Medicare Is About To Run Out of Money. Democrats Want To Make the Program Cost Even More.

The federal health care program is on track for a trust fund shortfall in just five years. But instead of paying for the program that exists, Democrats want to expand it.


To understand the implications of Democrats' current plans for expanding federal health care programs, it's useful to start with some context from the biggest federal health care program that currently exists: Medicare. 

Last week, Medicare's board of trustees produced their annual report on the program's fiscal health. That report contained some expected yet nonetheless alarming news: Medicare's hospital insurance (HI) trust fund, itself a kind of accounting fiction, will be insolvent in just five years. Starting in 2026, the HI fund, which covers inpatient hospital services, will be depleted. 

The program will have to rely on the HI fund's incoming revenues, essentially operating on a cash flow basis—and there won't be enough cash. In 2026, the HI fund will only cover about 91 percent of its bills. In the years that follow, that gap will only grow larger. So without changes to the program's financing, doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers will face rapidly reduced payments from the program, with ensuing ripple effects on both the wider economy, roughly a sixth of which revolves around health care services, and on the provision and availability of health care.  

If anything, the program's fiscal problems may be even worse than that: The new report assumes that an array of cost-reduction measures, including a series of technical tweaks the physician payments and bonuses, will persist. But they also note that Medicare's "long-range costs could be substantially higher than shown throughout much of the report if the cost-reduction measures prove problematic and new legislation scales them back." 

As anyone who has even a passing familiarity with attempts to control the cost of federal health care programs through doctor payment tweaks knows, those sorts of measures often prove problematic—which is to say, doctors don't like them, and thus, for political reasons, Congress overrides those payment changes. 

In just a few short years, in other words, Medicare will face something like an existential crisis. Yet instead of attempting to deal with the program's deep fiscal challenges, President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are attempting to expand the program, adding a suite of costly new benefits to the program. Rather than attempt to pay for the program that exists, or manage its growing costs, they are focused on tacking on additional expenses.

The vehicle for those additions is the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that Democrats hope to pass before the end of the year. The bill is a sort of all-things-to-everyone social spending package, with handouts to a wide array of the party's domestic policy stakeholders and interest groups. It is now in the midst of being drafted and debated and will likely change, perhaps many times, before it passes. But in its current form, it calls for a substantial expansion of Medicare, plus additional new health care spending outside the program.

The Medicare expansion would add vision, dental, and hearing benefits, a longtime goal for congressional Democrats. There's no current cost estimate, but in 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a similar expansion of coverage (as part of a larger health care bill proposed by House Democrats) would cost $358 billion, the majority of which would go to dental care. The new expansion will almost certainly cost even more, although it is possible that the on-paper score will come in lower if the expansion is structured to push costs outside of the 10-year budget window, by, for example, delaying the start of the dental benefits until the end of the decade. 

Beyond Medicare, Democrats are also moving toward expanding other federal health care programs. The current reconciliation framework calls for making permanent a supposedly temporary two-year expansion of Obamacare's subsidies for private insurance. The temporary expansion, passed earlier this year as part of the $2 trillion American Recovery Plan, was priced at $34 billion for just two years—a decadelong expansion beyond the initial two-year window would presumably cost about five times that. One of the features of that expansion is that it raises existing income caps for who can obtain health insurance subsidies; the result is that in some parts of the country, families with mid-six-figure incomes could end up qualifying for tens of thousands of dollars worth of health insurance subsidies

And then there is Medicaid—and the possible creation of an entirely new federal health program.

This is the direct result of a decade's worth of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act. When Obamacare passed in 2010, it was designed to expand health insurance coverage in two primary ways: First, through the system of private health insurance subsidies I mentioned above, and second, through an expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program for the poor and disabled. The authors of Obamacare assumed that the law's Medicaid expansion would be adopted by every state and included significant financial penalties for states that opted out. But a 2012 Supreme Court ruling said those penalties were so large that they were unconstitutional, amounting to a threat of force against the states for noncompliance. As a result, some states did not expand the program under the law or were slow to do so. Currently, about a dozen Republican-leaning states have declined to expand the program. 

So Democrats are hoping to use the reconciliation bill to expand coverage to the people in those states who would qualify for Medicaid under an expanded program—filling what they refer to as the "Medicaid gap." The legislation is still being drafted, so it is not entirely clear how this would be accomplished, but one option under discussion this summer was the creation of an entirely new federal health program, likely modeled on Medicaid, geared specifically to cover those in the gap. How much would this program cost? Would those costs be offset in any meaningful way? How would this tangle of programs and subprograms interact? 

It is possible that none of this will come to pass. Even if the entire package does become law, it will probably change in a variety of ways before it does. 

But it is nonetheless telling that in the face of a looming shortfall in the nation's largest federal health care program, congressional Democrats, rather than debating ways to control costs in the program that is already running out of money, are contemplating an expensive expansion of that same program; the permanent extension of a supposedly temporary health care subsidy in a separate health care program; and the creation of an entirely new federal health care program

The existing system clearly isn't sustainable in its current form. But rather than address or even really acknowledge its obvious shortcomings, Democrats are just attempting to build on top of it.

NEXT: Backpage Defense Lawyers Call for Mistrial After 'Inflammatory' Opening Statements

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If you were hoping the batshit insane left would suddenly recognize reality and adjust, you’ll be waiting a long time.

    1. No, they do recognize reality. Bankrupting Medicare is the point, it provides an excuse to drastically increase taxation to rescue the system.

      Cause a problem, then exploit it to increase your power. It’s a tried and true recipe that they’re resorting to more and more.

      1. Excuse me but that’s the republican plan through and through except to just destroy it.

        See- well, anything. But nice try. Last I checked it wasn’t Dems continually cutting taxes for the wealthy and starving the system.

        1. Go buy votes with your own money.

          1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Access To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.DAx Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match……

            Start now……………. VISIT HERE

        2. Yeah. The problem is that the folks that pay the most are paying far less than they should.

          1. The problem is exactly the opposite.

            Progressive taxation isolates voting power from paying for the programs voted for, which has the effect of abolishing democratic spending restraint. Under a flat tax system you’d know that any spending program you favored would directly impact your taxes. Under a progressive tax system, most voters can vote for larger government comfortable in the knowledge that somebody else will be paying for it.

              1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.DWf Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

                Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

          2. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

            So I started……… READ MORE

        3. I don’t recall Medicare taxes being cut for anybody – did I miss something?

  2. Hey, Peter! Are you pleased we no longer have mean tweets?

  3. Can Washington really… “run out of money”?

    1. MMT would say no, you can’t run out of money as long as you can print it yourself.

      1. This is not an MMT thing. Everyone knows that money not backed by a physical asset can be printed until the paper costs too much for the government to get.

        MMT’s novel delusion is the suggestion that you can avoid the downsides of hyper inflation by taxing the money back out of the system.

        1. The delusion is that money is simply printed. It is not. Money is created by making a loan. Which means that money is created at the exact same moment as the repayment schedule for that money. It doesn’t matter one whit (well except for minting coins) whether the initial borrower is private or government. The money is created by a loan and it has to be repaid and the repayment drains that money.

          Hyperinflation is nothing but government deciding it won’t repay the loans it took out on the terms it made when it took those loans out – whether that’s Germany or Argentina or Zimbabwe.

          1. What a terrifying and incoherently state-only view of the inflation rate.

            Hyperinflation doesn’t originate from a sovereign defaulting on their debts, it usually precedes it – it’s likely the largest factor making repayment less likely in such cases.

            1. Hyperinflation has nothing to do with inflation. Hyperinflation is entirely about a currency ceasing to be used as a medium of exchange or unit of account. The cause of that is the government’s de facto default on their debt. The effect is that something (eggs, chickens, silver coins, wheelbarrows, cigarettes, etc) DOES begin to serve as a medium of exchange. But since that new-money does not have anywhere near the sort of exchangeable surplus that the old-currency had, the price of that new-money rockets skyward. The price of stuff expressed in old-currency approaches infinity because no one wants old-currency anymore. They want new-money.

              This is what happens in all hyperinflations. It (the end-game) doesn’t take place immediately because there’s always some element of flimflam re what is actually happening. So there are always some people who will be slow on the uptake (who believe that adding zeroes will make the currency acceptable as a medium of exchange).

          2. What an incoherent mess.

        2. Right:

          “MMT is a big departure from conventional economic theory. It proposes governments that control their own currency can spend freely, as they can always create more money to pay off debts in their own currency.”

          “Increased government spending will not generate inflation as long as there is unused economic capacity or unemployed labor, MMT proposes. It is only when an economy hits physical or natural constraints on its productivity — such as full employment — that inflation happens because that is when supply fails to meet demand, jacking up prices.”

          “MMT proponents argue governments can control inflation by spending less or withdrawing money from the economy through taxes.”

          Any way you serve it, it’s still smoke and mirrors and a house of cards. At least in my humble opinion, but then I took economics when the fundamental rule was that resources are scare and limited, and you cannot have everything you want all the time.

          1. No I agree with you that it is absurd which is why I said it is a delusion. My only point is that governments have known they could print money for over a hundred years. MMT just tries to sell a fiction that you can 1) know when you’ve exceeded supply capacity and 2) you can use taxes to bleed out the extra cash causing demand.

            It fails in so many ways when you think just a layer down that I genuinely believe proponents are being disingenuous as opposed to mistaken when they insist it is sound.

            1. “I genuinely believe proponents are being disingenuous as opposed to mistaken when they insist it is sound.”

              Agree: that is the scam; run it to ground and then exploit the created crisis to nationalize everything.

          2. Then, why is it so popular these days?

            Even on investment forums, where one might believe that most successful investors are well aware of the fallacy of a never ending supply of fiat currency, many trot it out as an argument that we have nothing to worry about as far as inflation goes in the current economic climate.

            1. Why did so many people praise the Emperor’s New Clothes? Same reason.

              You’ve got a large fraction of economists who are effectively working for the government, and will reflexively say anything the government wants said. Most of the rest go along to get along.

        3. Exactly. And if anyone is interested in what the central planners have in store for you, start lurking on proggie economic blogs or Twitter threads. BTW, Land Value taxes are trending (for the past decade on Econ blogs), now Bloomberg pushing into the mainstream etc. In other words…Federal property taxes.

        4. It’s not unique to fiat currencies. The history of devaluing currency is as old as the objects it is made of. Whether you are trading giant stone disks, seashells, gold, pieces of paper, or merely theoretical numbers the sticking point isn’t whether the currency CAN be devalued because the king is in charge of what counts as money and he can always devalue it. You can’t create a system where the king can’t do that. What is needed is a king that won’t do that and a system that chooses such kings more often than it doesn’t.

          1. The Fed is currently the only bulwark against this and god help us all if they get enough MMT acolytes on the board there.

            For everyone who hates the Fed now, at least it’s staffed with people schooled in traditional economic theory…not the fever dreams of Bernie Sanders.

    2. The U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. It cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency. Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

      The article is factually wrong.

      1. In theory, in the last days of a hyperinflation, with all the federal employees gone home because today’s paycheck can’t pay for tomorrow’s breakfast, the Secretary of the Treasury could snag a million dollar bill blowing down the sidewalk, scribble a few more zeros on it, and pay off the national debt. Problem solved!

        There’s no theory so stupid that you can’t find people willing to announce their loyalty to it.

      2. I believe Zimbabwe also printed it’s own currency and failed to adhere to any spending limits.

        1. Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation was caused by de facto defaulting on their foreign debt starting in about 2001. They had a foreign debt load they couldn’t manage anyway. And began to incur debt to pay soldiers to expropriate land by force. Which gutted their exports which violated the terms and repayment schedules of those loans. Then foreigners shut off credit – and Zimbabwe continued to pay soldiers to expropriate land and give it to others without title. Then they tried to pay off an IMF loan with the bullshit money rather than in-kind (which probably wasn’t possible anyway) which led to a total collapse of the Z currency.

      3. The Fit will hit the Shan if and when other nations stop treating the Yankee $ as the world’s reserve currency. See if US Govt bonds will sell as easily, then.

  4. There is no trust fund. So it won’t make any difference when it is empty.

  5. Medicare? Whatever.

    As long as Democratic control in Washington means wealth is rapidly accumulating at the very top — which it absolutely is — I’m not going to complain about other economic issues.


  6. 51% of Americans have $0.00 income tax liability; they aren’t paying for this so why not vote for politicians who promise it to them?

    And as for MCR and other programs being insolvent 5, 6 years down the road; that in health care world is what we call SEP: someone else’s problem. And election.

    Yes, it’s going over the cliff and no one really wants to acknowledge it; I suspect for some that is actually the plan; what better way to extend power and control than to create a crisis?

    1. Doesn’t that tell you that 51% of Americans are too poor to have income tax liability, which is a bigger issue?

      And they do pay other federal and local taxes, FYI, just not income.

      1. I know they pay sales tax; as for being “too poor” as a “bigger issue” that does nothing to address the problem of them voting for professional politicians who will spend all of us into oblivion. That isn’t going to make any of them less poor, only the rest of us too.

        “Once people learn that they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic.”

        1. That’s what Republicans do, vote for massive tax cuts (for the wealthy), with the promise that the tax cuts will magically pay for themselves. BALONEY.

          1. Black vs white. Rich vs poor.

            You’re drinking the government Kool-Aid.

            1. No, he’s already drunk and now he’s here trying to convince others to drink up.

        2. I know they pay sales tax…

          You are also conveniently forgetting the Medicare payroll tax that all people that earn wages or salary pay. Of course, investment income isn’t included in that.

      2. So do the rest of us. So what? That’s beside the point.

      3. I’m glad you agree that the income tax should be sunset.

      4. If they are too poor to pay income taxes, there’s a nearly 100% chance that the vast majority of them suck up more services than their other taxes provide funding for. How much property tax does the typical recipient of government benefits pay? Does the person spending $10-15k a year in food stamps pay the same rate in sales tax? Not all of the 51%, maybe not even a majority of them, are leaches, but it’s extremely disingenuous to blurt out state and local taxes when someone mentions the share of non-contributors at the federal level.

      5. No one is too poor to pay taxes. They are simply poor enough that the taxes, which the democratically elected government which said people created, do not apply to them. It is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

        1. Skin in the game.

          Turn the sheep into wolves!

      6. Medicare is funded by payroll taxes, along with Medicare premiums paid by senior citizens age 65 and older (that sign up for part B and D coverage – which most do). Income taxes don’t fund Medicare.

        What seems very likely is that the Medicare part of payroll taxes is going to increase. Democrats will also probably raise the earnings cap on Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

        1. rotten selfish boomers have bankrupted medicare by getting 30 operations going to the doctor 4 times a week. both knees neck both shoulders both hips all replaced or operated on. guys say 4 times on one shoulder. 3-4 times on their back

          1. It’s not just boomers. And, it’s not just medicare.

            The problem is the corruption of the concept of insurance to where it has become expected to pay, not just for catastrophic health care issues, but ALL health care….on demand.

            That pretty much started back in WWII when wage controls were countered with “tax free” benefits by employers. Like health care insurance. People began to buy the free lunch theory and it morphed into the unsustainable monsters we see today.

        2. “What seems very likely is that the Medicare part of payroll taxes is going to increase.”

          Funny, but raising Medicare taxes has not been proposed by any Democrat and is not currently included in the budget reconciliation plan.

          “Democrats will also probably raise the earnings cap on Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.”

          Doing so would end the fiction that these systems are entirely pay-as-you-go and are not entitlement programs with a novel funding mechanism, something the Democrats are loathe to admit. If you raise the income caps without also raising the benefits cap, it becomes impossible to deny that these are at least in part income transfer mechanisms, and if the Dems raise the benefits cap, increasing the earnings cap will largely be a financial wash. This really isn’t that hard to understand.

      7. Jd,
        It doesn’t mean that. It does mean the a large fraction of Americans had their income in tax free handouts fro, the Federal Government in 2020 and probably in 2021

      8. No!

        Everyone needs skin in the game. Or else, they’re off the team.

      9. No- that would require logic which a lot of these dumbasses are so clearly lacking.

      10. “Too poor to pay taxes” isn’t really a tragedy.

        Too poor to eat? Too poor to sleep in a home? That’s a problem.

      11. “Doesn’t that tell you that 51% of Americans are too poor to have income tax liability, which is a bigger issue?”

        No, it tells us the tax system has been designed to give most voters no incentive to care about spending.

        Deliberately, to make buying their votes easier.

    2. The ignorance in this thread is absolutely astounding. The 47.6%, along w/the 51%, who earn less than congress’s $250K/yr ($174+$76K in benefits) account for only 17% of our nation’s revenue. As mentioned, medicare/medicaid fraud actually steals more than what 98.7% pays – PLUS it requires over 2/3rds of the IRS’s resources to collect this money that is stolen by the those usually in the 1.4%.

      The minimum wage for federal tax filing should be whatever we pay those who work for US. We could establish the minimum tax wage at $400K/yr, the POTUS salary then 98.8% of the nation’s people & small business owners would not have to file or pay federal income taxes. The reason why those earning more than $400K/yr are paying a federal tax is because they have the opportunity to earn more money than the world’s most powerful leader. Moreover, we can actually lower their tax rates if we are smart enough to establish a new method for our nation’s funding.

      A 1% sales & purchase tax on the markets, stocks, corp bonds, options, & commodity futures would produce over 3.5 times our current annual revenues during the Obama years and as much as 7 times what we have collected in the past from income tax system. Whether the market goes up or down, our nation gets paid. We could eventually eliminate federal income tax for the richest among us once our debt is paid. Meantime, we’d have more than enough money to fund whatever social program we wanted.

      Why do we expect everyone to be licensed insurance agents & investment advisers? These are basic necessities of life; the idea that vision, dental, & hearing services are “optional” is a clear indication of just how far our nation’s morality has fallen. The overwhelming majority of Americans, including businesses, would immediately sign-up for a medicare-for-all plan if it was available. Same thing holds true for an expanded version of social security. I know people will cry that that the 1% purchase & 1% sale tax will dry up investments, but if you cashed out < $400K/yr, you'd pay 0 zero taxes, versus your 14-20%. If you wanted/needed your 401K money money, you 1% versus the 20% penalty.

      The overwhelming majority of our nation is not that intelligent enough to wade thru the intricacies of health insurance coverage or financial investing and given they don't earn enough to pay taxes, what makes anyone believe that they'll have the time to figure it out? What's truly ironic is how these people are so willing to buy into the whining of the rich.

  7. My lord, is there nothing these Republicans won’t stoop to to torpedo this popular and well run government program?

    1. I’m going with sarc, here.

      1. Isn’t that Tony’s line?

    2. Medicare overhead is 3%. Private health insurance is 25-30%. Healthcare dollars go much farther via Medicare vs private health insurance.

      1. Wow, so much wrong here.

        Medicare costs far more per person, so the 3% is a misnomer. It also doesn’t include the 10-15% estimate in fraud on the program. It also utilizes the FBI and IRS to collect its payments, so they have no front office billing company to pay for. So really you’re either gaslighting or just ignorant.

        And private health insurance is not 25-30%.

        1. They don’t write the taking pints themselves. You’re confusing him.

        2. Profit margin and overhead costs are not the same thing.

      2. In a communist system, 100% of the healthcare resources go to healthcare, but nobody calls it “efficient”.

        Being so eager to declare victory over so small and unidimensional a datapoint is ridiculous.

        There’s little to no chance that people who actually think like this will be happy with what they get at the end.

  8. Running of money doesn’t mean you can’t expand something. You can be running out of money but then get a second job and expand your home by adding a room with the extra money. In any event, this is the freaking government that has printed $30 trillion dollars in debt. Does the writer have any understanding of how this all works?

    1. Going with stupidity here.

      1. Isn’t that SQRLSY’s line?

    2. I’ve discovered the secret to infinite wealth! I just keep making blank copies of the last check in my checkbook!

      1. Quick! Take out a loan to expand the checkbook!

  9. It is very possible that the HI fund running out of bonds will actually produce the first meaningful reform of entitlements since 1982. And that the best possible ‘alternative’ to a real solution is just to kick the can down the road for one election cycle.

    I would never have imagined back in 1982 that my entire working life would be void of any and all serious discussion of entitlement programs. And yet that is exactly what happened precisely because a ‘big solution’ is what happened in the face of imminent ‘bankruptcy’ of those programs existing funding mechanisms.

    1. It’s also possible that all the air in the room will suddenly end up in one corner of the room, producing a perfect vacuum where you’re standing. I think you’re better advised to get that space suit, than count on this hypothetical reform.

  10. >>When Obamacare passed in 2010, it was designed to expand health insurance coverage in two primary ways

    Barney Frank said out loud it was designed to lead directly to single-payer.

  11. Medicare is super popular. No reason not to expand it to more people. Never made sense why it should only be people of a certain age.

    1. Never made sense why it should only be people of a certain age.

      Other than that being literally the point of it.

      1. And the fact that the whole cost transfer to private insurers would collapse if it was Medicare for all.

  12. There isn’t a Democrat politician alive who actually knows math, much less economics and finance.

    1. Free healthcare
      Free rent
      Free college
      Free checks in the mail…

      We’ve lost our minds and are going to pay dearly.

      1. There’s federal public housing projects in the reconciliations bills diaper.

        BTW, everyone, $26/hour minimum wage is trending mainstream media today!

        1. Wheelbarrows of cash!

    2. Trump ran the highest deficits of any president in modern history and did it while the economy was already booming.

      But please tell us again how you selectively only criticize democrats.

      Yawn. Lame.

  13. Nazism is going broke?!? Well the Nazi’s have the Gov-Guns now so I’m sure we’ll all go broke before they do.

  14. Hardly anyone is taking anything about spending seriously, at the moment, because the Democrats are all in collective delusion mode–at least until the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill is passed.

    If the reconciliation bill isn’t passed before the infrastructure bill comes up for a vote on September 27, it probably won’t be passed at all. Anything that suggests the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill may be excessive, considering other pending budget items, isn’t something Democrats or their fans in the media are supposed to talk about in public. We don’t want to give the kids any ideas.

    I haven’t even heard a peep in the mainstream news about Joe Manchin announcing that he won’t support the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. They’re all just pretending like that isn’t a real thing and that the Green New Deal funding, etc. in the bill is an inevitability. So, reality is on hold until September 27, 2021–at least as far as Congress, the White House, and most of the news media is concerned.

    We can talk about reality after September 27th.


    1. I hope you’re right, but the Democrats have evinced the ability to pull together compromises in their caucus to get enough of what they want to pass major legislation. See Obamacare.

      I won’t consider Manchin agreeing to a proportionally shrunken $2.5t reconciliation bill to be a win, even if the communists whine about it.

      1. I don’t know if you’ve been following the play by play, but as it stands, the Democrats can only lose four votes in the House and still pass the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation deal, and nine moderate House Democrats balked. They forced Pelosi to promise to hold a vote on the infrastructure deal on September 27, 2021–regardless of whether the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill is ready or has been voted on. The only reason they want to vote on the infrastructure bill first is because they want to vote against the budget reconciliation bill.

        Meanwhile, they can’t have any defections in order to get it passed in the Senate, but they have two Democrats senators who are saying they won’t vote for it. Manchin wrote an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal saying he wouldn’t vote for it because he’s concerned about inflation, etc. What he, and the moderate House Democrats, are really concerned about is losing their seats.

        West Virginia went as hard for Trump as Wyoming, and I don’t think, if you’re Manchin, that you go on the record like that against something and then turn around and vote for it. There are still coal interests in West Virginia. They do not want the Green New Deal, and they will not forget or forgive. He’s a statewide Democrat in one of the two reddest states in the country. I don’t think it’s about this part of it or that part of it to him. He’s just against that deal, and he’s on the record for it.

        Anyway, I’m not predicting that the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill won’t pass (at least not yet) but it’s a lot less likely to pass now than it was a few weeks ago. The most likely scenario, now, is that the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal passes in the House and Senate, and the $3.5 trillion Green New Deal and social spending bill gets pared back. Regardless, if the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal passes on September 27 without a vote on the $3.5 trillion bill, the $3.5 trillion bill will be dead or dying. We won’t know it’s over until it’s over, but the fat lady sings on September 27.

    2. What you are describing, I believe, is political surreality. The immediate and for the most part long term concern of career politicians is that they stay in office; in order to do so they grant their particular part of the proletariat what they want and give voice to their beliefs and aspirations. At least through the upcoming election cycle.

      This has nothing to do with reality, in the sense that we are racing toward a fiscal cliff with dire consequences; they can simply pretend that it doesn’t exist, and as long as they are in line with the beliefs and goals of MSM, will not be called out for it in any meaningful way.

      So at what point does the unclothed emperor appear as actually naked; that the 800# gorilla can no longer be ignored? When they have no choice and catastrophe is upon us; then the crisis itself will serve as a catalyst to more power and draconian measures.

    3. I’m old enough to remember when there was this thingy called the “debt ceiling”. It was an illusion (a ceiling that keeps going higher and higher into the sky with no limit could hardly be called a “ceiling”) but at least people talked about it as if it mattered.

      No more, it seems.

      1. The vote on the debt ceiling is coming up, and the Republicans are saying they won’t budge.

        We’ll see.

        1. Defaulting on treasury debt isn’t the solution to any of our problems.

          1. Notice that you don’t even give passing thought to just not increasing borrowing, instead.

            1. Oh, sure I do.

              Not at the cost of raising taxes I don’t.

            2. Oh, and the Republicans are likely to do whatever they’re likely to do regardless of whether I want them to do it.

          2. You’re going to keep your Team Red bona fides talking like that.

      2. Hey, I still remember Remy’s “Raise the Debt Ceiling” rap. Good song/video.

    4. The Democrats in productive taxpaying districts NEED the Democrats in unproductive districts for Federal votes =media silence.

      1. The media is in the service of the state at this point.

        They don’t want to get in the way of Green New Deal spending, so they’ll keep quiet about it–unless it fails.

    5. “Can we talk about reality after September 27th”
      If BR passes reality is the dekulakizaton of the United States.
      If BR does not pass, the white supremacy republicans and any independent voter will continue to be labeled domestic terrorists and a threat to all life on planet earth.

      BTW, Biden’s not gonna make it for the term, pull up his (speech?) yesterday on the northeast floods, he’s sinking fast. POTUS Harris. I think the markets and our allies are finally a little um, worried, about the incompetence of this administration.
      Ms. NY just banned ALL gas powered vehicles by 2035.

  15. Whoever could have predicted there is no limit to what Dem believe government should control. Besides anyone who listens to them I mean.

  16. I don’t think this is possible medicare runs out of money!!

    1. Makes you wonder why they just don’t print enough money to buy everything and redistribute it all.
      Hmmm. I wonder….

  17. Let it fail. Then don’t replace it.

    1. And what are all of the seniors that tend to vote Republican going to do for health insurance if that happens?

  18. It’s clear what the Democrat’s goal is. They are deliberately saddling Medicare with as many expenses as possible hoping that it goes bankrupt. As soon as it’s crunch time they will claim that the only way to make it whole is to divert private insurance money into Medicare thus creating a government run healthcare system encompassing everyone.

    1. Saw a t shirt the other day: “If you let the government break the law during a crisis, they will create a crisis to break the law.”

      IOW, what you just said.

    2. I’m all for this. Given the spectacular job the government, and particularly Biden, did handling the exodus from Afghanistan we should be expecting great things from a single payer system.

    3. Likewise, I’m wondering when they’ll clean out everybody’s pension plan and 401k to “save” Social Security.

      1. This has been my deep dread for the past few years now. I’m getting sort of close to retirement age, and I fear my saving will be confiscated to give away to social justice baristas or whatever scheme the government deems best. Shame on me for saving. Shame on me for existing.

        Bush could have stopped it, he didn’t. Trump could have stopped it, he didn’t. If there’s one thing Republicans know how to do is how to let Democrats have their way.

    4. Single payer they’ll tell you. It works all over the world. Except the backwards U.S. just hasn’t adopted it yet.

      Don’t any of you ever spend anytime on Quora? I’ve never seen so many citizens of other first world countries spout anti-U.S. rhetoric about 1) The lack of gun bans and 2) government run health care.

      This is bigger than progs, Dems and other U.S. liberals. The whole stupid world believes that capitalism and profits are bad, and that the best answer is wealth redistribution via government force.

      We just need a damn good war to shake this up. And, a wise statesman on the level of Churchill to rise up and prosecute it.

      1. Don’t any of you ever spend anytime on Quora?

        No. Just like Wikipedia and a couple other places around the internet, they were an content-rich curiosity for about 15 min. Then they turned into what you suggest, a cesspool for foreigners to agree with bots programmed to undermine individual liberty.

        Then their distinction from someplace like Wikipedia was the incessant repeating of the same stupid questions and false assumptions from the next foreigner to discover Quora that, seemingly, can’t use a search function.

        As bad as Twitter is, Quora quickly grew into the web version of a two yr. old with ADD.

        1. the next foreigner to discover Quora *and*, seemingly, can’t use a search function.

  19. Democrats: impoverishing generations of Americans for fleeting political power.

  20. Money for nothing and your chicks for free!

    1. But virtually everyone has microwave ovens now.

  21. Reason doesn’t realize the Democrats have never met a problem or government program they could not print the money to solve.

  22. Old people- who needs’em- just a deadweight cost to the economy– right?

  23. Whatever Medicare costs, private health insurance costs more, if for no other reason than the profit motive, (which has no business being part of Healthcare, just like police, fire, etc).

    1. Yes why should hospitals, doctors offices and insurance companies run in the black, they should run in the Red like government ran programs, no one needs to make a living, they should just work for free. That would solve everything. And private fire departments do exist and the data is they are just as effective, if not more effective, as publicly ran fire departments, generally at lower costs. Some private police forces exist as well and a number of small and medium sized towns rely on them with little to no complaints.

      1. In fact for most of the history of the US private fire companies were the majority of fire departments and it wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that public fire departments began to replace private fire companies in the larger urban areas. As it is the majority of fire departments in the US remain volunteer departments, ordinary citizens who donated their time with most of the funding for the departments not coming from the public coffers but from private donations or short term contracts. This latter revenue comes from large disasters that local and state governments contract small volunteer departments to provide services during. Go to any wild fire and the majority of the people working the lines are from volunteer fire departments or private fire crews contracted to battle the blaze. These volunteer departments are usually pretty good at the jobs. On Monday, we had a wild land fire break out in a nearby town, the surrounding volunteer departments all sent crews. Despite 40 mph wind gusts and sustained winds in the 20s, an 18+ month long drought, 90 degree temperatures, and 20% humidity they managed to knock it down quickly (under 3 hours), and despite the conditions persisting through the next 24 hrs it didn’t flair back up again. To summarize, on Labor day the local volunteer departments managed to put together enough crews to fight a wild land fire in very poor conditions for firefighting and knocked it down enough that it didn’t flair back up despite continuing Stage 4 red alert fire conditions.

        1. Also is MG, jrlevine and Bill-NM socks? Because they’re posts are almost identical and all in a row, and all answered with the same rebuttals (that of them seem to read).

      2. Some private police forces exist as well and a number of small and medium sized towns rely on them with little to no complaints.

        I’ve mentioned it before (and other people have mentioned other statistics) and I’ll mention it again: when the FBI started reporting on mass shooting incidents, civilians at the scene were responsible for ending the majority of them. I’m not entirely convinced that the criteria for mass shootings wasn’t expanded specifically to obfuscate this fact.

        Even at that, mass shootings ended by civilians at the scene are an order of magnitude less deadly than those ended by police, regardless of whether the civilians are armed or not.

        Moreover, approximately zero Geroge Floyds have been killed by civilians involved in stopping mass shootings. No word on how many innocent bystanding dogs have been killed.

    2. Also medicare is only cheaper because it pays far less, and the hospitals and doctors make up the loss by charging more to private insurance and private pay patients, ergo Medicare is only cheap because it relies on private companies to make up the shortfalls. If you factor in FICA taxes and the surcharge we all pay in our private insurance to make up the medicare and medicaid shortfalls, Medicare is actually more expensive, it is just hidden costs.

      1. And not to mention that entitlement spending is more than all of the rest of government expenditures combined and the largest major contributing factor to national debt, which we all pay for through decreased purchasing power.

    3. The profits of private health insurers are grossly exagerrated by selective use of large numbers or, percentages. Whichever supports the anti case.

      A large number of health insurance companies are mutual. i.e. non-profits. Kaiser is the largest health plan in CA for instance.

      So, there’s that.

  24. Healthcare in countries like Canada and France costs a lot less than it does here, has a lot more government control, and their citizens live longer than we do. What do they know that we don’t?

    1. Life expectancy is a poor measurement of healthcare, because factors such as auto accidents, crime, drug use, alcohol use, industrial accidents etc all impact it. If adjusted for these non-health related causes of death the US life expectancy is similar or better than the countries you refer to. The countries you refer to also ration care in order to reduce costs and have worse outcomes in actual health related items such as cancer, heart disease etc. In fact many Canadians come to the US and pay out of pocket for cancer care they’re denied in Canada. Wealthier Brits fly to for profit hospitals in Spain to receive cancer treatments they’re denied in Britain. It’s the nasty little secret of socialized healthcare, those who can afford it go to private organizations for healthcare, while the middle and lower class die because care was denied them and they can’t afford to pay for private care. Like all of socialism, the wealthy get wealthier, and live better lives while the middle and lower class end up with a substandard product. But because it’s “free” (don’t look at the effective tax rates in most European countries and Canada if you label it free) the masses are convinced it is a good product until they get screwed over, and the money runs out or you are told that your cancer will not be treated and you are just expected to die to save a few bucks. How do the Europeans do it? The same way our VA does, delayed care, denied care, acute fixes for chronic problems (i.e. short term fixes for long term problems), waiting lists, bureaucrats making decisions rather than doctors etc. If you want to know how socialized healthcare works anywhere in the world, join the military, and when you get out use the VA health care system. As a veteran who is heavily involved in veteran organizations I’ve never once met anyone happy with the VA. They’re happy with the price, but bitch constantly about the care they receive (or often don’t receive).

      1. Life expectancy is a poor measurement of healthcare, because factors such as auto accidents, crime, drug use, alcohol use, industrial accidents etc all impact it.

        There’s also the same sloppiness of definitions, false correlations, and non-sequiturs that are pervasive in the system that make a single-statistic summation completely inappropriate. It makes an apples to oranges comparison exceedingly simple and straightforward. Seriously, imagine doing comparative impact analysis of ‘with COVID’ vs. ‘of COVID’ between a country that’s 10% black, 73% white and one that’s 2% black, 31% Canadian.

        You might as well point out that Canada’s only got 14 CT scanners per million people, putting them between Turkey and Russia and conclude that Canada’s healthcare is on par with Turkey or Russia’s and, thus, vastly inferior to the US’s 44 CT scanners per million people.

  25. What do they know that we don’t?

    Rationing works there because loyalty to leftist governments means pretending it doesn’t exist.

    1. More succinct than my explanation.

    2. You forgot high effective tax rates for every segment of the population, including high sales taxes that impact the middle class and lower class the most.

      1. VAT taxes.

        1. Yeah, the Europeans make no secret that high taxes are required to support their system and even then they try and hide exactly how high those taxes are. The US progressives on the other hand try to hide the fact that these programs come with huge taxation, by using the myth that only the rich will have to pay. I can see why Biden isn’t worried about how much richer they upper class is becoming under his administration, because he is going to need them to become a hell of a lot more rich in order to pay for all the programs he is proposing that they pay for.

  26. And yet somehow every other country manages to spend less money to provide everyone with health care.

    1. So MOVE to ‘every other’ country then….
      In the USA the purpose of armed theft doesn’t include healthcare resources.

      1. Hell according to the Constitution, about 90% of the government isn’t allowed to be paid for by theft. The Constitution lays out very few, distinct powers of the government, such as postal service, national defense, maintaining federal courts, international relations, settling disputes between states and a few others. Anything not covered by these powers really shouldn’t be funded by federal taxes, rather income tax or tariffs.
        And when the Constitution was ratified the extent of postal service was the appointment of postmasters who contracted with private entities to deliver mail and maintain postal routes and roads. And the military was a small cadre of professional soldiers and sailors who would be supplemented by large state funded militias and privately funded militias and warships when needed. Try today to raise a privately funded militia or purchase and man a privately funded warship and see what happens to you (the last time this happened was in the Spanish American war with the 1st volunteer calvary or Rough Riders, Teddy Roosevelt tried to raise a similar infantry unit during the First World War and Wilson refused it, setting the modern precedence).

    2. In the words of Bill Clinton, that depends. It depends on what you mean by “provide”?

      The U.S. consumption of health care is much greater. The only item that rations it is individual cost. In those countries with socialized medicine, they ration health care through committee. People can’t get all they want.

    3. See my above analysis of this myth.

    4. It’s so simplistic it must be true!

      1. Yeah it’s the same myth since 1994, with the same rebuttals that they never listen to work nice 1994.

    5. Also is MG, jrlevine and Bill-NM socks? Because they’re posts are almost identical and all in a row, and all answered with the same rebuttals (that of them seem to read).

      1. *That none of them seem to read

  27. If they ever paid back to SS and Medicare what they borrowed from them over the years with interest, both would be self thriving

    1. No, no they wouldn’t, SS was always a Ponzi scheme as is Medicare and Medicaid. All the burrowing did was move forward the time in which they became insolvent. The Baby Boom actually helped keep SS solvent longer than it would have been, but the smaller Gen X population plus decreasing birth rates of Gen X, Millennials and now Gen Z would have doomed solvency even without burrowing.

      1. In other words Entitlement programs were created with the idea that birth rates and childhood survival would continue to grow and continue to fund these programs mainly utilized by smaller non-working populations supported by larger and increasing working populations. Once this dynamic started to fall apart in the late 1960s the writing was on the walls. Once this dynamic changed, the only options eventually would have been to cut benefits borrow and or increase FICA taxes. All of these have been used the extend solvency since the late 1970s, burrowing against Entitlements just increased the rate of insolvency.
        It should be noted these were the very arguments used by opponents of Social Security in the 1930s and again by opponents of Medicare and Medicaid in the early 1960s. The writing was on the wall even before these programs were enacted.
        Also, expansion of these programs to cover more of the population starting in the 1990s also sped up insolvency and likely would have even without burrowing against them. Like most social programs the world over, US entitlements were only realistic until they ran out of other people’s money and that was almost always guaranteed to happen as soon as birth rates began decreasing in the 1960s.

  28. Progressives are oriented to the world in terms of democratic coalitions. As such, their thinking needs to be really, really simplistic. Otherwise, the complexity becomes too difficult to sloganize, and too large for simple minds to grasp.

    “Let’s just do Medicare for all!” is very simplistic. You can get a large number of simple-minded people to commit to that, because it require practically no real understanding.

    Market reforms? Not so much. That’s complicated. Sure, the world’s complicated, but try building a single-minded political herd out of that.

    1. Medicare for All is indeed a slogan, and many young progressives are in the Bernie cult and are on a mission to vindicate him. They don’t even get that Medicare for All is far from an ideal universal coverage system. But they were not wrong to think that it was a good slogan. People like Medicare. Even Trumpers. Most of them are paying their final medical expenses with it as we speak.

      Now you explain how it’s possible to deliver affordable whole-person healthcare to everyone in America with “market reforms.”

      1. End state and federal regulations that require a standard of care and let people buy a la carte plans. Reduce or eliminate regulations that drive up hospital care. Eliminate medicare and medicaid that pays pennies on the dollar forcing providers to make up losses by charging more to private insurers and payers. End government regulations that favor employee based plans and allow individuals to shop for their care. Tort reform, user pays system. Reform and reduce the FDA to drive down drug costs and medical equipment costs, most of which is highly inflated because of extra regulations and bureaucratic costs. Basically undo everything the government has done to regulate medical care since the 1930s.

        1. You know actual free Enterprise as opposed to modern neo corporatism (which is closer to fascism than capitalism) and government managed Enterprise.

          1. Or in even simpler terms cut out the government middle man and allow people to make their own choices of care and insurance.

            1. What if I’m 95 and poor. Which choices are available to me? Go find a job as a corporate VP so I can afford it, like a good capitalist?

              1. How about saving all your life for retirement and not relying on big daddy government to keep you alive? Or maybe relying on charity and family to help out? Gee that is what people did before big daddy government decided to help out.

                1. And what if I don’t or can’t save enough money for unpredictable medical expenses? Am I supposed to predict when I get cancer?

              2. “Now you explain how it’s possible to deliver affordable whole-person healthcare…”

                The answer is in everything BUT Nazi-healthcare.

                Try these items on for size —
                1. Now you explain how it’s possible to deliver affordable food.
                2. Now you explain how it’s possible to deliver affordable power.
                3. Now you explain how it’s possible to deliver affordable clothes.

                Notice how after FHA, FLPMA, etc, etc… Shelter is starting to look just like Healthcare. The only TRUE monopoly in the USA is Government Monopoly. And the expected effects are as bright as the sun. Back in the horse and wagon era (before Gov-Gun Monopolization) local doctors would treat residents at their house for the price of a pizza. Heck today’s DENTISTRY (which hasn’t been Nazified) is a today’s perfect example.

                Throw in CA “green-energy” Gov-Monopolizing effects. Power in CA is not the 3rd highest most expensive in the Nation only out priced by isolated islands.

        2. “let people buy a la carte plans”

          Ah, so when some old person on a small fixed income, or a disabled person who can’t work, or a poor person who has no money can all just fuck off and die in the street. We invented Medicare for a reason. People were tired of seeing their parents die in misery and poverty, or otherwise they were tired of spending their life savings on their parents’ healthcare costs.

          All that other stuff is a rounding error.

          1. We invented Medicare for a reason. People were tired of seeing their parents die in misery and poverty, or otherwise they were tired of spending their life savings on their parents’ healthcare costs.

            Per your own statements below, you don’t actually care whether other peoples’ parents die in the streets as long as you can exploit other peoples’ morals for your own ends.

          2. Actually, they didn’t die in the streets. In fact most received care from charitable organizations and family and also saved to cover expenses after retirement. This all changed once Big Daddy government decided to get involved. Like many of your myths it is a myth that people died in th streets before Medicare and Medicaid. Catholic and Lutheran charities and other church groups have been running charitable hospitals for centuries. In fact some of the largest hospitals in the nation are still ran by these organizations.

            1. Medicare and Medicaid were created because the government convinced people that rather than take personal responsibility, give to charities and take care of family, the government would do it for “free”. It had nothing to do with “People were tired of seeing their parents die in misery and poverty” because that rarely ever actually happened. Of course it wasn’t for free and it wasn’t sustainable. And the biggest reason Medicare and Medicaid were created was so the Democrats could obtain more power over the people. That is the purpose of any entitlement to give government more control over people’s lives.

              1. ^THIS.. Any *EXCUSE* to steal more… Doesn’t have to be true or a real scenario.

          3. People were tired of seeing their parents die in misery and poverty..

            At the very core the ‘facts’ are this.
            Gov-Gun-Forces DOES NOT create wealth. It steals it.. Causing MORE misery and poverty.

            Nothing amplified that principle than the 1913 Federal Reserve Act leading into the Great Depression for 12-Years trailed by National Socialism and the Great Recession. What will come next?

            ONLY Value = Wealth.

      2. ‘Now you explain how it’s possible to deliver affordable whole-person healthcare to everyone in America with “market reforms.”’

        Why would I want to do that? Is it a given that every person in America deserves health care for life? I’m sorry, but I’ve met a lot of them, and some of them are complete assholes.

        Telling everyone in America you’ll buy them all the healthcare they ever want no matter how much it costs gives healthcare providers license to charge as much money as they want. At that point, the “efficiency” of a healthcare system as measured by % dollars going to medicine doesn’t really matter as the whole dollar cost skyrockets. At that point, you have no price control mechanism and run headlong into the socialist economic calculation problem, which they never solved, to the detriment of millions of people in the 20th century subject to their economic experiments. Then comes the price controls, with the shortages and surpluses, and economic backwardness ensues.

        Market based medicine would be cheaper, and if someone wants me to take care of them, they have to ask nicely. Win-win.

  29. US fiscal policy has been divorced from reality for a very long time now. Things are too bad for the situation to be salvaged — all the people in charge are greedy, short-sighted sociopaths, or idiots. We’re just going to have to wait until it all burns down.

  30. Many of you have a funny idea about how government spending and healthcare work. Here are some representative complaints:

    Medicare is gonna run out of money!!
    Medicare is being stolen from!

    Now, the amount of money the government has available to spend on Medicare (or highways, or wars, or dildos on Mars, or tax cuts) is infinity dollars. Congress spends all the money Congress wants to spend, and some functionary fires up the money printer.

    Don’t worry about the money. It’s entirely a political question what we collectively pay for. Nobody’s going to run out of money, and nothing is going to default. When you print all the money, there is no such thing as a shortfall or debt. Got it? You’re limited only by the laws of physics themselves.

    The real resources we’re talking about are the doctors and hospital beds and medications. The resource question is entirely a capacity question.

    We all accept, for the sake of argument at least, that the US has the capacity to deliver modern healthcare to everyone. At any rate, we (as biological creatures with knowledge of our eventual death) are willing to devote a significant proportion of our economic capacity to healthcare, whether the mechanism is private or public.

    If you don’t believe we have that capacity, you get to explain which groups of people deserve to go without. In a free market, presumably that would be the poor and uninsurable.

    If you do, then you can’t escape some public subsidy, especially for the old, because a free market simply won’t have any incentive to reach everyone.

    And then we simply check whether the private alternative isn’t squandering huge amounts of our capacity on overhead and boner pills. These analyses have been done, and if we want the government printing less money to pay for doctors and pharmaceuticals, we should probably just ditch the private sector nonsense.

    1. It’s entirely a political question what we collectively pay for.

      I thought it was a moral question about old ladies dying of poverty in the street. If it’s a political question then why do you suddenly disregard the moral primacy of old ladies dying of poverty in the street? If it’s a moral question, why do you say it’s a political question?

      One might, rather incontrovertibly, infer that you don’t really care about old ladies dying of poverty in the street as long as you get to decide which old ladies do so.

      1. All political questions are moral questions, silly.

        1. Glad to see that you don’t disagree with my assessment.

    2. And in a socialized medicine system, care is rationed, and it is still the poor who end up dying in the streets because care was denied, while the rich fly off to Spain and get private care.
      And you ignore that in a free market charity exists and before Medicare and Medicaid most of the care provided for the poor was by charitable organizations and people weren’t dying in the streets. However, in socialized Europe people do die at a higher rate of cancer and heart disease than they do in the US because healthcare is rationed in a much stricter fashion when the government controls it rather than the market.

      1. You’re claiming that we don’t have enough capacity then. So then it’s just a matter of who rations, and what the rationing mechanism is (Congress or profit motive). The market doesn’t create more capacity out of thin air. See: laws of physics.

    3. I normally ignore you, but I’ll bite on this one.
      If we don’t need to “worry about the money” and “some functionary fires up the money printer”, then why bother collecting taxes at all?
      Let me keep all my hard earned money and just print more to pay for Medicare and social security.

      1. “keep all my hard earned value”…. The point Tony and other miss. Money isn’t statically tied to any Value or Resources.

        1. 90-Years ago —
          The price of Gasoline was $0.12 to $0.21/gallon.
          The price of a house was $6,000
          The price of a car was $500
          Average Rent $15/month

          The *Value* of Someone’s Labor in 1931 has been “printed” by fiat theft away into only having 1/100th the Value today. 99% of the labor was STOLEN by ‘printing’ fiat.

      2. It’s the logical conclusion to the premise under which the current system operates. Taxes would seem superfluous.

      3. Good question. Taxes are necessary to establish the monopoly of the particular currency and, as a means to achieving policy ends, redistributing wealth.

    4. Correction —
      Many of you have a funny idea about how government enslavement works.

      That’s more to the point than any insubstantial ‘Big Plans’ success rate. If it is a real success it doesn’t need enslavement. History 101.

    5. We all accept, for the sake of argument at least, that the US has the capacity to deliver modern healthcare to everyone…

      Not according to COVID policy it doesn’t.

  31. Shorter article: “Democrats want to spend too much public money on health care.”

    So what is the right amount of public money to spend on health care? What is the right way to set up a system to distribute that money? “The free market will take care of everything” isn’t a solution, it is just what conservatives and libertarians say when they don’t actually have a solution.

    1. Solution…
      Correcting blind-thinking, “So what is the right amount to STEAL by armed robbery on health care?” ……. “Um.. The actual bill + 800% extra for goodies along the way.”, says every National Socialist Politician.

  32. Don’t worry about the money, just print more. Woohoo everything is free.

    1. What about the paper? It can’t be entirely free…. 🙂

      1. What’s really sad and scary is that the penny is ALREADY there.
        There is more value in the penny than the penny is worth in money.

  33. I know the medicare is very expensive here, but i am using an online pharmacy for my prescription i.e

  34. While all that has been said is true only the Democrats have put ideas on the table. After years of Repeal and Replace Republicans came up with nothing. Many of the Republican states that rejected Medicaid expansion pay more to cover there poor and disabled just to stick it to Obama. There are plenty of Republicans on Medicare system and have no intentions of getting off of the program.

    We need to address health care and the cost of health care but that can only be done with dialogue and compromise. Democrats wanting to spend more and Republican sitting on the sidelines will not address the problem.

    1. My Republican’s who rejected Medicaid expansion and also did some de-regulation as much as the State could caused healthcare prices to plummet… My last emergency healthcare visit cost $50. So take that and stuff it up your Gov-God worshiping pipe and smoke it.

      Oh what’s this on the news? Democratic solutions looks like Tent-Cities of poverty, crime and poop on the streets.. Great ‘Big Plans’ – so great you can keep them to yourselves.

  35. Allowing illegal immigrants & Afghans into America means more for them & less for Americans. How about government being concerned about Americans?

    America needs to repeal its outdated refugee laws. It can no longer afford to take in the world’s poor just because there’s oppression where they live. There’s oppression in nearly every country in the world.

    1. People always say this is a problem. It has never been a problem. And the Afghan refugees are ones we owe a sort of moral debt to, don’t you think, what with them risking their lives to aid our occupation?

  36. Democrats don’t care how much we spend or borrow and the Republicans are not far behind them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.