Gergar12 said:
I am sick of CNN, and MSNBC implicitly, and explicitly saying a Republicans will protect us. That a Republican-lite candidate like Joe Biden will save us from Trump, that a Republican like Mueller will save us from Trump, that a Republican helping media will protect us from Trump's mean tweets.
No, an actual democrat will be the one to protect us, not a republican or republican-lite.
Of course they do, they are corporate backed and primarily represent the wealthy. Why do you think they put the spin they do on Sanders and Warren? They will do whatever it takes to promote whatever candidates that are pro corporation pro wealth hoarding.
It is like the whole nonsense about "Medicare for all" is somehow bad for taking away your employer sponsored insurance plans that you for some reason want to cling to or something? Medicare for all would be better in every possible way than employer sponsored health insurance, but they choose to completely ignore that part.
For example:
1)Of course you can keep your doctor because unless your physician decides to retire, they will be required to take Medicare for all, so unless your doctor really doesn't like you, it isn't like they are going to kick you out. LOL
2)You will keep your insurance no matter where you work and/or if you switch jobs. You never have to worry about losing your health insurance again or having delays simply because you moved as it can be provided via social security number and since it is universal, we can eliminate " approval" wait periods as everyone will already be approved with he exception of immigrants. We can provide public options for immigrants and vacationers as well, but it would not be the automatic system that would exist for all citizens.
3)No more copays at the time of visit.
4)No more monthly premiums.
5)Employers can pay people more rather than offer them insurance packages.
6)Most people's healthcare costs will not increase, they will most likely decrease, since the majority of US citizens income and wealth are far too low to have to pay more in the first place and they can provide Medicare for all by increasing taxes on wealth and on the highest income earners to pay for improved quality of care for everyone else.
7)Medicare for all can be designed to mirror the best insurance plans, and regulation can be passed to eliminate out of pocket expenses and to reduce poor quality of care. Currently there is not much protection for those who are providing poor quality of care, this can be remedied via regulation, as currently it is the lawyers who earn the most from medical malpractice and it is extremely difficult for those harmed to actually receive help for damages done to them. Often when a doctor makes a mistake, the patient can have difficulty even finding another physician who will help correct what was done to them in the first place due to the liability the second doctor can have by even trying. Help for these issues can be built into the system rather than an afterthought. Building in patient protection is something that is long overdue as it is.
Oh and how they have been going on about "Is a wealth tax constitutional?!" Of course it is. They are just afraid because many of them are part of the small group of 75,000 people that would be taxed on wealth as most those news anchors hoard a good amount of wealth themselves. The wealth hoarders are horrified at the wealth tax finally catching up with their hoards and honestly it is pathetic at this point. For example:
Apportionment of a Real Property Tax Is Not Necessarily a Deal-Breaker
Assuming that the Court reverts to the pre-Pollock understanding that taxes on real property (but not on other forms of wealth) are direct taxes, then apportionment among the states actually could be accomplished in a somewhat sensible manner. The portion of wealth tax revenue raised from real property holdings in each state could be rebated to the state government as a block grant, while the non-real property portion would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. Net tax revenue from each state would thereby be precisely proportionate to population (it would be equal to population times zero). For households with a net worth of $50 million or more, personal residences and other real estate constitute only about 7% of assets, according to IRS data, so the share of all wealth tax revenues that would be subject to apportionment would be small. Households with a net worth of $50 million or more would not have a strong incentive to shift wealth to real property because they would pay the same 2% tax either way. Apportionment of the real property share would only affect where the revenues go. There might be a weak incentive to shift wealth to real property for high-net-worth households with lots of state pride (?Don?t Mess with Texas,? etc.) or who anticipate that some of their state?s block grant revenue would flow back to them. But this seems like a much smaller problem than exempting real property from a wealth tax entirely.
https://medium.com/whatever-source-derived/how-to-tax-wealth-constitutionally-863ce992ac7e
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-warren-wealth-tax-20190125-story.html
Although they already deemed that cars and other personal property could already be taxed when they applied the federal carriage tax, they also deemed that sometimes land and such can be taxed as they did with the death tax when people have property shift hands. This if someone attempts to divide up their property to keep from paying additional taxes, they will also be subject to taxes at the time they attempt to make it shift hands. Though to really get at the heart of the wealth hoarding they have to go also go after tax loopholes and hiding of assets as well as underreporting. I also agree with the capital gains tax, but there have been several approaches to dealing with capital gains so I am not sure which plan on that would be best for now. Some want to destroy capital gains all together by forcing companies profits to be tied to how it benefits employees and that is also a good plan to put an end to predatory companies that buy and bleed them dry while putting workers out of the street, but maybe they should hit that from both ends, not just one or the other.
