Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems

[squatz1]

I like how things change so fast in the world of politics that I posted this and now it's not true, crazy what a week or so can do (crazy what Super Tuesday can do). Biden is now the frontrunner and has the momentum behind him, we'll see if he's able to use that momentum to continue to rack up wins in the delegate count.

This is a pretty wild prediction, but, I think this MAY be a wakeupcall to the Bernie Sanders voters that they're going to have to go out their and vote. This isn't a sure thing anymore. They have to make their coalition go out their and vote, and they have to fucking beg Warren to drop out. She's splitting the vote and truly killing Bernies chances of competing in the delegate #'s

The way things have been going I feel like the least likely scenario is Biden keeps his momentum and it's smooth sailing to the convention.

I'm pretty sure of this as well -- 538 is probably going to put Biden at the majority for plurality of delegates, though unsure of what they're going to go with for majority at the time of the convention. Maybe Bernie will try to make a play for the Superdelegates? (LOL I KNOW ALL OF THEM WILL VOTE FOR SLEEPY JOE!)

Betting odds have Biden as the clear frontrunner -- somewhere in the realm of bet $120 to win $100. Bernie is now bet $100 to win $500

The way things have been going I feel like the least likely scenario is Biden keeps his momentum and it's smooth sailing to the convention.

Let's wait until the next debate. If Warren stays with it, I'm sure she has a lot of nasty things to say about Biden. Perhaps Tulsi will get to participate too and join in the fun.

Pretty sure they're going to change the debate rules (they being the DNC) so Tulsi will be unable to be on the debate stage. It's not being done in a deliberate fashion, it just literally doesn't make any season to keep the old 1 delegate rule when hundreds of delegates were given out on Super Tuesday.

[1714683285]

1714683285

[1714683285]

1714683285

[1714683285]

1714683285

[1714683285]

1714683285

[vladimirhf]

I like how things change so fast in the world of politics that I posted this and now it's not true, crazy what a week or so can do (crazy what Super Tuesday can do). Biden is now the frontrunner and has the momentum behind him, we'll see if he's able to use that momentum to continue to rack up wins in the delegate count.

This is a pretty wild prediction, but, I think this MAY be a wakeupcall to the Bernie Sanders voters that they're going to have to go out their and vote. This isn't a sure thing anymore. They have to make their coalition go out their and vote, and they have to fucking beg Warren to drop out. She's splitting the vote and truly killing Bernies chances of competing in the delegate #'s

Biden has the support of the whole party and pseudo candidates who are already pulling out. the press does not report but celebrates...

you're right this will be decided by the non-voters, they need to start caring.

[Spendulus]

Bernie said "$30 trillion just for medicare for all" in that video you didn't bother watching. Which is it? I suppose you know more about his platform than he does?

$30-$40 trillion over 10 years, not just for 1 year.

From the 60 Minutes interview:

There's profound skepticism in Congress about Sanders' ability to get his agenda passed. Two-thirds of Democrats in the Senate have not signed on to "Medicare for All," which would cost an estimated $30 trillion to $40 trillion over ten years. And that's just one of Bernie Sanders' many proposals. There's also free public college, cancellation of all student debt, a federal job guarantee, and a Green New Deal to rapidly reduce carbon emissions.

The reason why Obama's ACA didn't really work is because he let the Public Option go out of a "compromise." However, the Public Option was the one part that really would have kept a degree of competitiveness in the healthcare industry, forcing health insurers to stop charging ridiculous rates knowing they would lose customers to those enrolling in the Public Option.

Having said that, $30 to $40 trillion over 10 years still seems unreasonably high. Healthcare shouldn't cost $10k a year. The whole system is still a disgusting racket.

At the tail end of all that, at the good extreme, you have a system perhaps like Australia, and pay 60-70% taxes each year. Plus a VAT. It's not so terribly wonderful and it's certainly not superior.

At the bad extreme, you have a system like South Africa. Free health care, but.... you never go to it, you go to private clinics and pay your own way.

Reality in the US, what comes down the pike for the "free health care tab" is what the lobbyists for the insurance companies dictate.

They aren't on your side.

[TwitchySeal]

Bernie said "$30 trillion just for medicare for all" in that video you didn't bother watching. Which is it? I suppose you know more about his platform than he does?

$30-$40 trillion over 10 years, not just for 1 year.

From the 60 Minutes interview:

There's profound skepticism in Congress about Sanders' ability to get his agenda passed. Two-thirds of Democrats in the Senate have not signed on to "Medicare for All," which would cost an estimated $30 trillion to $40 trillion over ten years. And that's just one of Bernie Sanders' many proposals. There's also free public college, cancellation of all student debt, a federal job guarantee, and a Green New Deal to rapidly reduce carbon emissions.

The reason why Obama's ACA didn't really work is because he let the Public Option go out of a "compromise." However, the Public Option was the one part that really would have kept a degree of competitiveness in the healthcare industry, forcing health insurers to stop charging ridiculous rates knowing they would lose customers to those enrolling in the Public Option.

Having said that, $30 to $40 trillion over 10 years still seems unreasonably high. Healthcare shouldn't cost $10k a year. The whole system is still a disgusting racket.

At the tail end of all that, at the good extreme, you have a system perhaps like Australia, and pay 60-70% taxes each year. Plus a VAT. It's not so terribly wonderful and it's certainly not superior.

At the bad extreme, you have a system like South Africa. Free health care, but.... you never go to it, you go to private clinics and pay your own way.

Reality in the US, what comes down the pike for the "free health care tab" is what the lobbyists for the insurance companies dictate.

They aren't on your side.

[Spendulus]

Bernie said "$30 trillion just for medicare for all" in that video you didn't bother watching. Which is it? I suppose you know more about his platform than he does?

$30-$40 trillion over 10 years, not just for 1 year.

From the 60 Minutes interview:

There's profound skepticism in Congress about Sanders' ability to get his agenda passed. Two-thirds of Democrats in the Senate have not signed on to "Medicare for All," which would cost an estimated $30 trillion to $40 trillion over ten years. And that's just one of Bernie Sanders' many proposals. There's also free public college, cancellation of all student debt, a federal job guarantee, and a Green New Deal to rapidly reduce carbon emissions.

The reason why Obama's ACA didn't really work is because he let the Public Option go out of a "compromise." However, the Public Option was the one part that really would have kept a degree of competitiveness in the healthcare industry, forcing health insurers to stop charging ridiculous rates knowing they would lose customers to those enrolling in the Public Option.

Having said that, $30 to $40 trillion over 10 years still seems unreasonably high. Healthcare shouldn't cost $10k a year. The whole system is still a disgusting racket.

At the tail end of all that, at the good extreme, you have a system perhaps like Australia, and pay 60-70% taxes each year. Plus a VAT. It's not so terribly wonderful and it's certainly not superior.

At the bad extreme, you have a system like South Africa. Free health care, but.... you never go to it, you go to private clinics and pay your own way.

Reality in the US, what comes down the pike for the "free health care tab" is what the lobbyists for the insurance companies dictate.

They aren't on your side.

I'm largely pessimistic on any reduction of the height of either of the two parts of that USA line.

I think that there will be huge attempts to stall Trump's executive order requiring open posting of pricing by hospitals and doctors.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190625.974595/full/

[squatz1]

Bernie said "$30 trillion just for medicare for all" in that video you didn't bother watching. Which is it? I suppose you know more about his platform than he does?

$30-$40 trillion over 10 years, not just for 1 year.

From the 60 Minutes interview:

There's profound skepticism in Congress about Sanders' ability to get his agenda passed. Two-thirds of Democrats in the Senate have not signed on to "Medicare for All," which would cost an estimated $30 trillion to $40 trillion over ten years. And that's just one of Bernie Sanders' many proposals. There's also free public college, cancellation of all student debt, a federal job guarantee, and a Green New Deal to rapidly reduce carbon emissions.

The reason why Obama's ACA didn't really work is because he let the Public Option go out of a "compromise." However, the Public Option was the one part that really would have kept a degree of competitiveness in the healthcare industry, forcing health insurers to stop charging ridiculous rates knowing they would lose customers to those enrolling in the Public Option.

Having said that, $30 to $40 trillion over 10 years still seems unreasonably high. Healthcare shouldn't cost $10k a year. The whole system is still a disgusting racket.

At the tail end of all that, at the good extreme, you have a system perhaps like Australia, and pay 60-70% taxes each year. Plus a VAT. It's not so terribly wonderful and it's certainly not superior.

At the bad extreme, you have a system like South Africa. Free health care, but.... you never go to it, you go to private clinics and pay your own way.

Reality in the US, what comes down the pike for the "free health care tab" is what the lobbyists for the insurance companies dictate.

They aren't on your side.

I'm largely pessimistic on any reduction of the height of either of the two parts of that USA line.

I think that there will be huge attempts to stall Trump's executive order requiring open posting of pricing by hospitals and doctors.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190625.974595/full/

Why wouldn't the medical industry try to stall on this executive order? They know that if they just allow this to happen willy nilly, it may be exposed that they're charging people so much fucking money for things that are outside of their control.

Like in theory, I SHOULD be able to call up 15 different doctors of varying prestige and skill levels and ask them for their prices of doing a knee replacement in the US right now. But that's not the case in the least and that's not fair. At least a ballpark figure within like 5-10 percent either way after a consultation and some brief testing.

People always talk about how competition in the medical world can't work -- they say that for somethings it's impossible to ensure that you're getting the best deal. I partially agree with this. If you pass out and someone has to call 911, I don't want to have to be arguing about the price when I'm knocked out and need immediate medical care. But if it's something like a knee replacement that's going to take months to do anything, why not have competition present? It's something that I'm going to take weeks on anyway, and it's a decision of mine.

There's my rant on healthcare.

[TECSHARE]

I'm far from an expert on this stuff.  But all of these countries have some form of Government run Universal Healthcare and they're able to do it for way less.  I'm definitely not 100% confident that we won't find a way to fuck it up if we try, but looking at the numbers I feel kind of optimistic it might work.  The fact that our insurance companies primary motivation is to make as much profit as possible has to be a major factor as to why healthcare in America costs way more than anywhere else in the world.

Having worked in the health insurance industry for a number of years, I can confidently say you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence here. The greed of a lot of American hospitals and doctors is absolutely disgusting. Hospital coders are regularly encouraged to manufacture diagnoses and provided services on claim forms in order to up payouts from insurance companies by several fold. For example, a childbirth with complications could cost 5-10x that of a childbirth without complications. Hospitals can trick the system by giving the mother or newborn some diagnosis that they don't have, like hemophilia or something, and voila, instant 10x return on the insurance claim from what they should be getting.

This kind of abuse is rampant. Not to mention that the insurance companies also take a big cut. This is all due to privatization of a system that shouldn't be privatized. Everybody needs healthcare at some point or another -- it should be a right, not a privilege. The potential for profiteering needs to be removed through introduction of a public option or medicare for all-type system. If insurance companies have to compete with one of these options it will force them to cut costs and behave as they will be at risk of losing healthy membership pools.

Without enough healthy members, any health insurance company can go into a "death spiral," where the medical costs exceed the coverage dues. After coverage dues are increased, healthy members who don't need the insurance leave, meaning the insurance company is stuck with a smaller pool of sicker members with higher medical costs. However, if the healthy members _have_ to pay the insurance company for lack of a different option, the cycle can continue. Right now the health insurance industry is basically a cartel or oligopoly of big players that work with each other to fight against industry reform.

Though obviously his vision will be heavily compromised by forces in the senate and house (that's what politics is a lot of the time -- a compromise), Bernie is attempting to overhaul an incredibly flawed and unsustainable system for the literal well-being of the country. Critics object to it outright for reasons deeply ingrained in their head that they perhaps don't even understand; so as long as they can mutter "BUT SOCIALISM!", they needn't be bothered to explain why they are against reformation.

What gives you the impression that this will change when "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, and there is no one with a motive to resist these kind of wild expenditure abuses? At least in a private system, the individual and or insurance companies have incentive to raise objection when something is unduly inflated. When "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, not only does the patient not concern themselves with it, the healthcare provider has even more incentive to tack on as much as possible, because good old uncle scam is there to foot the bill, and he doesn't care because he doesn't actually pay the bill. Just shifting the burden from the individual to the tax payer isn't a solution. There needs to be wider reform of the private system to push back against fraud and abuse.

[TwitchySeal]

I'm far from an expert on this stuff.  But all of these countries have some form of Government run Universal Healthcare and they're able to do it for way less.  I'm definitely not 100% confident that we won't find a way to fuck it up if we try, but looking at the numbers I feel kind of optimistic it might work.  The fact that our insurance companies primary motivation is to make as much profit as possible has to be a major factor as to why healthcare in America costs way more than anywhere else in the world.

Having worked in the health insurance industry for a number of years, I can confidently say you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence here. The greed of a lot of American hospitals and doctors is absolutely disgusting. Hospital coders are regularly encouraged to manufacture diagnoses and provided services on claim forms in order to up payouts from insurance companies by several fold. For example, a childbirth with complications could cost 5-10x that of a childbirth without complications. Hospitals can trick the system by giving the mother or newborn some diagnosis that they don't have, like hemophilia or something, and voila, instant 10x return on the insurance claim from what they should be getting.

This kind of abuse is rampant. Not to mention that the insurance companies also take a big cut. This is all due to privatization of a system that shouldn't be privatized. Everybody needs healthcare at some point or another -- it should be a right, not a privilege. The potential for profiteering needs to be removed through introduction of a public option or medicare for all-type system. If insurance companies have to compete with one of these options it will force them to cut costs and behave as they will be at risk of losing healthy membership pools.

Without enough healthy members, any health insurance company can go into a "death spiral," where the medical costs exceed the coverage dues. After coverage dues are increased, healthy members who don't need the insurance leave, meaning the insurance company is stuck with a smaller pool of sicker members with higher medical costs. However, if the healthy members _have_ to pay the insurance company for lack of a different option, the cycle can continue. Right now the health insurance industry is basically a cartel or oligopoly of big players that work with each other to fight against industry reform.

Though obviously his vision will be heavily compromised by forces in the senate and house (that's what politics is a lot of the time -- a compromise), Bernie is attempting to overhaul an incredibly flawed and unsustainable system for the literal well-being of the country. Critics object to it outright for reasons deeply ingrained in their head that they perhaps don't even understand; so as long as they can mutter "BUT SOCIALISM!", they needn't be bothered to explain why they are against reformation.

What gives you the impression that this will change when "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, and there is no one with a motive to resist these kind of wild expenditure abuses? At least in a private system, the individual and or insurance companies have incentive to raise objection when something is unduly inflated. When "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, not only does the patient not concern themselves with it, the healthcare provider has even more incentive to tack on as much as possible, because good old uncle scam is there to foot the bill, and he doesn't care because he doesn't actually pay the bill. Just shifting the burden from the individual to the tax payer isn't a solution. There needs to be wider reform of the private system to push back against fraud and abuse.

The data suggests that private insurance companies cause the overall cost of healthcare to go up.
For example, the UK has a pretty successful government run universal healthcare system.  Everyone gets what's necessary to live a healthy life, funded through a payroll tax.  The population overall approves of it, and they pay less in taxes than we do right now for our medicare/medicaid programs.  (there might be some other programs the government funds that's included in the chart.  I'm not sure)

If we had their infrastructure, you'd be paying less in health care related taxes, and your only out of pocket expenses would be dental, eye doctor, and a $8 co pay for each prescription.

It would take a long time to get there though, and we might fuck it up.  But we're already paying way too much and the data is pretty clear which direction we should go in if we want to get costs down.

[TECSHARE]

The data suggests that private insurance companies cause the overall cost of healthcare to go up.
For example, the UK has a pretty successful government run universal healthcare system.  Everyone gets what's necessary to live a healthy life, funded through a payroll tax.  The population overall approves of it, and they pay less in taxes than we do right now for our medicare/medicaid programs.  (there might be some other programs the government funds that's included in the chart.  I'm not sure)

If we had their infrastructure, you'd be paying less in health care related taxes, and your only out of pocket expenses would be dental, eye doctor, and a $8 co pay for each prescription.

It would take a long time to get there though, and we might fuck it up.  But we're already paying way too much and the data is pretty clear which direction we should go in if we want to get costs down.

[img ]https://i.gyazo.com/256e63f9125679d38166f36e5f2007c6.png[/img]

You aren't actually responding to what I said, you are just repeating what you think the solution is. "The data suggests" is usually something people say just before they present an appeal to authority fallacy. The current system is broken, I am not even arguing that. I am arguing your solution is not a solution at all, but something that will exacerbate the problem.

Rather than just playing a game of musical chairs between public and private, perhaps the core issues should be addressed, such as the ones I directly responded to, that of fraud and general abuse. The premise that this abuse won't continue just because it will be government run is laughable, and another layer of bureaucracy is the wrong direction to go as just the mechanisms to operate that layer will eat even more into what should be going to treatment. A lot of doctors now are just dumping insurance (public or private) and going to cash only if they can. You know why that is? Because of bureaucratic bloat. Healthcare professionals spend over half of their day doing paperwork for the various calves feeding at the proverbial teet. You think government is going to fix that?

Shifting the dependence of citizens from corporations to the government is not a solution, it is a profit plan insurance companies are spending COPIOUS amounts of money to make happen, and that is because they have the people writing that legislation in their pockets. This is a game of three-card monte. This is a hustle. This is a carefully marketed project designed to make people like you think there is a pot of gold over the rainbow.

Real reform is tough, bloody, drawn out, and painful. There is no magical pot of free health care at the end of the rainbow. The real problems aren't being addressed, the partners in crime are just shifting responsibility from hand to hand because the heat is on, and they are under pressure to make changes, but the spice must still flow. Oh and will it ever flow. You think it is bad now? Wait until those insurance companies can take what they want at the point of the government's gun.

You are being sold a bill of goods. Private healthcare is not the problem. Capitalism is not the problem. Profit is not the problem. FRAUD is the problem. Solve the problem, don't increase the complexity of the problem with more of one hand washing the other. When termites infest your house, you don't burn down the house and move in across the street, you call the exterminator. The same people accountable for the current problems are the same ones who will be administrating what you propose. That is not a solution, that is arson, and the insurance companies will be waiting in the street to sell you a fire protection package after the fact.

[TwitchySeal]

You aren't actually responding to what I said, you are just repeating what you think the solution is.

You asked "What gives you the impression that this will change when "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, and there is no one with a motive to resist these kind of wild expenditure abuses? "

We're the only country in the world with a Healthcare system based on private insurance.
There are lots of countries that spend half as much to insure everyone.

I'm not denying that it's possible we try it and fail miserably due to corruption or incompetence.  But we gotta do something, and I think it would be silly not to learn from what has worked or not worked in other countries.


Right now, on average for health care, each american is paying $5k in taxes and $5k for private insurance + out of pocket.

In the UK it's ~$4k in taxes and $1k out of pocket.

I can't find any country that is nearly as effective that doesn't have some government funded universal healthcare.

[TECSHARE]

Perhaps private insurers would bring their lobbyists along with them to help gain maximum reimbursement when legislation is written, after being converted to a public insurance plan administration company, but that's a risk that has to be taken. The dumbest option would be to do nothing out of fear of change for the worse.

Did I say do nothing? This is a false choice.

I'm not denying that it's possible we try it and fail miserably due to corruption or incompetence.  But we gotta do something, and I think it would be silly not to learn from what has worked or not worked in other countries.

What I am seeing as a repeating theme here is "Hey it could go horribly wrong, but what choice do we have but to make what is already a horrible disaster even worse?"

The USA is not like any of these other nations you are comparing to, furthermore the healthcare systems of the world are heavily reliant on the fact that the US taxpayer subsidizes their expenses, mostly in the form of R&D and pharmaceuticals. The thing you are pointing out as a success is partially a result of the fact that we are paying for it here. The evidence of international success is simultaneously the evidence of failure domestically, but both partially driven by the same cause.

Even assuming that there are some reforms are had, there will inevitably be a drop in the quality of care, increased dependence on the government, as well as the government deciding what kind of medical care you can have and when. Who in their right mind wants to give the government control over their bodies? I am sure that will all work out just fine.

[nutildah]

Perhaps private insurers would bring their lobbyists along with them to help gain maximum reimbursement when legislation is written, after being converted to a public insurance plan administration company, but that's a risk that has to be taken. The dumbest option would be to do nothing out of fear of change for the worse.

Did I say do nothing? This is a false choice.

Did I say you said do nothing?

You seem to be worried about fraud, which happens at a much lower rate among public health insurance claims as compared to private insurance, as there is much less plundering to be done and the penalties after getting caught are much more severe. In addition, private insurers simply aren't interested in pursuing fraud because it creates unnecessary headache from which they receive no benefit. They just pass on the costs inflicted to their customers, who have no choice but to pay the higher premiums.

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-asked-prosecutors-if-health-insurance-companies-care-about-fraud-they-laughed-at-us

What I am seeing as a repeating theme here is "Hey it could go horribly wrong, but what choice do we have but to make what is already a horrible disaster even worse?"

Nobody is saying that. You don't know the change will be for the worse -- you simply insist that it will because that's what you believe to be true.

[TECSHARE]

Did I say you said do nothing?

You seem to be worried about fraud, which happens at a much lower rate among public health insurance claims as compared to private insurance, as there is much less plundering to be done and the penalties after getting caught are much more severe. In addition, private insurers simply aren't interested in pursuing fraud because it creates unnecessary headache from which they receive no benefit. They just pass on the costs inflicted to their customers, who have no choice but to pay the higher premiums.

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-asked-prosecutors-if-health-insurance-companies-care-about-fraud-they-laughed-at-us

What I am seeing as a repeating theme here is "Hey it could go horribly wrong, but what choice do we have but to make what is already a horrible disaster even worse?"

Nobody is saying that. You don't know the change will be for the worse -- you simply insist that it will because that's what you believe to be true.

No, you just insinuated it. And people who don't own pools are at a significantly reduced risk of drowning. That clearly means that if the government installs pools in everyone's homes the rate of drownings will not increase. You talk about these supposedly magical laws that will stop fraud if done under the government. What is stopping similar laws being imposed on the private sector? Oh right, that magical pot of "free" health care at the end of the rainbow.

[TwitchySeal]

Did I say you said do nothing?

You seem to be worried about fraud, which happens at a much lower rate among public health insurance claims as compared to private insurance, as there is much less plundering to be done and the penalties after getting caught are much more severe. In addition, private insurers simply aren't interested in pursuing fraud because it creates unnecessary headache from which they receive no benefit. They just pass on the costs inflicted to their customers, who have no choice but to pay the higher premiums.

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-asked-prosecutors-if-health-insurance-companies-care-about-fraud-they-laughed-at-us

What I am seeing as a repeating theme here is "Hey it could go horribly wrong, but what choice do we have but to make what is already a horrible disaster even worse?"

Nobody is saying that. You don't know the change will be for the worse -- you simply insist that it will because that's what you believe to be true.

No, you just insinuated it. And people who don't own pools are at a significantly reduced risk of drowning. That clearly means that if the government installs pools in everyone's homes the rate of drownings will not increase. You talk about these supposedly magical laws that will stop fraud if done under the government. What is stopping similar laws being imposed on the private sector? Oh right, that magical pot of "free" health care at the end of the rainbow.

You should really just research how much we're paying for Healthcare right now, and where it's going,  Then go find some countries where the Healthcare quality is on par with ours and learn about how it's funded.

Literally any country with high quality healthcare.

[nutildah]

You talk about these supposedly magical laws that will stop fraud if done under the government. What is stopping similar laws being imposed on the private sector?

Perhaps the same lobbyists that you fear will dictate the "free health care tab" are stopping it.

The False Claims Act is a federal law. It doesn't apply to private insurers, but it does deter fraud from taking place among public insurers. I already explained to you twice why there is less fraud in public insurance than private. It's not just laws, its also because private insurance is a much bigger honeypot and ripe for abuse.

Please, read the article I linked if you want to understand the difference in motivations for fraud between the two entities. It's a pretty detailed account of why problems are more severe among private insurers.

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-asked-prosecutors-if-health-insurance-companies-care-about-fraud-they-laughed-at-us

[Spendulus]

You aren't actually responding to what I said, you are just repeating what you think the solution is.

You asked "What gives you the impression that this will change when "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, and there is no one with a motive to resist these kind of wild expenditure abuses? "

We're the only country in the world with a Healthcare system based on private insurance.
There are lots of countries that spend half as much to insure everyone.

I'm not denying that it's possible we try it and fail miserably due to corruption or incompetence.  But we gotta do something...

I think you had your chance at that with Obamacare. We need to move on.

Also, it makes zero sense for the same party to be arguing for open borders and expensive free healthcare for all.

Can't things even make sense?