Warren comes under attack on healthcare, taxes at U.S. Democratic presidential debate

[snoop1130]

Warren comes under attack on healthcare, taxes at U.S. Democratic presidential debate

By Trevor Hunnicutt, Jarrett Renshaw

 

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren speaks during the fourth U.S. Democratic presidential candidates 2020 election debate at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio U.S., October 15, 2019. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

 

WESTERVILLE, Ohio (Reuters) - Surging U.S. Democratic presidential contender Elizabeth Warren came under repeated attack on her healthcare and tax policies in a debate on Tuesday, as moderate rivals pushed her to explain how she would pay for ambitious proposals including her Medicare for All plan.

 

Warren’s recent rise into a virtual tie with former Vice President Joe Biden in many opinion polls made her a frequent target for attacks that exposed the Democratic Party’s divisions between its centrist and progressive wings on a range of issues.

 

The Democratic contenders for the White House were united, however, in supporting the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry of Republican President Donald Trump and criticizing Trump’s recent decision to withdraw from Syria.

 

Moderate rivals Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, facing pressure to break out of the middle of the crowded Democratic presidential field, went after Warren for being evasive on her plan for universal healthcare and said her plan would mean higher taxes or Americans.

 

“I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where to send the invoice,” Klobuchar told Warren. “The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something you can actually get done.”

 

Klobuchar pushed back when Warren said critics of her wealth tax were trying to protect billionaires, saying: “No one on this stage wants to protect billionaires,” adding: “Your idea is not the only idea.”

 

Buttigieg chided Warren, who boasts she has a plan for everything, for not releasing a detailed healthcare plan with an explanation of how she would fund it.

 

The sharp exchanges were a sign of the heightened stakes as a dozen candidates crammed the debate stage in the electoral battleground state of Ohio. It was the most crowded debate so far in the Democratic race to pick a challenger to Trump in the November 2020 election.

 

The debate comes at a critical time, as Biden has seen his once solid lead in opinion polls in the Democratic race diminished by Warren, a leader of the party’s progressive movement, who has steadily risen over the past two months.

 

Warren stayed calm under the repeated attacks, offering her proposals to end income inequality and level the economic playing field for workers.

 

‘COSTS WILL GO DOWN’

 

She did not directly respond to questions about whether she would raise taxes for the healthcare plan, but she said she would not sign any bill that does not lower healthcare costs for middle-class families.

 

“I have made clear what my principles are here, and that is that costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations and, for hard-working middle-class families, costs will go down,” she said.

 

The expansive Medicare for All proposal, based on the government-run healthcare plan for Americans over age 65, has sharply divided Democratic presidential contenders. Some analysts have said it would cost $32 trillion over a decade. Many other Democratic candidates back a Medicare-based plan as just one option for Americans seeking healthcare coverage.

 

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who sponsored a bill in the Senate to create a Medicare for All plan, said he thought it was “appropriate to acknowledge that taxes would go up” under the proposal.

 

Buttigieg plugged his plan for “Medicare for All Who Want It,” a proposal that Warren poked fun at.

 

“Whenever someone hears the term Medicare for All Who Want It, understand what that really means is Medicare for All Who Can Afford It,” Warren said.

 

U.S. Senator Cory Booker tried to stay out of the fight, and warned the Democrats against tearing one another down during the debates. He urged them to keep their eyes on the goal of beating Trump.

 

“I have seen this script before,” Booker said. “It didn’t work in 2016 and it will be a disaster for us in 2020.”

 

Buttigieg and O’Rourke clashed over O’Rourke’s plan for mandatory buybacks of assault weapons by the government. Buttigieg called it unrealistic, and fired back at O’Rourke when he said it was time to stop listening to opinion polls and consultants and focus groups.

 

“I don’t need lessons from you on courage, political or personal,” Buttigieg said.

 

BACKING IMPEACHMENT PROBE

 

At the first debate since Democrats in Congress launched an impeachment probe against Trump, the candidates defended the inquiry and said the president needed to be held accountable for his actions and for stonewalling Congress on its probe.

 

The investigation focuses on Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his unsubstantiated allegation that Biden improperly tried to aid his son Hunter’s business interests in Ukraine.

 

Biden and Sanders both said that Trump was “the most corrupt president in history,” and that Congress would be remiss if it did not pursue the impeachment probe.

 

“Impeachment is the way that we establish that this man will not be permitted to break the law over and over without consequences,” Warren said.

 

Biden said Trump was going after him because he did not want to face him in next year’s election.

 

“Look, my son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. I carried out the policy of the United States government in rooting out corruption in Ukraine and that’s what we should be focused on,” Biden said. “What I think is important is we focus on why it’s so important to remove this man from office.”

 

Some Democrats warned that the party should bring Americans on board to support the probe. “We have to conduct this process in a way that is honorable,” Booker said.

 

Most of the Democrats criticized Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria, which cleared the way for a Turkish incursion to attack the Kurds, longtime U.S. allies in the fight against Islamic State.

 

“Look, I think that we ought to get out of the Middle East. I don’t think we should have troops in the Middle East. But we have to do it the right way, the smart way,” Warren said.

 

The debate marked the return of Sanders, 78, the oldest candidate in the field, who suffered a heart attack two weeks ago and has been recuperating at home in Vermont since having stents inserted to open a blocked artery.

 

The health scare emphasized his age and that of the other top White House contenders - Biden is 76 and Warren is 70, while Trump is 73 - in a race featuring a debate about a generational change in leadership.

 

“We are going to be mounting a vigorous campaign all around this country,” Sanders said, adding: “I’m so happy to be back here with you.”

 

Sanders will return to the campaign trail on Saturday with a rally in New York, where a Sanders campaign source said he would be endorsed by progressive U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He also was endorsed on Tuesday by U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, an ally of Ocasio-Cortez.

 

The two congresswomen have been frequent targets of Trump for their progressive liberal views.

 

Biden said his age and experience were a positive in looking at his potential for the White House. “With it comes wisdom,” he said.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-16

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[quandow]

She will never say the words "I would raise taxes to pay for health care." That IS her plan, and she's crafty enough to ALWAYS avoid saying that sound bite. Not like Beto - "Tax churches, take away their guns." Kiss THAT guy goodbye.

[Skallywag]

As Tulsi Gabbard said last week when she almost dropped out of the debate,  "These debates are not debates at all, they are commercialized reality television events.

The DNC will make sure only their preferred candidate will be running in 2020 anyway.

Many topics, questions were not about real issues that Congress and our next President will need to address.

Impeachment, not a topic for a debate,  All Dems want it. A complete waste of time.

Women's reproductive rights, ever since 1973 it has been a topic, Supreme court responsibility - move on

The idiotic final question, referring to Ellen Degeneres and George Bush being friends  la-di-da

 

I have liked Mayor Pete and Tulsi for many months now as they are the only 2 I see that are progressive, intelligent, and have a military background.  Could actually change things for the better in Washington D.C. and the country. 

Unfortunately Warren, Sanders, Biden will all be stifled by Congress if elected as they have no new "game" to enable the changes they propose with Congress.  We need a change from the old, white, angry politicians 55

 

 

[Jingthing]

I like all of them a billion times more than 45. But Gabbard less so. Surprised that Mayor Pete is really being taken seriously but he's earned that. My early favorite All the Way with Amy K is still standing! But just barely. No final predictions yet from me.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, quandow said:

She will never say the words "I would raise taxes to pay for health care." That IS her plan, and she's crafty enough to ALWAYS avoid saying that sound bite. Not like Beto - "Tax churches, take away their guns." Kiss THAT guy goodbye.

 

She also can't ever admit it simply won't work. She will try to get trillions from billions. She might get a big cash grab the first year but after that the money will be gone. 

 

It does look like the dems are going to push their least palatable candidate for 2020. Warren is going to have a hard road once big tech turns completely against her. Gabbard made a good point about there isn't going to be a more united country if the dems win. You think it is divisive now, wait for a dem win. 

 

All of these grandiose 10 year plans will never go into place. They don't seem to have anything of substance for what happens right now today. Hopefully out of this we are finally rid of Beto and Harris. They never had a shot at winning but more than that their general message needs to be stomped out and forgotten.

 

Yang is entertaining at times but God forbid they introduce a VAT. Pete is spot on at times but then the voice of God starts to flow through him undoing all the good things he says. 

 

The final take from the debate to me is that no matter who you are things will become more expensive for you. Hopefully Warren will dominate the dems now so the fight against her can be put together immediately. She scares just about anybody who isn't deathly ill and homeless and this includes a wide section of the left.

[Skallywag]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I like all of them a billion times more than 45. But Gabbard less so. Surprised that Mayor Pete is really being taken seriously but he's earned that. My early favorite All the Way with Amy K is still standing! But just barely. No final predictions yet from me.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Mayor Pete and Tulsi are leaders.  

Warren, Sanders, and Biden are all career politicians, yet would be better in a consulting role,  cabinet posts or some other supportive position.  45 able to run again or not, Dems need someone with new ideas, strong, and intelligent that has more to offer than the same old political rhetoric to take on the GOP.  

Regards

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Skallywag said:

Mayor Pete and Tulsi are leaders.  

Warren, Sanders, and Biden are all career politicians, yet would be better in a consulting role,  cabinet posts or some other supportive position.  45 able to run again or not, Dems need someone with new ideas, strong, and intelligent that has more to offer than the same old political rhetoric to take on the GOP.  

Regards

 

They are the only two that said anything original or meaningful last night. 

[Jingthing]

Mayor Pete and Tulsi are leaders.  
Warren, Sanders, and Biden are all career politicians, yet would be better in a consulting role,  cabinet posts or some other supportive position.  45 able to run again or not, Dems need someone with new ideas, strong, and intelligent that has more to offer than the same old political rhetoric to take on the GOP.  
Regards

Gabbard leaves me really cold. I'm very glad that she'll probably have to drop out soon.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[quandow]

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

She also can't ever admit it simply won't work.

It works better around the world in every other civilized, advanced country. What the US currently has is killing its citizens, so this is worth a try.

[quandow]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Gabbard leaves me really cold. I'm very glad that she'll probably have to drop out soon.

I hate to say this, but charisma has a LOT to do with electability. I mean, look at the clown currently in the oval. He doesn't have two brain cells to rub together but he knows how to play the idiots raised on the reality TV teat.

 

I knew a pilot who had the opportunity to be in a room when Bill Clinton walked in. He said you KNEW when he entered - he had that "thing," the ability to electrify any place he was. Tulsi has an acceptable platform AND she's quite the cure for insomnia.

[Credo]

I am not a strong supporter of Medicare for All, but if that's the direction it goes, it will get my support.   I much prefer the idea of people having a choice.   

 

As far as cost goes, it makes little difference whether we are paying to a gov't funded medical program or private insurance.   Currently, we are spending around a trillion $ when you figure in all the costs.   

 

Here's a little more about what it costs us now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/16/americans-already-pay-gigantic-hidden-health-care-tax-economists-say/

 

 

[Skallywag]

15 minutes ago, quandow said:

I hate to say this, but charisma has a LOT to do with electability. I mean, look at the clown currently in the oval. He doesn't have two brain cells to rub together but he knows how to play the idiots raised on the reality TV teat.

 

I knew a pilot who had the opportunity to be in a room when Bill Clinton walked in. He said you KNEW when he entered - he had that "thing," the ability to electrify any place he was. Tulsi has an acceptable platform AND she's quite the cure for insomnia.

OK, so who can beat the Republicans in 2020? 

Do you think Biden, Warren, or Sanders has that "charisma" needed to win?

[meechai]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Gabbard leaves me really cold. I'm very glad that she'll probably have to drop out soon.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Uh-Oh the kiss of success ????

 

Remembering all your posts of how "Hillary was the next prez & get use to it" etc

Makes me think you just got Gabbard elected 555

[blazes]

I have always been a great admirer of Bernie, but his endorsement by AOC and Omar is the kiss of death.....

[Isaan sailor]

As an American expat, feels like caught between a rock and a hard place.  Stay in Thailand with a continually rising Baht—or return to economic disaster when and if socialists take charge.

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

As an American expat, feels like caught between a rock and a hard place.  Stay in Thailand with a continually rising Baht—or return to economic disaster when and if socialists take charge.

Hardly any socialists in the US, so the risk of that happening is non existent for the foreseeable future.

[Cryingdick]

It's funny to see how little reaction the threads surrounding the dem agenda get. There is no excitement or buzz of any kind.

[quandow]

10 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

It's funny to see how little reaction the threads surrounding the dem agenda get. There is no excitement or buzz of any kind.

I usually despise what you post, but you have a very valid point here. What has happened is the impeachment frenzy/Syrian massacre decision has sucked all the air out of the room. I heard a talking head explain, in a similar circumstance, how Beto (who now has less than zero chance of surviving) takes away time from other candidates and their agendas. All media, left and right (is there an honest center reporting publisher any more?) present too much misdirection, too much attention to "shiny objects."

[Jingthing]

I hate to say this, but charisma has a LOT to do with electability. I mean, look at the clown currently in the oval. He doesn't have two brain cells to rub together but he knows how to play the idiots raised on the reality TV teat.

 

I knew a pilot who had the opportunity to be in a room when Bill Clinton walked in. He said you KNEW when he entered - he had that "thing," the ability to electrify any place he was. Tulsi has an acceptable platform AND she's quite the cure for insomnia.

If you say so. Don’t understand the push for her. She's not resonating in the polls at all. She's weirdly more popular with republicans than democrats.

 

On charisma unfortunately Joe Biden used to have enough but it's no longer there.

 

Warren has enough and with no racial implications dark horse Booker may have the most in the field. When I think of him I think passion.

 

I think that's part of the problem with Amy K. She doesn't excite people.

 

I think Bernie though in the higher poll tier has little chance and I'm happy about that. An explicit socialist can't be elected president. We need to beat 45. That more left lane is clearly dominated by Warren and I think she actually could win.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

I usually despise what you post, but you have a very valid point here. What has happened is the impeachment frenzy/Syrian massacre decision has sucked all the air out of the room. I heard a talking head explain, in a similar circumstance, how Beto (who now has less than zero chance of surviving) takes away time from other candidates and their agendas. All media, left and right (is there an honest center reporting publisher any more?) present too much misdirection, too much attention to "shiny objects."

The most important thing for most democrats including me is beating 45. He's an existential threat to the future of American democracy. Policy does and should take a back seat in view of this national crisis. It's truly ABT time!

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[LawrenceN]

I would really like to see them stop attacking each other. The Repugnants are watching. That s**t is gonna come back to haunt them. They should state their own views, being careful never to ridicule or disparage the other candidates.

[Jingthing]

I would really like to see them stop attacking each other. The Repugnants are watching. That s**t is gonna come back to haunt them. They should state their own views, being careful never to ridicule or disparage the other candidates.

That's the least of their worries.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[TooBigToFit]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

It's funny to see how little reaction the threads surrounding the dem agenda get. There is no excitement or buzz of any kind.

It could be because all the liberals are working longer and longer hours just to survive. We don't have a hell of a lot of time to post. 

 

Anyways, I think Warren is fine. She has good ideas and would inspire a lot of people. Despite some of her desires for the working classes, she isn't pro-open borders from what I have heard. She is definitely a capitalist but sees problems with the system. She has said she would tax the wealthy because she sees the capitalism we have now as unfair and corrupt as well as unsustainable. The gains made by the ultra-rich are from a corrupted system. If you think Thailand's economy, government, courts and the rest favor the superrich and privileged, how could you not see that in the US too. The manipulation is there but just in different forms. Thailand's abuse is just obvious and discussion of the reasons for it are sensitive grounds. Corruption is out of control in the US too. So, after decades of profiting from exploiting politicians and the rest of it and contributing very little in return, Warren's argument is that it is just taking back from those who knowingly exploited the system all along and those superrich who benefited from all the exploits in the system created by their superrich peers. Well, that's how I see it. All the Dems aredecent people. The only one I don't really want to see is Biden because even if he won, he wouldn't bring the change for the working people that America needs.

[TooBigToFit]

There are other possibilities...

 

 

[Thaidream]

4 hours ago, quandow said:

It works better around the world in every other civilized, advanced country. What the US currently has is killing its citizens, so this is worth a try.

Completely agree-  America has one of the worst healthcare systems in the World due to collusion between for Profit Hospitals; predatory insurance companies and Big Pharma.  How can a life saving drug  cost $3,000  in America and $5 in Australia- simply because insurance will pay the cost; and then raise the premium on all of us.

 

The Sanders/Warren health plan makes perfect sense-  Get rid of private insurance- the Government pays all costs- which forces Hospitals and Pharma to lower their prices drastically or they won't  get paid and won't have any business.  In essence- the plan forces what healthcare should be- universal and non profit in which no one can be allowed to pofit off the illness of others.

 

Medicare for All is a 4 year phased in program and it will raise taxes  but the net effect will be a lower bottom line because no one will be paying premiums for insurance 

 

The problem on selling this concept is that it is revolutionary for America- and in a few minutes of back and forth in a debate format cannot be adequately explained so people understand the concept.   The fact is that the UK has had this type of insurance since the 1930s and it is prelanat in the EU; Canada; Australia; Japan and many other countries- so it works.

 

I don't see people that have universal healthcare in the UK and other countries going into bankruptcy because they are ill-  it happens daily in the US.

 

  Americans are dying regularly because they cannot get adequate healthcare-  The time has come to stop being ripped off by a For Profit system that reaps hig profits for the practioners; the insurance industery and the pharma companies while the people- that's us are left to the devices of a corrupt system.

 

The system will be paid for by raising the current medicare rate to a level consistent with what we would pay in federal taxes;  it will also be paid by increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations who will no longer have to directly fund their workers partial healthcare; it will be paid by reducing the defense budget- already the highest in the World.

 

One of the difficulties in getting the  change passed  is that a Democaratic president is going to need both a Democratic House and Senate and that is going to be difficult.

[Jingthing]

There are other possibilities...
 
 

Ridiculous VP suggestion.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[johnnybangkok]

48 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Completely agree-  America has one of the worst healthcare systems in the World due to collusion between for Profit Hospitals; predatory insurance companies and Big Pharma.  How can a life saving drug  cost $3,000  in America and $5 in Australia- simply because insurance will pay the cost; and then raise the premium on all of us.

 

The Sanders/Warren health plan makes perfect sense-  Get rid of private insurance- the Government pays all costs- which forces Hospitals and Pharma to lower their prices drastically or they won't  get paid and won't have any business.  In essence- the plan forces what healthcare should be- universal and non profit in which no one can be allowed to pofit off the illness of others.

 

Medicare for All is a 4 year phased in program and it will raise taxes  but the net effect will be a lower bottom line because no one will be paying premiums for insurance 

 

The problem on selling this concept is that it is revolutionary for America- and in a few minutes of back and forth in a debate format cannot be adequately explained so people understand the concept.   The fact is that the UK has had this type of insurance since the 1930s and it is prelanat in the EU; Canada; Australia; Japan and many other countries- so it works.

 

I don't see people that have universal healthcare in the UK and other countries going into bankruptcy because they are ill-  it happens daily in the US.

 

  Americans are dying regularly because they cannot get adequate healthcare-  The time has come to stop being ripped off by a For Profit system that reaps hig profits for the practioners; the insurance industery and the pharma companies while the people- that's us are left to the devices of a corrupt system.

 

The system will be paid for by raising the current medicare rate to a level consistent with what we would pay in federal taxes;  it will also be paid by increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations who will no longer have to directly fund their workers partial healthcare; it will be paid by reducing the defense budget- already the highest in the World.

 

One of the difficulties in getting the  change passed  is that a Democaratic president is going to need both a Democratic House and Senate and that is going to be difficult.

Very well put.

You hit the nail on the head when you said 'I don't see people that have universal healthcare in the UK and other countries going into bankruptcy because they are ill-  it happens daily in the US'. You also don't see people putting off essential treatment because the can't afford it, which in turn leads to earlier diagnosis which in many cases can literally be life saving.

The idea of healthcare only for those that can afford it is so backwards and self-defeating that it would be funny if it wasn't so deadly. 

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Completely agree-  America has one of the worst healthcare systems in the World due to collusion between for Profit Hospitals; predatory insurance companies and Big Pharma.  How can a life saving drug  cost $3,000  in America and $5 in Australia- simply because insurance will pay the cost; and then raise the premium on all of us.

 

The Sanders/Warren health plan makes perfect sense-  Get rid of private insurance- the Government pays all costs- which forces Hospitals and Pharma to lower their prices drastically or they won't  get paid and won't have any business.  In essence- the plan forces what healthcare should be- universal and non profit in which no one can be allowed to pofit off the illness of others.

 

Medicare for All is a 4 year phased in program and it will raise taxes  but the net effect will be a lower bottom line because no one will be paying premiums for insurance 

 

The problem on selling this concept is that it is revolutionary for America- and in a few minutes of back and forth in a debate format cannot be adequately explained so people understand the concept.   The fact is that the UK has had this type of insurance since the 1930s and it is prelanat in the EU; Canada; Australia; Japan and many other countries- so it works.

 

I don't see people that have universal healthcare in the UK and other countries going into bankruptcy because they are ill-  it happens daily in the US.

 

  Americans are dying regularly because they cannot get adequate healthcare-  The time has come to stop being ripped off by a For Profit system that reaps hig profits for the practioners; the insurance industery and the pharma companies while the people- that's us are left to the devices of a corrupt system.

 

The system will be paid for by raising the current medicare rate to a level consistent with what we would pay in federal taxes;  it will also be paid by increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations who will no longer have to directly fund their workers partial healthcare; it will be paid by reducing the defense budget- already the highest in the World.

 

One of the difficulties in getting the  change passed  is that a Democaratic president is going to need both a Democratic House and Senate and that is going to be difficult.

 

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Very well put.

You hit the nail on the head when you said 'I don't see people that have universal healthcare in the UK and other countries going into bankruptcy because they are ill-  it happens daily in the US'. You also don't see people putting off essential treatment because the can't afford it, which in turn leads to earlier diagnosis which in many cases can literally be life saving.

The idea of healthcare only for those that can afford it is so backwards and self-defeating that it would be funny if it wasn't so deadly. 

Star post of the week for me Thaidream. ????Totally agree with you both.

 

It's not my country - And I despair that the UK is going down the pan- but the NHS is a jewel in our crown, and even the Tories (Who - like the GOP - would happily let the poor die if there was no profit to be made from keeping them alive) recognize that to attack the NHS is a huge vote loser. ("Americans are dying regularly because they cannot get adequate healthcare"). No other decent civilized country thinks that it is acceptable to profit from others misfortune. Having private prisons is another example of the depths of depravity to which the US - with their obsession with Capitalism red in tooth and claw - has sunk. As you say,  you have to sell a concept is that it is revolutionary for America. So often the problem when people get brainwashed, by endless repetition, into seeing things only one way. Thatcher did it in the 80's with her TINA (There is no alternative) - millions of fools believed her.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, rhyddid said:

So some do not want all US citizen may afford healthcare, good this prove how republicans love and care their citizens !

Yes that is the core republican position -- not making sure there is health care access for all citizens and by contrast the core democratic party position is making sure there is health care access for all citizens. Based on that I see the republican party even before the disaster of 45 as morally bankrupt. How can even much lower wealth countries have such programs and somehow the USA can't do it. It's truly sick. 

[IAMHERE]

First increase the number of Doctors. The AMA is the strongest union in the country when it comes to keeping the number of workers to a minimum. Plenty of people with the brains to be doctors but don't get the chancej.