Brandon: "Why would anyone want medicare4all? All the people I have empathy for already have medicare"

submitted by SudoBreakSandwich from self.WayOfTheBern

all 8 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]risistill me 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Good grief.

Just when you thought nothing could be more tone deaf than Hillary's claiming to understand poor people because the Clintons were "broke" when they left the White House in 2000 (but nonetheless "somehow" managed to accumulate over $100 million reportable by 2008).

Biden has no sympathy for all those not on Medicaid who have lost their homes, gone into bankruptcy, etc. because of a catastrophic illness or condition? Biden has no sympathy for poor people who miss qualifying for Medicaid by a hair or two? Or for those who can qualify, but either don't know that or don't wish to apply? (I doubt my father would actually have seen his family starve rather than apply, but it would have had to actually come to that, not "merely" skipping a few meals. He didn't even like applying for unenemployment benefits when he was laid off.)

Seems as though a political opponent could make a lot of hay from that kind of tone deafness. Unless the political opponent also opposed single payer. Or didn't want to shame Biden.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]risistill me 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    No, not exactly. Biden has no sympathy for anyone other than himself.

    Did I say, even implicitly, that Biden is unsympathetic only about people who need single payer?

    If so, my bad. It's just that single payer happens to be the subject of the thread.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]risistill me 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      If it helps, I wasn't confused.

      [–]welshTerrier2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Source:(https://www.democracynow.org/2020/2/19/lancet_report_medicare_for_all)

      "In a new study (February, 2020), Yale scholars have found that **Medicare for All will save Americans more than $450 billion and prevent 68,000 deaths every year. The study in The Lancet — one of the oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals — found that Medicare for All, supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, will save money and is more cost-effective than “Medicare for All Who Want It."

      Do the math!! With four years of Biden, that's more than 1/4 MILLION dead Americans (68,000 x 4). It's inhumane. It's unconscionable. It's the fucking Democrats who won't fight for the people.

      And I'm pointing a finger (you know which one) at you, RFK Jr. Your Medicare-For-All who want it is bullshit! People are dying Mr. Kennedy. Change your position!

      I'm with Cornel.

      [–]tsanazi2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Lancet is owned by big Pharma. They just retracted an accurate article pointing out how vaxes cause injuries.

      [–]welshTerrier2 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The Lancet isn't the issue here. The Yale study is. The study makes a powerful argument for Medicare-For-All. It's not an argument "Big Pharma" would endorse and yet the study was published nonetheless. How do you explain that?

      [–]CrazyjanecreepyjeffReality Monger 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Who needs their health when other kinds of freedom are more important?

      [–]risistill me 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Hear, hear! I, for one, would much rather be able freely to exercise my religion--whatever it may be--than be kept alive by life-saving surgery. Being buried in the cemetery of my choice is more important than suffering and ultimate death.

      (Again, overestimating the need for "/s" is almost impossible.)