About Liz Warren's Medicare for All Plan

Nov 2018
5,449
2,894
Rocky Mountains
Medicare, however, will be bankrupt in 8 years, as is. Hard to call that successful. Now you want to add 150 million people? Not to mention the mass immigration Democrats will institute, all getting that care? That would swiftly bankrupt and destroy whatever health care the government managed to provide, leaving Americans with nothing.
Nonsense and hyperbole. You don't really understand Medicare, do you? Medicare defines what it will pay. The prices are controlled. Physicians and hospitals and equipment providers and pharmacies can choose to accept or not. Period.


I'm not against healthcare for all philosophically; it'd be great, but these forget-reality pie-in-the-sky things will leave us all with little medical care and no money, helpless.
Nice sentiment. However, wishes are just pipe dreams unless you understand the finances.
Basically what these things are about is just removing money from people and giving it to government. That's the priority, not helping people.
Really? The whole focus of legislative and executive department efforts are JUST to remove money from people and give it to the government?
Who could possibly live in a society of dictators who just "take your money" and do nothing; where do you live?

Have you cleared this concept with AARP because I think there are millions who depend on the system and its benefits and have different ideas about the success. For example, almost the entire population over 65 thinks differently than you do.
 
Feb 2018
1,231
677
Oregon
Not lying. Not really arguing with you about Medicare being successful as is concerning practical results; results have been good if costs are way too much. Medicare, however, will be bankrupt in 8 years, as is. Hard to call that successful.
LOL!!!! Which right wing fake news site did you get that from?
 
Feb 2018
1,231
677
Oregon
Yes! you are....either lying or misinformed to the endth degree. It happens like clockwork each year. The trustees of Social Security and Medicare issue their annual reports on the programs’ health, and doomsayers start talking about insolvency and bankruptcy.
The dates of projected depletion tend to bounce around, and trustees note that even if exhaustion occurred in 2026, Medicare would still be able to pay 91 percent of promised benefits. The problem could be addressed by increasing tax rates or by reducing program costs; the trustees estimate that cutting costs by 17 percent could put the fund back in balance. AND the trustees will more-than-likely continue to raise the age of participation. The age has gone from 65 to 67 already.
No it hasn't. You're thinking of Social Security. Medicare eligibility age remains at 65.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Jul 2014
15,513
9,596
massachusetts
Not lying. Not really arguing with you about Medicare being successful as is concerning practical results; results have been good if costs are way too much. Medicare, however, will be bankrupt in 8 years, as is. Hard to call that successful. Now you want to add 150 million people? Not to mention the mass immigration Democrats will institute, all getting that care? That would swiftly bankrupt and destroy whatever health care the government managed to provide, leaving Americans with nothing.

I'm not against healthcare for all philosophically; it'd be great, but these forget-reality pie-in-the-sky things will leave us all with little medical care and no money, helpless.

Basically what these things are about is just removing money from people and giving it to government. That's the priority, not helping people.
The only way Medicare goes "bankrupt" and can't pay claims is if we have a political party in power that doesn't mind having everyone in the country over the age of 65 vote for someone else.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Kode and leekohler2
Jul 2014
15,513
9,596
massachusetts
AND we've just circled back to this: Your party promised a better healthcare plan. Here are Trump's words: No one will lose coverage. There will be insurance for everybody. Healthcare will be a “lot less expensive” for everyone — the government, consumers, providers. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” “I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.” More recently, Trump has promised that repeal will end with “a beautiful picture.
Trump promised a "phenomenal" healthcare plan. His words.

So for two years, Trump and his party (your party) owned this country--lock, stock and legislation---and what happened?
Did you say "NOTHING"? Because that would be the correct answer.

Thanks to Democrats we the people have one of the most successful healthcare programs in the history of this country. It's called Medicare. It's not a disaster. It's run by the government. So, when you say government-run healthcare will be a disaster---you're out-and-out lying.
Elizabeth Warren in the last week has published more details about a proposed health care plan than the GOP has since Nixon.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2015
18,558
17,836
Arizona
Elizabeth Warren in the last week has published more details about a proposed health care plan than the GOP has since Nixon.
There's only one conclusion here: The GOP simply doesn't WANT healthcare insurance for everyone. Obviously, they won't come right out and SAY that, but what other explanation could there be. AND let's be truthful.
The GOP's guiding philosophy is, "You are on your own." Why would anyone support that?
According to the GOP, the government is not supposed to help or aid those who have not lucked out in life. Almost 30 million Americans don't have any health insurance, even after ObamaCare. But that's their fault, according to Republicans.

Remember, the GOP has a long and ugly history when it comes to providing for the economic well-being of U.S. citizens. Social Security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, Medicaid — to them, these are just big-government programs that smack of socialism. This is the "VISION" the GOP has for this country.
Why are we the only advanced country in the world that excludes people from this fundamental and essential human requirement?
While the Party of No sits on Capitol Hill, exhaling bigly SIGHS about the state of affairs in immigration, education, spending, trade, and the economy, somehow they MISS the whole point about being lawmakers. Did they think that being a member of Congress was akin to being a used-car salesman? That it's all about them and NOT about the millions of people they represent--the millions of people who PAY THEM--the millions of people who want a better life for their children?

Oh sure. There are exceptions. We have had some decent Republicans along the way, but that changed drastically when Trump was elected.
 
Sep 2019
2,000
832
Here
There's only one conclusion here: The GOP simply doesn't WANT healthcare insurance for everyone. Obviously, they won't come right out and SAY that, but what other explanation could there be. AND let's be truthful.
The GOP's guiding philosophy is, "You are on your own." Why would anyone support that?
According to the GOP, the government is not supposed to help or aid those who have not lucked out in life. Almost 30 million Americans don't have any health insurance, even after ObamaCare. But that's their fault, according to Republicans.

Remember, the GOP has a long and ugly history when it comes to providing for the economic well-being of U.S. citizens. Social Security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, Medicaid — to them, these are just big-government programs that smack of socialism. This is the "VISION" the GOP has for this country.
Why are we the only advanced country in the world that excludes people from this fundamental and essential human requirement?
While the Party of No sits on Capitol Hill, exhaling bigly SIGHS about the state of affairs in immigration, education, spending, trade, and the economy, somehow they MISS the whole point about being lawmakers. Did they think that being a member of Congress was akin to being a used-car salesman? That it's all about them and NOT about the millions of people they represent--the millions of people who PAY THEM--the millions of people who want a better life for their children?

Oh sure. There are exceptions. We have had some decent Republicans along the way, but that changed drastically when Trump was elected.
The GOP sucks at a LOT of things. Especially nominating a real conservative. The best democrat you guys have had in the last 50 years, was Obama. But the left is screwing up as bad as the the GOP did with Trump, by pushing Warren.
Running ANY candidate that's gonna raise taxes, is a death sentence. Especially when she's not talking about cutting A LOT of spending. Especially when she's not as Anti-war as the people are wanting.

One reason it was somewhat safe for Rand Paul to publicly back Trump, was because Trump was talking about getting troops out of the middle east. Now, Rand is getting a much earned bich slapping by conservatives and libertarians because everyone is finding out that our troops aren't even leaving Syria.

Seriously. on her own website, she's talking about using American tax payers money to rebuild at least part of Afghanistan's infrastructure. Serious?

Ending U.S. military operations doesn't mean we are abandoning Afghanistan. Redirecting just a small fraction of what we currently spend on military operations toward economic development, education, and infrastructure projects would be a better, more sustainable investment in Afghanistan's future than our current state of endless war

How is she going to pay for that? Or anything else? Why would she support American tax payers money going to rebuild ANYTHING in the middle east? And why would you support that?
 
Jul 2019
7,058
3,996
Georgia
Ending U.S. military operations doesn't mean we are abandoning Afghanistan. Redirecting just a small fraction of what we currently spend on military operations toward economic development, education, and infrastructure projects would be a better, more sustainable investment in Afghanistan's future than our current state of endless war

How is she going to pay for that? Or anything else? Why would she support American tax payers money going to rebuild ANYTHING in the middle east? And why would you support that?
Did you just ask how she's going to pay for that, when you bolded the answer in the previous sentence? lord.