MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

With an Erroneous Tweet, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Inadvertently Reveals That Medicare-for-All Proponents Still Don't Have a Plan

Americans don't support single payer. They support Medicare for All, which is just a meaningless catchphrase.

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) tweeted this week that two thirds of the cost of Medicare for All could be offset by cutting $21 trillion in Pentagon spending wasted on accounting mistakes:

Not only was she wrong, but she was wrong in a way that shows how even the most prominent and influential proponents of single payer are still disconnected from the realities of budgeting policy and politics.

CARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS/NewscomCARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS/NewscomArguably the biggest question dogging proponents of Medicare for All is how to pay for it. A recent study by the Mercatus Institute found that the single payer plan drawn up by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would cost more than $32 trillion over a decade, requiring implausibly large reductions in payments to medical providers as well as enormous tax hikes—more than doubling all corporate and individual income tax rates.

Even if you think the economy could withstand such a large and rapid shift of resources from the private to the public sector, an assumption I don't share, the politics make such a transition effectively impossible. Sanders' left-leaning home state of Vermont couldn't stomach the tax hikes required to implement a state-based single-payer system. It's even harder to imagine a majority of the rest of the country supporting a plan like this. The dual questions of how to pay for it and how to build political support for whatever pay-for is settled on represent a substantial practical challenge to any single-payer campaign. With her tweet, Ocasio-Cortez was attempting to respond to this challenge.

One might charitably describe her response as an error predicated on a misunderstanding. The report she referenced, from an article in The Nation, looked at 18 years of Pentagon budgets; Medicare for All would cost about $32 trillion over 10 years. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. will spend about $7 trillion on the military over the next decade, so eliminating all Pentagon spending—an unrealistic goal even if you believe that the military budget is far too large—wouldn't even free up a quarter of the necessary funds. In addition, the article she cited doesn't actually say there's $21 trillion that could be diverted to something other than Pentagon spending. It found that defense dollars are being tracked and shifted around in dubious ways, with the same dollar sometimes accounted for multiple times. The money she wants to spend doesn't even exist.

As mistakes go, this is embarrassing but in some ways excusable. Legislators, especially new ones, are typically not policy wonks. They leave the policy details to the experts and then sell the big picture.

And therein lies the real problem for Medicare for All. Right now, there are no details. It's all big picture.

It's not just that there's no consensus about which plan to use or some squabbles about granular details. It's that there's no plan at all. Despite the uptick in support for Medicare for All among prominent Democratic politicians, no one has yet laid out a clear way to pay for the program. As Matthew Yglesias recently noted at Vox, given the increased salience of Medicare for All in Democratic politics, it's rather striking how little progress has been made toward developing a clear and relatively detailed policy proposal to back up the idea.

The closest thing supporters have to an answer right now is an argument that there's no particular need to worry about how to pay for it, because, between public and private payers, America already spends so much on health care that a single payer system would be easy to afford; in fact, they say, single payer would reduce America's total health care spending by about $2 trillion.

That argument assumes large reductions in payments to doctors and other health care providers, and that's not a great assumption, given both the heavy resistance from medical professionals and Congress' long history of refusing to slash provider payments. But even if you accept it, you'd still need a financing mechanism to redirect dollars from where they currently are in the private sector to the public sector. Some sort of tax would need to be put in place, and that tax would almost certainly hit a large number of people, likely including quite a few in the middle class. Until someone lists the combination of taxes and/or spending reductions that would be required to finance the system, single-payer advocates cannot credibly be said to have a plan.

But there's a bigger issue, which in some ways is even more telling: It's not always clear what Medicare for All means. Much of the time, as with the Sanders plan, it's a euphemism for single-payer health care. But often it appears to be an empty slogan for some sort of yet-to-be-defined expansion of the government's role in providing health coverage—which is to say, something other than single-payer.

Part of the recent enthusiasm for Medicare for All has come from polls showing that the idea is increasingly popular. But polls showing that a majority of Americans support Medicare for All also show that support drops below a majority when it is described as single-payer. Americans, in other words, don't support single payer. They support Medicare for All, which...isn't actually a plan. It's an empty catchphrase symbolizing more government support.

So it shouldn't really be a surprise that Rep. Frank Pallone (D–N.J.), a single-payer supporter who is set to sit atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee, recently admitted that the votes don't exist to pass single payer. Some Democratic lawmakers are attempting to shift the focus to merely expanding Medicare as it exists now, by letting anyone 50 or over buy in.

But even that idea reveals some of the internal conflicts on the left when it comes to health care: Sanders, arguably the leader of the Medicare for All movement, recently said he won't support Medicare buy-in legislation. For Medicare for All backers, it's all or nothing—but lacking financing details or any public consensus about what the phrase even means, it's hard to say what "all" is.

The biggest takeaway from Ocasio-Cortez's tweet, then, isn't that a single legislator made an error, or even that single-payer proponents continue to have a considerable budget-math problem, although they do. It's that Medicare for All backers still face the fundamental challenge of defining and building support for a plan that doesn't yet exist. Until and unless that happens, Medicare for All will remain little more than a slogan advertising a fantasy of costless, frictionless government intervention.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    I hope actually serving takes away from her keyboard warrior time. Ah, who are we kidding? She probably has a self-righteous intern in the ranks, waiting to let their self-righteous flag fly.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I hope actually serving takes away from her keyboard warrior time.

    I don't. The more she tweets out idiotic shit like this, the more she reveals herself to be a complete moron. Also, I shudder to think what her idea of "serving" looks like.

  • Paloma||

    I can guarantee you she's not one bit embarrassed.

  • ThomasD||

    What's to be worried when the Sudermans of the world will politely minimize (if not flat ignore) your frankly idiotic pronouncements?

    Erroneous my Ass.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Embarrassment requires at least some degree of awareness.

    That, she does not have.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    That's part of the job now. How else are you going to get a seat on the committee of your choice if you aren't generating outrage and bringing in those sweet fundraising dollars for the most important election in the history of the universe.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Did she manage to find an apartment to rent yet?

    Or is she maybe couch-surfing at Sen. Menendez's place? (It would be totally safe to crash there because she's like 20 years too old for him.)

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    It will probably have the same effect on her as it has had on Trump.

  • ||

    "Hey Grandma, you know your health care program that you love so much? We want to expand it to include the slacker that keeps stealing the newspaper from your porch."

    GOP should take a page from the Progressive Playbook and tell the old people that their Medicare is under attack.

  • BYODB||


    GOP should take a page from the Progressive Playbook and tell the old people that their Medicare is under attack.

    That is exactly what Trump did.

  • JFree||

    As did the Tea Party - Remember get your government hands off my Medicare?

  • Brandybuck||

    Yes, that was the beginning of the end for the Tea Party. They started out for reducing spending, but then quickly morphed into "cut their entirelments, not my entitlements" and it become clear that it was yet another special interest group wanting more money.

  • BYODB||

    Is this before or after it was taken over by Republicans? No matter, it's hardly a unique aspect to any group that when the government is empowered to create winners and losers that only a fool sits idly by.

  • Echo Chamber||

    needz mur alt text

  • Dillinger||

    "Si, estas gafas me hacen ver como mi abuela!"

  • Eric Bana||

    I thought the same thing about that picture of her.

  • Dillinger||

    like she tries to take bad pics

  • Matthew Chalice||

    I enjoy Greenwald's work on foreign policy and mass surveillance, but I don't think AOC has trans-partisan or trans-ideological appeal.

  • Rock Lobster||

    What do you mean? All the trannies love her!

    Free penectomies (or phalloplasty, as applicable) for all!

  • Bowerick Wowbagger||

    The next economically literate thing out of this gal's mouth will be the first economically literate thing out of her mouth

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Like Trump, she's evidence of the fact that it is one thing to run on incendiary rhetoric and quite another to govern trying to put that rhetoric into practice.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Let the dum-dum sink her own ship.

    I love the internet since you can quickly pull up past statements by politicians or spread their stupid statements around the World.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    loveconstitution1789|12.6.18 @ 12:00PM|#

    Trump's gonna get reelected and nominate a new justice to replace RBG.

    Gonna be sweet!
  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    loveconstitution1789|12.6.18 @ 11:56AM|#

    Thanks Trump for trying to negotiate lower trade restrictions for the USA
  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    loveconstitution1789|12.6.18 @ 12:55PM|#

    Trump is doing so well, that hordes of trolls are sent each day to sabotage discussions about his pros.

    Proof is in the pudding and Lefties are kicking and screaming to get out of the pudding that Trump got them to climb into. What morons
  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    loveconstitution1789|12.6.18 @ 9:34AM|#

    Trolls wont DO work but DEMAND work.
  • Ioveconstitution1789||

    Nice of you to crawl out of your hole and show how much you care about my posts. In contrast I don't even know who you are.

    But I do know you're sad!

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Ioveconstitution1789|12.6.18 @ 2:31PM|#

    Nice of you to crawl out of your hole and show how much you care about my posts. In contrast I don't even know who you are.

    But I do know you're sad!
  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    loveconstitution1789|12.3.18 @ 10:20AM|#

    Do you need me to link the rules of NAFTA and USCMA so you can compare and contrast the "worseness" for us?


    Keep on Keeping Your Promises.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look at the cute trolls and their sad.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Mister Alphanet there continually tells me that we conquered Kuwait in 1991. Taking them away from their Iraqi friends and occupying them as a conquering force. Even though I was there and both history and I remember this in a cool,Evelyn different way.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I agree great statements that I make since I am not a politician.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Yeah, why should anyone believe those lefties at the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn, don't you have a morphine drip to turn up to 11?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Whining about "those lefties at the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg." (smirk)

  • Ken Shultz||

    "$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions "could not be traced, documented, or explained."

    $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T."

    I'd rather think she was being deliberately malicious rather than profoundly stupid. That would mean the world still makes sense. I can understand people deliberately misleading a flock of idiots. The alternative is that we're being led by sheep.

    I guess some people, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, will believe anything if it supports their preexisting biases.

    If she'd said that a time traveler from the future told her that Donald Trump is an asshole, a fat chunk of the progressives out there might believe her story.

  • D-Pizzle||

    "I'd rather think she was being deliberately malicious rather than profoundly stupid."

    Nope. She really is that stupid.

  • MJBinAL||

    And she has a degree in economics from Boston University. What does that tell you about Boston University? It tells me that it is a meaningless piece of paper (at best) and when a resume from a graduate crosses my desk it will go directly into the round file. And that is the charitable view, the uncharitable view is that Boston University teaches crap and a degree from there is a disqualification rather than a qualification.

    Since I do have hiring responsibility, and so do many others who have drawn similar conclusions, you might suggest to the aspiring college students you know that perhaps Boston University might not be the best choice.

  • JFree||

    I'm pretty sure she is just stupid in a land full of stupid on all sides. And as the saying goes - In the land of the stupid, the one-eyed man is King. Or maybe the one-eyed man is a dick. Or maybe every dick can be King. Si se puede. USA!USA!USA! God bless us - every one.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    "Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) tweeted this week that two thirds of the cost of Medicare for All could be offset by cutting $21 in Pentagon spending wasted on accounting mistakes..."

    If we had Medicare for All, Reason's proofreader would still be alive.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason didnt get as much in donations this year.

    They wont cut Shikha and other shitty staff writers, so proofreading takes the hit.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    I certainly don't agree with much of your Trump ball gobbling, but I absolutely agree that Reason isn't the same mag it used to be. Way too much progressive apologism spurred on by TDS. It's why I neglected to give this year. I don't give every year, but some, and there was no way they were getting a cent from me.

  • MJBinAL||

    This was my take as well. I used to subscribe to the print magazine and flirting with giving subscriptions as gifts. Now, not a dime until they clean up the mess.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Mercatus and Reason are just as dumb, in a different way. The Mercatus report was ridiculed the day it came out. Their $3.2 trillion per year is less than we spend now on fewer people ($3.5 T in 2017)

  • John Galt Jr||

  • Dillinger||

    OBL posted that last week I thought it was cute b/c from anonymous poster, not congresslady yikes.

    Thought I saw somewhere she won her primary w/like 15,000 total votes

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I'm starting to wonder if OBL and AOC are the same person.

  • Dillinger||

    oooooh ... fighting words?

  • JesseAz||

    Not the same person. Just a friend of hers. He calls her up from time to time t dictate her thoughts for us.

  • Anomalous||

    Washington Post gave her 4 Pinocchios for that.

  • Paulpemb||

    When a Democrat says something so stupid that not even Glenn Kessler can cover for them...

  • John Galt Jr||

    Just as stupid ad Mercatus, and anyone on the right who swallowed their bullshit. which was ridicule the day it came out.
    Their $3.2T average is LESS than we spent in 2017!! http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    Now add the consensus growth for a decade, of 4%, and Mercatus says 30% LESS than current ($45T)

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Not that her base cared. I bet they don't even know who -- or what -- Pinocchio is (or was)

  • John Galt Jr||

    Mercatus deserves just as many Pinocchios. Described just above you.

  • BYODB||

    In fairness, this idiot chica couldn't balance her own checkbook let alone figure out how a non-convertible fiat currency works. All she knows is that promising her district millions of dollars into each of their bank accounts wins her elections, and that she gets paid way more as a government type than she was as a bar tender or a Kennedy fuck toy.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, I should point out that this moron apparently has a degree in economics yet clearly none of the information she should have learned in the class, even if it was taught by a raging Keynesian, stuck.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    this moron apparently has a degree in economics

    And yet she was working as a bartender? That says everything you need to know about this ignoramus.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, don't forget the possibility that she was a cock sleeve for Kennedy. She worked for him for a while if memory serves, and frankly I doubt that guy could keep his hands off her. If nothing else she is an attractive woman, and those types don't fare well when working closely with a Kennedy. Her current commentary tells us how likely it is that she was hired by him for her know-how.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Really she's just lucky she survived it. Maybe she's at least smart enough to know to never get in a car driven by him?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Attractive woman? How much beer have you consumed just today? She has bigger teeth than Nancy Kerrigan!

  • BYODB||

    I base it on classical standards of beauty that mostly revolve around symmetry, but obviously beauty is essentially in the eye of the beholder. Put yourself into the shoes of a Kennedy and look around, do you see anything nearby you don't want to put your dick into?

  • Dillinger||

    don't need to be Kennedy for that.

  • MJBinAL||

    True

    Bill Clinton forever...
    Donald Trump until a few years ago...

  • Juice||

    If nothing else she is an attractive woman

    You really think so? I see a horse face with crazy eyes.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Agreed.

  • blondrealist||

    Yeah - her eyes and teeth are not attractive to me. She does seem to have a reasonably nice figure.

  • Nardz||

    I'd hit it.
    Honestly, her extreme and blatant stupidity is kinda hot.
    Not the same way genius would be, but nonetheless...

  • MJBinAL||

    She is not physically ugly. But since I value more than that, and she is stupid, crazy, and mean as a snake, I would run from that.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Honestly, her extreme and blatant stupidity is kinda hot.

    No more stupid than anyone who swallows the Mercatus bullshit. Because they WANT to beleeb

    Their average $3.2T is LESS than we spent in 2017 ($3.5T) http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    Now add the consensus growth for a decade (4%) and we'd spend $45T ... which is more than $32T.

    Any questions?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Part of her highest and best use involves filling her mouth anyway.

  • Dizzle||

    I didn't realize "horse face" was the "it" new look at nyc cocktail parties.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    As well as everything you need to know about a degree in economics. Wonder if she could make change without a calculator?

  • John Galt Jr||

    What degree is needed to know that $32 trillion (for a decade) is less than we spend now? Which was widely reported within 24 hours of Mercatus release, The vast majority of that is employers sending government the same money they now send to insurance companies.

  • MJBinAL||

    Apparently you aren't too smart either. Have you considered trying for a place on Ms. Cortez' staff?

    $32 trillion is more than we currently spend, and $32 trillion is a pie in the sky number.

    It is more than is currently spent when you include all spending.

    And the $32 trillion is based on extending Medicare costs. Medicare underpays and costs are shunted within the system onto private medical costs. Every time you visit the doctor your bill covers the losses he or she has from Medicare patients. The real cost would be much higher than $32 Trillion.

  • John Galt Jr||

    $32 trillion is LESS than we now spend ($3.2T vs today's $3.5T per year)
    http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

  • John Galt Jr||

    I just proved you wrong. And I have a source, you cannot.

  • John Galt Jr||

    and $32 trillion is a pie in the sky number. Mercatus says you're wrong on that too,
  • The Last American Hero||

    Bullshit. People respond to incentives. She learned this, promised a bunch of free shit to people in her district, and they responded to the promised incentives by electing her.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not saying this isn't part of her strategy as well, merely that she is also a massive idiot. You can see that because other Democrats are able to promise everyone a unicorn without sounding half as idiotic as she does. In fact, she's so dumb even leftist rags can't cover for her which says a lot.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The rightist rags for Mercatus' massive fuckup. We spent more on healthcare in 2017, for fewer people ($3.5T) than the 10-year average by Mercatus ($3.2 T), which is why Mercatus was ridiculed the day it came out -- by real news and by the left. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    Tribal manipulation both left and right. Libertarians are neither, and always have been, and now a growing majority of Americans.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Democrats borrow trillions for free stuff
    Republicans borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    Libertarians are neither.

    (The lust for) "power corrupts."

  • IceTrey||

    Government interferes in the free market raising the cost of a service so their solution is more government interference. SMH.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well YES! Would you expect anything else?

  • John Galt Jr||

    But Mercatus says it will be cheaper! Compare their 10-year average ($3.2T) with our 2017 actual total ($3.5T) http://bit.ly/2QEgss1
    It's not that you need a better argument. We need a better Mercatus and Reason.

  • ||

    The Saudis aren't fighting a proxy war in Yemen, they're helping to minimize Yemen's long-term healthcare costs into the future.

  • IceTrey||

    They are merely stimulating the mortuary services industry.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    more than doubling all corporate and individual income tax rates.

    Eggs in the process of making the omelette.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>doubling all corporate and individual income tax rates

    so quadrupling to the individual.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Eh, only if they are equal. If corporate taxes trickle down to individuals as only 10% of income taxes, that's only 2.2 times as much.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    because of course every company will gladly soak up the extra costs.

  • John Galt Jr||

    There are no extra costs. The employers will simply pay the government instead of insurance.
    $32 T in 10 years is less than we spend now.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Your use of the name John Galt is offensive. You keep repeating this lie, but it's still a lie no matter how often you repeat it.

  • MJBinAL||

    Fraud is the word you are looking for Ship. The scum posting and John Galt Jr. is a fraud.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Here's proof of what we spend now. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    Show us your proof.

  • John Galt Jr||

    FAIL!!!

  • blondrealist||

    I agree that in our current multi-tiered system that we will spend at least $32 trillion the next decade. Total nominal health care spending in 2017 was around $3.5 trillion, which I think you mentioned elsewhere on this thread. Are you sure that the most popular single-payer proposal has employers paying the government? Perhaps you just mean the increased payroll taxes will be operationally be paid by employers, but employees will see the money come out of their paychecks. Bernie and his friends have not explained just how employers will give workers raises with the "savings" from no longer providing health insurance (which is currently a deductible cost to employers, but not a taxable part of employee compensation - which is a huge reason our system is so expensive). Not all employers provide health insurance, but those (typically small) businesses will still have to dock their worker's pay for the increased payroll tax required to finance Medicare-for-All. The transition will be disruptive and financially painful for many- and Bernie and his friends don't have good ideas on how to manage the transition.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Are you sure that the most popular single-payer proposal has employers paying the government?

    That sounds scary, until one realizes that's less than they now pay the insurance companies. This is why we keep losing to progressives.

    Bernie and his friends have not explained just how employers will give workers raises with the "savings" from no longer providing health insurance (which is currently a deductible cost to employers, but not a taxable part of employee compensation - which is a huge reason our system is so expensive).

    Correct on the middle-class tax loophole, one of many, since the rich subsidize half the entire share of income taxes paid by the "core middle class" (40,000-99,999)

    But if the employer still pays the premium to the government, then how would that become taxable to employees?

    The biggest problem affects jobs and outsourcing. Trump says it's caused imports and immigration, but even his tax cust FAIL. The right says automation, the same as the 19th century Luddites we used to ridicule.

    It's in the tax code, and health care is only about half the problem. Employers pay NOTHING in Canada, etc. Add that to Canada STILL has a lower corporate tax rate than us, NO tax on dividends, and indexes gains for inflation. This is WHY Trump FAILED to repatriate all but a tiny fraction of offshore profits!

  • John Galt Jr||

    Perhaps you just mean the increased payroll taxes will be operationally be paid by employers, but employees will see the money come out of their paychecks

    No more so than now.

  • John Galt Jr||

    But less than employers w send to ... insurance companies.

  • MJBinAL||

    Apparently you adhere to the "repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it" school of thought. That might work in some places, but is not likely to be successful here.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Here's my proof, You have nothing. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    Anything else?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his silly sockpuppets.

  • John Galt Jr||

    LAME.

    The proof pisses you off?

    Tough noogies.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is still ass-blasted that I owned him like Kunta Kinte on gun control.

  • John Galt Jr||

    LAME

    His first assault explodes in his puss. So he goes even wackier!

    "White privilege" brags about being a slave owner, and will be CRUSHED if he adds any detail to this second assault.

    Plus the Hihn conspiracy/delusion.

    (sigh)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates it when he can't get in the last word, hates that I owned him like Kunta Kinte on gun control and got another of his sockpuppets nuked.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (smirk) Ever hard of SCOTUS Rulings?. Two. Miller (1939) reaffirmed by Scalia's Heller

    Scalia's Heller
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    ... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    "At the time" means at ratification. As does bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons"

    Anything else?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Here's my proof. You STILL have nothing. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1
    (sneer)

  • Paulpemb||

    They have a plan: acquire money and power by promising gullible voters that they can have something for nothing.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Umm, $32 trillion is nothing? That's $3.2T per year. We spet $3.5T in 2017, which was more. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1
    So who's the gullible one?

    This is why libertarians have always refused to be either left or tight. Now with a growing majority of Americans.

  • ||

    As mistakes go, this is embarrassing but in some ways excusable. Legislators, especially new ones, are typically not policy wonks. They leave the policy details to the experts and then sell the big picture.

    So have the wisdom to shut up, educate yourself and collect the right information.

    It's appalling New Yorkers saw her fit to be sent to Congress. Says more about them than her.

  • BYODB||


    It's appalling New Yorkers saw her fit to be sent to Congress. Says more about them than her.

    It was basically a fluke since the incumbent assumed that she was too big of a retard to possibly beat him, so he didn't even bother showing up most of the time to fight for his seat. I suspect a lot of people assumed the same, and didn't bother to show up to vote.

    I'll be mildly surprised if she's still around after the next election. I doubt the DNC likes her any more than we do.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    I'd bet the DNC probably hates her ideas, but loves that she can get attention so they might go about their business more quietly. She's a useful idiot to them.

  • Dizzle||

    Is tom Perez still running dnc? Because he's a dead on socialist. I'd bet they love her and her hype

  • Yellow Tony||

    My plan to kill myself at 40 is looking smarter every time I read something like this.

  • Juice||

    Carousel! Carousel! Carousel!

  • John||

    Someone pointed out the other day that Dan Quayle mispelled potatoe once and was forever branded an idiot by the media. Ocasio Cortez says gets the most basic facts regarding government and civics wrong seemingly every day and the media never says a word or so much as brands her dim much less engages in the kind of feeding frenzy it did over Quayle.

  • ||

    According to the MSM, there are only two kinds of Republicans: Evil or Stupid.

    Ever notice that the media never brands any Democrat as either Evil Or Stupid?

  • BYODB||

    There are two other kinds of Republicans. There are the Evil & Stupid Republicans like Sessions, and then there are the sort-of-ok-when-we-need-them Republicans like Graham. Of course, the sort-of-ok Republicans devolve right back into one of the other three categories as soon as they stop being useful and that status often vacillates.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There is another type of Republican that actually gets praise from the media: dead.

  • Palatki||

    Yes, but if they were a Democrat, they could still vote.

  • John Galt Jr||

    BOTH parties are both evil and stupid.

    Were YOU suckered by the Mercatus ignorance?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Dan Quayle mispelled potatoe once"
    I saw what you did there.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Dan Quayle mispelled potatoe once"
    I saw what you did there.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    She may have escaped the barrio young, but she still looks every bit like the crazy bitch type who would come at you with a switchblade if she ever caught you so much as looking at another woman.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Nah, she's a little princess. She just needs a good spanking, that's all. I will volunteer.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I used to be in a relationship with a woman who started insisted that I treat her like a princess. Of course I agreed.

    It took quite a bit of work on my part, but I was finally able to marry her off to a much older Polish nobleman she'd never even met before in order to cement an alliance and expand my land holdings.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Lol.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Get a good supply of hand sanitizer first

  • Sevo||

    "...Until and unless that happens, Medicare for All will remain little more than a slogan advertising a fantasy of costless, frictionless government intervention."

    Duno. Obo got his disaster approved by lying about it; Bernie and this other lefty idjit are certainly not above doing the same.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Meanwhile, righty idjits got bamboozled again by Mercatus!
    We already spend more than Mercatus' $3.2T average -- $3.5T on 2017. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    And despite the hysteria bullshit about massive tax increases, half of our total is already spent on taxes. And the other half is MORE costly premiums, to insurance companies.

    Not defending single-payer, just showing why libertarians have always been neither left nor right.

    "Obo's" original plan was bipartisan, with a private alternative to a "public option" -- that is MUCH cheaper, AND allows any number of competitors. Republicans could have killed single-payer forever, but they refused, thereby EMPOWERING the ultra-left. http://nyti.ms/1jROT36

    Patterned on Seattle's Group Health Co-op -- I was a member for 17 years, a HMO and co-op is the 21st century equivalent of the ethic and fraternal lodges, before FDR forced the invention of health insurance.

    Doctors are salaried employees of their patients. TOTAL patient control, so no HMO atrocities. They run their own hospitals and pharmacy, so NEVER and claims, and pick up your prescription on the way out of the clinic. The link shows what all they do by phone, which ONLY prepaid can do (no claims) For Medicaid ALONE a massive gain. Republicans don't want us to have what "Obo" did.

  • Calidissident||

    The Democratic base hasn't come to terms with the fact that their wishlist cannot possibly be provided by the government without huge tax increases on the middle and lower classes. There's a reason why European countries generally have 20-30% VATs, higher payroll taxes, and higher income taxes that kick in at thresholds around median income in the US (in contrast, the top rate in the US kicks in around $400k IIRC).

    They see a few polls showing positive support for progressive slogans that sound good in isolation, but don't account for how that support drops whenever the costs are made apparent. Democratic politicians are content for now to just campaign on the wishlist without worrying about any of the details because they don't have to. But the next time they have unified power they won't be able to avoid providing answers for the details or failing to deliver on their promises.

  • BYODB||


    But the next time they have unified power they won't be able to avoid providing answers for the details or failing to deliver on their promises.

    Just like how Obama wasn't elected for a second term as President after he broke essentially every last one of his promises. I think you might be overstating how much flak Democrats will take for giving the finger to their base. As long as even one Republican is in office, somewhere, they have a scape goat.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The overwhelming majority of democrats still worship and adore Obama, and many of them would love to see his fat-assed ugly wife to get into politics so they could vote for her as well.

    It's probably true though that the most extreme 10% far left was a little disappointed in him and thought he didn't do enough to unilaterally implement extreme socialism.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    But they'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.

  • Calidissident||

    Obama delivered just enough with things like the ACA to placate the base. His personal charm within the party helped retain their loyalty.

    But while he won re-election, the Democrats lost their House majority for the last six years of his presidency, and went from 60 seats in the Senate to the minority within 6 years. They passed very little in the last six years of his presidency and even in the first two had trouble getting things done because they struggled to agree on the details.

  • D-Pizzle||

    "They passed very little in the last six years of his presidency and even in the first two had trouble getting things done because they struggled to agree on the details."

    No big deal. Pen, phone, and all that.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not talking about what Obama did, I'm talking about what Obama promised to do during his first bid for President.

    You know, things like not torturing people and pulling out of costly wars. That went well.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Close Guantanamo. Did he say that would be the very first thing he did?

  • John Galt Jr||

    You are aware, right, that Trump has failed on ALL his key promises ... per that proggie nut,
    Tucker Carlson Also said Trump was incapable of being President, and listed many other failures.

    And his promise to PAY OFF the entire federal debt in 8 years. So far he's ADDED over $10 Trillion to the 2024 debt ,,, more than Obama added after 8 years ... and the ONLY President to increase the annual deficit by 47% ... in a single year! .... during a recovery! ... after Obama gave hm the longest recovery EVER to an incoming President!

    More proof that left and right are obsolete, as libertarians have been saying for 50 years.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I'm pretty sure if we make employers pay half, because they all have huge wads of cash lying around, institute a payroll deduction, because you can't miss what you never had, and create a "trust fund" in US Treasury, so congress can't spend it on other shit, medicare for all will work just fine.

  • MJBinAL||

    Don't forget "protecting" us from potential financial losses by mandatory transfer of all 401 and IRA accounts into Federal accounts managed by the government and invested in "special" treasuries.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The Democratic base hasn't come to terms with the fact that their wishlist cannot possibly be provided by the government without huge tax increases on the middle and lower classes

    The Republican base is easily manipulated, by anti-gummint slogans and hysteria.

    The Mercatus forecast is LESS than we spend now! They're $3.2T average, vs actual $3.5T for 2017. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1 Half of that is already paid by taxes. The other half is LESS than we now pay to insurance companies. Golly.

    This is why libertarians have always refused to be either left or right.
    Overall, Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom. Democrats want government our of your bedroom and into your wallet.

    (Until Trump, who has already added more new 8-year debt that Obama did AFTER 8 years, now wants MORE new debt ... AND increased government in the bedroom)

  • lap83||

    "$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions "could not be traced, documented, or explained."

    $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T."

    Also, Medicare for all would be free from similar errors because feelings

  • dantheserene||

    NO, no. Progressives like Medicare, therefore it could never be subject to the same errors and shortcomings as something they don't like.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Republicans like it too. Under Bush2, Medicare deficits are now taken from the income tax, not the Trust Fund.

    Now a little over $300B, over 20% of the entire personal income tax, is how they "paid for" Medicare Prescriptions.
    The Trust Fund total is less!! ($290B). That's Republican wealth redistribution -- steal from the income tax instead of increasing FICA taxes. They needed Dem voters, and got snookered again.

    Libertarians reject both corrupt parties.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    "it's rather striking how little progress has been made toward developing a clear and relatively detailed policy proposal to back up the idea"

    It isn't striking in the least. The more info you provide the dumber the plan will look

  • Dizzle||

    Reason should realize the "any publicity is good publicity" montra never held tried in our media obsessed world. We get more articles about this piece of shit than we do libertarian politicians.

    The entirety of this article could have been her tweet, the facts they can't pay for it, and then "NO SHIT SHERLOCK!".

    But reason spends too many words on this hack to not secretly love her.

  • John Galt Jr||

    WTF????

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "America already spends so much on health care that a single payer system would be easy to afford; in fact, they say, single payer would reduce America's total health care spending by about $2 trillion."

    Government run health care will cut spending? Then why are there constant calls to increase spending for government run schools?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    It's because no one can get a better deal when it comes to purchasing something than government can! They are like the ultimate comparison-shopping, coupon-clipping, bargain-hunting grandma!

    Haven't you ever heard about the $30,000 each Air Force coffee mugs, or the $50,000 Mr Coffee brewers, or the $60M power generation plant in Afghanistan that can't be turned on because there is no way for it to actually transmit any power to anywhere?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Off the top (or even the bottom) of my head I cannot think of a single thing that government can provide at less cost than can the private sector.

  • Derpmaster General||

    Easy, murder.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well, maybe on a wholesale basis, but retail I am sure you can get a hit cheaper than one executed by the US Military.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Government run health care will cut spending?

    That;'s what dumbass Mercatus says!

    Their $3.2T annual average is LESS than the $3.5T we spent in 2017, which will increase sharply in an aging population. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

  • Overt||

    At some point the arguments in this country went to wacko land. Before I shifted to libertarian, a USENET conservative I followed made the following point, that I generally agreed with:

    "There is nothing wrong with providing a safety net for the truly needy. No one likes to see the truly unfortunate suffer. However it becomes a problem when you are essentially taxing the middle class to provide it a service they can buy for themselves."

    This was most apparent to me during the run up to No Child Left Behind when even conservatives were getting behind the idea of sending a dollar to the Federal government to bounce around in a maze of red tape and mandates, before coming back to their school as 60 cents. And it was really the beginning of my move away from the GOP.

    And this whole notion of universal healthcare falls into the same bucket. We could let the middle class (and up) pay for their healthcare, but instead we create all these mandates and tax incentives that discourage competition and price comparisons between insurers and providers. And when that doesn't solve things, the proposal is for the middle class to send a dollar to the government in order to buy 60 cents of health care from the doctor down the street.

    I would have no problem with a free health care market that includes subsidies to the bottom 10 - 20%- the truly unfortunate. But our ruling class has convinced everyone that they are victims- the true unfortunates. Thus even the middle class needs "saving".

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Obamacare is essentially Medicaid for all without a better option...that makes the most sense to me as long as we insist on distorting the health care market with group health insurance.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Obamacare is essentially Medicaid for all without a better option..

    It HAD a far better option, a cheaper non-profit option with competition, instead of the "public option" demanded by Democrats. The bipartisan deal for Republican votes. The GOP turned it down, thus empowering the far left, when they could have killed single-payer forever. http://nyti.ms/1jROT36

    The GOP has been fucking up on healthcare, since long before the Trump years

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It never crossed your mind that top men could also include women.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm cool with cowgirl as long as she's careful about it.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    So people with good jobs are satisfied paying for quality, albeit overpriced, health care...and Democrats want to replace it with free crappy health care??? Sounds like a winner to me! ;)

  • John Galt Jr||

    Their plan will cost less than we spend now, per Mercatus (who REALLY fucked up, and was ridiculed the day it came out.

  • blondrealist||

    Setting aside A O-C's many mistakes on economics, federal budgets, etc. - I don't understand why so many critics of single payer keep mentioning $32 trillion (or more) like it's something we should be impressed by. Folks, in our present mess of a system, we will spend just as much - and probably more in the next decade. Total nominal spending on health care in 2017 in the USA was around $3.6 trillion. Multiply that time ten and quit whining about $32 trillion.

    What Bernie and A O-C are not doing a very good job at is trying to get us to believe that since we're already going to spend at least $32 trillion in the next decade - without covering all citizens - we can just have Uncle Sam replace all the insurance companies and cover everybody with help from administrative spending reductions and deleting profits previously made by the evil insurance companies. Oh - they expect employers now providing health insurance to just give employees the money that was previously spent on insurance - so workers will get a raise, pay more in taxes (to pay for Medicare for all), and end up in a better net financial position.

    I'm not saying I think Medicare for all will work out that way, but it's silly to ignore the reality that our current fucked up system will be spending at least $32 trillion in the next decade. It will just be spread around between employer provided insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and the individual insurance market.

  • Eric Bana||

    I'm not saying I think Medicare for all will work out that way

    That's the whole problem. There's not a defined plan for "Medicare-For-All" that justifies the empty assertions that it will competently replace every single dollar currently spent on healthcare without a single dime in tax increases, as you suggested.

    but it's silly to ignore the reality that our current fucked up system will be spending at least $32 trillion in the next decade.

    I do not ignore the reality of the currently-fucked-up system, and Reason writers do not either. We often point out how incorrect it is for people to compare our current fucked up system and some sort of maybe kind of partially or wholly single payer system as the only two choices.

  • John Galt Jr||

    True,but libertarians have ZERO alternatives -- today. Our pro-liberty faction had several, until about 25 years ago, when the ant-government mentality infected both libertarians and conservatives.

    For sheer wackiness, it's hard to top Medicare vouchers, but Cato.s "50% solution" for Medicare tops the wackiness scale.

  • IceTrey||

    Yeah but it's only 3.6 trillion because of government interference in the free market. If the government stayed out of the market it would be 500 billion or something.

  • blondrealist||

    It's true that federal government interference is often a bad thing when it comes to market actions. Health care is complicated because we began moving away from a free market for health care and health insurance consumption back just after WWII. Employer provided health insurance has shielded covered workers from free market forces for decades. Medicare - the other major piece of our health care puzzle, obviously does little to promote free market forces for health care consumption. We will never have significant free market forces impacting health care as long as employer-provided health insurance, with its tax-code quirks and Medicare (and Medicaid) remain the dominant parts of our system,

  • John Galt Jr||

    What a blessing to find SOMEBODY herfe who understands health care, like blondrealist.
    Must be a libertarian, or one of the few remaining true conservatives.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Yeah but it's only 3.6 trillion because of government interference in the free mark

    Mercatus saus FULL government would cost less!

    Left and right both traffic in meaningless slogan and myths.

  • miketol||

    The 32 trillion figure might not sound so bad. But you have to remember that politicians have a nasty habit of lying about how much their pet projects are actually going to cost.

    When the Medicare bill was being debated in 1965; congressional budgeters calculated that the program would cost 12 billion annually in 1990. The actual cost for 1990 was 90 billion.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The 32 trillion figure might not sound so bad

    MUCH less than we spend now -- which will be $45 trillion in a decade. $3.5T in 2017, plus most forecasts are 4% growth in an aging population. (2019-2028)

    (I said $42T elsewhere, but wrongly included 2017 and 20i8 to start the decade)

    Mercatus was ridiculed the same day they published -- by real news and by the left.)

  • John Galt Jr||

    The 32 trillion figure might not sound so bad. But you have to remember that politicians

    Mercatus is not a politician, and THEY say Medicare for all will cost LESS than we spend now.

  • John Galt Jr||

    WOW. YOU GET ITm BIONDREALIST!!!

    We spent $3.5T in 2017, with 4% predicted increases.would total $42 Trillion for the decade.

    Good again by nailing the other Mercatus hysteria. All that money to gummint has ignited a firestorm on the right.
    Half of it is is already taxes. The other half is LESS than we pay insurance companies!

    Hysteria has long dominated both left and right, which is why libertarians have rejected both for 50 years.

  • John Galt Jr||

    My spelling can REALLY suck at times. But never my facts.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Medicare for all can, and should be, a reality.
    Money is no object.
    The masses would be more than willing to give 75% of their paychecks to pay for it.
    After all, we have so much, and the federal government has so little.
    Sacrificing almost all our paychecks is a small price to pay to ensure those bureaucrats, politicians and their toadies will live a better and more secure life.
    Plus, we will all sleep better knowing some unknown, uncaring, faceless, nameless bureaucrat has the power of life and death over all us dirty, creepy and uneducated, two-legged vermin.
    Only these lazy, over-paid and under-worked bureaucrats should have the right to determine if we are worthy of life-saving surgeries and medicine.
    After all, isn't that what Big Government is all about?

  • John Galt Jr||

    The masses would be more than willing to give 75% of their paychecks to pay for it.

    That's a LOT less than we pay now! Which would be $45T for the decade starting 2019. Half of that is already taxes. The other half is much less than we now pay to insurance companies. ($3.5T for 2018 + 4% consensus growth for a decade http://bit.ly/2QEgss1 )

    Hypothetical. If you could buy homeowner insurance from the government for 1/3 less, with no subsidies, would you refuse?

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Why don't they just call it Veterans Administration for all?

  • Juice||

    When people tell me we need a socialized health care system in this country, I tell them we already do. In fact we have 3, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, and they all suck to varying degrees despite their enormous expense.

  • Juice||

    Some Democratic lawmakers are attempting to shift the focus to merely expanding Medicare as it exists now, by letting anyone 50 or over buy in.

    Huh? Anyone with a regular job is already buying in. They just can't access the program until 65.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeap

  • BYODB||

    I'm sure expanding who can draw from Medicare won't cause any financial woes in such a solvent program...right?! RIGHT?!

  • Moo Cow||

    Buy in means they buy in. With money.

  • BYODB||

    The people in question have already 'bought in' to Medicare. What they are talking about now seems to be letting people who are younger than 65 get Medicare benefits, with maybe some added payment for the 'benefit' of using a program you already bought into only at a younger age.

    Which, obviously, will accelerate the death of Medicare since you are effectively expanding who can draw from Medicare and I can guarantee you that any extra payment on top of what they've already paid isn't going to equal the cost of expanding that coverage to people who are 50, and if it did than you're paying more for that coverage than you will get in benefits outside of Medicare. (Also, this is one reason why no one can be allowed to be outside of Medicare.)

    For that kind of risk pool, guess what? You'd need everyone under 50 to be in the pool, which is of course why they call it 'Medicare for All'. This isn't that plan, of course, this is their plan to strangle Medicare to death so they can resurrect it as a totally new beast with the same name as a nationalized American health system. After they control all payments for goods, you can bet your sweet ass they'll control costs as well. In fact, that's mostly how it already works with costs/payments.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    They are just politicians. Don't confuse them by using big words like solvent or insolvent.

    To most congresspeople, "in solvent" means a substance that's been soaked in alcohol. Okay, now THAT is something most of them probably can relate to.

  • John Galt Jr||

    I'm sure expanding who can draw from Medicare won't cause any financial woes in such a solvent program...right?! RIGHT?!

    Mercatus says we'd spend about 1/3 LESS nationwide. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1 RIGHT?

  • AlmightyJB||

    You see Democrats have trouble relating to the Hoi Polloi because they're so much more intelligent, despite their complete lack of basic math and logic skills.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) said Tuesday that Democrats have a hard time connecting with voters because they "know so much" and need to tell people "how smart" they are.

    "Democrats have a really hard time is connecting to people's hearts instead of here," Hirono said, pointing to her brain. "We're really good at shoving out all the information that touches people here," she continued, again pointing to her head, "but not here," she said, touching her chest.

    "I have been saying at all of our Democratic Senate retreats that we need to speak to the heart, not in a manipulative way, not in a way that brings forth everyone's fears and resentments, but truly to speak to the heart so that people know that we're actually on their side," Hirono added.

    "We have a really hard time doing that, and one of the reasons that was told to me at one of our retreats is that we Democrats know so much that is true," she said. "We have to kind of tell everyone how smart we are, so we have a tendency to be very left brain and we think, this—really, that is not how people make decisions."

  • Mickey Rat||

    If you have to tell everyone how smart you are, then you probably are not very smart at all.

  • BYODB||


    "Democrats have a really hard time is connecting to people's hearts instead of here," Hirono said, pointing to her brain. "We're really good at shoving out all the information that touches people here," she continued, again pointing to her head, "but not here," she said, touching her chest.

    LOL, that is exactly the opposite of how they work. They're all about the New Inquisition and New Puritanism.

  • John Galt Jr||

    LOL Read it again.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." - Ronald Reagan

    Seems appropriate.

  • John Galt Jr||

    See how many conservatives got TOTALLY flummoxed by Mercatus! Other than you.
    $3.2T average is LESS than we spent in 2017 ($3.5T) http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    Now apply the consensus growth for a decade (4%) and compare $32T with $45T. Which one is prox 30% cheaper?

    This is why libertarians are neither right nor left, for 50 years now.

  • Duke of url||

    "Hold my beer".
    /Judge Gorsuch
    / Judge Kavanaugh, literally.

    I hope

  • Duke of url||

    Dammit, wrong thread

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Is it just me or it is weird that, when it comes to healthcare, they want to treat everyone as elderly (Medicare-for-all), but when it comes to just about everything else, they want to treat everyone like children?

  • Brandybuck||

    Who needs a plan? Roll out the solution now!

  • JeffreyL||

    I can imagine it. Here is how:

    Imagine a world in which we push down most of what is currently done at a federal level to the states. Medicare, yep, medicaid, yep. Social Security - yep***. Close down HUD, Commerce, Energy (transfer certain items to DOD), labor, education. Kill Homeland security and pretty much everything else

    Essentially the Federal Government has DOD, Treasury, greatly slimmed down DOJ, greatly slimmed down EPA and some naturalization services along with some nat sec and a couple of other items (BLM etc)

    Along with this, eliminate entirely the federal income tax currently (personal & corp & trust etc) and replace with a national sales sales tax around 8% or so

    With one caveat. States are required to adopt portability standards for any pension or retirement plans they setup

    States then would have the flexibility to choose to go single payer. If California wants a 75% (say hello france) income tax to setup single payer, homeless shelters for everyone in state, pensions for all in state, go for it

    Not only does it solve this problem (at the state level) but it also solves the voter ignorance problem. With things pushed down, voting with your feet becomes that much more an individualized/family type decision in which more political knowledge becomes far more important. Just sayin.

  • jerbigge||

    Great idea. Whether it could be done is another question.

  • BYODB||

    I definitely agree. Unfortunately for us, the Northern States thought differently and imposed that will via invading the South with the military and forcing a new deal on the nation. They freed one set of slaves while at the same time making everyone a new type of slave.

  • Leifmag||

    Yeah, because being poor and unemployed is sooo awesome.
    You sound like the cognitively captured neoliberal who has yet to undrrstand that law and governance slice many ways, question is, are you voting fir representation for many or just a few.

  • IceTrey||

    Or we go to the heart of the problem and just prohibit the government from initiating force?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That's been failing for decades. If it shouldn't be government, and states are government .... duh.

    Back when we still had pro-liberty libertarians, we had several ways of transitioning back to the private sector. Tax credits are the simplest to grasp. But "repeal it" appeals to goobers, as does "devolve to the states." That's why progressives have been kicking our ass for decades, in the court of public opinion. Just as they've done in Europe and worldwide for decades.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's resorting to his other two sockpuppets.

  • John Galt Jr||

    They get pissed, when publicly humiliated, and FAIL to rebut.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano always gets pissed when I own his dumb ass on gun control.

  • John Galt Jr||

    LAME

    His first aggression explodes in his puss, so he goes wackier.
    Anyone else crazy enough to think gun control is not TOTALLY off-topic?
    Or that he's too cowardly to detail whatever nonsense he's babbling about on gun control?

    Plus whatever the Hihn delusion/diversion/conspiracy is all about

    We libertarians have always opposed aggression.
    And most people oppose anything so totally lame

    The right-wing snowflake has been triggered! And he's even stalking me! (yawn)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates it when he can't get in the last word, confirms he's Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • John Galt Jr||

    TWO SCOTUS Rulings.
    Miller (1939)
    Reaffirmed by Scalia's Heller

    Scalia's Heller
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    ... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    "At the time" means at ratification. As does bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons"

    Anything else?

  • MJBinAL||

    I agree on cutting the federal income tax. Instead of a national sales tax, let's go back the founding of the country and put in blanket 20% import and export tariffs.

    We would get into a lot fewer wars if we were less dependent on other nations. (A George Washington kind of idea.)

  • John Galt Jr||

    Sales tax is stupid, since the rich spend a fraction of their income on consumption and the middle-class spends almost all of its income on consumptions (including car loans and other consumer credit). Per Fortune.

    20% tariffs fail for two reasons. The consumption differences and 20% would not come close. The "Fair" Tax would be 30% on all consumption, so a 20% tariff wouldn't cover even half, roughly a fourth.

    Don't forget when Ron Paul says repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing, he says we can run the entire federal government on FICA taxes. Try slashing Social Security and Medicare! 45% of all Medicare spending is subsidized by the income tax, never touching the Trust Fund, which is how the Bushies "paid for" Medicare Prescriptions.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Along with this, eliminate entirely the federal income tax currently (personal & corp & trust etc) and replace with a national sales sales tax around 8% or so

    Umm, consumption is a LOT less than income, for obvious reasons. And the average income tax is 20%. The "Fair" Tax is 30%

    On Obama's claim that a $50,000 teacher pays a higher average rate (12.4%) than millionaires and billionaires (30.2%). (lol)

    The average rate for the entire core middle class ($40-100k) is 13.1%

    The rich heavily subsidize the middle-class on the income tax, but CONSUME a tiny fraction of their income.
    Forbes reports that the middle class consumes almost their entire income (including auto loans and consumer debt)

    So the middle class would pay 30% on virtually their entire income -- versus only 8.5% of AGI (not taxable income)
    And the rich would pay 30% on less than 1/3 of their income.

    Progressives aren't the only ones being suckered on taxes!

    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in11si.xls

  • John Galt Jr||

    JeffreyL
    Along with this, eliminate entirely the federal income tax currently (personal & corp & trust etc) and replace with a national sales sales tax around 8% or so

    Umm, consumption is a LOT less than income, for obvious reasons. And the average income tax is 20%. The "Fair" Tax is 30%

    On Obama's claim that a $50,000 teacher pays a higher average rate (12.4%) than millionaires and billionaires (30.2%). (lol)

    The average rate for the entire core middle class ($40-100k) is 13.1%

    The rich heavily subsidize the middle-class on the income tax, but CONSUME a tiny fraction of their income.
    Forbes reports that the middle class consumes almost their entire income (including auto loans and consumer debt)

    So the middle class would pay 30% on virtually their entire income -- versus only 8.5% of AGI (not taxable income)
    And the rich would pay 30% on less than 1/3 of their income.

    Progressives aren't the only ones being suckered on taxes!

    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in11si.xls

  • jerbigge||

    We could of course reduce health care costs by deregulation. However that means that some working in the health care industry would lose income at the very least with it being more likely that some will lose their jobs. These would be things like repeal of prescription laws and drug laws. The repeal of the law forbidding private import of medical drugs from outside the US.

    Naturally those affected would object. So deregulation would have to be passed over their objections. No doubt they would do what they could to prevent it from happening. We're talking people now earning above free market incomes thanks to government regulations favoring them over the rest of us.

  • Longtobefree||

    Still waiting for Boston College to take back their Economics degree - - - - - - - -

  • MJBinAL||

    I have just concluded that this is what Boston College teaches. So a degree from Boston College is not a qualifying credential, but rather a disqualifying credential for employment. Seriously, do you want to hire people like this?

  • Kevin Smith||

    This is the same government that taxes the same dollar 3 times (when a comporation makes it, when the employee earns it, and when the consumer spends it) Its no wonder she thinks it's 3 different dollars

  • Star1988||

    The only detail that matters is cost. Until US healthcare costs match those in Switzerland, UK, France, New Zealand, Canada etc..., with the same quality of outcomes, they are chasing their tail. If costs can be brought inline with the rest of the developed world, the US's already sizable public spending on healthcare would be much, much more effective.

  • MJBinAL||

    Since US drug prices for example, subsidize all the R&D costs for most medications, our lowering of costs is dependent of either drug prices in the rest of world increases, or a dramatic reduction in new drugs.

    This is also true for medical appliances and equipment.

    Your plan for correcting this while preserving medical advancement is.....?

  • John Galt Jr||

    False. We subsidize nothing. Our FDA testing demands are much greater than any other country, 3-5 times longer and more demanding., Cato has been publishing that for decades. Also false for medical appliances and equipment.

    In fact, when Cato compares the lives saved everywhere else, by testing half as long, our FDA kills more people than it saves. In other words, all that time makes the safety no better than elsewhere. THAT testing has nothing to do with the research and development.

    That's wny Canada forbids the export of US pharmaceuticals. If drug companies must recover their US testing costs from prices in Canada, their prices ill skyrocket, also from heir much smaller population,

  • Leifmag||

    Mercatus institute? Lol, the biggest b.s. economics institute known to man, a religous center for the land of Hayek and Friedman.
    Now back to reality, federal taxes do not fund the federal govt., a currency issuer doesn't need the very currency it alone can issue.
    As for the hit piece here, by an obviously econon illiterate, let me tell you how we pay for anything the federal govt. desires.... it creates the US high powered fiat floating sovereign nonconvertible dollar.
    This article is like a bunch of chuckle
    heads hell bent on showing vapid ignorance.
    Funny how shit for brains forgets how deficit spending works, not to mention the importance of sectoral balances.
    Then again, you'll never see squishy brain explain why too much household and corporate debt (endogenous money) is a real shit fest for an economy.
    FFS, learn MMT

  • MJBinAL||

    Ah, the trolls have arrived in force.... or is it farce!

  • Longtobefree||

    "or is it farce!"

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • John Galt Jr||

    The troll is you. On this at least. The Mercatus estimate was ridiculed the day it came out! We already spent more than their $3.2T per year in 2017 ($3.5 T). Even if we assume NO increased costs from an aging population. So, in effect, Mercatus says we can insure everyone at a lower cost.

    Proof. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

  • Nerþuz||

    Comedians, start your engines! This bitch Cortez will give you ample material for the next two years.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Truly dumb as fuck.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Bingo! Mercatus committed the fuckup of the year here, and has been ridiculed since the day it came out,
    Their 10-year average of $3.2T is LESS than we spent in 2017 ALONE, $3.5T ... or $45T over 10 years, per the consensus growth of 4% annually. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    Libertarians understand, Both the left and right swallow whatever their tribe spews out, on blind tribal loyalty.
    No wonder the US is in a slow death spiral.

  • Curly4||

    They have a great idea but have no idea how to pay for it sustainable. But if they can get all the government entitlements passed that they discussed before the election they will pay for it even if they have to strip the military. As it is now they think that two thirds of the funds needed could be reaped from the military which anyone with half a mind knows that cannot be done.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Mercatus fucked up on Medicare-For-All, which was called out immediately. Anti-gummint gooberism.
    Their $31 trillion decade is less than we spend now!

    Paying it to government sounds scary, but it's mostly the same dollars that employers send to insurance companies. duh

    Obamacare if now more popular than ever, when 10 years of GOP promises were shown to be empty. Plus, GOP wants to slash or repeal Medicaid, and so do anti-gummint libs, which is bat-shit crazy. Americans have always been willing to pay for the uninsured, regardless of age or income, through the private funding of charity hospitals. If Bernie is the only one claiming to provide what Americans have always been willing to pay for ... who wins that battle? Bellowing ain't working.

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    Trump: "I'm gonna say something so dumb on Twitter, it can't be topped"
    AOC: "Hold my beer"

  • MJBinAL||

    LOL!

  • John Galt Jr||

    LOL! As stupid as Mercatus ... and all those who swallowed this so blindly!

    Their 10-year average, $3.2T is LESS than we spent in 2017, $3.5!

    And their $32T decade os a LOT less than our current $45T (apply the consensus cost growth of 4% annually)
    Mercatus is famous for blunders like this. (To independents)

  • Robert Crim||

    No one makes the errors she makes by accident. Cortez is a typical, sticky-fingered, New York political thief. For responding to her tweets and calling her that, Twitter closed my last account.

    Congress needs to step in and regulate the fascists taking over social media, if for no other reason than to stop the socialists from organizing a socialist revolution to everyone else's expense. Twitter does NOT own the communications channels it invites OTHERS to create so that its underlying advertising platform will have value. The websites censorship activities here are tortious, and people need to start calling it on them.

  • Longtobefree||

    "Congress needs to step in and regulate the fascists taking over social media,"

    Uh, congress 'regulating' Twitter would be Fascism - - - - - - - -

    (For the young; Fascism is an economic philosophy wherein there is private ownership of the means of production, but government control over that production. So government regulation of what Twitter does or does not allow is Fascist. The government dictating what types of health insurance is allowed to be sold, and mandating that it be bought by all is/was Fascist.)

  • John Galt Jr||

    Umm, $3.2 trillion per year is LESS than we spent in 2017 -- to treat fewer people.

    Total Health Care (2017) = $3.5 trillion.

    $3.5T x 10 = $35 Trillion (assuming NO increases at all in health care costs, in a aging population)

    Cortez blew how to pay for it. But so did Mercatus and Reason. All that money going to government sounds scary ... until we realize the obvious. Most of that is employers sending the same premiums that they now send to insurance companies.

    So both Mercatus and Reason say we'd cover absolutely everyone for less than we spend now.
    Laugh at Cortez, but nonsense like this is why progressives are kicking out butt on health care.

  • TJJ2000||

    Tell the DEMOCRATS to go START a democratic co-op health insurance and/or healthcare company... WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?! They want a pool of funds for free health-care and they think their democratic communism is better - WHY CAN'T THEY JUST GO DO IT???

    Oh yeah, I forgot. They want to FORCE the UN-willing individual (like a slave) to work for "their" idealistic goals thus taking away peoples free will and choice by use of national (i.e. Federal) legal forces. At least they could make their Democratic States communist without forcing the whole of the U.S. into it.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Tell the DEMOCRATS to go START a democratic co-op health insurance and/or healthcare company... WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?!

    They already proposed it. In the original Obamacare, an HMO co-op was to be the alternative to a public option, to get Republican votes. A bipartisan deal would have allowed Obama to ignore his own far-left -- much as Republicans worked with Kennedy on tax cuts, which allowed him to ignore his own far left and the AFL-CIO who hated as -- what else? -- tax cuts for the rich, The identical structure was later copied by Reagan.

    In a sense, it was Republicans who "created" a version that needed the Rockefeller Democrats, An error that is still damaging America. Single payer is now virtually inevitable, unless the Repubs get a much better strategy.

    Chill.

  • MJBinAL||

    Let's just get on with the civil war now. It won't last long since most of the progressives are nicely clumped together in big cities so they can be killed off wholesale rather than retail.

    Think about it shit head.

  • Longtobefree||

    Which presents a better defensive position, open fields, or dense cityscapes?
    (Hint, look up Stalingrad)

  • John Galt Jr||

    How does that relate to your massive blunder on the original Obamacare, and your multiple PROVEN blunders on the U.S. us spending more on healthcare now than Mercatus $3.2T average for a decade, http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    And speaking of shitheads, here's proof of the Obamacare deal the GOP refused. http://nyti.ms/1jROT36
    It would have killed single-payer forever! Have you ever seen Gary Johnson's 2012 ad, showing Obama had run as a moderate on health care in 2008. Kicked the crap out of Hillary and Edwards on a mandate, with THE best argument, "If a mandate would work, we can end homelessness by mandating everyone to buy a house." Also said universal coverage would not be possible until we deduced the COSTS of care -- which is offer to the GOP would have easily done!

    Here's THAT proof. I'm only allowed 2 links, so connect the spaces. ht tp://bit.ly/2UomOL8

    We libertarians are have always been neither left nor right, so we take neither side on tribalism alone.

    Anything else?

  • TJJ2000||

    You can't call a government funded, regulated and mandated with "risk adjustment" bills a Co-op. The result of the Obamacare Co-op strategy ended up being basically another government agency code named "Co-op" except with a Co-op government sponsored subsidy loan.

    Yes, Republicans were on the right path - the Obamacare bill took that path and pointed it right back into government powers under Obamacare laws.

    This doesn't change my original questions what-so-ever. If Democrats want an Obamacare legislated Co-op WHY CAN'T THEY JUST GO DO IT... and leave the rest of the market (at this point it would be a repeal) alone!!!

  • John Galt Jr||

    You can't call a government funded, regulated and mandated with "risk adjustment" bills a Co-op.

    Co-op means owned by members!!!

    The result of the Obamacare Co-op strategy ended up being basically another government agency code named "Co-op"...

    Strike Two. Obamacare has/had ZERO provider co-ops.

    Yes, Republicans were on the right path - ...

    Strike three. They could have stopped that and killed single-payer forever.

    This doesn't change my original questions what-so-ever. If Democrats want an Obamacare legislated Co-op WHY CAN'T THEY JUST GO DO IT... and leave the rest of the market (at this point it would be a repeal) alone!!!

    Strike four, five and six. One more time, THEY tried and the GOP killed it
    All this seems tied to your opening statement, which shows NO knowledge of what a co-op is. And falsely assumes it s NOT private!

    On the facts, Obama STILL had a better deal than he Repubs. I'll go slowly.

    Modeled on Seattle;'s Group Health Co-Op, OWNED BY MEMBERS, As a co-op, doctors are SALARIED employees of their patients. As an HMO, it's ALL prepaid -- NO CLAIMS FILING -- cuz they also own their own pharmacy and run their own hospitals. CHEAPER than any gummint plan on earth, TOTALLY controlled by consume/members, and HAS A DIRECT COMPETITOR (also private!) I was there 15 years.

    (You also don't know what risk-adjustment is)

    Anything else? (if you're civil)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbkfuck Hihnsano says he was on a co-op under Obamacare, says Obamacare had no co-ops.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano says he was on a co-op under Obamacare,

    (snort) Losers lie

    Strike four, five and six. One more time, THEY (Democrats) tried and the GOP killed it

    On the facts, Obama STILL had a better deal than he Repubs. I'll go slowly.

    Modeled on Seattle;'s Group Health Co-Op, OWNED BY MEMBERS, As a co-op, doctors are SALARIED employees of their patients. As an HMO, it's ALL prepaid -- NO CLAIMS FILING -- cuz they also own their own pharmacy and run their own hospitals. CHEAPER than any gummint plan on earth, TOTALLY controlled by consume/members, and HAS A DIRECT COMPETITOR (also private!) I was there 15 years.

    Never made Obamacare because Republicans killed it.

    They worked with Kennedy on tax cuts, which meant Kennedy could ignore his far left, who HATED the tax cuts ... and FOUGHT them. Reagan's tax cuts were a direct copy.

    Red Rocks want to shut down the facts ... it was REPUBLICANS who created Obamacare's worst parts, to satisfy the far-left who would otherwise be ignored

    PROOF. Again. (lol)

  • TJJ2000||

    Actually yes. Apparently I'm not understanding this whole "Democrats tried a Co-op deal but the GOP killed it". As Red Rock states below, "says he was on a co-op under Obamacare, says Obamacare had no co-ops".. What gives here? Are you talking about two DIFFERENT Bills and not JUST Obamacare?

    It was my assumption Obamacare was passed by the left and fought by the right which legislated insurance healthcare plans, made mandates, added risk adjustment billing to insurance companies ( The low-risk insurance companies had to pay the high-risk companies ), and pretty much made insurance companies risk-adjustment impossible. I did read your linked articles and the HMO passage in the Obamacare bill only to find out the "legal" and federal funded Co-ops were mandated to the teeth with new regulations. So whether they were formed as a Co-op or not; they certainly were not legislated like any other open-market and ( Free to try w/o legislation ) Co-ops.

    I guess in summation - Since there is no law banning the creation of free-market Co-ops how is it that the GOP supposedly killed that option??? Are you to tell us the formation of a Healthcare Co-op is now illegal? Or are you just saying the legislatively formed/mandated and regulated Co-ops (as stated before shouldn't really be considered anything more than a government agency) were killed by the GOP? Please provide links if possible.

  • John Galt Jr||

    I'm not understanding this whole "Democrats tried a Co-op deal but the GOP killed it".

    I see how you blundered/

    As Red Rock states below, "says he was on a co-op under Obamacare, says Obamacare had no co-ops".. What gives here? Are you talking about two DIFFERENT Bills and not JUST Obamacare?

    Can YOU read? I'll TRY dumbing down.

    I was a member of Group Health Co-op (GHC) (That means I know what I'm talking about,
    GHC was the model TO REPLACE A PUBLIC OPTION. To get GOP votes.
    Only psycho liars would claim I said a co-op PROVIDER was in Obamacare.
    Co-op INSURERS were. (Do you know the difference between a provider and an insurer?)
    Republicans REFUSED a bipartisan deal that would have killed single -payer forever
    Thus forcing Obama to his far left, though he had campaigned as a moderate on health care.

    PROOF Obama campaigned

    PROOF Republican fuckup

    Since there is no law banning the creation of free-market Co-ops how is it that the GOP supposedly killed that option??? Are you to tell us the formation of a Healthcare Co-op is now illegal?

    I DESCRIBED ONE WHICH IS LEGAL -- I WAS A MEMBER ... THEY ARE NOT IN OBAMACARE, AS PROPOSED BY DEMOCRATS -- AND AS YOU CITE Red Rocks (before you forgot what you said) -- REPUBLICANS KILLED IT.

  • TJJ2000||

    LMAO!!!!! Oh wise brilliant one - who was a member of the GHC. While no-one seems to understand what the heck you're talking about in your futile babble of personal insults making it quite apparent you are probably a psychopath instead of any significant member of the GHC.

    I'm pretty sure what you're trying to say is; Its Republicans fault Obama socialized the healthcare industry "because" (so you seem to say) Republicans wouldn't support Obama's healthcare plan even if it contained legislated Co-ops.

    Upon that conclusion.. Its the same as blaming the victim of a robbery because the victim refused to give the robber his wallet so the robber stole the car instead. Which reasoning is quite humorous.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Speaking of psychos .

    you are probably a psychopath instead of any significant member of the GHC.

    WHAT THE FUCK IS A "SIGNIFICANT MEMBER" OF A GROUP MEDICAL PRACTICE?? THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. THAT'S WHAT CO-OP MEANS!!!

    I'm pretty sure what you're trying to say is; Its Republicans fault Obama socialized the healthcare industry "because" (so you seem to say) Republicans wouldn't support Obama's healthcare plan even if it contained legislated Co-ops.

    REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO INCLUDE CO-OP HMOS, WHICH WOULD HAVE KILLED SINGLE-PAYER FOREVER

    I PROVED THAT OBAMA HAD CAMPAIGNED AS A HEALTH CARE MODERATE ... AND ONLY CHANGED WHEN THE GOP FUCKED UP

    I ALSO PROVED THAT THE PURPOSE OF OBAMA SCREWING HIS OWN FAR-LEFT IN CONGRESS WAS INTENDED FOR BIPARTISAN SUPPORT ... EXACTLY AS KENNEDY DID WITH HIS TAX CUTS (before Republicans went totally off the rails)

    THIS is how Trump has destroyed the GOP.

    Anything else? (sneer)

  • TJJ2000||

    So I was right on the mark - Thanks for the confirmation.

    Don't worry - You're not the only one who blames the victim of a robbery for the robbery.

    Robbers in prison compulsively say things like, "Why didn't they just give me their wallet! They could've kept their car/life." and "I'm innocent; it was the victims fault."

    Yes, the Republicans could have allowed Obama to socialize the healthcare industry with a legislated Co-op option as a favor (i.e. I'll let you keep your car) but I'm not crazy enough to blame Obamacare on Republicans for not supporting the Obamacare with Co-ops bill.

    I will blame R-McCain for not supporting the entire repeal of Obamacare though.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Now, you're even MORE psycho

    **** Shame on you for opposing free market choices, competition, lower prices ... and for defending the farthest-left progressives****

    Yes, the Republicans could have allowed Obama to socialize the healthcare industry with a legislated Co-op option as a favor (i.e. I'll let you keep your car) but I'm not crazy enough to blame Obamacare on Republicans for not supporting the Obamacare with Co-ops bill.

    THIRD REPEAT, FOR THE MENTALLY DEPRAVED:

    CO-OP PROVIDERS ....
    *PRIVATE -- OWNED BY MEMBERS -- WHO YOUR GOP FUCKED

    *EXPAND CONSUMER CHOICE -- DENIED BY YOUR GOP

    *CHEAPER THAN ANY GOVERNMENT PLAN ON EARTH -- DENIED BY YOUR GOP

    * WOULD HAVE BEEN
    ____AN ALTERNATIVE TO A PUBLIC OPTION - AND KILLED SINGLE PAYER FOREVER
    ____AN ALTERNATIVE TO A PUBLIC OPTION - AND KILLED SINGLE PAYER FOREVER
    ____WHAT PART OF THAT CONFUSES YOU?

    *HAVE DIRECT COMPETITORS ... MORE CONSUMER CHOICE.

    *BIPARTISAN -- LIKE KENNEDY'S TAX CUTS -- WOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN THE FAR-LEFT DEMOCRATS

    YOUR GOP PLACED THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY ABOVE
    1) FREE MARKETS
    2) CONSUMER CHOICE
    3) MARKET COMPETITION.
    4) DRAMATICALLY LOWER COSTS FOR EMPLOYERS

    JUST LIKE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTIONS -- IT WAS BOTH PARTIES CONSPIRING TO FUCK OVER BOTH CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS -- BIG GOVERNMENT VS BIG INSURANCE

    Trumptards eager to be brainwashed.

    LEFT - RIGHT = ZERO

  • TJJ2000||

    Your still doing the same thing. Putting fault of Obamacare's new regulation on the GOP by means of blaming the victims of the regulation for not supporting a lesser regulation package.

    Your basically saying, "Its the victims fault for resisting getting their wallet stolen so its the victims fault they were shot."

  • tommhan||

    Since Medicare pays only 80 percent of many costs I don't think that is what AOC wants, she and her kind want "free" healthcare. She will have no impact on the things she wants, we know we don't have the money to pay for this.

  • John Galt Jr||

    That's WHY we spend more NOW on healthcare per year ($3.5T) than the Mercatus average for ten years ($3.2T)
    Mercatus was ridiculed everywhere, the same day their "report" came out. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

  • Rob Misek||

    Just as your fart reveals what you are full of.

    The strength of a nation is based on the strength of its people.

    We keep our soldiers fed clothed and healthy on the public dime for the same reason.

    If people can't work because they are unhealthy they will be on social assistance or die in the streets of a shithole nation.

  • tlapp||

    Medicare for all? Medicare is 65% short of money needed to pay promised benefits per the Government's own Trustee report. Would that be Churchill's definition of socialism the equal sharing of the misery?

  • John Galt Jr||

    False, "Only" 45% of Medicare is subsidized by the Income tax, which is how the Bushie's paid for Medicare Prescriptions.
    But that's financing not the spending. Overall we already spend $3.5T per year, which is MORE than Mercatus' $3.2T average for 10 years. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    And it's bullshit to whine about higher taxes, because half of that is already taxes, and the rest is less than we send insurance companies. NOT defending Medicare for All, just showing why proggies are kicking our ass on this,.

  • ||

    Math is hard.

  • MJBinAL||

    Apparently for Progressives, math is impossible.

  • Longtobefree||

    Actually, for progressives, math is irrelevant. They never intend to actually deliver what they promise to gain power. Once the power is gained, delivery is no longer necessary; they just issue the edicts.

  • John Galt Jr||

    And for conservatives (not libertarians). We already spend MORE than the Mercatus 10-year average of $3.2T. Spent $3.5T in 2017, to treat fewer people. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

    This is why libertarians have always been neither left nor right. And why we are now a growing majority of Americans!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his copypasta silliness.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Anyone else care to ridicule PROOF of an "inconvenient truth?"
    With an infantile potty mouth?
    Who BRAGS of being a racist?
    Cowardly.

    (We libertarians have opposed aggression for 50 years. Cyber-bullying is more recent)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano be mad.

  • SutureSelf||

    "Arguably the biggest question dogging proponents of Medicare for All is how to pay for it."

    Funny how the question is never "is it Constitutional."

  • John Galt Jr||

    The Constitution has been obsolete for centuries -- per Thomas Jefferson. "Consent of the dead" is not consent of the governed.
    "Rule by might, not by right."

    If governments receive their just powers by the consent of the governed ... then ours has NO just powers, and the Constitution is dead.

    Individual liberty REQUIRES each generation to draft and ratify its own Constitution. By what right does ANY generation impose a government on any future generation, without their consent?? Or even a penny of debt, which Trump's GOP has ALREADY added more new 8-year debt than ANY President ... while Trump sneers he'll be long gone when HIS debt brings down America (as wacky as Bernie?)

  • TJJ2000||

    You're DEAD WRONG about your path of reason - which is obviously a habit of yours. The U.S. Constitution outlines the ratification process AT ANY TIME by a 2/3rds vote and State Ratification. What do you think Amendments ARE anyways????

    If the TODAY'S communists want the U.S. to be democratic communism they STILL should have to follow the Constitutional rules to get there instead of just IGNORING the very Republic for which it stands.

    Habitually ignoring/manipulating the Constitution will lead to civil UN-rest and probably civil war; as it is SO APPARENT in today's time. The Constitution was meant to prevent this by allowing every city/county/state to be sovereign (have their own people chosen government) and leaving only National matters as a duty of the Federal Government. A one stop Tyrannical power over all things/people (be it democratic or not) was NEVER suppose to be the future of the U.S. yet with every new Federal program (limitless national government) we see the U.S. get worse, less civil, and divided.

  • John Galt Jr||

    FAILS TO ADDRESS A SINGLE POINT.
    SAYS THOMAS JEFFERSON IS FULL OF SHIT

    True liberty, consent of the governed, requires .... consent of the governed! duh

    Jefferson argued for a new Constitutional Convention every 19 years or so -- how long it took the Articles to collapse -- and 20 years is one generation.

    That need not mean changing anything at all ... but it must all be on the table.

    Cont'd

  • John Galt Jr||

    Part 2/2

    Jefferson's letter to Madison

    Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

    The question: Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another ...which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. ... the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals ... no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence.

    They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature ....

    ... it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.
    The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please.

    This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application and consequences.

    Educate yourself.

    You're DEAD WRONG about your path of reason - which is obviously a habit of yours.

    (sneer)

    STOP STALKING ME

  • TJJ2000||

    Don't flatter yourself - I always comment on remarks that are dead wrong; "U.S. Constitution expired 19-years after it was written"???

    You're certainly not the only Democrat out to "change" / destroy the U.S. by marking it as "expired" through some sort of fantasy mental disease driven alternative reality but you certainly one of the boldest ones about it.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (My tone and boldface in defense of multiple aggressions by serial stalking cyber-bully ... and psycho Trumptard)

    MORE FUCKING PSYCHO!

    Jefferson argued for a new Constitutional Convention every 19 years or so -- how long it took the Articles to collapse -- and 20 years is one generation.

    Don't flatter yourself - I always comment on remarks that are dead wrong; "U.S. Constitution expired 19-years after it was written"???

    BZZZZT ... the Articles (of Confederation) were not the U.S. Constitution!!!!

    You confuse the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution but .. THOMAS JEFFERSON was "dead wrong!" OMFG

    THE MORE YOU STALK ME ... THE CRAZIER YOU GET, TRUMPSTER
    (sneer)

  • TJJ2000||

    U.S. Constitution 1789
    ARTICLE V.
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
    necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
    the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
    States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which
    in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part
    of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three
    fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
    thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ....

  • mulp||

    Who needs a plan?

    The GOP has been winning with no plan to solve any problem by simply attacking the existing laws passed by Democrats.

    Where are the GOP or conservative plans that get turned in law to replace Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare, employer health benefits?

    The GOP and conservatives have been attacking Medicare, medicaid, and employer health benefits for my entire adult life, ie, moore than 50 years, but they have never written a plan into law that they vote for, even when they are in the majority. Not in the States they have totally controlled, nor in Congress when they have controlled it.

    And after obama took Mitt Romney's plan and Democrats made it law, the conservatives and GOP condemned the conservative plan they had because it was a concrete plan, and conservatives can never support an actual plan.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The GOP has been getting its ass kicked for decades on health care. Their fuckup on Trumpcare has made Obamacare more popular than ever -- when people saw, after 10 years of WHINING, the GOP has ... NOTHING. On ANY aspect of health care. (And a few totally stupid, like Medicare vouchers!)

    Neither do libertarians, not since the anti-government mentality destroyed both. Pro-liberty libertarians (the exact opposite) have had several plans for over three decades, and still do.

    One must live very deep in a partisan cave to believe Republicans are winning on healthcare!

    Even now, Mercatus comes out with a cost estimate that was ridiculed the day it came out! We now spend MORE than their $3.2T average -- $3.5T in 2017 alone, estimated at $45T for the decade. http://bit.ly/2QEgss1

  • NM Dave||

    Obamacare is far from popular, even the liberals I know hate it. Problem is, no one has a politically saleable better idea.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The polls say you're wrong -- even FOX NEWS!!

    Support for President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement — the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare — is at record highs less than three weeks before the midterm elections, according to a new Fox News poll.

    A majority of Americans (53%) and of likely voters (54%) approve of the healthcare law, significantly more than the 45% who approve of the Republican tax cuts passed last year.

    It is indeed more popular than ever, BECAUSE there are no alternatives.
    We had crazy shit, like Ted Cruz threatening to shut down the government to kill Obamacare funding, with NO alternative! The Gomer.

    The other reason we lose is ... denial, mostly tracing to partisan tribal propaganda.
    That's why libertarians have rejected both left and right for 50 years -- now a growing majority of Americans.

  • TJJ2000||

    The GOP plan --- FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION; Which NEVER gave the federal government an enumerated power over the healthcare industry.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Republicans support the Constitution ONLY when convenient
    See Trumpcare
    See Medicare Prescriptions
    SEE NINTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

    Your ignorance of the Constitution was DOCUMENTED here

    Left - Right = Zero

  • TJJ2000||

    9th - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

    *Wheres the peoples supposed "right" to healthcare listed/claimed ?*

    14th - (5) Sections; which one gives authority to manipulate the healthcare industry?

    Trumpcare = Looser/Lessens legal forces in the medical industry. Granite; they both reasonably are UN-Constitutional but no one can argue that Trumpcare moves in that direction. The GOP Congress already tried to entirely repeal Obamacare.

    FACT: Republicans support the Constitution - in this case - but have yet to find a way to re-instate it.

  • ||

    For all the talk about being progressives, they haven't progressed much from "A chicken in every pot!"

  • John Galt Jr||

    How is Trump any better????

    Democrats borrow trillions for free stuff.
    Republican (and too many libertarians) borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    Pro-liberty libertarians reject both.

  • TJJ2000||

    Pro-liberty Libertarians must all be politicians or government employees. A government that has big taxes and offers nothing is gonna make a killing! And, "free tax cuts" is about as sensible as saying, "free from theft".. No one should be free from theft? Robbers have to make a living?

  • John Galt Jr||

    "How is Trump any better?"

    Cowardly diversion. ANOTHER massive fail!

    Democrats borrow trillions for free stuff.
    Republican (and too many libertarians) borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    Pro-liberty libertarians reject both.


    Pro-liberty Libertarians must all be politicians or government employees.

    (smort) Read me again!

    "free tax cuts" is about as sensible as saying, "free from theft"..

    IT MEANS CUT SPENDING ,... OR EXPLODE THE DEBT... WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE A CHICKEN SHIT ON TRUMP BEING NO BETTER .... HAVING ALREADY ADDED MORE 8-YEAR DEBT THAN OBAMA ADDED AFTER 8 YEARS,

  • TJJ2000||

    Awe - I see what you meant now. Free Tax Cuts as in escaping the bill already charged. Too many leftists have used free tax cuts to infer a subsidy for the wealthy claiming it as an tax-payer expense.

    Yet; There is no concept of Free Tax Cuts if there is no Free Stuff. If the government was not in-debt from offering free stuff there wouldn't be such a thing as free tax cuts.

  • TJJ2000||

    Oh whoops - didn't see it was you originally "John Galt" before replying. Never mind - except to say; do you really believe the nonsense you've been spouting and if so don't you think you need to examine that.. Or, do you work for the DNC campaign or something.

  • John Galt Jr||

    You had just made a TOTAL fool of yourself, the seventh time!

    And were HUMILIATED here

    STOP STALKING ME ... and being totally humiliated.
    This feels like I'm kicking a cripple.

  • TJJ2000||

    Keep your pity to yourself - you need it.

  • NM Dave||

    This can't possibly be a surprise. this woman is as clueless as they come.

  • John Galt Jr||

    No more clueless than Mercatus, who combined ignorance with hysteria. Their 10-year average of $3.2T is LESS than we spent in 2017, $3.5T -- or $45 Trillion for a decade, applying the consensus 4% annual cost increases.

    The tax hysteria is worse than clueless. Half of our total health care is already paid by taxes. The other half would be LESS than what we now send to insurance companies.

    You also said Obamacare was NOT more popular than ever. Even Fox News knows better

  • Barmy Down||

    So the part of the government called the pentagon spends and wastes large sums of money in ways that can't be tracked. This is a huge problem. The solution is for another part of the government called Medicare to spend and waste large sums of many that can't be tracked. OK then.

  • ||

    I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! "a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!". go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    www.geosalary.com

  • ||

    I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! "a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!". go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    www.Mesalary.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online