Bernie Sanders on Iran, health care and Democratic electability


JUDY WOODRUFF: Democratic presidential candidates
have been speaking about Iran as they seek to contrast their foreign policy visions against
that of the current commander in chief. In New York City, former Vice President Joe
Biden said President Trump’s decision to strike out at Qasem Soleimani was dangerously incompetent. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
So the question is, was the reward of removing a bad actor worth the risk of what comes next?
We don’t have evidence to suggest that Trump or anyone around him thought serious about
— seriously about that calculus. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, in an interview
with ABC today, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed again her own doubt that
the president made the right move. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential
Candidate: He is part of a group that our federal government has designated as a terrorist.
The question, though, is, what’s the right response? And the response that Donald Trump
has picked is the most incendiary and has moved us right to the edge of war. JUDY WOODRUFF: And joining us now from Burlington
to discuss the Soleimani attack and more, Democratic presidential candidate and independent
Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, thank you very much for being
with us again. Let me ask you first about Iran. You have
criticized President Trump for targeting, the killing of General Soleimani. You called
it an assassination. But if the administration is able to produce
hard evidence that he was going to attack Americans, would you then say this was justified? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
Well, that’s a hypothesis. We haven’t seen that evidence. Frankly, I doubt that evidence
is there. Judy, I — what is going on right now feels
to me exactly what I saw in 2002 and 2003. And that was the lead-up and the justification
for the war in Iraq. I opposed that war vigorously, and it turned
out to be one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States.
A war with Iran would likely be even worse. So, I will do all that I can to make sure
that, in this instance and in other instances, we solve international conflict diplomatically,
and that we try to put an end to endless wars. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, you have said that
this was in violation of international law. So, does that mean you believe President Trump
has violated — has committed a war crime? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, when you go around
assassinating leadership in governments, you are setting a precedent which says to any
country on Earth, hey, all we got to do is name these people terrorists, call them what
you want, and we can assassinate them. I think the world and this country is sick
and tired of endless wars that have cost us trillions of dollars, while our infrastructure
is collapsing, our health care system is dysfunctional. We have to deal with climate change and invest
heavily in transforming our energy system. Judy, in my view, we do not need to spend
trillions of dollars more in a war. JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly, on Iraq, you
have called previously for removing U.S. troops from Iraq. As you know, the Iraqi Parliament has said
U.S. troops should leave. Would you, as president, have U.S. troops pulled out? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, I want U.S. troops
out of Iraq. I have wanted that for a long time. But you bring them out in a measured,
intelligent way, working with the Iraqi government and with our international allies. What’s happened here, after the loss of 4,500
American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars, essentially,
we are being booted out of Iraq. So, do I want to end the war there in Iraq
and bring American troops home? Absolutely. That is what I will do as president. But I don’t — it’s a sad state of affairs
to see, after all of this sacrifice, to see our troops booted out of the country. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, a couple of questions
on domestic policy. There are polls now that show most voters
would prepare to build on Obamacare, rather than go to a single-payer system, which is
what you advocate. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, depending on the
poll that you look out. The vast majority of people in the Democratic
primaries absolutely support a Medicare for all, single-payer system, because they understand
that, when we are spending twice as much per capita as the people of any other country,
and yet 87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, 500,000 people go bankrupt
because of medically related bills, all at the same time as the health care industry
and the drug companies made $100 billion in profit last year, people understand this system
has got to change. And my own view is that, after 100 years of
talk in this country about the need to guarantee health care for all, now is the time to take
on the greed and corruption of the drug companies and the insurance companies, expand Medicare,
and provide a Medicare for all, single-payer system for all. It will cost the average American substantially
less than what he or she is paying today. That is the direction we have got to go in. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, in connection with that,
Senator, you recently acknowledged that a lot of people would lose jobs in a transition
to Medicare for all. You talked just recently about a program to
provide jobs, to provide job training to people who lose their jobs under the program. Are
you guaranteeing that people who lose their jobs under this new system would have a job? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We have built in a very
generous transition period. One of the reasons we’re spending twice as
much per person as any other country on health care is, we have enormous administrative waste.
We have all kinds of people in the bureaucracy administering thousands of separate health
insurance plans. We need more doctors, nurses, psychologists,
psychiatrists, counselors. We need people to deal with the crisis of opioid addiction.
We don’t need more people just arguing for — representing the insurance companies, telling
us that we’re not covered, when we thought we were. So we have a very generous transition period.
But, at the end of the day, Medicare for all will create more jobs in health care than
we will lose, because, when you open the doors to health care for all Americans, we’re going
to need more practitioners, more people providing health care, not just filling out forms and
having a massive bureaucracy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Something else, Senator. In recent days, you have been saying you don’t
believe Joe Biden can win this election, because you said he would bring a lot of baggage.
You said you don’t think he would create the kind of excitement and energy that’s needed
to defeat President Trump. Are you saying absolutely he would lose to
President Trump? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No. No, no, no, no. I’m
not saying that at all. I think that any of — I happen to believe,
it will not shock you, I am sure, that I am the strongest candidate to beat Trump. But
I think other Democrats, including Joe Biden, can do it as well. But here’s my point. To beat Trump, you’re
going to need a massive voter turnout. And the only way you do that is through a campaign
of energy, of excitement. You have got to bring working people. You have got to bring
young people into the political process. The truth is, as I think most people know,
Joe Biden voted for the war in Iraq. Joe voted disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA and
PNTR, which cost us millions of jobs. Joe voted for a bankruptcy bill which really has
hurt working-class families. Joe was on the floor of the Senate talking
about, in his view, the need to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t think — I think Trump will have a
field day with that. And I just don’t think that the Biden campaign can create the energy
and the excitement we need to defeat the worst president in the modern history of this country. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, I know you believe you
would win the nomination, but, as you said, if you didn’t, are you prepared to support
Mr. Biden? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. JUDY WOODRUFF: What about — I want to ask
you about one of the other candidates, though, because you have talked a lot about the billionaire
class. Would you be prepared to support Mike Bloomberg,
if he were the nominee? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I will support — look,
as I have said many time, I think that, in Trump, we have a pathological liar, the leader
of a corrupt administration, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe. I am — I will support any Democrat who wins
the nomination. Hopefully, I will be supporting myself. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator Bernie Sanders, joining
us from Burlington, Vermont, thank you very much. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you.

US NEWS | Warren, Gillibrand and Sanders enter 2019 with cash edge Politics


US NEWS | Warren, Gillibrand and Sanders enter 2019 with cash edge Politics Warren reported having over dollar 11 million in the account for her US Senate campaign committee at the end of 2018, per her year end Federal Election Commission report. Gillibrand reported over dollar 10.3 million in cash on hand for her Senate campaign committee, the second highest total among those 2020 contenders filing reports. And Sanders, whose grassroots fundraising strength helped power his 2016 presidential campaign, reported having just over dollar 9.09 million in the bank. No other contender filing a year end report had more than dollar 5 million in cash on hand. Thats money that can be transferred to a presidential campaign. And the same goes for any other potential candidates who currently hold federal office and have funds available in their principal campaign committees, giving them a head start over some of their potential opponents. In a crowded primary field, in a presidential race expected to smash spending records, an initial cash edge can give candidates critical resources to get their message out early. Sen. Kamala Harris flashed robust fundraising potential when she announced that she had raised more than dollar 1.5 million in the 24 hours following her presidential campaign announcement. Separately, the California Democrat reported having just over dollar 1.3 million in the account for her Senate campaign committee at the end of the year. Warrens presidential exploratory committee formed just before the year end reporting deadline didnt report any contributions or cash on hand, but an detailed in ActBlues report suggests Warren raised dollar 299,000 on the platform on the day of her announcement, though that total doesnt capture any funds Warren may have raised outside of ActBlue. Warren, Harris, and any other White House aspirants who announce before March, will file a more complete accounting of their presidential fundraising activities at the end of the first quarter. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who announced his White House bid in mid December, had over two weeks in the year end period to raise funds, and his presidential committee reported raising just over dollar 220,000 and has about dollar 200,000 in cash on hand. Other senators who filed year end reports include Sen. Cory Booker, who reported dollar 4.1 million in cash on hand, the fourth highest total; Sen. Amy Klobuchar with dollar 3.9 million; and Sen. Sherrod Brown with nearly dollar 1.4 million. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who is running for president, reported having over dollar 2 million in cash on hand from her US House campaign committee Beto ORourke smashed fundraising records amid his losing Texas Senate campaign in 2018 and launched himself into the presidential conversation, but he spent nearly all of the dollar 80 million he raised in the midterms and reported having just dollar 286,531 in cash on hand. Rep. Eric Swalwell, who said this week he is a decision on 2020, reported dollar 1.67 million in cash on hand. John Delaney, a former House member who has been campaigning for president since July 2017, reported dollar 268,248 in cash on hand for his presidential campaign, and reported loaning his campaign dollar 1 million in the last quarter of 2018. Another key gauge of a candidates strength is their small dollar fundraising support how much money they raised from contributions under dollar 200. Warren 92.7 percent , Gillibrand 81.66 percent , Harris 73.3 percent , Brown 78.9 percent and Gabbard 93.4 percent all benefited from high small dollar support, calculated as the percentage of individual contributions they received that came from those small dollar donors. The year end reports also shed light on the spending activity of 2020 contenders in the period immediately preceding some of their presidential announcements. Warren, just weeks from her announcement, spent the most on transfers to state party committees, staff salary, and internet advertising, while Harris directed the vast majority of her spending to web advertising. Gillibrand spent the most on staff salary and communications consulting, according to her report, while Booker split is spending mostly on a mix of staff related expenditures, advertising and fundraising consulting service.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Thinks She Has A Bright Future In Politics


Earlier this week, the New York times put
forward one of the biggest fluff pieces imaginable on former white house press secretary Sarah
Huckabee Sanders. Nowhere in this six page puff piece that they
wrote, did they mention that she was a habitual liar, but instead the media did what they
always do and they did the best they could to rehab her image and paint her almost as
a victim when in fact she was one of the biggest villains of the entire Trump administration. The point of the piece, essentially, aside
from rehabbing her image, is to gear her up and gear the public up for her probable run
for governor of Arkansas in 2023 when current governor EISA Hutchinson’s tenure is up, Sarah
Huckabee Sanders had hinted at this in the past. She hints at a even more in this piece. In fact, here’s what she said exactly about
running for governor said, there are two types of people who run for office, people that
are called and people that just want to be a Senator or governor. I feel like I’ve been called. It’s the role I’ve been pushed into. I wouldn’t want to do that if I wasn’t the
right person to fit what the state needed at that time. And it goes on to talk about how the reporter
who wrote this story sat down and had some breakfast tacos with Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You know, because we’re all human, we’re all
friends. It doesn’t matter that she destroyed the white
house press office. It doesn’t matter that she got up there every
day when she was holding those press briefings in, lied to our faces, attacks CNNs, Jim Acosta,
to the point where they pulled his white house press credentials. It doesn’t matter that she had to admit to
investigators that she made the whole thing up about Comey being hated by everybody in
the FBI. I mean under oath. She admits that she lied, but to us, the general
public, the people who were paying her salary, nah, she’ll lie to us all day long. She’ll yell at media outlets and call them
fake news. She’ll allow actual fake news to come in and
ask questions. She was horrible and she is a liar. Here’s the saddest part of it though. She absolutely will win that governor’s race
in Arkansas. If she runs, she 100% will win it. Her father, who was governor from 96 to 2007
still treated like royalty down there and that’s essentially what they look at her as
if he was the King. She is the princess. She is next in line for that throne and it’s
going to happen and that’s sad and part of the reason it’s going to happen is because
you have outlets like the New York times rehabbing her image for her, trying to make us forget
about all the time she lied to us, make us forget about all the time. She lied to the New York times and called
them fake news. Oh, that’s water under the bridge. We’ll send our reporters down there, have
some breakfast tacos and get this wonderful article. She then goes on to paint herself as the victim. Here’s what she said. I was attacked for everything, not just my
performance. I was called a fat soccer mom. My kids were threatened, my life was threatened. It was a lot. I hate harping on it, but to be in the position
I’m in and to have secret service, that’s not normal. I don’t like being called a liar. The other stuff bothered me far less. You just said your kids were threatened and
then you go on to say that that bothers you less than being called a liar. So if you had the choice, according to your
own words here in this article, which New York times somehow didn’t pick up on a, you
would rather your kids be threatened than for somebody to call you a liar. Hmmmm, as a parent, father of four, nothing
in this world would bother me more than my kids being threatened. I don’t, I don’t care what you call me. I don’t care if you call me a liar. I don’t care if you make fun of my weight
or my baldness happens every day in our comment section. Thank you folks. But you come after my kids and we’re going
to have some very real problems. But no, not Sarah Huckabee. Sanders. Nah, it bothers me when you talk about my
kids. When you threaten them. Not as much as when you call me a liar though. This is nuts. This is not a woman who has her priorities
straight. The kids should probably be your, your top
priority, but also let’s, let’s do another thing here. I didn’t even know you had kids. I honest to God, didn’t know you were married
even though your last name is suggested and that’s just now clicking in my brain. I didn’t know any of this. I don’t know who your husband is. I don’t know who your kids are because that’s
not anything we ever talked about here. This is not anything I’ve ever seen anybody
else talk about in all the other segments about you either we we, we didn’t care. We, we focused on the lies that you were telling
us on a daily basis. The assault on the press that you were waging
on behalf of Donald Trump and that’s what we’re going to remember. So no matter how many of these rehab pieces,
New York times or whoever else puts out, we’re not going to forget. But ultimately, since those of us who talk
about you the most aren’t living in Arkansas, our voices may not have that much of effect,
and so willing to bet for five years from now, I’m going to unfortunately have to be
doing segments about Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

How Bernie Sanders is winning the Internet


The 2016 campaign is under way – Hillary Clinton: “I’m running for president” – and it’s pretty clear who’s leading in
internet sharing. So how do you become the president of the
internet? Well, you say what you think, and you give
no f***s about the consequences. George Stephanopoulous:”I can hear the Republican
attack ad right now – ‘he wants America to look more Scandanavia.'” Sanders: “And what’s wrong with that? In those
countries, health care is a right of all people, in those countries college education, graduate
school is free. Retirement benefits, childcare are stronger than in the United States of
America.” Bernie Sanders is running as a democrat, but
he’s really like a Scandanavian social democrat. Not a USSR socialist. But he’s a guy who believes
that free markets should be really sharply curtailed by expensive public services. Even
if it means very high tax rates. There’s not that many politicians who stand
up for this so frankly. Or who don’t really care about raising money from rich people. Sanders: “This great nation and its government
belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires.” And the public really does agree with a lot
of his positions. People are with him on labor law reform. They’re with him on raising the
minimum wage. They agree with him that the rich pay too little in federal taxes. And
Sanders is the guy who launched a one-man filibuster to try to stop the Bush tax cuts. Sanders: “…giving tax breaks to millionaires
and billionaires who don’t need it.” There’s even a new poll indicating that over
50% of likely voters might agree with Sanders about the merits of a completely government
run health care system. Still, Sanders isn’t quite poised to capture
the White House. So even if relatively few Americans agree with all of Sanders’ views,
they agree strongly enough to like it all on Facebook, to upvote it all on reddit. Six months ago, if Bernie Sanders had started
talking about free college tuition, nobody would have covered it. But because people
saw how much enthusiasm there was about some of his earlier statements, lots of people,
Vox.com and every website I know, wrote about it. The American party system is unusual around
the world. We have just two parties representing over 300 million people. Canada has about
a tenth that population, but there are five parties in its parliament. Israel’s tiny but
they have 10 parties in their legislature. Sanders: “People are frustrated and angry
about a two party system which is dominated by big money, and which does not pay attention
to the needs of working people, or elderly people, or poor people.” This is how Bernie Sanders is winning the
internet. He’s not speaking in the bland, lowest common denominator model of most presidential
candidates. He’s like a third party candidate, who just happens to be running inside the
Democratic party. Which is literally what he’s doing.

The New American Dream (Ep 29) – Weekly News 10/26/19


Hey again everybody! Welcome to The New American Dream. I’m Nathan Clay and – as part of my congressional
campaign – I make new videos every Saturday to let people all throughout the nation know
how I feel about what happened throughout the week. I try to talk about a wide variety of topics
on these episodes, so I want to say thanks to everyone who has reached out and suggested
interesting stories over the last few weeks. Alright, let’s get started: First up, in one of the most blatant displays
of ineffective political theater that I’ve seen in my life, more than two dozen Republican
lawmakers – led by Representative Matt Gaetz – pulled this stunt in response to the impeachment
proceedings this week: “We’re going to being with a dramatic
sideshow today at the impeachment inquiry – as if on cue following President Trump’s
order yesterday for Republicans to get tougher on impeachment – a group of Republicans
barged into a closed-door hearing today. Most were not members of the committees conducting
the inquiry and were therefore uninvited.” “They staged their revolt in the basement
of the US Capitol. More than two dozen House Republicans swarming
a secure area and refusing to leave a scheduled deposition.” “By golly! If they’re gonna do it, do it in public!” Yeah, by golly! Who gave Democrats the right the hold these
closed-door impeachment hearings anyway!? “I read the House rules. And – as frustrating as it may be for these
hearings to be going on behind closed doors – they are consistent with the rules. They can’t change the rules – they follow
the rules. And when were the rules written last? In January of 2015. Who signed them? John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority.” So, we have a group of Republican lawmakers
protesting Democrats for following the rules that were put into place by… Republican lawmakers. And, not only that, but the entire argument
that House Republicans are being excluded from these hearings is a blatant lie. 47 House Republicans – nearly a quarter
of the House GOP membership – have full access to the depositions via their membership
on one of the three committees leading the impeachment inquiry. AOC said it best when she tweeted that “It’s
important to remember that members of both the GOP and Democratic Party have been part
of impeachment depositions this whole time. All you need is to sit on the relevant committees. If these guys are so mad, maybe they should
take their little flash mob to the GOP Leader who didn’t assign them to the task. AOC also made headlines this week by leveraging
her understanding of modern technology and the intricacies of social media to grill Mark
Zuckerberg earlier this week over the possibility of running organized misinformation campaigns
on Facebook. “You announced recently that the official
policy of Facebook now allows politicians to pay to spread disinformation – in the
2020 elections and in the future. So, I just want to know how far I can push
this. Could I pay to target predominantly black
zip codes and advertise them the incorrect election date?” “No congresswoman you couldn’t.” “But you said you’re not going to fact
check my ads.” “When anyone, including a politician, is
saying things that can cause violence or risk imminent physical hard or voter or census
suppression, we will take that content down.” “So, there is some threshold where you will
fact check political advertisements? Is that what you’re telling me?” “Well, congresswoman, yes. For specific things.” “Would I be able to run advertisements on
Facebook targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for The Green New Deal?” “I don’t know that answer to that off
the top of my head.” “Do you see a potential problem here with
a complete lack of fact checking on political advertisements?” “Well, congresswoman, I think lying is bad. And I think if you were to run an ad that
had a lie – that would be bad.” Oh! Well, Mark Zuckerberg thinks lying is bad
– so problem solved, right? The truth is, AOC is exactly right. Misinformation has been weaponized in our
society and platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit have become the frontlines
in a digital war for the intellectual integrity of our electoral process. That’s why I agree with progressives like
Bernie Sanders who has said he will “absolutely look at breaking up big tech companies like
Facebook, Google, and Amazon” going on to say that “Facebook has incredible power
over the economy, over the political life in this country in a very dangerous sense.” Speaking of Bernie Sanders, at 4:20PM Eastern
Time on Thursday, the presidential candidate announced a plan to sign an executive order
directing the attorney general to declassify marijuana as a controlled substance and effectively
legalize the substance at the federal level. Sanders would then push Congress to pass a
bill to ensure the permanent legalization of marijuana and would push state and federal
authorities to expunge marijuana-related convictions. It’s time for our society to stop treating
the legalization of marijuana as a non-serious issue or as a joke. Our nation’s disastrous War on Drugs is
still destroying lives every single day. Advocates for legalization of marijuana have
been pointing out for decades that this policy will decrease spending on incarceration, cut
off a major revenue source for criminal organizations, and provide a significant economic boost by
legitimizing an already enormous and lucrative industry. Next up, Tulsi Gabbard abruptly announced
that she was dropping her reelection bid for her House seat – immediately sparking rumors
that she may be gearing up to run as a 3rd party candidate in the 2020 Presidential race. Gabbard also cancelled a campaign event this
week, playing a pre-taped video to those supporters to instead speak live on Fox News show “Hannity”
where she bizarrely defended the Republican complaints about the ongoing impeachment inquiry. In 2016, when Tulsi resigned from her position
as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders, I thought that we might have a good
progressive ally in the House that is willing to make personal sacrifices to do what’s
right. Since then, she’s been friendly with Steve
Bannon, voted to block Syrian refugees from coming to The US, introduced legislation pushed
by GOP megadonors, and announced at the debates that her version of Medicare For All would
still include the for-profit health insurance corporations that are ripping off our entire
nation. If Tulsi decides to run as a 3rd party candidate
in the 2020 election – she’ll do so much damage to herself that the only career in
politics she’ll ever have again is as a political commentator for FOX or CNN. Our final story of the week is a horrifying
and infuriating tragedy brought to you by the Fresno Police Department. An internal investigation of the 2017 police
shooting of Isiah Murrietta-Golding deemed the shooting “justified” and “within
department policy” because the officer “feared for his life.” That’s why a video shining light on the
shooting has sparked outrage while spreading like wildfire throughout social media. The footage shows the 16-year-old running
from officers, jumping a fence, falling to the ground and continuing to flee before one
of the officers fired a single bullet into his head from 35 feet away. The officer then hopped the fence, approached
the boy’s limp body, and handcuffed his hands behind his back. He died in the hospital three days later. Let’s be very clear here. This was a murder. It was a murder that there will never be accountability
or justice for because it was a murder done by a person in a position of authority. America doesn’t have a legal system designed
to protect us from the police, it has a legal system designed to protect police and other
authority figures from ever having to face any consequences for their actions. People in positions of authority should be
held to a higher – not lower – standard than the rest of society. This is just another tragic yet perfect example
of why we need to completely reform our criminal justice and policing systems. Like presidential candidate Julian Castro
said in response to this video: “it is time to end the shoot first, ask questions later
mentality that ends far too many black and brown lives.” He went on to say “The fact that these officers
weren’t held accountable is shameful—and is just more evidence that the system is broken.” Thanks for watching this episode of The New
American Dream. Let us know what you thought in the comments
and feel free to reach out at any time with any story that you’d like to see us cover! Hey again everybody! This is my director, editor, and friend Mark
Tejeda. Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for watching
and if you support our work – or the campaign – please visit our website at NathanClayForCongress.com
and donate. We aren’t accepting any donations from corporations
or corporate PACs, so any donation of any size helps a lot. Thanks again for watching this episode of
The New American Dream. See you next time and don’t forget to share!

Another Poll Shows Medicare For All Is A Winning Issue For Democrats


According to a new CBS news poll, 56% of people
here in the United States believe that providing healthcare is something the federal government
should do for the people of the United States. 56% say, hell yeah, there needs to be a government
run healthcare program. And what’s shocking is that nearly half of
these people who say the government should be running a healthcare program, nearly half
of them also say, even if it means getting rid of private insurance. Now, this same CBS news poll says that roughly
75% of the people they talked to said they actually do like their insurance. 75% like their insurance, which obviously
means 75% of people have never had to stay for a few days in a hospital or go in for
an emergency surgery because that number seems a little bit high. But nonetheless, you can like it but the portent
thing is 56% say government gotta get in the business of providing healthcare. Even if it means we lose what we’ve got because
we’re going to gain something better. The point of this poll. The reason this is significant is because
this is the latest in a long line of polls showing that people want government run healthcare
is because last night at the democratic debate, you had Democrats up on that stage, alleged
Democrats. You had Klobuchar, you had Buttigieg, you
had some other folks, Biden and Harris saying, no, people need to have choice. We can’t just have a government run program. Maybe make it part of Medicare for all who
want it. As we have repeatedly said, Medicare for all
who want it is basically being set up to fail. Just like the affordable care act, Medicare
for all who want it can be dismantled because if you only have certain percentage of the
population that’s below 100 who say, yes, I want this plan later on, the government
can come in when Republicans control everything again and eventually they will. Eventually Democrats will, but they can come
in and say, we’re just going to get rid of it. They have that authority. Yeah. People might get pissed off, but they’ll also
forget about it. Cause as a whole, as a public, we’re kind
of stupid. That’s just the way we are. But if you enact it and you say, this is the
only game in town, this is what everybody gets rich and poor alike. This is your healthcare. You don’t have to do anything. You just go to a doctor, you fill out your
name, you get diagnosed, and you leave. They do that. You can’t take that away. I mean legislatively speaking, you could,
but you couldn’t do it without massive public backlash. And that’s why on this particular issue, again,
and this is based on the polling, you go big, you go all the way. Because if you half ass it, like they half-assed
the affordable care act, it’s going to get destroyed. It’s going to get dismantled and it’s going
to end up being something that people aren’t even sure if they like it or if they don’t,
or even if it does anything for them. You got to go big. This is what the public wants. Medicare for all, anything less is a losing
issue for the Democrats.