Tried, don't know how to lol. Didn't see an option.
 

As a Canadian it's a pretty interesting election, they're all pretty bad. I'd say Bernie is the most endearing candidate of the big 3. Trump is scary, and Hilary is just as bad.

I mean, I'm not saying no, and I'm not not saying yes....

Disclaimer I'm a constitutional republican so in my eyes

Bernie Sanders- he sounds like an insane socialist of the worst left wing kind. His voting record and ideas really show how insane he is, even though he's dumbing it down for his campaign

Hillary Clinton- She is the ipitamy of what the people hate about politicians. She is like the bad guy in a bond movie. Lies after lies and after what her and Obama have done to race relations and foreign policy it would be a disaster.

Trump- I mean really!!? I like to hear some of his ideas because they are so outlandish, and it's cool to see some of his ideas to bring business back to America. He's to much of a blowhard for my taste. I hate to see these other guys that could be so good following him down that mud slinging hole.

Cruz- I like Cruz he's probably the smartest of the candidates and he is in line with my politics. His record is proven. I don't like the dirty campaigning he is doing but hey their all doing it.

Rubio- very similar to Cruz but his softness concerns me, plus he sounds like a robot

Ben Carson- I really like him and he would have my vote if he had any ability to speak and wasn't such a green horn. I don't want another president learning on the fly.

Feeling the Bern up here in Canada. He's the only one that seems like a legitimate good guy.

This GOP Debate mash up makes me laugh:

Assuming a republican house and senate, we could probably survive 4 years of Bernie, since he will basically be a lame duck for the entire term, given that his views and desires amount to full-blown socialism, which no right-wing representative would vote for under any forseeable circumstance.

Anybody else has stuff they would actually be able to achieve, probably making him the literal "safest" candidate allowing the entire political process to reset in 4 years...

That said, if he somehow managed to gain functional political traction, he'd also be the most dangerous

 

Just figured out how to add the poll lol. I swear I didn't see the option at first but it was right in front of my face.

Cruz has the most punch-able face I have ever seen in my life.



 

Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here?

Bernie Sanders wants to complete the conversion to single-payer.  It will do a better job of hiding the real costs, but it is unlikely to actually cost any of us less out of our paycheck in premiums vs taxes.

 

"As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges." - https://berniesanders.com/issues/...

I guess what I meant was a more affordable healthcare that I actually covers me. I worded it badly but the cheapest healthcare I could find was around $200 per month and had a $7500 deductable. It's just insane to think paying that much for garbage insurance. The fine thing is ridiculous and I don't know how it will all work in the end. I just hope whoever goes in office doesn't make it worse.

 

What will happen, is that lower income people will pay less of their share of healthcare costs.
And higher income people will pay possibly much more, with people just above the middle seeing an increase in their taxes that exceeds what their premiums (plus deductibles) used to be.

There is some pretty good financial analysis of this out there that shows how it distributes the cost, and for a lot of us it will get more expensive.



So yes... the final line of my initial comment is flat-out wrong.  For the lower 1/3 of income earners, their costs will be lower, because the tax burden of single-payer will be carried by the top 1/3.
And then the middle 1/3 will see their costs go up to reflect the zero-deductible nature of the new insurance.





EDIT:  and just to be clear, in support of this and the other quoted post of mine -- I am not arguing against single-payer, per se.  

I'm just pointing out that it is the very definition of "mandatory health insurance" in terms of the government directly extracting the cost via employment taxes.

To me he's slightly behind this guy, but I get what you're feelin'.


 

While you'll be covered, you'll be getting taxed over 70%. Your quality of life will suffer and you'll be forced to give up luxuries.

I think separating health insurance from employers will do a world of good for our country. Government single-payer system seems best. Premiums may slightly increase or be the same but the coverage and cost of medical expenses will decrease with single payer. The ACA was a step in the right direction but it's not enough.

Honestly, seeing celebrity deathmatch between the two would be awesome.
 

I completely agree that separating it from employers is vital for employee mobility and entrepreneurship.

Government single payer SEEMS to be the only practical way to do that.


I just think people shouldn't kid themselves about the tax consequences versus what they're paying now in premiums and deductibles.

 

The government should stay out of healthcare IMO. Once they got involved, the entire system became beyond fucked up.

I already pay Medicare taxes and a decent amount for health insurance premiums at my current employer.  If there's a single-payer system that can keep premiums similar or close to what I'm already paying without shaking up my coverage too much, I'm ok with paying a bit more for more flexibility when looking for new jobs.  That's a lot of "ifs" and "buts" though for me and everyone else in the USA.  I've seen too many people stagnate in career growth from fear of losing their health coverage once they get a family or fall ill.  However, it's hard to know for sure how much you're paying for single-payer until it is implemented.  

All I know is that what's in place is in my opinion a failure.  I love the idea that Bernie is pushing but I wish I had a crystal ball to see what the true effect would be on my take-home income.

Your income will be taxed through the roof. Seriously. Look up any current socialist economy. 200% inflation in less than a year.

I think you're conflating concepts, here, a bit.

But Forbes has a breakout of the costs of the plan:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theap...

The taxes already being talked about would be an additioanl 6.2% payroll tax (on everybody that works) and another 2.2% levy on income for those above a certain threshold.

It sounds like that only covers 1/3 of the cost, though.

It's only the beginning, though. Like you said, it only covers 1/3rd of the cost, so what else is going to suffer? We can't cut military or any other substantial program our government offers, so it will inevitably swing back around and raise our taxes even more. There's no such thing as a temporary tax increase. Hell, connecticuts state tax of 6% was supposed to be temporary. That was 30+ years ago, and it's only gone up.

But no, there's a socialist country right now that hit 200 or 250% inflation in the last year. A gallon of milk costs over $10, and that's on a good day.

Basically:

income tax brackets shift up
capital gains taxes go way up

to cover another 1/3, or so...

then deficit increases by about $1T/year to cover the other 1/3.


It's a pretty whacky plan, financially speaking.




And which socialist country are you referring to?

The guys with nutzo inflation right now are the oil exporters that import 100% of their other goods like Venezuela.

Their problem is that they were so heavily subsidized by high oil prices that their market is fucked up beyond all recognition, to start with....

So how is that helping by raising the deficit 1T a year to support one of his plans? Wouldn't that hinder economic growth since we're pissing away money on a fantasy?

I think most people would argue that setting an extra $1T/year on fire to cover health care is better for civilization than us having spent a decade doing the same thing for a pair of wars.



But this still all rolls back to my much earlier point about Sanders... the stuff he wants is so economically outlandish that there is no way in hell that a republican house and senate would let it come to fruition.  (making him a potential 4-year-lame-duck)