Bernie Sanders Unveils his Medicare for All Plan

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That Sanders said won't pass and is largely symbolic.

 

[Shogun]

Question for those in support of single payer:

Do you have any trepidation in entrusting the government completely with funding healthcare given their history of screwing up, corrupting, or misguiding the majority of things they take over?

(honest question, I dont know shyt about the inner working of health care)

 

[FAH1223]

Question for those in support of single payer:

Do you have any trepidation in entrusting the government completely with funding healthcare given their history of screwing up, corrupting, or misguiding the majority of things they take over?

(honest question, I dont know shyt about the inner working of health care)

No. Because overhead costs are much lower. And Medicare has been running for 50 years.

And in terms of funding health providers... the insurance companies do a good job fukking over doctors already

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No. Because overhead costs are much lower. And Medicare has been running for 50 years.

And in terms of funding health providers... the insurance companies do a good job fukking over doctors already

No

Wrong

That's why Americans favor Medicare for all over single payer

 

[DirtyD]

More filibustering from Greenwald on this.

I was there reading when he was writing the articles.

He supported the war.

It's documented. Of course he doesn't want to be associated with that blunder.

He also was a huge George Bush fan.

Glenn Greenwald's Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War

Please produce evidence that he was a huge Georg Bush fan, I would love to see it, because according to him:

I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . .

Also, there's a difference between fervently supporting the war and deferring to those that you feel have greater expertise, but intellectual dishonesty wouldn't allow for the writer to make this distinction.

When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11.Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.").

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Please produce evidence that he was a huge Georg Bush fan, I would love to see it, because according to him:



Also, there's a difference between fervently supporting the war and deferring to those that you feel have greater expertise, but intellectual dishonesty wouldn't allow for the writer to make this distinction.

Why do you take him at his word when it is all documented?

I posted the links all highlighting his support for Bush and the Iraq war

 

[DirtyD]

Why do you take him at his word when it is all documented?

I posted the links all highlighting his support for Bush and the Iraq war

The sources for the articles you linked are Greenwald himself so why should we take him at his word when it advances the agendas of those who wrote those articles? Furthermore, they're using quotes from his book where he said verbatim:

I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents.

However, they seem to ignore this quote to attempt to paint a picture of Greenwald that is disingenuous at best.

 

[Black Panther]

Was going to post this in Nap's spam thread, but I'll post it here.

Nap's argument, TL;DR version:

"It's isn't how I want it! I want universal healthcare!!!!"

Quit your whining. :bpufedup:

This would be a step in the right direction, just like PPACA was a YUGE step in the right direction.
If you think his plan has to be perfect and complete before writing a bill, you don't understand how government works. :denzelcmonson:

 

[FAH1223]

 

[Pressure]

I think one of the most significant hurdles in a single payer system in the US will probably come down to social and cultural issues.

For example, Is the government going to provide birth control. If so, which types? How much will they cover?

 

[DEAD7]

I think what he's trying to say is if the government backed out of the health care business and all the people who are so against government regulations and involvement in the free market, had to actually pay the full cost of healthcare, then they'd understand why the government is needed and single payer isn't just handouts for the poor.

Atleast that's what I got out of it.

But dude is one of those people who are against government involvement so I could be wrong.

That's exactly it.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[DEAD7]

Is this real life?

 

[Dr. Acula]

 

[FAH1223]