metrics, extremely difficult to access specialists (ie empower primary care), have a set, unwavering global budget which can never be exceeded, have negotiating for drug prices and a different "standard of care" enshrined into law (ie the latest/greatest cancer drug that provides a few percentage points in survival benefit isn't standard of care).

Pay more for private care which will have lower wait times, "satisfaction" metrics, fancy elective surgeries, newer/brand drugs, private rooms etc. Would probably end up marginally better in terms of survival /mortality etc-- but you get what you pay for. I don't think the actual difference in mortality would be a huge margin (but it would be there).

Bernie is arguing that because some are homeless right now, everyone should be able to stay in the Ritz--- when he SHOULD be arguing that a free motel 7 is standard on the taxpayer dime, and you pay out of your own pocket to upgrade to the Ritz.

It would be a reasonable system, just not a politically tenable one

 

[Lawpy]

I highly doubt Sanders is going to win.

How do you guys feel about Biden presidency? I'm a lot more willing to vote for Biden after a lot of recent reading.

 

[ZzzPlz]

I highly doubt Sanders is going to win.

How do you guys feel about Biden presidency? I'm a lot more willing to vote for Biden after a lot of recent reading.

the guy can’t talk for 10 minutes without a TIA. . . So not great

 

[deleted126335]

the guy can’t talk for 10 minutes without a TIA. . . So not great

Agree. But he is a mile better than the alternative.

 

[doctalaughs]

Agree. But he is a mile better than the alternative.

agree. Bonus if he picks a young Vice President so when he has a stroke or dies of coronavirus we have someone with a little more reserve.

 

[deleted480308]

Agree. But he is a mile better than the alternative.

he is better than sanders, yes

 

[vector2]

I highly doubt Sanders is going to win.

How do you guys feel about Biden presidency? I'm a lot more willing to vote for Biden after a lot of recent reading.

His case of brain worms is worse than trumps and that’s saying somethin

 

[vector2]

He’s also going to get demolished by trump in the debates and hunter will be this season's EMAILS. Ironically a lot of people thought they were picking the safe candidate but they actually picked another Hillary

 

[Lawpy]

the guy can’t talk for 10 minutes without a TIA. . . So not great

His case of brain worms is worse than trumps and that’s saying somethin

Yeah but i'm not seeing Trump winning the swing states from Biden like he did in 2016. Biden made tons of gaffes and is completely demolishing Sanders and his base of young voters. I feel he'll continue his popularity to general election and win.

 

[deleted480308]

Yeah but i'm not seeing Trump winning the swing states from Biden like he did in 2016. Biden made tons of gaffes and is completely demolishing Sanders and his base of young voters. I feel he'll continue his popularity to general election and win.

Biden gets crushed worse than hillary

 

[Lawpy]

Biden gets crushed worse than hillary

How? You think voters are ok with Trump winning reelection and reshaping the courts for decades?

 

[deleted126335]

How? You think voters are ok with Trump winning reelection and reshaping the courts for decades?

popular vote? Nope. Not even close. Electoral vote? Strong probability.

 

[Lawpy]

popular vote? Nope. Not even close. Electoral vote? Strong probability.

The critical states are PA, MI and WI. You think Trump will beat Biden in these states?

 

[deleted126335]

Biden gets crushed worse than hillary

If Biden can hold it together pubicly/mentally for eight months and/or the economy or stock market get savaged Trump has a good path to going down.

 

[GravelRider]

The government’s pathetic response to a developing pandemic might be Biden’s best chance of winning...if he’s not on a ventilator with ARDS and multi-organ failure by then.

 

[deleted126335]

The critical states are PA, MI and WI. You think Trump will beat Biden in these states?

I think that the Democrats have no clue what people in flyover states care about and have nothing to offer them. They voted for Obama because they feel disenfranchised and identified with someone from a disenfranchised group. They voted for Trump after Obama failed to deliver and gave the establishment a giant middle finger. If Democratic leadership didn't have it in for Bernie now and in 2016 and Hillary was a little less organized Bernie would have got the nod in 2016 and maybe 202. Bernie is also a middle finger. But from a different cohort.

This was the best piece of political commentary during the 2016 election. They totally nailed it:

 

[Lawpy]

I think that the Democrats have no clue what people in flyover states care about and have nothing to offer them. They voted for Obama because they feel disenfranchised and identified with someone from a disenfranchised group. They voted for Trump after Obama failed to deliver and gave the country a giant middle finger.

This was the best piece of political commentary during the 2016 election. They totally nailed it:

but I think Biden can help them more than Hillary. just look at what happened in MI. Sanders beat Hillary then but Sanders got destroyed now. that shows Biden's popularity with working voters even after all the gaffes

The government’s pathetic response to a developing pandemic might be Biden’s best chance of winning...if he’s not on a ventilator with ARDS and multi-organ failure by then.

democrats will quarantine Biden to prevent any of that from happening.

 

[deleted126335]

but I think Biden can help them more than Hillary. just look at what happened in MI. Sanders beat Hillary then but Sanders got destroyed now. that shows Biden's popularity with working voters even after all the gaffes

What you think matters not at all. What they think matters completely.

Remember there were only Democrats voting. Their priority is to beat Trump. Everybody gets to vote in November.

 

[vector2]

In the general, old people and boomers will (unsurprisingly) vote trump, young people will (unsurprisingly) stay home because centrist joementia will depress turnout.

 

[deleted171991]

In the general, old people and boomers will (unsurprisingly) vote trump, young people will (unsurprisingly) stay home because centrist joementia will depress turnout.

Are you saying that young people are unpatriotic socialist *****s?

 

[vector2]

Are you saying that young people are unpatriotic socialist *****s?

Hard to tell if that's worse than the generation whose parents won WWII and who had the world handed to them on a silver platter including the socialist and economic platforms of FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ....and then they become the most selfish pricks in existence, intent on making the world as miserable (or maybe even nonexistent depending on your climate change take) as possible for their grandchildren.

 

[deleted480308]

How? You think voters are ok with Trump winning reelection and reshaping the courts for decades?

He’d be better than biden for the courts

 

[deleted171991]

He’d be better than biden for the courts

Why?

I am not a "progressive", as in I don't define progress based on ret@rded communist egalitarian ideals (i.e. equality of outcomes), but we are not in the 50s anymore either. And corporations are not people. And executive power is NOT absolute power etc.

So, I don't see how packing the courts with closed-minded individuals is good for the country, especially given the fact that the majority of the people will be much more open-minded than the judges/justices in 10-20 years.

The biggest sinners are at the Supreme Court which, for the last 100 years, has interfered with state rights and has created the kind of monstrosity of a federal government that the Founders wanted to avoid. Somehow everything has to do with "interstate commerce" nowadays, and is a federal matter, which is ridiculous. The solution is not packing the courts with right- or left-sided extremists, depending who's in power; the solution is packing them with moderate decent human beings who believe that this is a UNION of SEPARATE and DIFFERENT states, each with its own customs and laws, as the Founders intended. And I see Biden as being way more moderate and bipartisan than Trump (hence his occasional right-leaning votes in the past - e.g. Iraq war, crime bill), i.e. the lesser of two evils.

If one agrees with the politics of a judge, one should not be happy with him/her. Why? Because one should not be able to tell which "side" a judge is on. The only side that matters is the side of the Founders and of the federal/state constitutions. That's the kind of federal judge/justice I respect. Judges should not create precedents that rewrite laws based on the "times" or their own beliefs. That privilege belongs ONLY to the People, i.e. the legislative branch. We don't need more civil wars, even if virtual, because one side tries to impose its values by using the courts, like the trumpists (or the "progressives" - more correctly, the radical left).

More food for thought:

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.” It’s About Time.

At what point do judges on the left finally push back?

slate.com

 

[Lawpy]

Yeah Republicans are handling the covid-19 crisis badly. I expect a massive Democratic sweep in 2020 now that Biden annihilated Sanders and young voters.

 

[deleted480308]

Why?

I am not a "progressive", as in I don't define progress based on ret@rded communist egalitarian ideals (i.e. equality of outcomes), but we are not in the 50s anymore either. And corporations are not people. And executive power is NOT absolute power etc.

So, I don't see how packing the courts with closed-minded individuals is good for the country, especially given the fact that the majority of the people will be much more open-minded than the judges/justices in 10-20 years.

The biggest sinners are at the Supreme Court which, for the last 100 years, has interfered with state rights and has created the kind of monstrosity of a federal government that the Founders wanted to avoid. Somehow everything has to do with "interstate commerce" nowadays, and is a federal matter, which is ridiculous. The solution is not packing the courts with right- or left-sided extremists, depending who's in power; the solution is packing them with moderate decent human beings who believe that this is a UNION of SEPARATE and DIFFERENT states, each with its own customs and laws, as the Founders intended. And I see Biden as being way more moderate and bipartisan than Trump (hence his occasional right-leaning votes in the past - e.g. Iraq war, crime bill), i.e. the lesser of two evils.

If one agrees with the politics of a judge, one should not be happy with him/her. Why? Because one should not be able to tell which "side" a judge is on. The only side that matters is the side of the Founders and of the federal/state constitutions. That's the kind of federal judge/justice I respect. Judges should not create precedents that rewrite laws based on the "times" or their own beliefs. That privilege belongs ONLY to the People, i.e. the legislative branch. We don't need more civil wars, even if virtual, because one side tries to impose its values by using the courts, like the trumpists (or the "progressives" - more correctly, the radical left).

More food for thought:

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.” It’s About Time.

At what point do judges on the left finally push back?

slate.com

I’m thinking about gun rights (which could be abridged by a bad court) and abortion (which the court screwed up with roe)

 

[deleted171991]

I’m thinking about gun rights (which could be abridged by a bad court) and abortion (which the court screwed up with roe)

If only those two were still our major problems...

This country is moving fast towards a form of crony corporate capitalism, coupled with presidential autocracy and planned destruction of the democratic institutions. Both need to be checked, otherwise our Constitution will become as valuable as the North Korean one.

 

[deleted171991]

Btw, for those of us who are afraid of Bernie now, guess who will turn 35 in 2024, just in time to be elected president?

As you have probably guessed, it's the bartender. Imagine a race between 2 losers: Don Jr and AOC.

 

[deleted171991]

I’m thinking about gun rights (which could be abridged by a bad court) and abortion (which the court screwed up with roe)

One of our main problems is reversing Citizens United v. FEC, the greatest current threat to our democracy. Good luck doing that with Trump's cronies.

Watch secretly recorded videos from the bribery sting that targeted Durham billionaire

The public can now listen to the secret recordings that formed the core of the federal government’s corruption case against Durham billionaire Greg Lindberg.

On March 5, a jury convicted the insurance mogul of using the promise of millions in campaign money to bribe North Carolina’s insurance commissioner Mike Causey.

Causey cooperated in the federal sting and wore a clandestine recording device to capture his conversations with Lindberg and two associates. Over the course of the eight-day trial, jurors heard hours of those conversations, and the video clips below capture some of them.

Just so that you understand how politics works in real life, especially for rich people, many of whom also try to confuse credulous people with abortion and gun rights, on both sides of the political spectrum. Divide et impera.

The one thing both Trump's and Bernie's supporters have gotten right is that the enemy is the billionaire class.

 

[deleted480308]

One of our main problems is reversing Citizens United v. FEC, the greatest current threat to our democracy. Good luck doing that with Trump's cronies.

Watch secretly recorded videos from the bribery sting that targeted Durham billionaire



Just so that you understand how politics works in real life, especially for rich people, many of whom also try to confuse credulous people with abortion and gun rights, on both sides of the political spectrum. Divide et impera.

The one thing both Trump's and Bernie's supporters have gotten right is that the enemy is the billionaire class.

I’m far more concerned with murdering humans before birth and gun rights than a rich guy buying too many ads.

 

[nimbus]

I’m far more concerned with murdering humans before birth and gun rights than a rich guy buying too many ads.

Not sure what your plan is for all these pre born humans you want to save. Their parents don’t want them and don’t want to take care of them. You don’t think the government should take care of them. So who takes care of them? You??

 

[deleted171991]

I’m far more concerned with murdering humans before birth and gun rights than a rich guy buying too many ads.

I'm sorry for overestimating you.

If we lose our democracy and freedoms, everything else will become a minor issue. You'll see. Russia under Putin, Hungary under Orban are downright benign examples, when compared to the worst scenarios (think 1984 or Snowpiercer, or nazism/fascism/socialism/communism).

The billionaires are not buying just ads; they are buying a lot of politicians, on both sides (just watch the videos I linked to). And because they hold 80% of our national wealth, they can run circles around "the People".

 

[deleted480308]

Not sure what your plan is for all these pre born humans you want to save. Their parents don’t want them and don’t want to take care of them. You don’t think the government should take care of them. So who takes care of them? You??

I do personally support a children’s home

 

[deleted480308]

I'm sorry for overestimating you.

If we lose our democracy and freedoms, everything else will become a minor issue. You'll see. Russia under Putin, Hungary under Orban are downright benign examples, when compared to the worst scenarios (think 1984 or Snowpiercer, or nazism/fascism/socialism/communism).

The billionaires are not buying just ads; they are buying a lot of politicians, on both sides (just watch the videos I linked to). And because they hold 80% of our national wealth, they can run circles around "the People".

The problem there is a govt valuable enough to sell, not the people wanting to buy

 

[deleted171991]

I do personally support a children’s home

How about actually adopting one of them?

 

[Lawpy]

Is Trump going to lose reelection now that the market is crashing and we're heading to another recession?

 

[deleted171991]

Is Trump going to lose reelection now that the market is crashing and we're heading to another recession?

I would estimate that the American people are about as rational as the stock market.

 

[deleted480308]

How about actually adopting one of them?

Maybe some day, but also not a prerequisite to saying you don’t get to murder yours