Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:07 pm
@Lash,
Quoting from the images and comment on Sanders ---

Quote:
Said the exact same things he i saying today


In other words, he is incapable of moving forward or coming up with any new ideas.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:09 pm
@Sturgis,
These are the ideas you are patting Warren on the back for stealing. Just be honest.

You hate Bernie Sanders for some other reason.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:13 pm
@Sturgis,
It's no plan; it's a gimmick.
Sanders has laid out over and over how to pay.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:17 pm
@Sturgis,
Warren grew up in a conservative Republican household in Oklahoma. Her life experience is what transformed her into a fighting liberal. Sanders grew up in a leftist household in Brooklyn. All he had to do was stick to the script; back in those days, urban Jews in NYC absorbed leftist ideals by osmosis. The innuendo concerning Biden doesn't warrant a comment.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:24 pm
I enjoy the centrists twisting of facts and logic here. It's the main reason I haven't quit posting in politics.
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:24 pm
@Lash,
No, I don't 'hate' Mr.Sanders. I just don't have time or patience for him in his latest attempt to be the nominee. Since his ideas have not really evolved, he could have and should have made his run and pitch a decade ago.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:26 pm
The retarded plan just advanced by Warren is evolved?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:31 pm
@edgarblythe,
DJ Claussen
@DJClaussen71
·
15h
Replying to
@cenkuygur
and
@ewarren
Actually...
It proves she is pandering to the corporate interests.

Her plan exempts subcontractors & firms w/ <=50 employees from paying in.
So, every corp simply restructures to meet exempt status & avoid costs...plan is no longer viable & dies.

See how easy that was? 🙄
edgarblythe wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Talking points against Warrens M4A plan:
1. It doesn’t include mental health care.
2. The 10 year transition period is too long and is a political vulnerability.
3. Minimum wage workers would spend 60% of their income on health care.
4. Health care tied to employment.

Here it is called a disaster
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan?fbclid=IwAR0PPKvhbb72EGnLwCker8taYxwLPOLZ3UqX2l2NPv7z2_PbiJC3LTVmApc
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:34 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I enjoy the centrists twisting of facts and logic here.

Any examples of logical fallacies being employed?

Quote:
Sanders has laid out over and over how to pay.

Okay but this was what I heard a couple days ago:
Quote:
Bernie Sanders doesn't plan on releasing a detailed plan of how to finance his single-payer Medicare for All plan, he told CNBC's John Harwood on Tuesday.

"You're asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American — how much you're going to pay more in taxes, how much I'm going to pay," he said. "I don't think I have to do that right now."

The Vermont senator explained that before getting to his detailed financing plan, he wants Americans to understand that they currently pay more for health care than people in other countries.

npr
Do you see how someone might think that he wasn't being specific? And I agree with him, I don't think he has to unveil the whole thing right now, but he hasn't provided the detail that Warren has.



0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 02:37 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
Since his ideas have not really evolved, he could have and should have made his run and pitch a decade ago.

Interesting point. His message would have been just as pertinent — why did he wait so long?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 03:12 pm
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-summary?id=FA52728F-B57E-4E0D-96C2-F0C5D346A6E1&download=1&inline=file

The Medicare for All Act of 2019 Our dysfunctional health care system is unaffordable.
Today, the United States has the most expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic health care system in the world. Despite the fact that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care for all -- and have 34 million Americans who are uninsured and even more who are underinsured -- we now spend more than twice as much per capita on health care as the average developed country.
According to a recent study, 45 percent of Americans are worried a major illness could leave them bankrupt, 1 out of 4 Americans skipped needed medical care because they could not afford it, and 77 percent are concerned rising health costs will cause significant and lasting damage to our economy.
We spend more on health care and get worse results.
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, we spend more than $10,700 per capita on health care. Meanwhile, Canada spends just $4,826, France spends $4,902, Germany spends $5,728, and the United Kingdom spends $4,246 per person on health care. Further, despite the fact that health care spending consumes almost 18% of our GDP, our health care outcomes are worse than all of these other countries. For example, our life expectancy is 2.5 years lower than Germany's and our mortality rate for children under the age of 18 is at the top of the list compared to other developed countries.
Our current health care system puts profits over people.
The ongoing failure of our health care system is directly attributable to the fact that -
- unique among major nations -- it is primarily designed not to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to maximize profits for health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and medical equipment suppliers.
While thousands of Americans die each year because they cannot get the health care they desperately need, the top five health insurance companies last year made nearly $21 billion in profits, led by UnitedHealth which made almost $12 billion alone.
As tens of thousands of American families face bankruptcy and financial ruin because of the outrageously high cost of health care and 30 percent of U.S. adults with private health insurance delay seeking medical care each year due to cost, the top 65 healthcare CEOs made $1.7
billion in compensation in 2017 including $83.2 million for the CEO of UnitedHealth Group; $58.7 million for the CEO of Aetna; and $43.9 million for the CEO of Cigna.
Today, about one out of every five Americans cannot afford to fill the prescriptions given to them by their doctors because we pay, by far, the highest price in the world for prescription drugs. Meanwhile, last year pharmaceutical companies made over $50 billion in profits. A 2013 study showed that in 2010, the United States paid, on average, about double what was paid

in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Switzerland for prescription drugs. Since 2014, the cost of 60 drugs commonly taken has more than doubled, and 20 of them have at least quadrupled in price.
Medicare is the most popular health care program in America.
Fifty-four years ago, the United States took an important step towards universal health care by passing the Medicare program into law. Guaranteeing comprehensive health benefits for Americans over 65 has proven to be enormously successful and popular. Now is the time to improve and expand Medicare for all.
Universal health care for all.
The Medicare for All Act will provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in our country -- without out-of-pocket expenses. No more insurance premiums, deductibles or co-payments. Further, this bill improves Medicare coverage to include dental, hearing and vision care. In other words, this plan would do exactly what should be done in a civilized and democratic society. It would allow all Americans, regardless of their income, to get the health care they need when they need it.
Medicare for All is the most cost-effective health care plan.
Instead of doctors and nurses spending a significant part of their day filling out forms and arguing with insurance companies, they should be using their time to provide care to their patients. We'd be able to save up to $500 billion annually in billing and administrative costs under Medicare for All. That money could be used to greatly expand primary care in this country and make certain that all Americans got the health care they needed when they needed it -- saving billions on expensive emergency room care and hospital visits. Instead of paying
the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, we could save hundreds of billions over a 10 year period through tough negotiations with the drug companies under this legislation.
Even a study done by the right-wing Mercatus Center estimated that Medicare for All would save Americans more than $2 trillion over a decade, reducing the projected cost of health care between 2022 and 2031 from $59.7 trillion to $57.6 trillion. Another study by the University of Massachusetts Amherst estimated that Medicare for All would save the American people even more money - $5.1 trillion over a ten year period compared to what they are spending today.
Medicare for All saves middle class families thousands of dollars.
At a time when health care in 2018 for a typical family of four with an employer-sponsored PPO plan now costs more than $28,000, the reality is that a Medicare-for-all system would save the average family significant sums of money.
A study by RAND found that moving to a Medicare-for-all system in New York would save a family with an income of $185,000 or less about $3,000 a year, on average. Citizens for Tax Justice found that middle class families would see their after-tax income go up by about $3,240 a

year under Medicare for All. Another study found that middle class families would spend about 14 percent less of their income on health care than they do today. Even the projections from the Mercatus Center suggest that the average American could save about $6,000
under Medicare for all over a 10-year period.
Medicare for All is good for businesses.
A Medicare-for-all system not only benefits individuals and families, it would benefit the business community. Small- and medium-sized businesses would be free to focus on their core business goals instead of wasting precious energy and resources navigating an incredibly complex system to provide health insurance to their employees.
Bottom line: If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States of America cannot do the same.
Summary of the bill
Coverage for all
This legislation will create a federal universal health insurance program to provide comprehensive coverage for all Americans including inpatient and outpatient hospital care; emergency services; primary and preventive services; prescription drugs; mental health and substance abuse treatment; maternity and newborn care; pediatrics; home- and community-based long-term services and supports; dental, audiology, and vision services.
What will this bill mean for patients?
As a patient, all your basic needs are covered. You choose your doctor. No deductibles, no surprise bills for out-of-network services, no copays. If you change jobs, you don’t have to change insurance plans or worry about losing the coverage you and your family depend on. No more worrying about whether you can afford to get the care you need, or how to pick the right insurance plan for your family.
What will it mean for providers?
Health care providers can spend more time with their patients and less time with paperwork. A universal health care system will also allow the country to invest more resources in provider education and training, and make smart investments to avoid provider shortages and ensure communities can access the providers they need.
What will it mean for employers?
Instead of struggling to provide health insurance to employees, businesses will simply pay a payroll tax—just like they do for Medicare now.

More freedom, more security
Under this bill, Americans will benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment. That freedom would not only help the American people live happier, healthier and more fulfilling lives, but it would also promote innovation and entrepreneurship in every sector of the economy. People would be able to start new businesses, stay home with their children or leave jobs they don’t like knowing that they would still have health care coverage for themselves and their families. Employers would be free to focus on running their business rather than spending countless hours figuring out how to provide health insurance to their employees. Working Americans wouldn’t have to choose between bargaining for higher wages or better health insurance. Parents wouldn’t have to worry about how to provide health insurance to their children. Seniors and people with serious or chronic illnesses could afford the care necessary to keep them healthy without worry of financial ruin. Millions of people will no longer have to choose between health care and other necessities like food, heat and shelter.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 03:17 pm
Cowards.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 10:15 pm
We must take our time on health care. We been waiting since before Martin Luther King spoke these words. "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
— Martin Luther King Jr. But we mustn't rush it, right?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2019 02:08 am
News from England, as the people there are pushing toward the same end to austerity and protectionism for the ultra-wealthy as the US and other countries around the world.

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/02/super-rich-leave-uk-labour-election-win-jeremy-corbyn-wealth-taxes?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true


The super-rich
Super-rich prepare to leave UK ‘within minutes’ if Labour wins election
Wealthy see potential taxes imposed by Jeremy Corbyn as bigger threat than Brexit
Rupert Neate Wealth correspondent
@RupertNeate
Sat 2 Nov 2019 04.00 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
The super-rich are preparing to immediately leave the UK if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister, fearing they will lose billions of pounds if the Labour leader does “go after” the wealthy elite with new taxes, possible capital controls and a clampdown on private schools.
Lawyers and accountants for the UK’s richest families said they had been deluged with calls from millionaire and billionaire clients asking for help and advice on moving countries, shifting their fortunes offshore and making early gifts to their children to avoid the Labour leader’s threat to tax all inheritances above £125,000.
The advisers said a Corbyn-led government was viewed as a far greater threat to the wealth and quality of life of the richest 1% than a hard Brexit.
Corbyn's super-rich targets: who are they and what could he do?
Geoffrey Todd, a partner at the law firm Boodle Hatfield, said many of his clients had already put plans in place to transfer their wealth out of the country within minutes if Corbyn is elected.
“Lots of high-net worth individuals are worried about having to pay much higher taxes on their wealth and have already prepared for the possibility of a Corbyn government,” he said. “Transfers of wealth are already arranged – in many cases, all that is missing is a signature on the contract.

“There will be plenty of people on the phone to their lawyers in the early hours of 13 December if Labour wins. Movements of capital to new owners and different locations are already prepared, and they are just awaiting final approval.”
Dominic Samuelson, the chief executive of Campden Wealth, which advises more than 3,500 rich families, said: “From the ultra-high net worth perspective, a Labour government under Corbyn is a much greater threat to them and their businesses and their wealth than Brexit.”
On Thursday, Corbyn singled out five members of “the elite” that a Labour government would go after in order to rebalance the country.
He claimed Mike Ashley, the billionaire owner of Sports Direct and Newcastle United, was a “bad boss” who exploited his workers through zero-hours contracts. Ashley hit back, telling the Financial Times: “Corbyn’s not only a liar but clueless.”
The Labour leader also named the “greedy banker” Crispin Odey, the hedge fund manager who made £220m betting against the pound in the run-up to the EU referendum. Odey responded by telling the Daily Telegraph: “Luckily they [Labour] can’t even run a campaign, let alone the country.”
Jim Ratcliffe
Jim Ratcliffe, the chairman and chief executive of Ineos, was listed as the third-richest person in the UK before he left for Monaco. Photograph: Ineos/PA
The others singled out by Corbyn were: Jim Ratcliffe, the chemicals billionaire who has left the UK for tax-free Monaco; the Sun and Sunday Times owner, Rupert Murdoch; and the Duke of Westminster, who has a large central London property empire.

The shadow Treasury minister Clive Lewis went further than the Labour leader, telling the BBC’s Newsnight programme: “Billionaires shouldn’t exist. It’s a travesty that there are people on this planet living on less than a dollar a day.
“There are people, when I walk into parliament, who are sleeping rough on the streets of this country – the sixth-wealthiest in this world.” He also described private schools as “engines of inequality”.

Josie Hills, a senior tax manager at Pinsent Masons, said not being able to educate their children at Eton, Harrow or Winchester was a key worry for many of the law firm’s rich clients, who were considering moving to Switzerland and other low-tax countries with well-regarded private schools.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2019 03:10 am
@Lash,
The quote above is actually from Labour's opening stages of the election campaign for the coming UK election.

Corbyn’s warning about the stinking rich could smell sweet to struggling workers
Quote:
[...]
Britain has more than 150 billionaires, who control assets worth £525bn. Yet with 14 million people in relative poverty, each one of these billionaires could be seen as a failure of government policy.

The crux of the Labour argument is whether such extreme wealth for so few people – 0.0002% of the population – can benefit society at large. Should anyone be allowed to grow filthy rich, as long as they pay their taxes? Has the wealth been earned fairly and gained legally?

To some, billionaires represent a gaggle of golden geese. They are symbols of the UK outgunning its economic rivals, acting as a welcoming port in a politically stormy world, with its arms open wide to the wealth creators.

The argument goes that the top 1% of earners account for 27% of income tax receipts and create jobs across the country. An example of this would be Britain’s third-richest man, Jim Ratcliffe, who is worth £18bn as head of Ineos – the petrochemicals group that employs 17,000 people. The politics of envy and class war would, some argue, drive wealth creators away, damage the exchequer and rob the country of innovations that only free-market capitalism might provide.

The Labour leader might have named Mike Ashley as an example of all that is wrong with billionaires in Britain, but after all the owner of the Sports Direct empire can claim he employs almost 30,000 people across the UK.

However, what ought to be questioned is the quality of the jobs that are created, and whether workers are fairly rewarded for their part in driving wealth creation. And where might the billionaires flee to, without access to the workforce and customer base that they rely on?
[...]
The fact that there are more than 150 billionaires in Britain goes to the heart of how unequal the nation has become. Despite crippling austerity and the lowest real wages growth since the end of the Napoleonic wars, the ranks of the super-rich have more than doubled in the past decade. Despite the financial crisis, the nation is still home to the highest number of bankers paid more than €1m a year – 3,500 – of any EU nation.

Attacking the billionaire class is a smart move for Labour, allowing it to sidestep accusations that the party is anti-aspiration. Most people agree that at some level wealth starts to become repulsive. Growing fantastically rich may be an ambition for many, but it is reached by few. Billionaire status is out of the reach of almost everyone, including even successful entrepreneurs.

Even if they didn’t pay tax or spend a penny of their earnings, the time it would take a worker on the average UK salary – about £25,000 – to earn their way to billionaire status is more than 40,000 years – a period equivalent to the entire existence of Homo sapiens in Britain.

Boris Johnson has framed the election as parliament versus people. Labour would prefer the debate to be people versus the elite. With an argument about billionaires, Corbyn and Labour are on fertile ground.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2019 03:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes. This is also Bernie Sanders’ argument. This conversation is rather heated in many countries right now.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2019 07:23 am
@hightor,
I think the electorate is far more ready for change than you perceive it. In any case, any elected president on the left pf Trump would need a large wave a support from the electorate in order to size the Senate. Sanders has a track record here. He can mobilize people alright, and far beyond self-described socialists.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2019 08:24 am
You Retweeted

Dr. Victoria Dooley
@DrDooleyMD
·
12m
Corporate health insurance denies, then people are left to die.

They will kill you dead if it increases share holder profits. It must stop. We must stand up to them this election. It cannot wait any longer! #MedicareForAll #NoMiddleGround
Quote Tweet

Lady Dragonfly
@RobinDuehring
· 16m
Replying to @DrDooleyMD and @ninaturner
Thank You Dr.Dooley - You are 100% correct. No one cares about their #InsuranceCompany. They are there to deny and delay treatment. I just got the ACA and BCBS won't let me have a heart MRI I need to continue cancer treatment which is delaying my recovery.

————————————
(Attached to Lady Dragonfly’s tweet above is a picture of her, face carefully made up, bald, lying in a hospital bed. She’s being murdered by an insurance company. We must stop this.)
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2019 07:52 am
Michael Moore

Verified account

@MMFlint
12h12 hours ago
More
November 3rd, 2020.
One year from today.
Each of us, between now and then, must work to end the madness. What I do may not be what u do, but I would like to suggest something we both can do:
While we bring an end to the Trump Era, let’s make sure we end that which gave us Trump.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2019 08:13 am
@Brand X,
Absolutely!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 09:32:23