The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[peter12]

I'm just saying that it was pretty clear that the huge economic gains from low hanging fruit type productivity could sustain a pretty intensive taxation system compared to the globalized marginal return economy of today. We are infinitely more competitive now than 60 years ago.

[GirlySports]

Go back a few pages and read about my two friends about healthcare.

[afc wimbledon]

The trouble with the healthcare debate in the US is a large portion of the country is covered by either Medicaid, medicare or employer insurance, the actual percentage of Americans with no healthcare, while massive by western democratic standards is electorally small, so while universal coverage makes total sense and works better than the mishmash system the US has, would undoubtedly be cheaper for the US and probably provide them with better healthcare you are asking the vast majority of voters to give up the coverage they already have in order to embrace an unknown system in a country where if it fails you are screwed.

[EldrickOnIce]

When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Half serious question: Why does the US have to pay for Healthcare?

Why not just run deficits? You know, the exact same way they afford corporate welfare and military spending.

I'm not proposing that they should do that, but no one ever brings up the "who cares" argument that works so well for every other area of spending. The deficit is $900B and not a single **** is given.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.

You are right Consider how many working people there are who have employer-provided health insurance. I would conservatively say it is 150 million people. Those folks don't want to risk losing their coverage plus have their taxes raised for something thar might not even work.

Maritime: the healthcare cost would be 10x the cost of military spending, you just cant print money for it.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because the money will come from the rich. If she truly believes that statement she should support a flat tax so that everyone helps out.

Your comment makes absolutely no sense to me.

Of course the money comes from the "rich", as the money has to come from those who have it and, well, generally speaking, people are "poor" because they don't have money.

And what would implementing a flat tax do?

A flat tax is regressive and would end up hurting the "poor" more than the "rich," so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Your comment makes absolutely no sense to me.

Of course the money comes from the "rich", as the money has to come from those who have it and, well, generally speaking, people are "poor" because they don't have money.

And what would implementing a flat tax do?

A flat tax is regressive and would end up hurting the "poor" more than the "rich," so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I'm just going off what AOC is saying, "why should we care about how much it costs and who pays for it?"

Of course the rich have to pay and of course we should care.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm just going off what AOC is saying, "why should we care about how much it costs and who pays for it?"

Of course the rich have to pay and of course we should care.

Lol verifiable, direct unadulterated quote right here.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Half serious question: Why does the US have to pay for Healthcare?

Why not just run deficits? You know, the exact same way they afford corporate welfare and military spending.

I'm not proposing that they should do that, but no one ever brings up the "who cares" argument that works so well for every other area of spending. The deficit is $900B and not a single **** is given.

The point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer. The primary function of the US govt (and pretty much all govts) is to funnel wealth from the poor to the rich, so its really important to make sure debt spending only benefits the super rich. Corporate Democrats will fight to the death to keep things this way, they'll even torpedoe their own party if they have to.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Matata

The point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer. The primary function of the US govt (and pretty much all govts) is to funnel wealth from the poor to the rich, so its really important to make sure debt spending only benefits the super rich. Corporate Democrats will fight to the death to keep things this way, they'll even torpedoe their own party if they have to.

What are you talking about? The biggest expense in the US budget is social security. Give the socialist rhetoric a rest.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/

[PsYcNeT]

Matata, known socialist poster

You realize social security is mostly paid to aging boomers on the backs of the working population, right? In the US, welfare is only good if it benefits me, #### everyone else.

[activeStick]

Politico's profile on Andrew Yang as they follow him on the day of the Iowa Caucus.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...profile-111863

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.

Can you provide sources for that? Everything I've read shows that even on good plans, you're still paying a sizable deductible for every hospital visit. And even on the best plans the insurance company will still fight tooth and nail against every claim to reduce the payout. I fail to see how that's better than our system

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Basically the Iowa results as reported are a total fabrication, which is easy to verify given that there were hundreds of people at each location. Whole lot of tweets out there like this one.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1225625500275683329

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Matata, known socialist poster

Whether Matata is a socialist or not is irrelevant. He is spouting socialist nonsense that would not sound out of place were it spoken from the mouth of Sanders himself.

You realize social security is mostly paid to aging boomers on the backs of the working population, right? In the US, welfare is only good if it benefits me, #### everyone else.

Matata stated that "the point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer". Since the largest contributor to the deficit is made up of social security, which does not go to the super rich, I was pointing out that he is incorrect. Your typical hissy fit over boomers isn't relevant here.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Matata stated that "the point of the deficit is for the super rich to give themselves money and to pass on the perpetual interest to the taxpayer". Since the largest contributor to the deficit is made up of social security, which does not go to the super rich, I was pointing out that he is incorrect. Your typical hissy fit over boomers isn't relevant here.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What are you talking about? The biggest expense in the US budget is social security. Give the socialist rhetoric a rest.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/

You'd have a point if expenditures were what was driving the deficit, but it's lack of revenue due to tax cuts. The United States has essentially the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in the industrialized world. And even by their own historical standards, they're generating about as little tax revenue as they have since the early '50s. Given the current economic climate, that's insane.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Basically the Iowa results as reported are a total fabrication, which is easy to verify given that there were hundreds of people at each location. Whole lot of tweets out there like this one.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1225625500275683329

This is all fabrication by those who lost. Congratulations to Pete the clear winner of Iowa and front runner to be America's next President of the United States!

*paid for by the DNC and Pete's Pals*

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

When you have a good healthcare plan in the US, coverage is spectacular. Infinitely superior to anything in Canada. What percentage of Americans enjoy that kind of coverage? No clue. Probably not many, but not one of them will support a system that may (will) provide inferior care.

Canadian style health care is really a non-starter for the US; I honestly have no idea why the candidates are even suggesting it. But the US could certainly achieve a German or Swiss-style system which provides excellent universal coverage with the option to have supplementary private coverage.

That said, the number of Americans who have coverage that's "infinitely superior" to basic Canadian coverage is so small that it's basically irrelevant electorally. Even pretty good healthcare plans have their warts.