Blatant propaganda story put out by AP

It just amazes me how the American people are played like a fiddle.

Democrats Take A Look At A Practical Health Care Approach

"LAS VEGAS (AP) — Democratic voters appear to be reassessing their approach to health care, a pragmatic shift on their party's top 2020 issue."

"Medicare for All" remains hugely popular, but majorities say they'd prefer building on "Obamacare" to expand coverage instead of a new government program that replaces America's mix of private and public insurance."

It's such blatant propaganda I just can't stand it. Let's use Occam's razor in analyzing the premise of this story. Democrats decided not to spend billionaire's money by making "Medicare for All" or Bernie's solution instead, "majorities" have just decided to be "pragmatic" and let billionaire's keep their money.

This not news. The story is telling the reader HOW-TO-THINK. It's pure blatant propaganda.

Nobody came and ask me what I thought. I am Democrat. Sorry, I'm not going to be "pragmatic" here. I think its high time the billionaires fork over some health benefits on par with other major industrial nations. No more free pass to accumulate more money than you can spend in 500 lifetimes.

The essence of modern propaganda is to get the person being programmed to think it was "their idea" or that they are "thinking for themselves." I'm so sick of the endless mind jobs day after day.



All I do is read, "Democratic voters appear to be reassessing their approach to health care, a pragmatic shift" and suddenly I want to vote Republican.
It's just amazing!!!

70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal

What the hell is this sentence: ""Medicare for All" remains hugely popular, but majorities say they'd prefer building on "Obamacare" "

What the hell is "majorities"???? Yeah, two women at a casino in Las Vegas talking the Republican party line is a "majority" of sorts.

Such crap.

a reply to: dfnj2015

It's complicated. Who knew?
www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's complicated. Who knew?
www.theguardian.com...

It's not that complicated. Just change one sentence: "eligibility to receive Medicare benefits is 65" to "eligibility to receive Medicare benefits is 25".

a reply to: dfnj2015
And then change the medicare payroll deduction from 1.45% to what, to cover the additional cost? Or "simply" increase employer share beyond that?

Change the law to apply a progressive rate, or exclude certain income levels from the benefit entirely?

I like the concept, actually. But it is complicated. Perhaps an "opt in", a voluntary increase in one's payroll deduction. But that gets complicated too.

The bureaucratic nightmares will turn Freddy Krueger into triplets 😎

Just open up Medicare to those who need it, and abolish ObamaCare all-together. The 72 tax-streams being used to fund ObamaCare can be transferred over to Medicare, for the influx of new people.

Most Americans who don't get health insurance at work will enroll in one of the new plans that the private market comes up with.

Democrats are flip-flopping around more than the last Tuna I reeled in!

Medicare-4-all,
ObamCare Expansion,
Reparations for some minorities,
Free College,
Student Loan Cancellation,
Kill all the farting cows,
Kill the electoral college,
Boycott Israel,
Impeach Trump,
Open the borders!
$1,000 @ month for Everyone!
Murdering your almost born baby is OK.
Only criminals will be able to get guns.
Print More Money. Lots of Ink/Paper Available!
Take $7,000 more Federal Taxes per household.
Send More Money To Countries That Request it.

An interesting factoid fell into my lap a few weeks ago. I was listening to a long podcast and one of the participants very casually mentioned a statistic that the other speakers overlooked but that caused me to pause the podcast to verify because it didn't sound like it could possibly be accurate.

The speaker said something like "I don't think people really understand what a billion dollars really is. Let me provide some clarity - if you were to count a million seconds, you'd be done in just a bit less than 12 days. If you then decided to count a billion seconds it would take... Nearly 32 years."

Even writing it now it feels like that jump is way too big, but it is accurate.

I think most of us here would consider a person with a million bucks in the bank to be doing pretty well. I'm sure some would argue that a person with a million isn't rich at all - because it's 2019 and everything is an argument it seems - but I think most of us would agree that a million bucks in the bank would make one well off.

Twelve days versus thirty two freaking years folks.

The guy with thirty-two year money can pay a few bucks extra. And no I don't hate the rich. I do, however, kind of resent that kind of obscene wealth.

a reply to: Hefficide
Billion. Pfft.

Coming soon to a government near us, a budget deficit of one trillion dollars!
And no universal health care but the obscenely wealthy are paying less and that's a good thing. Right?

Medicare cost money for people who have to pay for it......😃🥳

Medicare costs at a glance

originally posted by: xuenchen
Medicare cost money for people who have to pay for it......😃🥳

Medicare costs at a glance

Not as much as private insurance.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: xuenchen
Medicare cost money for people who have to pay for it......😃🥳

Medicare costs at a glance

Not as much as private insurance.

Depends who pays for it 😃🥳

a reply to: xuenchen

Depends who pays for it

No it doesn't.

Or don't you know what "private" means?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen

No it doesn't.

Or don't you know what "private" means?

Yes it does 😎🥥

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen

No it doesn't.

Or don't you know what "private" means?

Yes it does 😎🥥

No.
You provided a link to the medicare rate schedule.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen

No it doesn't.

Or don't you know what "private" means?

Yes it does 😎🥥

No.
You provided a link to the medicare rate schedule.

Yes it still does depend 😃

a reply to: xuenchen
No.
Private insurance costs more than medicare.

There’s a lot of problems with the Medicare for all act . Forcing people to drop their private insurance, retirees afraid of any change in their current healthcare, decimating the insurance industry and the jobs linked to it.

But I think the biggest problem with it is a lie even the left isn’t buying .

“ we will tax the extremely wealthy to pay for it “
Bernie Sanders

Everybody knows that if it’s instituted their taxes are going up .

Bernie is selling snake oil .

a reply to: Phage

Depends who's paying and who's getting equally treated 🎯🚬

a reply to: Fallingdown

The ensuing chaos will break the budget to smithereens 🎯🚬

a reply to: xuenchen

Depends who's paying and who's getting equally treated

Every working person "pays", as does their employer, and unless you have worked will not be eligible for medicare or its extended programs. I have no idea what you mean by "equally treated."

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?