Sanders vs Cruz - ACA Debate

When our country was 80% middle class, there was no healthcare discussion.

Quit letting them dictate discussions on solutions to national problems that start with a common denominator of accepting the globalist destruction as a permanent given. The globalist destruction came via policy. 1st reverse the policy, THEN see if there's still a problem after the reversal has had time to take hold.

We need nationalism to make our nation 80% middle class again. Healthcare won't be a discussion anymore at that point.

People need to wake up to the fact that Bernie is as much establishment globalist as Cruz.

If you have a role in Washington, you can argue against globalist policies until you're blue in the face. But if you don't call out the great robbery for what it is, and simply swing with the rope they feed you, you're part of their machine.

His policies on business are sadly ignorant. But what's worse is the social programs people like him for are as woefully ignorant.

The middle class having to pay for 40% working poor to eat, sleep, have free higher education and healthcare? I don't know if it would have worked when the working poor were 15% - but if there was a time to try, it was 40 years ago.

Ted Cruz is a leaf blowing in the wind. But so long as populism is raging, that is actually a good thing.

[video=youtube;2ugBYg1zbuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ugBYg1zbuY&t=1398s[/video]

 

The health of the middle class is the health of the nation.

Arguing over the ACA is like arguing how to cut the nails on a hand with gangrene.

 

the ACA is a way for washington to suck off the people even more than it already did.

 

If you're not going to let them dictate discussions why on Earth are you going to argue on their terms. The middle class is a Marxist fiction. Our goal need not be to divide people by subjective metrics of so called class. Our goal should be to expand the liberty of the voluntary market.

 

An example of a Marxist fiction is, "labor is the most important part of production".

A vibrant demographic consisting of skilled workers, middle management over lower wage workers, and small business owners, wasn't a figment of our imaginations. And America's super power status most definitely stemmed from the strength of said demographic.

 

The wealth is there but is concentrated in a very few hands. The million dollar question is how to force those guys to reinvest into their own country and people instead of continually ripping them off. I'm sick and tired of so called fake philanthropists like Soros, Gates, Zuckerberg etc...etc...All talk nothing gets done.

By the way, Cruz owned Bernie. A clear winner in my opinion.

 

To the underlined: When was that, when our country was 80%, or given a margin of error close to that percentage middle class? And during that time...I believe their was a huge discussion..perhaps on individual case by case scale on a huge level, perhaps during that time it was easy to ignore because their was no internet, and it was accepted to be screwed over by Insurance company's?

Americas healthcare has been screwed up for a long long time In my opinion.

 

Yes, conservative ideas always destroy liberal ideas. It's not a fair fight.

 

America's strength stemmed from its focus on individualism, and by not making any attempt at all to moderate the entire society's conditions of class. The ideal of class itself is the fiction. It is a false premise to believe that you can measure the worth of a man by any subjective perception of that's man's rank in society. Marx's attempt to engineer conditions of equity are based on this false premise, and you should not base your ideals on it either.

You can't measure the value of a society strictly based on the percentage of people you think are in the so called middle of that society. You have to first destroy these delusions before the argument for a voluntary system makes any sense. If instead you believe in class, you believe you can determine for someone else what they should believe their value is. It's nothing more than a way to force people to value in accordance with the way you value. Just look at this quote from a poster here:

Do you not see the problem with this statement? Value is not produced by taking it from someone you think has it. That is how value is destroyed. Value is only produced within an individual that believes it exists. The only way this happens is through voluntary trade of value. Voluntary systems cannot force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. That's the entire point of a government run by its citizens rather than by a dictator that tells people what they must do in order to engineer equality among them. The second you initiate trade through force, you destroy value. Force indicates that one party inherently believes they lost value during the trade regardless of what the other party thinks they gained. Your only hope in this type of redistribution is that the other party can somehow magically create value through a different voluntary trade, but in reality that's just you trying to pick winners and losers in a system that will ultimately always be governed by survival of the fittest. If playing God like that made any sense at all, Darwin would be a laughing stock and the most successful society on Earth would be run by a guy with lots of medals on his blouse.

 

The nation gets enough vague words from people thinking out loud from the left. Leave semantics, and deep thinking with no real world application, to them.

I am a nationalist. Every American is a resource that is either being tapped or wasted. The more being tapped, the larger the economy, and the better off the nation. Maximized potential. On their own individual level.

One can use demographics in analysis without being anti-individualism. To argue otherwise is no different than an atheist making me stop every time I say "God" to reword it to "higher power". Sorry the word "class" triggered you. Be sure to inform the Marxists marching everywhere to the tune of, "screw the white fascist middle class populism". I don't think they're aware.

The most precious thing we all have is time. If you waste it, while people are trying to discuss solutions that may achieve genuine results for the nation, I'm going to assume you're either a young retarded leftist or an oligarch trying to save your golden goose.

 

GOP DILEMMA ON HEALTH LAW TAXES: TO REPEAL OR NOT TO REPEAL? Source: AP

Getting tired of constant congressional wobbly efforts... Cut some taxes and repeal the Unaffordable Care Act

 

Right vs left Is irrelevant. Trump getting elected is nationalism vs globalism way before they thought it would happen. And globalists are freaking out. You can tell it was early because they still won't tell the democrat half of voters what's going on via their mediums. In their hearts, they know more people would join the nationalists, leaving their control.

AP news is Rothschild controlled propaganda, and is going to do everything they can to screw with the population of western nations during this populist upheaval.

I would try to stay away from it, or just absorb in small doses. Even when knowing these people are lying, you can allow their subtle notions into your thinking via the ways they word their lies.

Basically, there is no dilemma as to true GOP nationalist representation. There is only the hesitation of those GOP getting paid by globalists to stall.

 

AP is largely a propaganda machine with a statist viewpoint. (Read them knowing their agenda...) The headline about repealing the Unaffordable Health Care law and attempt to make it out to be a GOP dilemma gnaws at those who saw it as a major bamboozle on the tax-payer voting U.S. citizens.

Repeal and replace with open market, free trade, across the state line, healthcare...

 

I'll agree that American health care was always screwed up, but not in availability.

It has been screwed up in media controlled by the same people who control the government and big medicine.

Our only cures came via independent research, and once the early 20th century gave rise to absolute shadow governance, all independent researchers were systematically pushed out by big business more concerned with profits than cures.

However, from the 50s-90s, our nation had such a strong middle class that everyone had insurance, and those too poor could just go to the ER and no one made a fuss. Not to mention, most doctors would just do free work for those types, knowing they were a small faction of the population and they could just use it for tax write offs.

The real problems came 1st in the black community, who never got back to work after Japanese free trade. So their grumbles over health care came 20 years before the rest.

Once they had their "destroy America" blue print from the "test black people", they then started applying it to the majority white middle class via Clinton in the 90s. His 8 years brought more middle class destruction than all other globalist administrations combined. NAFTA, China Trade, etc. The repercussions just didn't hit until the Bush years.

But know this, the ACA was originally a republican idea, hijacked by the democrats because they had no ideas. It has nothing to do with helping anyone, which those who have gotten it have figured out. It is simply a way to shore up the profits from gouged prices of health care by forcing people who can't afford insurance to buy it anyway, since the globalist policies had destroyed the "middle class" that was their bread and butter.

It is evil beyond words.

 

Well, for decades, the US has scored lower than any other first world country in terms of health care distribution. That is not something new. And, before the ACA there was legislation that attempted to help with this problem - but failed.

In fact, the ACA was centered around health care distribution - preexisting condition handling, kids on their parent's policies, not allowing insurance companies to dump customers who get sick, making Medicare and Medicaid more available, helping those who can't afford policies, causing more employers to provide plans for their employees, etc.

 

By who, and what was their agenda? These things are crucial in discussions, especially since those who have taken the red pill know our nation has been under attack by people who want one world for 70 years.

Those things were added to the legislation written by big med, for big med, hoping, like always, they could get some good for people out of a rogue capital that only budges for money. I will mildly applaud those efforts, though, like all "good people" in Washington, it is right up there with the friend of the rapist holding the girl's hand while she's raped so he can sleep that night. As admirable as "moderate Muslims" not throwing the gay people off the building, but instead just watching and cheering.

To accept the globalist treason as a given means you are as much a globalist as those executing the day-to-day policies of our nation's destruction.

There are 50 people buying that crappy insurance who don't want it as to those who actually do.

 

The 20 million people who will lose health care from ACA won't hurt the nation if they don't show up to work tomorrow.

The 50 million about to be hit with fines because they refuse to be slaves of the state could shut the entire nation down by not showing up.

Do all of those who think they're clever really need a real world example of what I'm saying?

Throw it out NOW. Executive order that no fines can be applied to peoples tax returns, and any already taken this year, or any prior, must be returned.

 

Sanders are posential candidate for next election some old political. One period role. Or wrong ?!

Perhaps wrong to elect one closer to 80 years....or perhaps not wrong he is Jew but not my best!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

But Cruz is fine politicians.

 

Do not deflect. It's not the word. It's the premise that we can define value that applies to everyone equally. Value is not objective. It's subjective. That's precisely why it fluctuates with demand. Tell me, can you objectively prove that the middle class in Kenya has the same value as the middle class in Venezuela? Does the problem of Venezuela's failed policy disappear at the point where 80% of Venezuelans reach of the middle of Venezuelan society? Your attempts to analyze demographics are inherently biased by your own attempts to assign & promote value, and this in a way, corrupts the natural system of meritocracy that governs the production of value.

Discard it. Stop using it, and explain why it is a false premise to begin with. Once this twisted conception of equality is dismantled, you'll have a much easier time convincing people to take responsibility for their own production of value. Otherwise they will simply believe that their problem is based on the structure of society, rather than the merit of their own contribution to it.

 

All of this - perfect example.

You're not identifying any specific problems.
You're not offering any specific solutions.
You're not desiring any specific results.

Allow me to fill you in on something - you're not Socrates.

And even in his day, philosophers knew that there were times of societal extravagance for day dreams and nightmares, and times of social upheaval for swift actions and zero rhetoric.

 

One world? Muslims? "Globalist"? This subject is health care.

The ACA was written by bi-partisan committees in the House and Senate. If it had been written by someone else, we would know about that.

 

Globalists are one worlders - to not acknowledge bias in entities they control conducting surveys is very disingenuous. If you don't want that brought up, don't bring up the results of their studies to prove points.

If you think the ACA wasn't written by the health insurance lobby, for the health insurance lobby, we have no common denominator to even start a discussion. I'm not going to validate delusion.

Moderate Muslims were being used as an analogy for moderate globalists.

The way you approach arguing is going the way of VHS. If you can't come real, humbly bow out.

 

"One world" is a view of how we should fit into the world as a whole in terms of politics and economics. But, the subject here is health care - nobody is suggesting one health care system for the world. And, studying how other nations are successful also has nothing to do with "one world".


The ACA was written by bi-partisan committees in the House and Senate. Their progress was reported to the public by the congressmen who were on those committees during the period in which it was designed. That is, both Republican and Democratic congressmen held press events to state pogress.

Are you suggesting that they all lied? If you think that wasn't the process, you better come up with a more concrete statement of what you think happened, along with supporting cites.


Muslims?? No. This thread is about health care. You haven't shown any analogy.


If you can't stick to health care here, start some other thread.

 

Since when was the intent of my post to identify problems, offer solutions, or demand specific results? You made a statement that you weren't going to let them [globalists] dictate the solutions to the discussion, but in the very same post you accepted the premise they use to come to the specious conclusions they arrive at. In effect dictating a solution using the exact same reasoning they use.

If you're going to make an epistemological argument for nationalism then make one.

So far your statements have been completely baseless. Using the same argument you could say that rescinding woman's suffrage could return us to 80% middle class, or a time when the majority of the population gainfully employed in the economy was male with strong female domestic roles could return us to 80% middle class. Both statements are equally as solid as saying nationalism was the cause. You've correlated two points of data and made absolutely no connection to them. Just like they do.

 

Suffrage was 1st wave but I get what you're saying. Globalism encompasses everything from the broken homes and the destruction of the family unit, to American companies moving factories to China. So outside of suffrage, what you're saying is part of what I'm saying. We did have better results when more families were nuclear, just like the great majority being in private unions was part of the middle class being strong. There is a reason only government unions are 90% of all that is left. They can't be off shored. Like railroad workers.

As to the 1st part, I'll use whatever I want of anything that has ever been thought. Smith, Marx, Weber, Godwin - it doesn't matter.

Obviously with trillions in play, there are no classes. Even 2 people with 80 million can be different, as one it took a life to make, and the other, 2 years. But skilled workers, middle management for firms with low skill workers, and small business owners, tend to grow and shrink in numbers as one. If there's better terminology to represent those than middle class, let me know.

A strong middle means government is running efficiently. The larger the wealth gap - the more government intrusion will come. I truly suspect that is why the international left is letting western robber barons run wild. So the world working classes will demand world governance to bring them into check.

Small government internationalists taking advantage of globalism would be wise to now pull back and put their money into the rising populism.