Republicans not the only ones nervous about radical ideas of AOC

Let's try this again - testing.........


An op in Huffpo by Norman Soloman, an activist and Bernie organizer is stating the obvious that the Democratic establishment is as nervous about Ocasio-Cortez's appeal to voters as the Republicans are. Interesting that the article cites polls by both Reuters-Ipsos and a national survey by the Kaiser Foundation that show a vast majority of Americans want health-care for all and higher taxes on the wealthy. That is what democracy should be about but neither Party at present is serving the interests of the American people.

Which is why younger activist politicians such as AOC and Tulsi Gabbard are so threatening and under attack by the vested establishment of both parties


"That’s because turning the Democratic Party into a truly progressive force will require turning “primary” into a verb. The corporate Democrats who dominate the party’s power structure in Congress should fear losing their seats because they’re out of step with constituents. And Democratic voters should understand that if they want to change the party, the only path to do so is to change the people who represent them. Otherwise, the leverage of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex will continue to hold sway.

These days, with fingers to the wind, incumbents often give lip service to proposals that have wide public support nationwide, such as Medicare for All (70 percent) and higher taxes on the wealthy (76 percent). But big gaps remain between what most congressional" Democrats are willing to fight for and what their constituents actually want."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...rimary-challenges_us_5c3c146fe4b01c93e00b15b4

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/new-poll-majority-of-gop-voters-support-medicare-for-all.html

What does this split within the Democratic party mean for it's chances of unseating Republican control of the WH in 2020?

 

The Democrats are scum who serve the oligarchy only - just like the Republicans.

The only people who vote for either party are dupes, or those gaining (or who believe they're gaining) from the massive corruption.

This will not change.

Unless people wake up.

Which they won't.

 

Not to worry. We just voted her in because we were tired of looking at guys like this:

 

Lol, no argument there. You must be a Canuck linking to Global news...........

This is totally off topic but pretty funny from the hearing yesterday.....Lindsay Graham mocks Trump as a one page guy and wakes Fienstien (sp) up



Graham is another one I am so tired of looking at and listening to.

 

Maybe the debacle of Trump will wake them up. That is my hope anyway but you are probably correct sadly........

 

No, I bounce between Colorado and Arizona, but I have a soft spot for Canadians.
I'm with you on Lindsey. One day he's Trump's bestest buddy the next he's calling him a moron. But he probably did give Barr some good advice.

 

You've gotta be wedged waaaaaaaaaay down in the "progressive" sensory deprivation tank to think Republicans, or anyone on the Right for that matter, are nervous about that socialist crackpot and her ideas. RWers laugh and scoff at people like her.

However, I can see why some Democrats are nervous about AOC and her ideas. She's a gift that keeps on giving to Republicans and the Right...

 

The flaw in the HuffPo piece and in your post is that when people are asked about how to pay for Medicare for all, support for the idea drops to near zero. People want **** given to them for free and respond that way in all polls, but when you tell them they actually have to pay for the **** they want, suddenly it becomes way more dispensable. Same goes for taxes on "the rich". When you ask in a generic way if the rich pay their fair share of taxes, the general opinion is no, we should raise taxes on the rich to pay for this, that, and the other thing. But when you get specific and ask how much of their income should be taxed, most people will give a figure of 25%. When you tell them the "rich" already pay approximately 50% of their income in taxes, support for raising the figure suddenly gets very small.

 

shes also a true believer in socialism. Which makes her a potential threat to the establishment dems that just use socialism as an excuse to consolidate power.

 

She's also blowing the cover of all the socialists in the Democratic party who are masquerading as "progressives". She should have learned from the Alinksyite in Chief to stick to the dog whistles...

 

Who do you think is paying for health care now? The good fairy? There is more than enough being spent to cover it. The trick is how to get it all in one place.

 

who knew there are still commies under the bed in america. ONly now they are called progressive democrats.

 

This is similar to those folks who get duped into taking a low cost cruise that promises that all food and gratuities are included only to find out that what is "free" sucks balls and no one actually eats it and everything that is actually palatable costs extra.....Of course, there was actually enough for all, it just sucked...

 

Not under the bed - in the closet.

As a writer from the Communist Party USA noted about socialist Bernie Sanders' campaign for the Democratic nomination for president:

Read the whole thing - you'll find talk about the "progressive" agenda and creating "progressive" structures, campaigns and coalitions.

It's all so liberating...

 

the CMS reports come out once every 5 years, the latest data is from 2014 and shows an approx average cost of nearly 11,000 per enrollee ... multiply that by 321 million or 3.5+ trillion dollars and that is using 2014 numbers...

https://www.kff.org/medicare/state-...edicare Spending by Residence","sort":"desc"}

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...althAccountsStateHealthAccountsResidence.html

 

Yes, well the derision, laughing and scoffing is the reflexive response of the right against anyone who has dares to think verboten thoughts that are sacrilege to the Neo-liberal/Neo-conservative agenda of entrenching political power for the wealthy elites and corporations.

Thoughts like these seem to make right-wingers break out in hives and boughts of sputtering name-calling, sanctimony and repetitive right-wing memes - which is how you can tell the outlawed thoughts are hitting their nerve receptors and causing dissonance.

 

Where do you get the figure 50% and why do you put all the rich into a sweeping generalization?

As to how to pay for it, this is the same argument that conservatives were using to fight the Canadian universal system as it was being proposed in the 60's. All the same arguments were put into play yet none of the doom and gloom bogyman economic crisis's came to pass and today our health care system is considered a cherished part of society by the majority of Canadians:

"But Saskatchewan doctors complained that they would be turned into civil servants, unable to follow their own judgment about what was best for their patients. They argued that medicare was another step down a slippery socialistic slope

"This is like asking the doctors if they would like to try a hanging and if they didn't like it, it could be undone!," said a Saskatchewan doctor.

The Saskatchewan Liberals, led by Ross Thatcher, backed the doctors and attacked Douglas.

"The socialists say, elect us, even with a 35 per cent majority, and we will ram a scheme down your throat."

Douglas was bitterly opposed by the provinces physicians and private health-care insurers. Despite the $115,000 spent during the election on an anti--medicare campaign, Douglas and the CCF won a commanding majority and a clear mandate to proceed. Douglas would soon leave for Ottawa in 1961 to lead the newly formed New Democratic Party, but his provincial successor Woodrow Lloyd would continue the medicare fight.

After a long debate, the law was adopted in November 1961, to take effect the following July 1. The day medicare was born, about 90 per cent of the provinces doctors went on strike.

Initially the doctors had some public support. These KOD (Keep Our Doctors) Committees, with support from the media, launched a well-organized campaign against the government and the medicare plan. Rallies, petitions, panels and advertisements raised the emotional climate to a white heat.

The people of Saskatchewan began to worry. Some wondered what good was a medical care program without doctors."

By mid-July much of the KOD support had dissipated. Some doctors were returning to work; the force of the strike was spent. At the beginning of August, the government made some amendments to the Act; one amendment allowed doctors to practice outside the plan.

After 23 days on strike, the Saskatchewan doctors returned to work. But hostilities remained long afterwards; patients resented their doctors' desertion and doctors continued to object to government involvement in medical care. Nevertheless, a 1965 survey found that most doctors favoured continuing the plan.

The Saskatchewan government had opened the door to universal health care. Within ten years of the Saskatchewan strike, the entire country was covered by medicare."

https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP15CH2PA4LE.html

So ask yourself why every other civilized nation in the industrial west can afford universal healthcare coverage for it's citizens in one form or another but probably the richest country in that same category has the most expensive and inefficient healthcare system and cannot afford a plan to cover all of it's citizens?

Meanwhile you spend close to a trillion a year on military and foreign wars.

Does this make sense to you?

 

Naturally, RWers are going to laugh and scoff at the socialists who, 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, are still trying to wrap their brains around the verdict that History delivered against their bankrupt, totalitarian ideology. Instead of complaining about our liberality, as the authoritarian Left is inclined to do, "progressives" should be grateful that we're content to mock and ridicule them. I think we're all well aware that had the shoe been on the other foot they would have had us shot.

Which brings us to the subject of "verboten thoughts". The fact is, the only people who are actually trying to restrict people's freedom of thought and expression are the "progressives" who are trying to impose their 'politically correct' thought and speech codes on others in order to silence their opposition and pressure people into conforming to their GroupThink. Fortunately, this pressure is mild compared to what happened to the brave men and women who refused to submit to it in the "progressive" utopias around the world where a sacrilegious word could get you executed or your child's skull bashed against the trunk of a Chankiri tree. For lesser offenses, such as a sarcastic crack about the Dear Leader's moustache, one might get shipped off to a labor camp in Siberia, or in Red China's case, somewhere deep within the bowels of the Laogai. The lucky ones, like Nobel laureates Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Boris Pasternak, were expelled from their homelands or stripped of their jobs and livelihoods and subjected, along with their loved ones, to constant surveillance and harassment.

LOL again @ "outlawed" thoughts - that's almost as laughable as the Left's desperate need to believe that RWers are afraid of socialist crackpots like AOC and her bankrupt ideology and failed ideas. I bet psychiatrists could have a ball with that. Is it a manifestation of an insatiable lust for power and control, some sort of inferiority complex (or complexes) or a combination of the two?

 

Silly, you just pay for it.

 

Very few people complain about Medicare.

 

Your missing one little detail.
See if you can spot it.

 

as my post suggested, it was a minimum cost based upon 2014 numbers... it also doesnt account for increases in population... reality would prolly place the annual cost over 10 billion , more if we keep allowing free crossing across the borders...

 

That wasn't the question.
The detail you missed is that the age of the people on Medicare are what drives the cost in your estimate to $11,000. The picture gives you an idea of the cost curve based on age. If you adjust that cost by age the cost is only $4485 a year, not 11,000. When you apply that to the remaining population not already on Medicare it cuts our total healthcare costs by half. Just like the other countries.

Edit Note:
Todays dollars and costs.

 

you seem to think the medicare costs are constant and the more enrollies lower cost... what you're missing is what is the total annual cost of medical services in the usa, that all the current money being spent right now, then remove all the other insurance companies contributions, all the cash being paid for medical help and add that to what medicare will have to spend, just to pay for our current expenses... or do you think the gov will cap all medical costs and salaries of medical personnel... dont think that'll happen...

 

Not quite, but your getting there.
Young people are much cheaper because they are healthier. So to the extent that Medicare for all adds young people your correct.
If you do Medicare for all you no longer need insurance companies per see, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Let me put it this way. If you offered to let business buy employee health insurance at 1/2 price do you think they would take you up on it? I sure do.