Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Absolutely. The rate we over consume health care is a big part of the problem.
So then rationing healthcare would be a good thing for Americans in your estimation like rehab for an alcoholic?
Absolutely. The rate we over consume health care is a big part of the problem.
I think a lot of people believe that they want the government to provide them an opportunity to be economically successful by their own merit, and not just give them a handout. An alcoholic will vote for the guy handing out free beer, doesn't mean it is good for him.
Moderate democrats have a great message that would resonate well with the majority of America, they just need better messengers. Hillary lost because she sucks as a person, not because of her policy positions.
So then rationing healthcare would be a good thing for Americans in your estimation like rehab for an alcoholic?
Where are these mysterious messengers?
This kinda reads like saying an NFL QB with the worst rating in the league for several years is actually really good, and just needs all the talent around him upgraded.
It's also interesting these two posts follow each other. The "handout" concept doesn't really seem to stem from anything besides branding and how Fox News likes to portray such things. If you had an effective messenger of the left sell the benefits of these things -- whose benefits would be felt by the vast majority of Americans -- you'd get plenty of folks to come on board
BKF, you genuinely think the rural folks that voted for Trump did so because they want the government to operate MORE conservative economically? To slash their benefits? To continue funneling money to the 1% and further widening our income gap? Sanders and Warren aren't really any different from Obama/HRC on social issues, so that's the only conclusion I can make when you talk about further left.
Seems pretty obvious to me Trump ran as the most liberal economic Republican we've seen in a long while. In office, he's delivering on absolutely none of that. Repub voters are used to Repub politicans doing absolutely nothing for them in this area, but that Trump actually sought to win "common-man" votes on economic promises (unlike a Romney) is gonna cost him dear IMO
Yes, I think we vastly over consume health care, and as a country we are not getting any healthier by doing so. Less demand lower prices, population stays just as healthy.
Obama did a pretty good job.
Yet in countries where it's provided -- and where you'd think people would use it more since there aren't additional costs associated -- they're paying significantly less per capita than we are.
Great. One position while everything else fell apart. And I'd argue he was swept in on the possibility he'd bring about significant economic change in the turbulent times of 2008 -- but that's not what transpired
Over utilization is a huge problem, I agree. Snowflake Americans call the doc when they get a pimple. Interesting that in soc med countries its not a problem
How about we try to reach disenfranchised non voters instead of continuing to suck corporate dick for the sake of the investor class.Aren't you trying to win elections though? Joe has the right politics for America, we don't need pie in the sky socialists.
Yet in countries where it's provided -- and where you'd think people would use it more since there aren't additional costs associated -- they're paying significantly less per capita than we are.
Great. One position while everything else fell apart. And I'd argue he was swept in on the possibility he'd bring about significant economic change in the turbulent times of 2008 -- but that's not what transpired
He was brought in on the promise of stabilizing the economy. He never promised to radically transform the economy.