Rick wrote: How can I prove that her policy won't work when she doesn't have one?
But you somehow "know" it's not going to work.
Well I'm not privy to Warren's utopian plan, but I've always been good at math. Lets discuss her plan when it comes out and you can prove me wrong if you're willing to do more than drop one liners.
Elizabeth Warren says she would not raise middle-class taxes for $52 trillion health-care plan
In a new outline, Warren’s campaign said her single-payer health plan would cost the country “just under” $52 trillion over a decade, which includes $20.5 trillion in new federal spending. It estimates the proposal would cost just less than the estimated $52 trillion in spending for the current system over 10 years.
[/b]
$52 TRILLION. We can't wrap our minds around our $23 national debt that nobody seems to be concerned about on either side and somehow the American people are going to give the green light for Warren to take away their employer paid plans and ASSUME this inept bureaucracy is going to somehow make this impossible pipe dream work. Oh but Rick, it's only another $20.5 trillion extra of federal spending.... yeah right.
If you read a lot of the articles on this plan, you'll find a lot of assumptions and not much else. If this is your candidate, say hello to 4 more years of Trump.
Oh yeah, and then there's the millions of illegals who we are going to have to share our healthcare with... that we will have to pay for... not included in this ridiculous calculation. Then add in the left's push for unaffordable "green" energy. How many more trillions will that cost? How about "free" college... how much will that cost?
She plans of taxing the hell out of corporations... if you have a brain that functions, you know who ends up paying those taxes.... look in the mirror.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
It was easier for Great Britain and other nations to implement a NHS because back then healthcare was so limited and the percentage of people living into their 80's and 90's were very small. If you got cancer, often the only thing they could do was send you home with pills. Fast forward from 1940 to 2019. Healthcare is 1000 times better but also a million times more expensive and Britain's public healthcare is running out of money and even America's limited Medicare and Medicaid are going to be out of money soon. As a business owner, I would love to stop having to pay for the healthcare insurance of my employees, but I have no faith in the Feds to do the job right. It will just be another bureaucracy with lots of plum jobs for their incompetent buddies. Look how long it took to get the ACA website working properly.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: I have no faith in the Feds to do the job right. It will just be another bureaucracy with lots of plum jobs for their incompetent buddies. Look how long it took to get the ACA website working properly.
That's always going to be the best point... our government has a horrible record when it comes to spending, competency, and efficiency. Oh, but this time the biggest government program in history will work when most of the smaller ones have failed the test.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Plus both her and Senator Sanders want to end private health insurance. Even Canada and Britain still have a private option. 180 million Americans are going to lose their plans if this passes. Mayor Bloomberg just joined the race, I wonder if one of his goals is to stop these pie-in-the-sky dreamers?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.