The Democratic Party Has Finally Embraced Single-Payer

No one is really surprised – we all saw this coming. The Democratic Party has slowly encroached closer and closer to full-blown socialized health care for years now.

Conservatives warned that Obamacare would lead to this.. and now we are here.

Numerous Senate Democrats have openly embraced Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” bill. This is legislation that would take the federal program that currently covers health care costs of citizens 65 and over and expand it to all Americans. If such a bill were to pass, the federal government would pay the tab of all medical expenses.

It’s not necessarily the number of Senate Democrats who have come out in support of this bill, but it’s the who. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), among others, have publicly announced support for this legislation.

What do all four of these liberal senators have in common? They are all top contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

These are people who will lead (or already leading) the Democratic Party in the years to come. The fact that they have already announced support for this bill before it’s been formally introduced (the bill drops today) demonstrates how much of a litmus test this will be. Any Democrat wishing to run against single-payer will automatically be branded as too moderate for their party nomination.

Bernie Sanders – a Democratic socialist who refuses to call himself a Democrat – is the sponsor of this bill. After his stunning performance in last year’s Democratic primary, it’s no shocker he returned to the Senate chamber a more powerful man among his caucus. Democrats hoping to run in 2020 don’t want to be outflanked from the left as happened to Hillary last year.

This bill has already gained strong momentum among Democrats despite it only being introduced today (Wednesday). Other, less interesting Democrats have also signaled support for the measure. They include Sens Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI.) and others. Even Sen Jon Tester, who represents the red state of Montana, has expressed mild interest in such an expansion of government into the healthcare realm.

Expect many more to follow the herd.

All the action isn’t only happening in the upper chamber. John Conyers, a Democrat representative from Michigan, has re-introduced a single-payer health care bill that has amassed well over 100 supporters – over half the Democratic caucus stands in approval. Conyers’ bill, a measure he introduces in the House on a perennial basis, enjoys more backing now than it ever has since he began introducing it over 10 years ago.

In other words: single-payer is no longer a sensitive subject for Democrats. It’s now mainstream.

There are, however, still some holdouts within Democratic ranks. After previewing it on Tuesday, both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have distanced themselves from Sander’s bill. Pelosi says she wants to focus on protecting Obamacare and Schumer more-or-less waffled by saying “there are many different bills out there” and did not endorse this particular one. The two are official congressional leaders of the Democratic Party – at least on paper.

These Democrats can hold their ground all they want, but the dam has already been flooded within their party.

Like it or not, Republicans are the only ones left to stop socialized health care from washing up on our shores.

Don’t miss out. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Bernie Sanders Swipes at Hillary Clinton, With Hilarious Clarity

Rooting for injuries.

It seems the feud between former primary opponents, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders isn’t quite done.

No, it’s not a blazing, all-out slugfest, but we can see that the claws aren’t fully retracted, either.

To recap: It all began during the primary season, leading up to the 2016 election. Everyone knew Queen Hillary was the heir apparent to the White House throne. After all, we were now the land of identity politics, not sound governance. President Obama, the first black president, was to lead to Hillary Clinton, the first woman president, and from there, it was to be a series of special interest groups, as chosen by the Democrat party, to be the “first…” something or other president.

First openly gay president… first openly atheist president… first blatant Communist president…

And if you think the Democrat party isn’t actively seeking the trifecta of all those rolled into one to run for the presidency, you haven’t been paying attention.

Anyway, Hillary was pitted against five other candidates – all male, of course – to set the stage for the empowered woman, beating back her male counterparts to rise the victor in the battle for the nomination.

Girl power!

Can’t you just feel the surge of feminist bravado at the thought of it?

Let’s face it. Neither of those five men were meant to offer any real challenge for the nomination.

Martin O’Malley, governor of Maryland, Lincoln Chaffee, a former governor of Rhode Island, a Harvard law professor named Lawrence Lessig, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, and Sanders, of course, were the lineup. None of them had the same name brand as Clinton (or a presidential husband, whose coattails they could ride on).

None were expected to be a real challenge, but only to give the appearance of a challenge.

Somebody forgot to tell Bernie.

One by one, candidates fell, until it was only Sanders and Clinton. When the WikiLeaks dump of Democratic National Committee emails happened, what at least appeared to be a standard course of primary events was revealed to be nothing more than an act, as the powers that be were proven to be working to get their identity politics champion of the moment comfortably in place.

For all the ugliness the 2016 primary season held on the Republican side of the aisle, the maelstrom between the establishment Democrats and the “Bernie bros” wasn’t very pretty, either.
Posts were resigned and rifts were revealed.

Fast forward to today, with an election over, and the Democrat party’s golden girl defeated, and what do you get?

Well, another Hillary Clinton book, this time, wailing about how her loss was everybody’s fault, except her own. In the book she also hits at her former opponent, Sanders, blaming him for dividing the Democrats.

You know, because it was Sanders who worked behind the scenes with DNC party bosses to make the primary to be less about the voters and more about installing their preferred candidate.

Oh, wait…

Sanders appeared on Stephen Colbert’s late night program last Thursday, and among all the usual talk of Sanders’ socialist idealism, was talk of the new book.

From Townhall:

Democrats have been dreading the release of this book and the news cycle it will create, which is a retelling of the party’s 2016 collapse that saw Clinton lose and the GOP become the dominant political force in the country. Yet, as some in Democratic circles still like Clinton, many are groaning the reopening of wounds between the progressive and establishment wings of the party that have never fully healed. One Hillary surrogate flatly said she should shut the f**k up and go home.

Ouch.

They’re not wrong, though. Hillary was just an awful candidate, and if she lost, it is because Americans are sick of the identity politics that kept President Obama afloat for two terms. She was not owed the presidency because of her gender. If she truly cared about equality, she’d realize that meant she had to earn it. Her book proves she hasn’t learned, at all.

When Clinton’s mention of Sanders as a dividing force within the party was brought up, the elderly senator didn’t want to dwell on it, but he didn’t let it go without a passive-aggressive smack, either.

“I understand, look, you know—Secretary Clinton ran against the most unpopular candidate in the history of this country, and she lost and she was upset about it. And I understand that,” he said. Yet, he added it’s time to go forward because there is so much at stake.

In other words: You lost to Donald Trump, lady, so maybe you should be looking in the mirror and considering just how bad you are!

It has to be a hard pill to swallow. She and Trump were the worst possible candidates either side could offer up, and when it came down to the very end, she couldn’t beat a lecherous, corrupt, old B-list reality TV host.

She’s the worst of the worst, and that’s saying something.

Bernie’s Young Dumb Hipsters Are A-OK With Venezuela’s Income Equality




The kids are NOT all right. Bernie Sanders is a dangerous old coot whose lies lead exactly where every socialist dream ends. And his young dumb hipster followers are A-OK with that, using Venezuela as an example to follow.

At least that’s what documentary producer Ami Horowitz found roaming the streets of Manhattan. His YouTube video “Viva La Venezuela!” would be side-splittingly funny if it wasn’t actually true. Unless one suspends disbelief and pretends this is Sasha Baron Cohen in “The Dictator,” it’s really terribly sad, not funny, to see people preferring food lines to unlimited opportunity.



Now, there may be some truth to the quote attributed to the late King Oscar II of Sweden:

A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head.

These may be nothing more than young people with no world experience to propel them toward the hard truths of life. James Barrett at Daily Wire cited an October 2016 survey that showed 45 percent of Millennials would vote for “an open socialist” and 21 percent said they’d vote for “a communist.” Only one in four “knew that communism is responsible for the slaughter of over 100 million people.”

Yes, they’re ignorant.

But even when told about Venezuela’s food riots and shortages of just about everything–when at one time (when it was capitalist) the country boasted the highest per capita income in the world–these sad “equality” cultists still sided with the communists.

They agreed when Horowitz threw them obvious “this would be terrible for me” lines.

“If you gotta wait in line for stuff, we should all wait in line together,” Horowitz said. “Right,” and “essentially,” came the replies. “A lot like the rest of the world, which is far more dignified than us.” Yeah, ask a Venezuelan how dignified it is when his vote is meaningless, his money is worthless, and his stomach is foodless.

We must hope that these kids will grow up and become contributing members of society with functioning brains. If not, this is the generation that will one day run America, and we are all doomed.

Charlottesville and the Constitution




Outrage, condemnation, and blame, the tragedy in Charlottesville VA has produced all three in non-stop fashion. Strangely enough, all of it pointed squarely at the constitutionally protected and legally approved group of white supremacist.

Lost amongst the repugnant odor of the alt-right’s disgraceful and spiritually bereft racial hatred, are their constitutional liberties. Lost and ignored by the MSM and most politicians. More importantly, equally ignored is the fact that the social justice warrior counter-protesters groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa were in Charlottesville specifically to infringe upon the alt-right’s constitutional right to gather on the public square.

The alt-right group had the right to a safe space in which to gather, as well as the most robust police protection available.  In their act of pushing through the police mandated safe space between the two groups and in physically confronting the alt-right group, the BLM/SJW group’s rights were then limited to a civilized arrest process, a Miranda warning, lawful detainment and the right to a speedy trial. That’s it. Full stop.



The MSM and the denizens of the DC Swamp in an effort to win cheap political points, rushed out and without proof, blamed the alt-right gathering for the murderous act of one man. There might have been a domestic terrorist conspiracy to murder and maim the BLM/SJW counter-protesters, but this hasn’t been proven yet. Not one politician has come out and stated the obvious, to wit: if the BLM/SJW counter-protesters had peacefully gathered and obeyed the police’s safe space rules, there would have been little to no violence and perhaps the murder would not have occurred.

It is yet another attack on the First Amendment to legitimize or even worse, legalize the BLM/SJW counter-protest because of the noxious hate filled speech being spewed forth by the alt-right. This is dangerous to the extreme. As a nation, by now we should be mature enough to recognize this fact. Yet, the liberal media is intent on blaming the alt-right for the violent illegal actions of some within the BLM/SJW counter-protest. (Slate)

When U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad rejected Charlottesville, Virginia’s attempt to relocate Saturdays’s white nationalist rally he wrote that “merely moving [the] demonstration to another park will not avoid a clash of ideologies” between demonstrators and counter-protesters. He also acknowledged that “a change in the location of the demonstration would not eliminate the need for members of the City’s law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services personnel to appear at Emancipation Park. But, ironically, by protecting the free speech rights of the white supremacists, Conrad may have ultimately suppressed speech by ensuring an armed confrontation between the neo-Nazis and the counter-protesters would break out and that police would be powerless to stop it until blood was spilled.

Why was physical conflict between the two parties a given? Because we have been inculcated with the idea that because certain “bad” speech is so unacceptable, that both government overreach and citizen protest criminality is not only acceptable, it is required as an honorable act of civil disobedience.

One of this century’s early shots across the bow of the First Amendment was the very public arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the movie “The Real Life of Muhammad”. Ostensibly arrested for allegedly violating the terms of his probation, it was painfully obvious, Mr. Nakoula was arrested to appease Muslims worldwide. Blatantly ignoring his First Amendment rights, Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton needed this man as their fall guy and didn’t mind trampling on our constitution to make that happen.

There are more solutions as to solving the Charlottesville problem being written that one can imagine. However, any of those solutions must start with personal responsibility. The BLM/SJW counter-protesters were each individually responsible if they broke the law in counter-protesting and justice demands accountability. The killer in the car is personally responsible for his act, and no one else is to blame. To allocate blame elsewhere is to reduce his blame, and that is unacceptable. Lastly, the alt-right is responsible for the content of their speech. They are accountable to their Creator for the hate buried deep within their hearts, and without saving grace will one day be held accountable and justice will be meted out. But their speech does not make them responsible for the counter-protest or the murder.

The one man not responsible for any of this mess is the President. He is no more responsible than is Obama for BLM, or Bernie Sanders for SJW. Until America ceases attempts to score cheap political points by assessing blame where there obviously is none, until the MSM stops protecting the actions of some, while excoriating the activity of others, and until we quit conflating unequal events; America is in continued danger of weakening the First Amendment, and over time tearing our country apart.

 


Bernie Group Throws Tantrum Over DNC Treatment




It looks as if the Republican Party is not the only major political party that is beset by internal divisions. While the Republican divisions have been on display since long before the nomination of Donald Trump, Democratic divisions have been masked by their united opposition to President Trump. However, an incident that occurred in late July may underscore just how fragile the Democrat coalition is.

Bernie Bros and sisters in his group, Our Revolution, are upset with their treatment at the hands of the DNC. Per Buzzfeed, Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution, marched on DNC offices in Washington, D.C. on July 25 to deliver petitions supporting Our Revolution’s “People’s Platform,” a policy agenda for 2018.



Turner, a member of the DNC and a former Ohio state senator, complained that the emissaries from Our Revolution were greeted outside the building by a handful of DNC staffers. Security barricades prevented the group from approaching the building.

“I was absolutely stunned,” Turner said. “For them to be that tone-deaf, or that arrogant, to think that it’s OK to put up a barricade so that the people can’t even — I mean, we were not even good enough to stand on their stairs.”

DNC spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa said that the barricades and security were put in place by the “building security team” rather than party officials. Hinojosa said that such steps were deemed necessary by the current security climate.

A table of water and donuts set up by the DNC as a peace offering did nothing to temper Turner’s outrage. “They tried to seduce us with donuts and water,” she said. “They’re pompous and arrogant enough to say to the people, you’re not good enough to be on our property — and, oh by the way, we’re just gonna [sic] hand you donuts and water over the barricade. That is insulting. Absolutely insulting.”

Turner wrote about the incident in a fundraising email in which she complained that the DNC response was another example of why progressives mistrust the Democratic Party. Citing remarks in which DNC political director Amanda Brown Lierman asked for support in 2018, Turner said, “That’s the problem. You think people are just gonna [sic] do what you say, and you don’t have to really listen.”

The host of adjectives employed by Turner to describe the meeting with DNC officials also included the phrases “dictatorial,” “pompous,” and “arrogant.”

DNC officials offered a different take on Lierman’s speech to the Our Revolution delegation. Hinojosa said that Lierman “expressed gratitude on behalf of the DNC” and spoke about “shared values.”

DNC officials also noted that Our Revolution has been invited to meetings with other progressive groups at the DNC, but that so far “they haven’t showed up” other than to join a party unity tour headlined by DNC Chairman Tom Perez and Deputy Chair Keith Ellison earlier this year.

Turner, who took the reins as president of Our Revolution in July, seems intent on a combative role. She has called upon Perez to apologize for the incident, saying, “The chairman would be wise to embrace this energy. He would be wise to make a phone call. He should have reached out to me by now to apologize for the way the people who came to the DNC were treated.” In her email to Our Revolution supporters, she wrote, “It is time to make the Democratic Party ‘Feel the Bern’ again.”

Sanders himself has maintained a low profile about the incident. One Sanders aide noted that the Vermont senator, who is officially an independent, is working “inside the system” while Our Revolution is working “outside the system.”

 

 

 

 

Jake Tapper Criticizes Bernie Sanders’ Single-Payer Healthcare System




In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders discussed his ideas for a single-layer healthcare system. 

Tapper, who is well-known for criticizing both sides of the political aisle when need be, was not impressed.

When Sanders stated that he would be introducing single-payer legislation into the Senate soon, Tapper reminded him of the system’s repeated failures.

“Let’s talk about single-payer,” Tapper said, “because it was attempted in your home state of Vermont, and it didn’t work because they couldn’t get the funding, because it would be too expensive, the Democratic governor said.”



The effort would have clearly harmed Vermont’s economy, imposing a “double digit payroll tax on small businesses, as well as a 9.5 percent premium assessment on individuals.”

“And, then recently, it failed in California as well. Democrats again, not able to come up with a way to pay for it,” Tapper continued.

“These are cobalt blue states, Vermont and California,” Tapper argued, “where people wanted single-payer, and there were problems because it would cost too much.”

“How do you make it national if you can’t even get it in Vermont and California?” he asked.
“Well it’s not a — no, no, no, no. Let’s — Jake — let’s be, let’s be careful about this. A single-payer health care system, in my view, and according to studies that I have seen, would save the average family significant sums of money,” Sanders, clearly uncomfortable, argued.

“And what Republicans sometimes do is confuse the issue, and they say, ‘well, you’re going to pay more in taxes.’ What they forget to tell you is that if you were a family of four now paying $15,000 or $20,000 per year in private health insurance, you’re not going to be paying that at all,” Sanders said.

Tapper continued to grill Sanders, asking, “Why couldn’t this happen in Vermont then? Vermont would seem to be a perfect test case.”

“It passed the Senate, it’s now gone to the House, and that debate will continue,” Sanders said, ignoring the fact that the California Assembly democratic speaker, recently referred the bill to committee “until further notice” because of its “fatal flaws.”

Hats off to Tapper for holding both sides accountable.

Bernie Sanders: GOP Healthcare Bill Like 9/11 Every Year

Last month, Elizabeth Warren took to the Senate floor and cried that cuts in the GOP healthcare legislation were “blood money.” Over the weekend on “Meet The Press,” Tom Perez literally claimed people will die if the bill is passed. On Sunday, Bernie Senders said the proposed healthcare overhaul is synonymous to the 9/11 terrorist attacks – every year.

OK now I’m scared.

Giving a speech in Morgantown, West Virginia on Sunday, Sen. Sanders loosely correlated the loss of health insurance to sure death. He then compared the number of estimated lives lost to the number of people killed on September 11, 2001. He didn’t stop there. Sanders suggested it would be like 9/11 EVERY YEAR.

“Now, obviously nobody can predict exactly how many people will die if they lose their coverage. Nobody can make that prediction,” Sanders said. “But what experts at the Harvard School of Public Health estimate is that if 23 million Americans were to be thrown off the insurance they currently have, which is what the House bill would do, up to, up to 28,000 Americans every single year could die.”

“That is nine times more than the tragic losses we suffered on 9/11, every single year,” he stated.

A bit harsh, no?

This kind of language should have no place in political discourse. It gives fodder to the extremes in our country and makes negotiation in Washington almost impossible. Opponents should be allowed to disagree with the legislation – that’s their right. But let’s not act like this is a bill calling for the end of times. You’d think Sen. Sanders would have learned this after one the volunteers for his presidential campaign attempted to go on a Republican killing spree because he genuinely believed the GOP wanted to kill people.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Sanders has spoken gravely about the healthcare bill pushed by the Trump administration. Basically as soon as it was released he’s been crying doomsday:

By the way, many healthcare experts don’t buy Democrats’ doomsday prophecies. The Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of people to be bumped off heath insurance, should the GOP alternative pass, are based off assumptions of Obamacare enrollment skyrocketing – which many argue won’t happen. Avik Roy gives a superb analysis to the National Review.

Bernie Sanders Wants to Turn Medicaid into National Single-payer

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks the Republican health care plan is going to fail, but he has a plan. The sometimes-Democrat from The Green Mountain State announced that after the presumed defeat of the Republican bill, he intends to introduce legislation to make “Medicare for All” the national health care system of the United States.

“We are going to introduce it literally as soon as we’re through with this debate. I don’t want to confuse the two issues,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Sanders said that the initial phase of his plan would lower Medicaid eligibility to age 55, but would ultimately expand to cover all Americans. “Longer term, we need a Medicare for all,” Sanders said.

Sanders has been talking about universal Medicaid for years. The further expansion of Medicaid was a plank of Mr. Sanders presidential platform in 2016. Details of the plan are still available on BernieSanders.com. Last March, after the Republican bill failed its initial vote in the House, Sanders raised the prospect of introducing his Medicaid plan to the Republican-controlled Congress.

“President Trump, come on board. Let’s work together,” Sanders said in Politico at the time. “Let’s end the absurdity of Americans paying by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.”

Sanders claims that his plan would save the typical middle class family more than $5,000 in annual health care costs. In reality, the plan would shift costs from insurance premiums to private companies to healthcare taxes paid to the government. Families would pay a 2.2 percent tax and employers would pay a 6.2 percent payroll tax for the health insurance. The increase in payroll taxes would likely translate into lower wages.

The Sanders plan contains a long list of other taxes that would be increased to pay for his healthcare plan as well. These include increases in the income tax, the dividend tax, the capital gains tax and the estate tax. He would also limit deductions for households earning more than $250,000 per year.

What would Americans get for their money? The Sanders plan does not go into detail about what the expanded Medicaid would cover or out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and coinsurance, but there are well-known problems with Medicare. The government only reimburses doctors for part of their costs in treating patients. Under the current system, states pay for Medicaid services and then the federal government reimburses the state for a percentage of its Medicaid costs. Forbes notes that Medicaid pays less than private insurers at the same time that Medicaid patients take more time than other patients. Increased paperwork and delays in payment mean that many doctors limit access for Medicaid patients or don’t see them at all. FactCheck.org estimates that only about 70 percent of the nation’s doctors participate in Medicaid.

Despite Sanders’ claims that expanding Medicaid would save money, the plan merely shifts the burden of paying for healthcare to the states and the federal government. Already, Medicaid is the second largest budget item for most states, only coming in behind education spending.

When states face budget crunches, a common response is to cut reimbursement rates. These cuts can cause increase in wait times for treatment, lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for patients or even cause some providers that rely heavily on Medicaid funds to go out of business.

With Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress, the Sanders plan for national Medicaid will be dead-on-arrival when he submits the bill. However, if Republicans fail to reform the health insurance system, the threat of single-payer from leftists like Bernie Sanders will not go away.