Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will not vote for "we aren't quite as bad as Trump".
Don't be too sure about this.
You're right in saying that the Democratic leadership has a major disconnect with Democratic voters, but the reason they've been losing elections is becasue that became more obvious during the Obama years (where campaign Obama was cool and progressive and in office Obama was Bill Clinton: part II) and of course Clinton's undue 'success' in the primaries.
But just becasue the Democrats lack it does not mean the Republicans have it. The American people as a whole aren't brilliant, but they aren't stupid either. The Republican congress has, as of yet, accomplished nothing of any significance. They don't represent anyone but their own party, and that will probably become obvious at some point in the next 10 years, and we'll see a majority of Democrats again (who will hopefully by then actually represent people; with any luck, the Republicans will follow suit and we'll have a republic again).
Also, Trump (who said he wanted Americans to all have access to affordable and quality healthcare, noting he disagreed with members of his own party on that) should back Sanders plan. All that praise for his recent bipartisanship is largely undue as he compromised on some of the most centrist issues imaginable. Let's see the outsider act like it and do something really unprecedented. Then I'll be impressed. Hell, if he actually started doing things like that consistently, I'd consider voting for him come 2020. The thing is, it's become increasingly obvious that Trump's 'outsider' persona is just that; a persona. So the Democrats [stupid] message of "at least we aren't Trump" does actually stand a chance as more and more people realize that Trump's talk pretty much stopped at talk.
If you are under 35, you will live to see some form of universalized health care in the US. It may not as generous as berniecare or require more cost sharing but it will have the same basic structures as health care systems in europe and parts of asia.
When republicans thought they killed Hillarycare in the 90's they thought the fight was over.
If you are under 35, you will live to see some form of universalized health care in the US. It may not as generous as berniecare or require more cost sharing but it will have the same basic structures as health care systems in europe and parts of asia.
I doubt it.
The USA is owned and controlled by Big Money, and Big Money doesn't want universal healthcare.
It's kinda like Trump and the wall. You propose a grandiose plan, thousands of miles of wall the likes of which hasn't ever been seen before in human history. Then you settle for a couple cameras and 100 miles of barbed wire and call it a win. Bernie's plan is an opening bid for national health insurance. It will not be as generous when it inevitably comes to fruition.
Can someone laser this for me? How does this compare to H.B. 676?
That bill had these provisions:
Section 102 (c) No cost-Sharing -- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.
Section 104 (a). Prohibition against duplicating coverage -- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.
Section 202 (f) No Balance Billing -- Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Medicare For All Program may not bill any patient for any covered service.
That pretty much means no shared responsibility (I don't know how that helps control for the actual cost of health care), private health insurance would become illegal, and a medical professional can either accept government funds OR private payment (in cash) but it's illegal to accept both.
-----------
Is the Sanders plan pretty much the same? What are the differences with regard to the above, if there are any?
-----------
Is handing all the power over to the government the right approach? Wouldn't this eventually (after a couple of decades of the big data / internet of everything in place) lead to the government regulating and controlling many aspects of an individual's daily life and lifestyle?
It's kinda like Trump and the wall. You propose a grandiose plan, thousands of miles of wall the likes of which hasn't ever been seen before in human history. Then you settle for a couple cameras and 100 miles of barbed wire and call it a win. Bernie's plan is an opening bid for national health insurance. It will not be as generous when it inevitably comes to fruition.
Because such plans dont stand on their own merits and they have to be gradually sold to the people.
The USA is owned and controlled by Big Money, and Big Money doesn't want universal healthcare.
That is absolutely true.
Big Money wouldn't think twice about asking you to die for them (or their property). But healthcare for you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.