Forum Thread

Refuting Bernie’s “Destroy-America plan” meme

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 17 1 2 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    If this is wrong, please explain to me how so I can hit back with your better educated response(s)...

    “Bernie’s Destroy-America plan add 43 million to the debt by the end of 2030:

    •Spending: $30 Million Med-for-all; 16.3 trillion Green New Deal; 2 trillion Free College Tuition; 10 trillion for pace we are already on = 60 TRILLION DEFICIT SPENDING
    •Taxes added to cover it: 2 trillion on Wall Street trading tax; 4 trillion payroll tax; 3.5 trillion income tax (+4% per person); 4.2 trillion from ending health cost deduction; 3.6 trillion higher tax rates on the rich; 1 trillion addt’l business taxes [source - options-to-finance-medicare-for-all] = 18 TRILLION ADDT’L tax revenues (and only if the economy remains very good, otherwise tax revenues will drop.

    2030 Debt = 66 trillion
    (42 under Bernie + 24 projected by the end of 2020)

    Debt as a % of 31 Trillion GDP will be 213%.
    Greece collapsed at 179% (2009); Mexico at 148% (1982).”

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    You won't find me, a centrist, defending Bernie's "free everything for everyone" policies. Bernie has sidestepped numerous questions on how his many "freebees" would be funded. And the reality check is that with our divided populace and divided Congress the chances of a "President Bernie" getting anything passed into law is next to zero.

    Bernie is hell bent on taking his socialist revolution all the way to the floor of the convention and beyond, just like he did in 2016. It doesn't matter to him who he takes down in the process.

    Nevertheless, like 2016, Bernie will enjoy a distinct advantage in all the caucus states where caucuses are held close to college campuses and only the young people, the diehard Bernie supporters can afford to get out to cast their votes in large numbers. Caucuses disenfranchise many demographic groups who simply cannot get to the caucus venue on election night.

    See my blog article from 2016: Caucus Elections Are Undemocratic and Should Be Scrapped

    Some states like my state of Colorado have indeed scrapped the caucus venue for nominating presidential candidates, but for those like Iowa that adhere to the tradition, those could go all Bernie's way.

    My opinion...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    No Bernie for me; indeed he's got no clue about healthcare. He's got the blinders on and refuses to look at other countries where they have decent healthcare. Even Canada does it a lot better. The best system is to keep competition in it. Like in Europe where everyone above an certain salary scale can not use the social plan but have to get private insurance. Also what Sanders forget is that if you keep the "lobbyists" and "add's" in the picture, then you never get full control of pricing and profit margins (cost also money as well to structure/monitoring such) if not, then still it will be an rip off by the doctors and pharma industry.

    Since all of this is very complex as well trying to invent the wheel all over again, then the approach of Bernie and Warren is utterly stupid. Just copy other countries where it does work.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    You both disappoint me. Though retreading it, it can be argued that it’s weird how there wasn't 1 citation in that meme. Even that reference doesn’t provide anything directly. In other’s nothing in the way of an explanation. At best it's his “goals”. Essentially this’s hyperbole and comes off suggesting that he can pass off someone else's personal opinions as objective truths. Reminds me a lot of what religious people do.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    I don't see what "disappoints" you. Don't worry none of his "plans" will materialize; because the "deficit" under Trump reached new highs (actually this country is bankrupt); guess who has to clean up this mess (if the Dem's win) But yeah Trump is planning another "tax cut" just before the election; I wish this country lots of "luck" if they fall for it.

    But yeah Trump may still win, because his base "loves" him all the way towards the cliff.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Your reluctance to defend Sanders disappoints me. Senator Bernie Sanders isn't trying to eliminate private healthcare insurance. His plan is to expand Medicare and fund a public option through taxes. Just like Canada has. Which you just praised. Americans already pay hundreds of Billions a year for ineffective corporate health care coverage. A tax-funded system would cost less than allowing predatory corporations who don't work in a free market to continue in a defacto monopoly. Americans need their coverage to be effective, portable and affordable.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Christango -- You are misinformed. Sanders Medicare for all plan does not have a public option as such. Actually you might say his plan has no "private option". There is a transition period, but after that transition his plan is SINGLE PAYER for all. A private doctor or entity will not be allowed to compete for patients in Sanders Medicare for All plan. The private insurance business will be history.

    Unless you are engaged in a specialized service such as cosmetic surgery (not covered under BernieCare) there will be no private options available.

    Read the bill: Vox: Read Bernie Sanders’s 2019 Medicare-for-all plan

    And he never says how he is going to pay for it in the bill.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?


    The Sanders Medicare-For-All plan doesn't outlaw private insurance. It doesn't have to include outside private companies. With this, you're engaging in dishonest debate tactics and cherry picking.

    Your argument falls apart immediately. The creation of unemployment benefits didn't stop private supplemental insurance like Aflac from existing. From your own words we can all see that your narrative is irrational. Address these holes in your argument instead of deflecting or engaging in logical fallacies.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Christango -- Yes I agree that BernieCare does not specifically outlaw private insurance. However, the terms of the law make it virtually impossible for a private insurer to exist because as the terms of the proposed law state, everyone pays into BernieCare...individuals and employers. If you want to set up a private practice for doing such things as cosmetic surgery not covered under BernieCare, yes you can do that. There are potentially many customers appealing to one's vanity. But if you want to set up a private practice for all the same things covered under BernieCare, it does not excuse you from making payments into Bernie Care.

    No one, not Bernie or anyone else is touting the idea that a private practice can co-exist side by side BernieCare. It is not economically feasible. BernieCare closes all the loopholes that allow private practices to exist in places like Canada. It could theoretically be done, but it would only cater to the super rich who could in fact afford the costs. It would not be affordable to the average American...maybe only the top 1 percent or less or those rich enough to retain fulltime private doctors.

    Finally I am not engaging in a dishonest debate. What I said is the consensus of all politicians and healthcare providers. Single Payer means single payer after the four year transition period. Anyone who believes that BernieCare can co-exist with their employer provided health care plan or any plan offered in the Affordable Care Act website is woefully misinformed.

    You have been on this website for a short period. I have engaged you on a few items, but now I think I am done. I enjoy discussions with informed members, and we disagree a lot on issues. I have wondered about your motives since you came on, and I have given you the benefit of the doubt. You can continue engaging with others, but I will not get caught up in a trivial pursuit.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    @ Schmidt
    It pains me to infight with a fellow blue, but that comes off as saying, in other words, you’re lying about the 12-year transition period by saying it's 4 years. You're claiming it's "not economically feasible" while providing no numbers to that effect. Where on the Pro Medicare-For-All side have the examples of literally every country in the world except the U.S., Honduras & North Korea. The Sanders plan simply wants to take the best aspects of the nearly 80 years of thriving systems around the world and importing them here to America. Nothing personal, but that comes off as why you're running away. Because you've been exposed as a purveyor of false information. I suspect you knew this was false & misleading. It makes you a liar instead of simply mistaken.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    , April 29, 2019: The Facts on Medicare for All

    I read the bill, but for those that cannot read that legal stuff, try

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    It says that traditional Medicare benefits would be expanded in the fourth year. Not that the transition would only take 4 years. So you lied.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Christango -- Wow it looks like you have come on this website to try pick fights. Are you a troll? I welcomed you and now you're behaving like a Trumpian. Bye bye.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?


    No. Simply pointed out the flaws and fallacies of your argument.