What policies do you back that you believe would make things better in the USA

[Agema]

That's commie talk, that is

I'm pretty sure most Communist regimes were enthusiastic users of capital punishment - often without a fair trial, too. It's the bleeding heart liberals who'd give criminals lollipops and a pat on the head that conservatives need to worry about.

Or you could just get rid of capital punishment altogether.

Probably superior, because otherwise states will send people for execution anyway, and then be even more institutionally driven to impede and cheat in case reviews.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm pretty sure most Communist regimes were enthusiastic users of capital punishment - often without a fair trial, too. It's the bleeding heart liberals who'd give criminals lollipops and a pat on the head that conservatives need to worry about.

Ah, but don't you see, there is no difference between the marxist and liberal in the land of Kekistan

 

[stroopwafel]

They don't need to. They can increase capital gains tax, income tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax, and many other things. It doesn't really matter what gets taxed, as long as it brings the money in without too much damage elsewhere.

Cutting loopholes is attractive, because whilst not technically a tax raise, it increases income.

Income tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax etc you really aren't going to hurt billion dollar corporations by increasing those. There might be an overlap with capital gains but you'll still hurt middle companies and small investors much more. Corporate asset liquidation is usually just to cut costs on activities that aren't considered profitable. Even here the motivation is to bump short term stock price through cost suppression not necessarily increase revenue. If you really want to hurt corporations you have to go after their shareholders and increase dividend tax. But this will absolutely never, ever, happen. Bulk shares are managed by these gigantic investment firms that pretty much finance pension funds, access to credit, bank loans(including mortgages) and international capital. You would annihilate the investment climate and with it the economy. But, you know, Singapore will probably be delighted.

Wealth tax in particular is incredibly unfair. One can have started a succesful business and already have been taxed out the ass both company and private and then pay an additional sum over the already heavily taxed leftover.

Yeah, I don't really buy into this.

Some companies like Apple have staggering quantities of billions sitting in places like Ireland, because if they move it back to the US HQ it gets taxed. These companies can pay tax and it's really not going to hurt them much. They just don't want to, because profit - and thus not paying tax - is their institutional function. Let's remember that companies functioned fine for many decades before they developed a lot of these wheezes. If they did before, they can do so again.

I'm honestly a bit fed up reading "We can't do A because of B and We can't do X because of Y"... actually, we can. It is absolutely true that changing the way things operate will come with at least some downsides for some people, but this is not a reason to never do anything. Otherwise countries may as well empty their parliaments and hand over the keys to Facebook, Shell, Volkswagen and Samsung, because if we're going to argue we can to anything to inconvenience these mega-multinationals, we may as well strip away the pretence that they're not the ones running the world.

Well yeah because of the reasons I mentioned in a previous thread. Apple is dependent on China for it's international supply chain so it's really not that important where it's HQ is. The money moves where taxes are lowest and when the U.S. government disagrees it will just pressure politicians by for example suggesting to relocate manufacture of advanced materials to China as well which would cost the U.S. like a few hundred thousand jobs. Go find a Congressman who would ever support this. You increase tax you weaken the investment climate which is why corporations have so many deductibles you're amazed they make any money at all if you read their tax return. Small companies and middle companies are really carrying the bulk of the tax burden and they are the ones who are hurt the most by tax increases.

It's a separate discussion but I also don't think more money will also lead to better government or relief for the poor or those in need. A lot more can be won in efficiency, proper priorities and mitigation of the gigantic bureaucratic waste. The government receives more than enough money but the way it budgets and spends it is why they never have enough. That schools, healthcare and entire communities are left to their own devices has nothing to do with the government not having the finances to address these issues. They just don't want to which is also why I wouldn't put my faith in government or that there will ever be any political change other than running around in perpetual circles.

 

[happyninja42]

Separation of Church and State, and have it actually fucking mean something.

 

[Trunkage]

Separation of Church and State, and have it actually fucking mean something.

I don’t know why evangelicals want to turn America into Iran, but I’m filling against it

 

[Buyetyen]

Income tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax etc you really aren't going to hurt billion dollar corporations by increasing those.

The point of taxes is not to cause pain, no matter what the joke writers say. The point is to fund the services of government that enable our continued functioning as a society.

It's a separate discussion but I also don't think more money will also lead to better government or relief for the poor or those in need. A lot more can be won in efficiency, proper priorities and mitigation of the gigantic bureaucratic waste.

I would rather the services of government be effective than efficient. No, they're not the same thing. You are correct that our government horribly misspends tax revenue. Thing of it is, it's mostly the defense spending. We're pretty tightly locked into the military industrial complex and that's a job that's going to take more than my lifetime to fix. Still not an excuse to give up, though.

Separation of Church and State, and have it actually fucking mean something.

The law and jurisprudence are pretty clear on this already, it's just under Republican leadership, none of it gets enforced.

I don’t know why evangelicals want to turn America into Iran, but I’m filling against it

I shit you not, I have been told by actual evangelicals that the problem with Iran is not that they're a theocracy, but that they're worshipping a false god (who is the same god Christians worship) and that's why they have human rights violations. If their theocracy was sponsored by Jesus, they wouldn't have that problem.

 

[Trunkage]

I shit you not, I have been told by actual evangelicals that the problem with Iran is not that they're a theocracy, but that they're worshipping a false god (who is the same god Christians worship) and that's why they have human rights violations. If their theocracy was sponsored by Jesus, they wouldn't have that problem.

Do they care to explain how evangelicals are trying to take rights away people?

A lot of evangelicals in Oz are very pro-Same Sex Marriage. Bit iffy on trans stuff. But it’s the conservative Protestants, Catholics allied with Hindus and Muslims who are usually anti-Rights. So it’s very different here

 

[happyninja42]

The law and jurisprudence are pretty clear on this already, it's just under Republican leadership, none of it gets enforced.

I'm well aware it's on the books, hence my comment about it actually fucking mattering.

 

[Buyetyen]

Do they care to explain how evangelicals are trying to take rights away people?

A lot of evangelicals in Oz are very pro-Same Sex Marriage. Bit iffy on trans stuff. But it’s the conservative Protestants, Catholics allied with Hindus and Muslims who are usually anti-Rights. So it’s very different here

Must be nice. In Oz you guys get all the convicts and we got stuck with the fucking Puritans. Long story short, conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christians are some of the most sanctimonious people you will ever have the misfortune of crossing paths with. They take nearly every conversation as an opportunity to proselytize and when their evangelizing is rebuffed they internalize it into a larger martyr complex encouraged by their (probably rapist) pastors. Older generations of these zealots see themselves as culture warriors, taking the fight to the dirty libs and godless commies. The younger ones are more likely to see themselves in the role of martyrs, ostracized for their faith (instead of, you know, their poisonous behavior) and setting the example by suffering in Christ's name. It's basically a death cult. Has been for some time.

EDIT: Oh, and remember the Catholic church child fucking scandal, like who doesn't? Turns out, the Boston Globe were able to find that information because of how thorough the Catholic church's record keeping was. They found patterns in the coverup and were able to retrace events. Conservative Protestant churches, not so much. So sexual predators in the ministry are alarmingly common among those denominations. And their churches make sure that the coverup doesn't leave a paper trail.

 

[Agema]

You would annihilate the investment climate and with it the economy.

No, you wouldn't "annihilate", unless it were set at excessively punitive rates. That is ludicrous hyperbole.

Wealth tax in particular is incredibly unfair. One can have started a succesful business and already have been taxed out the ass both company and private and then pay an additional sum over the already heavily taxed leftover.

"Unfair"? Gibberish. Let's say in model 1 people pay income tax and wealth tax, and they are rates such that it costs Alan $100k a year. In model 2 there is only income tax at such a rate that it costs Alan $100k a year. Why is model 1 "unfair"? If people have to pay tax then they have to pay tax. Arguing about what form that tax takes is frequently little more than sophistry.

Well yeah because of the reasons I mentioned in a previous thread. Apple is dependent on China for it's international supply chain so it's really not that important where it's HQ is. The money moves where taxes are lowest and when the U.S. government disagrees it will just pressure politicians by for example suggesting to relocate manufacture of advanced materials to China as well which would cost the U.S. like a few hundred thousand jobs. Go find a Congressman who would ever support this.

Apple isn't a manufacturing company. It doesn't make iphones and macbooks. Apple is a design and retail firm. It patents IP, pays other companies to make stuff, and then sells it. It canned its US factories and employed Chinese ones to do it (like many other companies over the years) because China had extraordinarily cheap labour. The money it holds in low tax states like Ireland derive from its regional sales operations. And HQ location isn't all about tax. It's also about things like being in a place with good legal standards, infrastructure, expertise, connections, and even a social element (no-one wants to live in a dump, especially corporate execs). Otherwise Apple etc. would have long since already skipped off to Ireland, Singapore, etc.

When we talk about "policy", the aim of the general public is to persuade the government to the aims of the general public. If your argument is that everything's pointless because the government is just going to obey multinationals, like I said, follow this the appropriate conclusion and advocate the end of democracy.

You increase tax you weaken the investment climate which is why corporations have so many deductibles you're amazed they make any money at all if you read their tax return. Small companies and middle companies are really carrying the bulk of the tax burden and they are the ones who are hurt the most by tax increases.

You've got this mixed up. Corporations assess how much they need to sell their stuff for to make a profit, and set the cost accordingly. As they find deductibles, it enables them to lower their prices. In fact, that is often the advantage some firms have: they're not more efficient at providing a good or service, they're better at fiddling their taxes. Increase taxes on companies, therefore they will react by increasing prices (although evidence suggests that corporation tax cuts frequently tend to benefit shareholders more than customers). I am therefore not necessarily very concerned about corporate taxes - in the end, it's people that own things, and corporations are just an intermediary stage. It's better to tax high net worth people. Hence, capital gains, inheritance, wealth taxes.

It's a separate discussion but I also don't think more money will also lead to better government or relief for the poor or those in need. A lot more can be won in efficiency, proper priorities and mitigation of the gigantic bureaucratic waste.

"Efficiency" is the political euphemism for cuts to public services. We've been witnessing this for decades, and I'm amazed anyone still believes otherwise.

The other thing is that the people you're representing the arguments of believe welfare is waste. Inherently. It's throwing good money after bad: propping up useless people who will never be very productive and may as well just die rather than be a burden on everyone else. Or alternatively, that we threaten them with having no home and no food, and desperation will make them obediently work like dogs for a pittance, which is great for corporate efficiency.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

Sorry I never got around to this yet, I decided to just unplug entirely for the weekend and Monday.

Two missing grounds here are anti-corruption laws and green initiatives

My apologies, my original list wasn't exhaustive, just whatever I had off the top of my head.

But yeah, anti-corruption laws that are stringently enforced are needed if we want any of those things to happen.

- Guaranteed healthcare for everyone, free at point of service.

ME: I don't think this would improve the quality of our healthcare. I think it would even decline in quality. BUT, it could change alot about our culture in positive ways. Other nations that have this have high tax rates. They're not asking for a free lunch: they just think they can have a fairer system with less overhead by nationalizing this industry.

Being in Canada, I can assure you that it doesn't decline the quality to have a healthcare system with private doctors/hospitals paid for with tax money.

All it does is prioritize care based on need (ie, a guy with a heart attack gets seen before the guy with a cut on his hand)

- All medication being kept at an affordable price so that even people on minimum wage can afford their insulin.

ME: I think people are trying to do this but there is bipartisan opposition to it passing. Liberal Cory Booker, I think, even opposed it. Of course it is a great idea.

Yup. Even the democrats are in the pocket of Big Pharma.

- Affordable low-cost housing for everyone, and improved homeless shelters so that no one is forced to live on the street, and has access to job training to get out of homelessness.

ME: We've tried this before and ended up with "vertical slums" like Cabrini Green. The wealthiest among us pass laws restricting building new housing. They attack land lords as villains, making it less likely anyone wants to be one. Big government IS the problem with housing. This is different for the homeless who are homeless due to substance abuse and mental health issues. Dealing with that is a touchy subject. The libertarian left and right object to hospitalizing such people while the wealthy are happy to have low taxes and let these people live in misery.

Ehhh...while I get the concern about "vertical slums"...

Big government isn't really the issue with housing. It's a combination of problems, up to and including people buying homes but not living in them, in order to keep them as "investments".

I have no ideal solution for this whole thing, but the end point is that people should be able to afford a place to live (so no one who is actively working has to live on the street), and people who are homeless and/or sick should be able to get some kind of treatment and help.

- Decriminalization of drug possession and an approach designed to help people overcome addiction instead of throwing them in prison and thus destroying any chance they have of finding decent employment in the future (and also does nothing to stop their addiction).

ME: Agreed.

- An end to all wars (and extrajudicial drone killings) your country is currently participating in, in countries that haven't even attacked you.

ME: I support bringing US troops home from around the world. As Pat Buchanan wrote, "A nation, not an empire." I can see a foreign power being a clear and present danger to us without having actually attacked us yet. But what can we ever believe again? Our forever war elites lied to us. They told us the Syrian government used poison gas on their own people just as the US was to pull out of the region, which made no sense. They showed us some BS like a female reporter sniffing a knapsack allegedly doused in nerve gas then stating, "yeah that does smell funny". And too many US citizens bought this garbage.

Wow, double points here.

[QUOTE"]
- A federally mandated living wage adjusted to your state's cost of living so that everyone who works a full time job can afford food, shelter and basic transportation.

ME: I don't think we've really tried the unearned income tax. I would want to do so again, but include those 13 or over.
[/QUOTE]

Seems like a roundabout way of doing that.

I tend to prefer "You work, you get enough to live, up front, no need to try to fiddle with your tax returns to get it back".

-a massive overhaul of policing, replacing most police response (for things like homelessness, wellness checks, etc) with social workers who are trained to de-escalate situations peacefully.

ME: I worry this approach would get a lot of innocent social workers killed. One thing that radicalized me young was when I read of an innocent 16 year old girl was waiting for a bus, a mentally ill homeless man stabbed her to death for no reason. These situations can be very dangerous.

This is totally a valid concern.

I have heard from social workers who have said part of their training is to be able to handle situations like that without resorting to guns or killing, though. This would require additional training or research, I suppose.

Main point is, though, that "dude with gun, who is trained to see everything as a potential threat" shouldn't be the default response, because it often leads to escalation and then violence/death.

- demilitarizing the police so they don't show up with military hardware.

ME: Depends upon the situation. When that gunman murdered some 50 people in Nevada, I would want those cops to have whatever they need. But you can watch a youtube of a bodycam on some cops dressed like they are marines: they kill some innocent kid in a hotel hallway as they "investigate" a call to them: someone saw someone in a hotel room with a gun (it was a bb gun and he was showing it to a friend). Investigate? Dressed like they're about to invade Normandy?

You know, agreed. If there's a full on criminal gun battle happening, by all means, call in SWAT.

But otherwise, they do NOT need to show up like they're about to fight WW3, especially not as an initial response.

- Tightened gun laws so that people suffering from severe mental illness or who have a record of violence are not able to get their hands on a semi-automatic rifle and a large amount of ammunition. "

ME: I believe these laws largely exist. But, were I to be the primary caretaker of a mentally ill person, should I be barred from having such weapons? I don't think so. I think I should be heavily sanctioned (Even given jail time) if found criminally negligent in how the weapons are stored in that situation. There are cases of school shootings, for instance, where a mentally ill child got ahold of a semi-auto rifle from their parent. I would want to know how that happened and respond accordingly.

Ehh......A lot of them were removed, actually. There was one removed back in Trump's first year which has originally barred people deemed unfit to handle their own money affairs to own a gun, I believe. Likewise, there has been heavy legal pushback against barring convicted domestic abusers from owning guns.

But also yeah, if you're the caretaker of a mentally ill person...You shouldn't be barred from having a weapon. But if you don't lock it up and said person gets it and murders people with it...Then yeah, you should be held criminally liable. I don't know if that law is on the books or if it's enforced though, seems not to be.

Closing Thoughts....

Tallying these up...Surprise! You actually agree substantially more with The Left/Progressives than you likely think! Because these things are all Progressive/Leftist priorities.

And the places where you disagree tend to either be reasonable concerns (and thus require additional thought/scrutiny before implementation) or are more details/quibbles about how thins will be implemented.

You know, I did not expect that much agreement on the stuff I posted? I'm actually surprised.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

Why the hell is the Quote system breaking down so hard? 0_o Anytime I put Gorfias' name in the quote, or even type it to say "they these belong to him" I get an unspecified error!

 

[Kae]

-snip-

The error means you've exceeded the character limit for a forum post, the issue with adding a lot of quotes is that they inflate you're character count quite dramatically, I recommend snipping (Like I have done here) to reduce the number of characters in your post to avoid this issue, though I do understand that can make your point harder to understand, the other solution is to divide your comment into multiple posts.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

The error means you've exceeded the character limit for a forum post, the issue with adding a lot of quotes is that they inflate you're character count quite dramatically, I recommend snipping (Like I have done here) to reduce the number of characters in your post to avoid this issue, though I do understand that can make your point harder to understand, the other solution is to divide your comment into multiple posts.

There's a character limit?

...Oof. I didn't know. That and I wish it had actually said that was the error. XD Thanks for letting me know.

 

[gorfias]

There's a character limit?

...Oof. I didn't know. That and I wish it had actually said that was the error. XD Thanks for letting me know.

We may have to ask a mod. Snipping has fixed the issue for me. Even so, I've selected all, cut, refreshed the page and pasted the same text, and not gotten the error. I think there is a problem beyond character count.

EDIT: PS, liked your post. Lot of good food for thought there.

 

[Kae]

There's a character limit?

...Oof. I didn't know. That and I wish it had actually said that was the error. XD Thanks for letting me know.

We may have to ask a mod. Snipping has fixed the issue for me. Even so, I've selected all, cut, refreshed the page and pasted the same text, and not gotten the error. I think there is a problem beyond character count.

EDIT: PS, liked your post. Lot of good food for thought there.

Here's my source by the way, as you can see Martintox claims there's a 10,000 character limit, and the editor of the site confirms it.

 

[stroopwafel]

No, you wouldn't "annihilate", unless it were set at excessively punitive rates. That is ludicrous hyperbole.

It does when it reverberates through state finances resulting from banks having less access to capital and as such companies and consumers less access to credit(eg starting loans, mortgages etc) and pension funds losing value due to decreased stock prices. It would also make capital markets lose faith that the massive state debt bought by central banks will ever be repaid. Really though since the coronacrisis governments have dug themselves only deeper into the hole by making themselves wholly dependent on the capital markets.

"Unfair"? Gibberish. Let's say in model 1 people pay income tax and wealth tax, and they are rates such that it costs Alan $100k a year. In model 2 there is only income tax at such a rate that it costs Alan $100k a year. Why is model 1 "unfair"? If people have to pay tax then they have to pay tax. Arguing about what form that tax takes is frequently little more than sophistry.

Yeah it's unfair because it's an additional tax that isn't evenly distributed. Companies have to pay company income tax, private income tax(upto 50% in welfare states, France even has 70%), obligatory employee premiums, company partnership taxes etc. Strangely a tax that doesn't really benefit small or middle companies, dividend tax, is either exempt or can be deduced from the income tax. Hmm..I wonder why that is.

'Wealth' tax is the most unfair tax there is with zero percent interest rates or zero returns. It's just an additional tax for those that have already been taxed out the ass(ie small enterprise). The wealth of corporate fat cats consist of company shares with deductible dividend rates not a post-tax revenue leftover. The 'wealth' of small companies is already at a loss due to inflation and zero percent interest rates as a result of central banks buying massive amounts of state debt.

Apple isn't a manufacturing company. It doesn't make iphones and macbooks. Apple is a design and retail firm. It patents IP, pays other companies to make stuff, and then sells it. It canned its US factories and employed Chinese ones to do it (like many other companies over the years) because China had extraordinarily cheap labour. The money it holds in low tax states like Ireland derive from its regional sales operations. And HQ location isn't all about tax. It's also about things like being in a place with good legal standards, infrastructure, expertise, connections, and even a social element (no-one wants to live in a dump, especially corporate execs). Otherwise Apple etc. would have long since already skipped off to Ireland, Singapore, etc.

Yeah, that's pretty much how every company works; through partnerships and third party suppliers. To deliver products at competitive rates and keep shareholders happy you need to be cost-efficient and Apple's supply chain and financial infrastructure is maximized on that premise. You have this idea that corporate executives are the ones pulling the strings but it are really the shareholders. Now ofcourse you have more passive and more activist shareholders(where governments sometimes have to intervene to not lose national companies in a hostile takeover to a foreign investor) but the share price determines the value of the company. Now Apple is obviously a well-managed company with people who know what they are doing(even if they've become risk-averse after Jobs). Where revenue is made is really not that important it's where profit is written off and Ireland has a really sound investment climate. You also put way too much importance on HQ. For billion dollar corporations this is just an administrative post.

I agree about corporate preference for the law state and decent legal infrastructure because it wants to know it's investments are secure during a dispute. Which is also why I said China continues to treat HK with comparative silk gloves because it doesn't want to scare away investors who us HK as a trading/insurance hub in the previous thread.

When we talk about "policy", the aim of the general public is to persuade the government to the aims of the general public. If your argument is that everything's pointless because the government is just going to obey multinationals, like I said, follow this the appropriate conclusion and advocate the end of democracy.

No, I only said you need to consider the reality of the situation. These corporations are so intertwined with governments that there might just as well not be a difference anymore and governments have gotten only more dependent on corporations by central banks buying state debt with money from the capital markets. It's like China and the dollar. It's not in China's interest to bankrupt the U.S. economy but if it wanted to it could. The only real solution for governments to be less dependent on capital markets is to pay off their state debt but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Well, actually I will never see that happening.

You've got this mixed up. Corporations assess how much they need to sell their stuff for to make a profit, and set the cost accordingly. As they find deductibles, it enables them to lower their prices. In fact, that is often the advantage some firms have: they're not more efficient at providing a good or service, they're better at fiddling their taxes. Increase taxes on companies, therefore they will react by increasing prices (although evidence suggests that corporation tax cuts frequently tend to benefit shareholders more than customers). I am therefore not necessarily very concerned about corporate taxes - in the end, it's people that own things, and corporations are just an intermediary stage. It's better to tax high net worth people. Hence, capital gains, inheritance, wealth taxes.

I can tell you don't have experience managing companies b/c that is not how it works. Providing value through partnerships and investing in third party suppliers is exactly what suppresses costs to competitive rates not deductible taxes. That isn't of importance until total volume of revenue decides company's nett profit. That is very important for small and middle companies but not really for corporations that is dependent on share price(most of the time not reflecting actual value of company). That is why only dividend tax is of influence on share price and why in almost every developed country or pro-investors developing country it's either set at zero percent or deductible. And this is also exactly because governments are so dependent on the capital market.

Increasing the taxes you propose only hurt small and middle companies that often have put private investments at stake to start a company. And like I said those are the ones already carrying the majority of the tax burden.

"Efficiency" is the political euphemism for cuts to public services. We've been witnessing this for decades, and I'm amazed anyone still believes otherwise.

The other thing is that the people you're representing the arguments of believe welfare is waste. Inherently. It's throwing good money after bad: propping up useless people who will never be very productive and may as well just die rather than be a burden on everyone else. Or alternatively, that we threaten them with having no home and no food, and desperation will make them obediently work like dogs for a pittance, which is great for corporate efficiency.

Nah, that is totally not what I wrote. I said the government should do more to address poverty and structural neglect of schools and poor communities. But throwing more and more money at the government isn't the answer because tremendous amounts are either lost in bureaucratic waste or the priorities are as such that the poor are simply of no concern. It the U.S. government for example didn't have the dumb idea to occupy Iraq with that same money it could have solved each and every social ill in the U.S. Increasing taxes isn't going to change USG's(or any government's) priorities.

 

[Worgen]

Jack up funding for the IRS. Go back to a 90% tax rate for people earning over like 2 mil a year. Find some way to tax stock options without them having to be sold. Universal health care.

 

[CM156]

Universal health care.

Out of curiosity, what form of universal healthcare do you think would be best for the USA?

 

[Worgen]

Out of curiosity, what form of universal healthcare do you think would be best for the USA?

Well, personally I would like a system where there is no health insurance, maybe when a person goes in for a surgery or something they have a flat cost depending on what it is and the rest of it just gets billed to the fed. But this is an ideal system and could be abused, same as our current system. With insurance, I think a system where the fed has its own insurance plan that competes in the market would be ok, but the problem with that is that any plan that does that could be gutted by an administration that wanted to enrich private insurance. I suppose the last one is the Bernie plan of just abolishing private insurance and only having a government insurance, but that isn't politically feasible. It might work well, but the odds of you being able to get that passed are minimal.

A government health insurance plan, aka medicare for all, is the most likely one to happen, but I also think its the one that republicans could fuck up the easiest since they do seem to look for any excuse to make government less effective. Look what trumps bois are trying to do to the post office right now. This is just the latest in the long line of republicans trying to pretty much gut anything the fed does, with the post office on their crosshairs for a long time.