I think he's implying that many of the "socialist" policies he wants to implement are already implemented, or similar policies are implemented.
Jesus Christ, he says some of the looniest shit. Trump is now a socialist? My god, do they really think the voting public is that stupid? Oh, wait...
They have created this monster.Think they are vegans mad about dairy farming
Oof, kind of an unfair characterization of what he was saying. He was saying he doesn't care if insurance companies fail, not that he doesn't care if 150 million people lose their health insurance.
If the companies fail, the individual would have two choices. Go with his public healthcare nonsense or go without. I think it's a fair characterization.Oof, kind of an unfair characterization of what he was saying. He was saying he doesn't care if insurance companies fail, not that he doesn't care if 150 million people lose their health insurance.
Part of me wonders if I wouldn't get some of the things I like by the mere fact that, a) Bernie is relatively honest (compared to the rest of them), b) does want what's best for the "working class," against huge corporatism, and c) if by the fact that he's SO far to the left, he's come around full circle to touch on some of the things that the far right would want.
I agree with your premise that he wants to coerce people into a public healthcare system and this would be a bad result, but that's different than the implication that he's saying he doesn't care if 150 million people lose their health insurance.If the companies fail, the individual would have two choices. Go with his public healthcare nonsense or go without. I think it's a fair characterization.
Jesus Christ on a cross walk on a busy downtown intersection.
I agree. As a conservative, I absolutely hate when libs twist things to fit their narrative, taking things out of context, and only presenting half the story to the public. We shouldn't do the same thing just because it fits OUR agenda this time.I agree with your premise that he wants to coerce people into a public healthcare system and this would be a bad result, but that's different than the implication that he's saying he doesn't care if 150 million people lose their health insurance.
He's literally saying he doesn't care if insurance companies fail, but he isn't assuming that 150 million people would lose their health insurance he's assuming all those people would likely turn to his public system. It's stated awkwardly for sure. I just don't want to mischaracterize what's being said here, because it's the idea that's problematic not the statement.
Yea, their policies are bad enough as is, no need to embellishI agree. As a conservative, I absolutely hate when libs twist things to fit their narrative, taking things out of context, and only presenting half the story to the public. We shouldn't do the same thing just because it fits OUR agenda this time.
I don't know what his plan is so I have a hard time arguing it. If he is going to create government insurance that isn't tax funded awesome. If it's so good it puts private companies out of business so be it.I agree with your premise that he wants to coerce people into a public healthcare system and this would be a bad result, but that's different than the implication that he's saying he doesn't care if 150 million people lose their health insurance.
He's literally saying he doesn't care if insurance companies fail, but he isn't assuming that 150 million people would lose their health insurance he's assuming all those people would likely turn to his public system. It's stated awkwardly for sure. I just don't want to mischaracterize what's being said here, because it's the idea that's problematic not the statement.
How would one do that exactly, though? If it's run by the government, it would be funded by the tax payers, no?If he is going to create government insurance that isn't tax funded
By making it elective and having the people who sign up for government health insurance fund it. Most politicians will tell you this is impossible to do without tax dollars but it's possible hypothetically. Government insurance wouldn't need the big advertising budget, they would have great negotiating power and presumably wouldn't be concerned with turning any profit at all. But essentially a private insurance company could still compete against them.How would one do that exactly, though? If it's run by the government, it would be funded by the tax payers, no?
But the people who don't have it either can't or don't want to fund it. That's why we all have to.By making it elective and having the people who sign up for government health insurance fund it.
Hell, they blame all hurricanes on climate change. Yes, seriously.But the people who don't have it either can't or don't want to fund it. That's why we all have to.
Also, what absolute bullshit for Elizabeth Warren to use Mississippi flooding as an example of climate change. Even they can't possibly believe this.
And forest firesHell, they blame all hurricanes on climate change. Yes, seriously.
Yep, and then the arson was realized, and all of a sudden, the claims just somehow disappeared.And forest fires