Unintended consequences, GOP style...
- Thread starter eastcane
- Start date
Lol. Wouldn't catch me near that thing. O'Malley is my first choice at this point. Too bad he has no shot. Rubio would be #2. Biden should have ran.
True. See what happened the last time we elected a Senator who had done nothing noteworthy. I'll assume hypocrisy prevented you for voting for Mr. Obama
True....he passed his healthcare bill (which he lied about fwiw in an effort to sell he same) by paying off Senators in exchange for votes.
Hard to criticize anyone for skirting the law and support Hillary btw. Let's face it...politicians are sleazy. Like I stated earlier, O'Malley is the only moderate running and he can't get a lick of support from the Dems.
Hard to criticize anyone for skirting the law and support Hillary btw. Let's face it...politicians are sleazy. Like I stated earlier, O'Malley is the only moderate running and he can't get a lick of support from the Dems.
Odd comment from someone who relies on The Free Beacon for factual reporting. (Although this was fun...
"Florida Man Buries Father in Backyard to Cash Social Security Checks")
East's post was an opinion piece addressing something that seems to be puzzling everyone: what the heck is going on with the Republicans? But then I admit to bias, as I share many of Dionne's views.
I was just giving East a hard time as that's one of the more left wing website's I've seen. I would argue both parties are a mess. Trump is Trump. Cruz is a disaster on social issues in the general. Sanders is a socialist with a crazy spending paln and would pull the party even further left. Clinton's numbers go down the more exposure she gets (much like 2008) and is dogged by investigations and lies. It's entertaining but doesn't bode well for our country going forward.
As you can tell, I don't think universal healthcare is necessarily a crazy spending plan. We already spend stupidly ridiculous amounts of money to cover a fraction of the population much of which is wasted in a complex, duplicative system. If other countries can cover 100% of their population at half of what we spend as a nation, why can't we do the same or at least cover everyone for the same amount we spend now? That would still be 2x what other countries spend to do the same. Focusing solely on the taxes the government would collect and not on the premiums individuals and their employers would not pay is a distorted view. Also there are other ways to do it. For example, Swtizerland provides universal coverage via a systems using private insurance companies. Just vilifying a concept with distorted numbers doesn't help us improve the situation.
