Heshouldnotrun.org

The only policy touted thus far that would create an increased tax on the middle class is medicare for all. And of course you would have to consider that next to your insurance premiums, deductibles, max out of pocket costs, prescription drug costs, dental costs, etc

Medicare for all isnt just a tax issue for me though, its a moral one. For-profit healthcare is immoral. People are dying in this country because they cant afford something as simple as insulin, and i'm totally fine with paying a little extra in taxes to prevent that, particularly because I likely wouldnt notice the extra increase in my take home pay. My insurance costs are ridiculous

 

Awhile ago the most common reason given why people voted for Trump so much was actually because they voted against every other option.

 

How rich are you? :-D

 

I wouldn't mind an increase in taxes if it did mean medicare for all. I believe that health insurance is a scam, and agree completely that our healthcare system is immoral.

But the last three cycles of left/right swing has been the left increasing spending while increasing or maintaining taxation, and then the right cutting taxes, cutting the safety net, and putting more money into bombs. Now we have a years worth of GDP in debt.

I'm cynical that a healthcare for all initiative wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional, or gutted irreparably when the political pendulum swings back to the right in a decade. I think medicare for all will probably require a constitutional amendment.

Not Scrooge McDuck rich.

 

I'm not concerned by the amount. I would pay more for universal healthcare, and it would save money in the long term.I'm concerned with long term political viability without a constitutional amendment. I don't want a program set up, then we buy more bombs/killer robots with it when the political landscape shifts.

We're discussing breaking up the insurance companies. The last time a President tried something that bold against industry was when Truman tried to seize the steel mills during wartime. That was ruled unconstitutional. A bill signed into law will probably not be enough. This is a big fight, it's one worth taking.

 

I guess I'm not following you. Who is talking about breaking up the insurance companies? Anti-trust laws are welI-established. I never saw a move to universal single payer health care as involving a direct break up of the insurance companies. Truman was planning actually to take over the steel mills--direct occupation. Single payer health care might put insurance companies out of business from competition with the government, but what's unconstitutional about that? We have government corporations already, and Medicare for seniors. I guess this could be challenged under the due process clause--depriving companies of their property without due process of law. That would be waaay stretching it. Ther's no property right to be free of government competition, nor is there a lack of procedural due process. Courts well-packed with Republican stooges might go along with such a fantastic claim, hearkening back to the days of "substantive due process". We'd be back to the 1930s: Deja vue all over again. But if the people want medicare for all badly enough, they'll try the amendment route or elect presidents who will pack the courts back.

 

I tend to vote for the person who is least likely to effect negative change in our lives.

 

Maybe that's an easy position for you to take, but for some people positive change is a matter of life and death.

 

Let them buy Powerball tickets! My point being that it won't help the down and out to vote for a person who promises them lavish benefits but is unlikely to win, especially if doing so risks electing a person who is likely to do them and the rest of us real harm--as is often the case in our current Dystopian political environment.

 

I think people voting for the most secure option use the same argument for their choice.

 

^progresssive policies actually tend to poll fairly high, particularly medicare for all (it polled as high as 70% in some polls). So i think its a misconception that most middle of the road Americans dont agree with them.

 

And as far as representing those whose views skew to the right....thats the job of the Republican party.

 

^
What about taxing the big corporations and the very rich? I thought it was shown (after Cortez managed to bring it under the general attention again) that wasn't crazy impopular either.

 

btw: i think voting like this is an important reason for the lack of real progressive change. But I get why both kind of voters can use the argument in a reasonable way

 

The government wouldnt be seizing the insurance industry though, they would simply be creating a situation where the insurance industry as we currently know it wouldnt be relevant anymore

I can see how that could be debatable in court though

Introducing it as a public option would probably be the most pragmatic way to approach it

 

Only in the sense that anything is debatable in court these days. The right to be free of government policies that negatively affect one's economic viability or profits is one that so far doesn't exist in the Constitution and case law. After all, we already have Medicare for seniors, government corporations like the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Federal Prison Industries, TVA, the U.S. Postal Service, etc.

 

Every democrat is not a progressive. An example of that are the victories of Ronnie Raygun.
Middle of the road democrats helped him get elected.

 

I'm not saying all Democrats are progressives.

I am saying Democratic politicians should not be pandering to those who lean to the right of center while ignoring a huge demographic of left wing voters .Which is what has been happening since the days of Reagan actually