Cruz Versus Sanders

[Yttrium]

No, they have you believing that it cost to much because the fat cats and their political puppets want to continue screwing the rest of us over. Entitlements only cost to much because the fat cats don't want to pay their fair share, they want to continue hiding their trillions of dollars in tax havens, and abusing unintended loopholes in the tax code, while putting the cost burden of government on those of us with no financial power.

Well, then we'll have to fix the current tax system before we add more to the entitlements, won't we? That alone would probably take longer than Sander's term in office, if he becomes president. Fix the existing system first before adding more to it.

Realistically he isn't going to get those taxes unless he is able to wake people up to the facts and get them out to vote their best interests instead of being persuaded to vote against themselves. Realistically, it is up to the electorate.

Different people have different priorities and different best interests. Most of them would not appreciate you deciding what their best interests are for them.

The cost of healthcare has already decreased under the ACA, not to mention that some 18 or so million more people are now insured. But that was a compromise bill with those who support privatization. The way to drive down costs is to see that everyone is insured, the healthy as well as the not so healthy, while cutting out the middle man, i.e. the insurance companies, whose only motive is profit.

I haven't seen signs of those cost decreases. I've only seen costs continue to rise. I must be missing something, hmm? We have more people insured because they're required to be insured, whether they can afford it or not. That's not the best approach to spreading health care, unless you can ensure that those costs will be driven down. Idealistically expecting costs to drop isn't enough. There needs to be direct action to reduce costs. Otherwise, the health care suppliers (regardless of whether insurance companies are involved or not) can keep jacking up the prices as much as they want.

Socialism like liberalism are ideas that demonized by the the fat cat propagandist on the right who want to keep you under their thumb.

Ironic statement is ironic.

[Yttrium]

Regardless of my Amens for posters here supporting Bernie Sanders, I'm right in the Middle-of-the-Road myself. I contributed to Jim Webb's campaign for the Democratic nomination and now support his Middle-of-the-Road campaign as an independent. I recommend him whole-heartedly without any reservations.

Seems like a reasonable possibility in this situation. I'd have to hope for a debate between him, Cruz and Sanders before deciding on him.

[JimL]

Well, then we'll have to fix the current tax system before we add more to the entitlements, won't we? That alone would probably take longer than Sander's term in office, if he becomes president. Fix the existing system first before adding more to it.

Definitely, but in order to do that you need first to elect people that want to actually fix it in the interests of the country as a whole and not in the intersts of themselves and the top 5% that finacially back them at the great expense of the other 95%. So what do you do in such a case? You begin by electing a President who isn't beholden to, or afraid to make known to the people the corrupt nature of Wall Street. It takes a political revolution, and that is exactly what Sanders campaign is all about. Or you could just say "it'll take to long, its to hard, and so stay with the corrupt status quo.

Different people have different priorities and different best interests. Most of them would not appreciate you deciding what their best interests are for them.

No, all people are interested in securing affordable health care for themselves and their families, all people are interested in securing a living wage, all people want an affordable education available to their children, all people want to be able to retire with dignity, etc etc. Of course there are those people who don't want a government that insures the availability of those things for others, so long as they've got theirs.

I haven't seen signs of those cost decreases. I've only seen costs continue to rise. I must be missing something, hmm?

Yes, you are missing something. All things rise in cost, they don't go down, but the rate at which health care costs increase is on the decline. But again, thats with the ACA which is a compromise bill which is the best that could be done at the time considering the opposition to it by the plutocrat backed puppets in congress. Had they had the majority and so the power to do so at the time they would have killed the bill altogether just like they did in the 90's and replaced it with nothing. That was 25 years ago. Do you ever wonder why those same obstructers have done nothing about health care since? Now, of course, since Obama care is in effect, all of a sudden they want to do something about it, repeal it and replace it with something they tell you will be better. Don't get sucked in by their BS again.

We have more people insured because they're required to be insured, whether they can afford it or not.

What they can't afford, and what the rest of us can't afford, is for them not to be insured. Who do you think ends up paying for the health care of the uninsured when they end up in the emergency room?

That's not the best approach to spreading health care, unless you can ensure that those costs will be driven down. Idealistically expecting costs to drop isn't enough. There needs to be direct action to reduce costs. Otherwise, the health care suppliers (regardless of whether insurance companies are involved or not) can keep jacking up the prices as much as they want.

Thats not an ideal, medicare for all, eliminating the middleman, i.e the insurance industry, would drive down costs for all in the same way that it drives down costs for those on medicare today. U.S citizens pay much more for health care and drugs, much much more, than do people in any other industrialized country in the world. Why? Could it be because their governments provide universal coverage? You will always be misinformed about this by the corporate backed talking heads because your interests are not their interests, and their interests are profits over peoples lives.

[JimL]

Big Tort Law as well.

If see yet another law firm put out a mesotheloma ad, I gonna shoot the TV. (Jordan doesn't have to worry about TV's -- they're permanently installed in the walls of every room of his flat.)

If Tort law needs fixing then fix it, don't use it as a justification of the current health care system.

[Bill the Cat]

... eliminating the middleman, i.e the insurance industry, ....

And put over a million people out of work...

[JimL]

And put over a million people out of work...

If the work they do is detrimental to the country, if its responsible for the poor health care of the people, then they shouldn't be doing that work in the first place. Millions lost their jobs under G.W. Bush and some eighteen million people have had to, and have found jobs since the Obama administration came into office.

[Bill the Cat]

If the work they do is detrimental to the country, if its responsible for the poor health care of the people, then they shouldn't be doing that work in the first place.

Well good thing it isn't any of that. It just doesn't mesh well with the left's desire for a single payer government run system. They have sufficiently screwed the VA system. What on God's green earth makes you think they would do better with everyone's healthcare?

Millions lost their jobs under G.W. Bush and some eighteen million people have had to, and have found jobs since the Obama administration came into office.

But they lost homes, transportation, had to declare bankruptcy, and a host of other detrimental effects. You'd INTENTIONALLY create a million more of that?

[Mountain Man]

Specifics please?

The short answer is that the rich simply don't have enough money to pay for all the generous freebies that Bernie is promising, so a big portion of it is going to have to come from the middle class.

The long answer, well...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...s-middle-class
http://time.com/4183856/bernie-sande...s-health-care/

[Mountain Man]

...some eighteen million people have had to, and have found jobs since the Obama administration came into office.

And yet the labor participation rate under Obama is at a near record low.

LFP_0.jpg
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...rops-february-

[Adam]

What happened? Did people get old and stop working? Gotta get these people in their 70's and 80's back to work!

[Adam]

But if you want to tell me (and prove it) that the government is lying with statistics, I'll believe it. I have no more chance of getting a year-round job now that I did when I lost mine in 2008. (But I'm 73 now, that has something to do with it.)

[Bill the Cat]

What happened? Did people get old and stop working? Gotta get these people in their 70's and 80's back to work!

Actually, those 65 and older have increased in percentage at work from 2004 to 2014

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

[JimL]

The short answer is that the rich simply don't have enough money to pay for all the generous freebies that Bernie is promising, so a big portion of it is going to have to come from the middle class.

Nobody is promising a freebie, it costs us all something in the end, but it will cost the middle class a lot less if the plutocrats who control Congress are forced to put back into the system their fair share instead of avoiding it through the use of unintended loopholes and parking their wealth off shore to avoid paying taxes. Thats just common sense.

[Bill the Cat]

Nobody is promising a freebie, it costs us all something in the end, but it will cost a lot less if the plutocrats who control Congress are forced to put back into the system their fair share instead of avoiding it through the use of unintended loopholes and parking their wealth off shore to avoid paying taxes.

And I'm sure your definition of "their fair share" would be the correct one, right?

[klaus54]

If Tort law needs fixing then fix it, don't use it as a justification of the current health care system.

Do you believe that 1) controlling the cost of healthcare is essential for reform? 2) Do you believe that outrageous tort settlements add significant costs to the system?

Look up malpractice premiums for obstetricians in the Chicago area, e.g.