zargof

This talk of class warfare is so monumentally stupid. The rich won that war a long time ago and only an obsequious bootlicker like yourself would disagree.

So what exactly has AOC proposed that isn't a policy that has already been implemented in what you describe as "Pragmatic Socialism" in Europe?

There's no point responding to the rest of your fearmongering nonsense as it simply isn't based in reality considering there is nothing that AOC has proposed that is not already implemented in Europe.

scrubbedexpat099

I thought this nicely tied in AOC and Europe:

AOC’s latest: Only Nazis oppose open borders

zargof

FFS all the batshit crazy morons are busy this weekend. A "healthcare coup", do you not think that might be a little hyperbolic? The point is you will never make healthcare better while it is a for profit system, try and improve Obamacare if you like, but it will just keep making health insurance companies more rich. Also don't talk about freedom when it comes to healthcare. What freedom? The freedom for your insurance company to decide you're not covered because of some bullshit reason? The freedom of your employer to switch to a more crappy plan which no longer covers your doctor to save them a few dollars. This current system is a shit show and anyone that has any experience of a universal healthcare system can see that that is obvious.

You can say that people like having the choice of choosing different plans, but that's complete bullshit:

https://www.axios.com/people-hate-he...cf57d27dd.html

But you're right about the crazy socialist spending on things we can't afford. Who can forget it was the socialists who spent $6T on pointless wars, or $2T on a tax cut in 2017, or the $2.5T of the Bush tax cuts. Damn those crazy socialists.

zargof

Can you explain when AOC actually said that?

Steerpike

Isn't that also a bit hyperbolic? There plenty of examples of effective healthcare systems in the world that include private insurance companies. Switzerland has what I often see rated as the #1 system in Europe (but let's not argue that point - let's just agree that it's much better than the US). Switzerland's system has over 100 private insurance companies competing for business. The Swiss govt. sets the minimum coverage required, and subsidizes the poor in paying their premiums. The Netherlands is apparently similar to Switzerland. Spain also has a well-respected system, and allows for various private insurance options (on top of the core universal system). Germany allows for private insurance for people earning over a threshold. So why should the US become the most anti-insurance country in the developed world?

dc koop

She's also on record as comparing the detention camps at the border to that of Nazi concentration camps. Somebody should advise the daft cow to take a trip to Poland and visit Auschwitz see the accommodations where the inmates slept, packed together like sardines, rat infested, lice infested, typhoid on the rampage and then a final look at the crematoria ovens to round off the visit. That comment was insulting and disrespectful to Jews and anyone still living who were in the camp. She's completely delirious.

dc koop

I have nothing against diversity candidates. We live in an ever increasing diverse society. A party which is choosing candidates needs to pick someone who can successfully debate the opposition, talk of new ideas that are workable. Roosevelt was the prime example in creating the WPA to get the unemployed back to work. There was no BS either in his speeches unlike today just a simple "Nothing to fear but fear itself" No politician since ever managed to equal that phrase. Let the best person win the nomination irrespective of gender and ethnicity which is of secondary importance.

Obama was Presidential in manner and likeable also but BIll Clinton as a President was somewhat better and oh by the way not because he was white

scrubbedexpat091

I would consider 10 million to be lower wealthy class, middle class it is not.

Canada might hold that title right now at least when it comes to health insurance, we can't buy private health insurance for anything that is covered by our provincial single payer system, only thing private insurance covers are things not covered by provincial health, the US would have to one up Canada to become the most anti-insurance when it comes to healthcare.

We might be one of the only developed countries that doesn't permit private health insurance.

dc koop

But is ten million to be taxed at 70 percent? This only illustrates AOC's naivety and ignorance on basing tax rates relative to wealth

Not permitting private insurance to be a choice from Medicare for All will be the demise of Sanders and Warren and deservedly so.

johnwoo

Nope, it's 70% on income OVER $10 million. So. in spite of the high tax rate someone making over $10 million is still a very wealthy person. A lot of people work very hard and make very little money. If hard work means getting paid a large salary, the people I see in the fields along hwy 101 should be extremely wealthy.

Ingles

Just shows how weak his stance is , typically has no idea how many groups find Trump & his minions a aberration !
So lump them all together.

UkWinds5353

Have you ever been told that how you do something is as important as what you do? That sound advice is true. Convincing the greater American public to give up their private health insurance is the task of progressives who want to have 100% government ran healthcare like Europe and Canada. Figure out a plan to accomplish that goal, and then sale the idea to the Socialist wing in government because at this point, what they are attempting to replace private insurance with is not polling well at all. Americans are very suspicious of government ran agencies because everyone is fully aware that politics can interfere with a newly installed law or department, and what was once a great idea can be suddenly dismantled.

Why would anyone give up insurance provided by their job to instead rely on government supplied healthcare and lose that coverage once progressives decide to focus on other distractions in their life like watching American Idol, or hanging out with friends instead of taking serious the responsibility of voting and protecting hard gained achievements?

That is a lot to ask of a parent who has a sick child that can not go without their employer funded healthcare. Zargof, you have far too much confidence in the ability to fight from progressives. I am a registered Republican and have been since the Reagan era and the thing I've learned about political intensity of both major parties is the fact Republicans fight harder and dirtier and have no scruples in achieving their agenda. Democrats imo tend to fight hard for their agenda but can lose focus in maintaining their advantage once holding power. And Democrats over romanticize government leaders which is why you allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. You had Obama one of the best Presidents with a progressive agenda and you guys didn't fully stick behind him to keep your hold on the direction the country was heading in.

Instead you're looking for a perfect candidate which mean some of the progressives are all over the map. You folks need to stop being angry and start working hard to convince moderates that your ideas are the best roadmap to follow. Get out and canvas knock on doors and learn to accept a 3/4 full glass and stop wanting only a Socialist because I'm here to tell you that America is not an extremely conservative nation like DC,koop is, but nor is it a Socialist agenda country.

The goal is not to specifically elect Bernie Sanders per se but to achieve a major uptick in healthcare availability for all Americans. Taking health insurance companies out of the equation altogether in the next 20 years is a huge ask for a major capitalistic economy and even if everyone tomorrow turned into Socialist what is your plan to help those 2 million people that will lose their jobs in that industry and not to mention the other 10 million family members and supply chains that will be out of business?

Let's face the fact providing healthcare for a population of nearly 350 million people is not the same task of providing care for 37 million people in Canada. The math alone is the problem especially for a country in 22 trillion dollars of debt. I'm sure you don't run your household that far in the red and you must live within your means like we all must.

If Bernie Sanders were to win the nomination I will vote for him because Trump is the worse President in modern times. But not all moderates are looking at the big picture as I do. Many will vote for who ever has the best message that makes sense and a 25 trillion dollar healthcare coup will turn off a great many Independent voters. Bernie needs to scale back his agenda if he wants to beat Biden or Bloomberg who both are more appealing to moderates. And as you probably know Democrats alone will not decide this election. Independents will and a reasonable healthcare plan to excite them, can and will defeat Trump.

BTW, for Sanders to even have a chance to win the Democrat nomination he must figure out how to wrestle away support of African Americans and Hispanic Americans from Biden and Bloomberg. Those are key voting blocks for any Democrat candidate and without those groups a candidacy is doomed. So far Mayor Pete and Sanders are not popular in those groups. Just ask Hillary Clinton how important those groups are. Remember Hillary had half of the Hispanic voting block and Obama had half of Hispanic voters, and nearly all of the African American voters after President Clinton bad mouthed the "idea" of a Black candidate winning the election and that moment killed Hillary's support among that huge reliable voting block. That was a memorable moment in political history.

UkWinds5353

Great question. First it's my considered opinion that to win the Democrat nomination you must be popular with the key voting blocks in that party in order to hold an advantage in the polls. That explains why Kamala Harris and Cory Booker never caught fire among those groups because they didn't feel a connection to either candidate. Biden and Bloomberg both have a history of going into the communities and doing a great deal of out reach prior to 2018. And the support in those groups reflect that fact. Trump has been counting on moderate Biden not getting through the Democrat nomination process but the connection with Obama and Biden's work in government is well known and that is why it's going to take more than a few mistakes by Biden to knock him out of contention for the nomination. Moderate voters rather have a somewhat flawed Biden than a criminal Donald Trump who is attempting to get rid of quality healthcare and replace it with a cheap poorly devised system. Ask the voters in Kentucky!

Biden has built a huge amount of good will. If you maintain huge support with Hispanic, African American and Jewish voters in the Democrat nomination race you are extremely hard to beat. Biden and Bloomberg could lose Iowa and New Hampshire and then clean up in South Carolina Nevada leading into Super Tuesday. Just ask Hillary who won most of the primaries in 2008 but lost most of the caucuses to Obama.

Steerpike

That just confirms my suspicion that you are expressing your personal opinion, not quoting any mainstream polls. I'd personally be happy to see Bloomberg up there with Biden - in fact, I think Biden is one of the worst candidates of all and would love to see Bloomberg take the lead - but polls don't currently reflect that. You said, specifically "Right now the leading candidates for the Democrat nomination are.... Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, Sanders, In that order.". You didn't say 'in my opinion'. So how can you make that assertion, based on the facts of the current polls?

ETA - This article today also fails to reflect any significant presence from Bloomberg - https://www.vox.com/2019/12/9/209934...izabeth-warren

Jerseygirl