Are Bernie Sanders Democrats a threat to pro Capitalist Democrats?
Yes
Side Score: 15
|
 |
Nah. We're fine with Communism
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
0
points
1
point
Are mainstream puppet democrats who serve the Dark Lords of wallstreet a threat to America being blessed with social democracy? Democracy? You mean mob rule. America isn't a Democracy and for good reason. Democracies only favor the majority. Constututional Republics like ours protect everyone. Side: Yes
Are Bernie Sanders Democrats a threat to pro Capitalist Democrats? Hello bront: They SHOULD be, because Medicare for All IS the proper system, but they WON'T because they can't explain "socialism". When MOST people hear that word, even Democrats, they think of the failed Soviet Union. I dunno WHY I'm the ONLY one in the world who can explain it, but I AM.. It's simple, really... SocialISM, wherein the government OWN the means of production is a FAILED economic system.. However, socialISTIC programs like Social Security and Medicare, wherein the government does NOT own the means of production, are wonderful programs.. Bernie Sanders gave a major speech on it yesterday, and FAILED miserably to explain it.. excon Side: Nah. We're fine with Communism
1
point
They SHOULD be, because Medicare for All IS the proper system Sounds familiar. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/1e/49/ https://fee.org/resources/ When the state runs healthcare, you have number one, shit healthcare with massive waiting lines, rationing, and the part Socialist never tell you about... rankings of priority. For example, an 80 year old man is NOT a priority. And two, an omnipotent state who decides who lives and who dies. No dissent allowed. You trust these crooked bastards more than I do to do the right thing. They are bastardizing things right now, such as censoring dissent and clammoring for violence and intimidation on dissenters, much less when they are given MORE power. You see Conservatives being targeted and are like, eh, they're Conservatives. Ah, but alas, they are already going after regular liberals. You're next buddy. You're going to happily give them the stick with which they whack you with... Side: Yes
1
point
However, socialISTIC programs like Social Security and Medicare, wherein the government does NOT own the means of production, are wonderful programs.. Bernie Sanders gave a major speech on it yesterday, and FAILED miserably to explain it.. Newsflash Con. 1)The lib media itself warned you that the funding for these programs is almost depleted. The problem with Socialism is it's fun and games until the money runs out. It domino effects on itself. Less and less capital and more and more taxes until there is no capital and no one left to tax. 2)Bernie doesn't want social programs. He's a Marxist. He wants something else... Perhaps it's a great time for you to study Marxism... Or I can tell you in blunt terms. The end game for Marxism is the takedown of the West from within, with smiley faces and shiny objects... And that's not MY opinion. It's theirs... Side: Yes
The lib media itself warned you that the funding for these programs is almost depleted. Hello again, bront: We've HAD this argument.. Last time you were quoting FOX News.. This time it's the liberal media.. But, I'm not FOX News, and I'm NOT the liberal media, and I have a plan that takes care of EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING with money LEFT over.. I've showed it to you before.. Didja forget?? You don't quote MY plan.. I dunno WHY.. Is that cause the math adds up? Here it is again, in case you forgot..
So, we start with what we already spend as a nation for health care.. It's around $3.5 trillion.. Then we SUBTRACT what we spend for the health INSURANCE industry, because my plan ENDS it. That's about $.5 trillion.. Then we SUBTRACT the amount we're gonna SAVE because we're gonna LOWER drug costs and that's another $.25 trillion savings.. Then we SUBTRACT the savings we get when we ONLY pay our doctors a decent living, and that's another $.25 trillion.. If everybody is covered for everything, there's NOTHING for an insurance company to do, so the ONLY job Medicare has, is writing checks.. That'll take a couple hundred people and'll cost about $5 million. So, as you can SEE, my plan results in $1 trillion MORE going toward actual HEALTH care, that is NOT going towards it today. With the additional $1 trillion, we'll be able to cover everybody for everything, and buy a couple of aircraft carriers.. That means your health care, while NOT free, won't cost you a PENNY more than you're NOW paying.. You get that, right??? excon Side: Nah. We're fine with Communism
by Shannon Firth, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today October 17, 2018 WASHINGTON -- A single-payer healthcare system in the U.S. would break her practice, said the president of the American Medical Association (AMA), who argued that Medicare and other government programs as currently structured simply don't pay enough. "We need a payment system that the country can afford," said Barbara McAneny, MD, AMA president, and a practicing oncologist/hematologist in New Mexico. McAneny pointed out that in the portion of her practice that serves the Navajo Nation, 70% of payments are from governmental payers, and "I have struggled for the last 10 years to keep that practice breaking even." Medicare payments are designed to cover about 80% of the cost of doing business, McAneny said. If all her commercial patients were to pay Medicare rates, there would be no other place from which to shift costs, she explained. "My doors would be closed. I would no longer be able to make payroll." Moving to a single-payer healthcare system won't fix what's broken, she said during a meeting with reporters Tuesday to discuss a variety of issues, including drug pricing, value-based payments, and turf battles. While she said she strongly supported Medicaid expansion in New Mexico, McAneny expressed skepticism about the possibility of a Medicaid "buy-in," which would allow people to purchase Medicaid-based public insurance plans. https://www.medpagetoday.com/ Side: Yes
|
