56
Biden turns to family on his path forward after his disastrous debate: 'It's a mess'
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
56 points (75.9% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4565 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On healthcare: removing the profit incentives of private health insurance drives down costs as well as frees up money to pay for universal coverage. It's not free Healthcare and has never been referred to as such unless people are debating in bad faith. He wrote the Medicare for All bill and just because you aren't aware of the details doesn't mean Sanders didn't have them.
On housing: again calling it free housing is a disingenuous bait. His housing policy had so many facets that even if only half his proposals were put into place, it would do wonders to improve the situation for millions of Americans. Federal funding for expanding Community Land Trusts (if you don't know what CLTs are you should look it up), combat gentrification/exclusionary zoning/segregation/speculation, expand the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund a fund that he was responsible for and fought for 15 years to become the first new federal affordable housing program funded in several decades, tenant protections like New York's right to counsel that was created in 2017, which saw their eviction rates drop five times faster than comparable areas. God damn man I could keep going but if I haven't made my point why waste the effort.
All of this could easily be paid by taxing the wealthy and reducing military spending. Would that be a problem for you?
The fuck do I hear Bernie saying "Medicare for All" ?
That's literally free Healthcare as his top-of-the-line discussion point for the last decade.
Where does Ukraine and Taiwan fit in that reduced military spending?
Ah right, Bernie is also isolationist. He probably doesn't give a shit. And even if we don't support Israel (I know how the left feels about that), we the USA need to continue to patrol the Red Sea vs not just the Houthis, but also Somali Pirates and other threats.
Military spending is going up, by any realistic discussion. Ukraine is only heating up, and Taiwan is likely getting hotter and hotter as China literally cuts off Filipino fingers and uses them to bully others in the Far East. If yall think peace will happen by reducing US Military spending at this juncture, you're losing my vote.
Bonus points: I'm also Filipino. So consider myself, and my family, very interested in hearing what the Democrats actually have to say about far-east stability / Taiwan / China's increasingly aggressive actions.
Military spending is going up, and not because anyone wants war. But because its necessary to keep the peace. USA has no control over China or Russia, we only have control over our own spending. And we must keep our spending up with them as they get more aggressive.
You're either trolling or too stubborn to evaluate new information that might change your position.
Medicare For All is not free healthcare, as in on the government's dime, it is entirely paid for by taxes. (Unless you actually object to free healthcare as in being able to go to the hospital when you need it for free, which is too ludicrous to be sincere.) The only reason it seems "free" is that the total operating cost of the system without the middleman of private insurance is significantly lower than our existing healthcare spending.
Most households would significantly increase their spending power throughout the year by eliminating healthcare premiums, deductibles, copays, and prescription costs in excess of $200 a year, and would only see a smaller increase at tax time. Those who would be paying more in total are very wealthy households who would be paying primarily at tax time, and frankly many of those households have not been paying their fair share of taxes already, so I find it hard to see that as a bad thing.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. Socialist / Communist countries like Cuba also pay for Health Care.
That doesn't change the fact that several important examples (Soviet Union, Cuba, and now most recently, Venezuela) have collapsed... or are currently collapsing under that load and those costs.
We know plenty of examples of countries who have done that. My question is why the fuck do you want to bring it to the USA?
We're the only 'first world" country without centralized healthcare. So the other countries that have done that would be... All the other first world countries, and all of them spend way less on healthcare then we do in the US.
Why do you keep pointing out these Marxist countries and ignoring the perfectly functioning western liberal democracies with policies like these? There's literally one on our northern border.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/ Ah so you just keep your fingers in your ears. Got it.
Yeah, and Medicare / Social Security are already going bankrupt by 2040.
A gross expansion of those programs will make them go bankrupt even faster. You need to explain how to raise money for a "Medicare for All" program... and not just "Well fuck Taiwan / Phillipines / Far East / Ukraine / everyone else in the world".
We're going to have our hands full just keeping the programs available over the next few decades, and you want to expand them?
By having free healthcare for all you actually save money if basically no other change is made.
People will go to the dr whenever they first start feeling ill instead of putting off until it gets so bad that it now costs 10x what it would have to catch early as well as the reduced economic potential in workers being unable to due to recovery or worse.
It will also save money by reducing er costs from above by the jobless, homeless and addicts only going at the same points but they have even higher rates of hospitalization and severity so we save a ton more there.
You cut out the middlemen on all negotiated services and products, will save manpower and labor by everything being standardized universally with one system.
Eliminating all of the inefficiencies that insurance causes will reduce the cost of healthcare.
Also, no one is trying to make private insurance illegal, look at all the different Medicare programs they already allow.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-02/57637-Single-Payer-Systems.pdf
Sounds like we pay by having a loss of GDP measured between 1% to 10%. That's rather substantial.
CBO is the non-partisan accountants of the US Senate/House. They are our best estimate on the true costs of various programs.
Your arguing that workers who would have the option under single payer healthcare to work less is a bad thing? Jesus christ dude.
Go look up GDH.
That's cool and all, but GDP is related to.... You guessed it. Inflation.
I recognize that Republicans overemphasized GDP but it's a chief metric for a reason. If our top line GDP drops it will absolutely be a problem.
If you want to bring up easy inflation gremlins into your argument, be my guest. But inflation is already a weak point for Democrats and I expect y'all to get hammered on it even harder moving forward.