Bernie Sanders unveils healthcare plan hours before Democratic debate
Bernie Sanders released his health care plan Sunday night, which would seek to provide Medicare for all.
Sanders proposes actual health care for all
Sanders proposes actual health care for all
He lives in la la land. Tomorrow he will probably event the new space machine, and announce how it works sometime in the distant unknown future.
And Trump is going to make Mexico pay for a gilded wall, and Clinton's opinion is whatever people want it to be for the moment, and the rest don't matter.
So, one of those three are actually standing for something – has been voicing the same opinions for years, and can actually help people.
I don't think it's Sanders that's in la la land +Andre Chavez
+Matt Lorence
Standing for something is one thing. It's good to have ideals. Like world peace. That's a good one, but it'll never happen. So don't offer something that can never be done. I mean free college for everyone. Do you really believe that. If you believe that for real, Than I have a few seafront properties in Arizona for ya.
Free in the sense that anyone who wants to go will be able to go, yes.
Free in the sense that no one will pay for it (which is what it seems everyone understands that as), no.
There will be costs. Income tax caps will be raised. Do you make millions a year? No? Don't worry about that.
Healthcare for everyone. Taxes may go up. Do you pay money toward healthcare now? Yes? Well, you'll be paying a tax instead. Not a significant change.
Given how poorly you spell +Andre Chavez you could use free college.
"Tomorrow he will probably event the" – the word would be "invent".
"If you believe that for real, Than" – the word would be "then".
+Paul Spoerry
If grrrraammar is more important to you tthaan coming up with solutions to take back the strength and pride of our once great country, than you are part of the problem.
+Andre Chavez in Belgium you pay 17% of you wage for healthcare. This includes most medication, unemployment wage (with medical issues and layoff) and pension. If you don't have a big family income collage costs €100 a year (+books) and without and test.
So it's no lala land. It's is most of west Europe.
Wow I seriously raised an eyebrow by "…take back the strength and pride of our once great country"? Really? The United States isn't a strong nation?
Then went to the profile and see your banner is of Trump. Fucking priceless. Thanks for playing and showing that you're an idiot.
You Welcome.
Hallo
…and I suppose it's FREE?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. I thought that was one of the first things you learn when you step outside.
Read a goddamn book +West Kagle, or at a minimum my second comment in this thread because we already covered this shit.
+Matt Lorence
Yeah……no. Free is a relative term. Someone is going to be paying for it.
…and how about engaging in a dialogue without cursing at the person, being condescending and sounding like an absolute reprobate. If we can't manage that, then this exchange is over.
G u t e n t ag
+West Kagle It was over before it began. No skin off my back.
Free in the sense that anyone who wants to go will be able to go, yes.
Free in the sense that no one will pay for it (which is what it seems everyone understands that as), no.
There will be costs. Income tax caps will be raised. Do you make millions a year? No? Don't worry about that.
Healthcare for everyone. Taxes may go up. Do you pay money toward healthcare now? Yes? Well, you'll be paying a tax instead. Not a significant change.
+Matt Lorence
If it was so over, why did you feel the need to type all those other lines after saying so. (lines that I won't bother wasting my time reading, and thanks to the layout, I don't even have to see). Thanx again for wasting as much of my time as you did.
Yes "There is no such thing as a free lunch. I thought that was one of the first things you learn when you step outside." +West Kagle. There's also no such thing as free social security, roads, schools, government buildings, TANF, SNAP, Medicaid Grants to States, Earned Income Tax Credit , Child Nutrition Program, not to mention our massive military and on and on and on.
"lines that I won't bother wasting my time reading".
Didn't read it the first time either, or he would have seen that it was a facsimile of my above comment.
I hope this guy doesn't waste everyone's time by voting, or reproducing.
A year from the election, and I'm already completely done with all the BS commentary from the bottom third of the curve, to the point that I'm losing my filter. This is not going to be fun.
+Paul Spoerry
Actually there was suppose to have been free SS. We pa in, we get it at retirement, no one else is paying for our stuff. However the Government does what it always does when it see a huge pile of money sitting around. They pilfer it.
And some of the other things you mentioned I'm not to fond of paying for either.
H al lo Paulo g u t n a b e n s 👄❤👙🌹🍷
+West Kagle I think I know what you mean but that's not entirely accurate. Social Security would NEVER be able to work in a you get out what you pay in manner. If it was setup like that it would truly be a pure ponzi scheme. Social Security payouts have always been openly underwritten by incoming tax revenue and the interest on the Treasury bonds held by or for the Social Security system. If it weren't there'd be no way to account for increase/decrease value of US currency, inflation, less people paying in than withdrawing, etc. But yes… they also do what they want with it which is criminal IMHO.
+Paul Spoerry
When SS was established, think of all the years that the entire workforce was paying in and no one was collecting. that's how the original seed money was suppose to be available when the time came to start to pay out in force.
That's why there was such a big pile of money. It then started out with the government saying they needed to 'borrow' some of it to pay for the war. The rest leaked out over time till there was only what was coming in to cover the benefits going out.
Had they not stolen the cash, there would be no need for those working to pay for the benefits of the retired. The money would be there from what they put in over their working life.
Right now the saving grace of SS is that most people die soon after they retire. As bad as that sounds it is the reality. But as more and more people retire in the next 30 years coupled with the fact that the government looted into it, it will not cover everybody. Then what?
+West Kagle The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. I don't know that I'd consider that 'all those years'. – https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
It's true that life expectancy hasn't drastically gone up for SSI (https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html) but it has gone up +Andre Chavez and I agree that with advances in medicine and technology it will likely continue to trend toward longer life expectancy. And as you said… then what? It's why many in my generation, and certainly those a decade or two behind me don't even think it'll be there when they reach retirement age.
There was way more coming in than going out it the beginning, even after there were payments being made.
Again, that's why there was so much in the pot when Uncle Sam needed to 'borrow' money for the war.
It's time to face the fact that this bloated government of ours is one money stealing machine, and nothing more.