Of course the people hiring the illegals are a big part of the problem - and the easiest solution is targeting those who hire them. I've always been a proponent of that idea. If those illegals couldn't find work , they would self deport and the next wave wouldn't come - problem solved. But there is a huge market for cheap (relative) labor , our government has failed in upholding the laws on the books and by all appearances , neither side of the isle really cares about stopping the flow. Hell , they probably hired companies who use illegal labor to build that useless damn wall. If Congress wanted to solve this problem , it is as easy as going after the employers. As for the residential construction industry - as I said earlier , it is largely unregulated in terms of labor. You have so many people involved -> Owner , Contractor , Sub contractors, often times subs are subbed ... and the locations change so rapidly , its near impossible to nail down who's doing what. I spent 25 years in the industry …. don't know how many times I watched licensed contractors pay off inspectors.
promising free healthcare for illegals and ending jobs in the fossil fuel sector is political suicide in most of the battleground states Dems need to win but they've already provided video/audio endorsing both of those things
....educate people on the real issues at hand over the next 10-20 years and put forth Andrew Yang as it's candidate.
As far as healthcare to illegals goes .... We've been doing that for decades. Someone shows up at the hospital in need of care , we don't ask them what their legal status is or if they can pay - we treat them. For a long time I was against universal healthcare for a ton of reasons ... financial , quality of care and how it affects progress .... But then I realized one thing - We made the decision a long time ago that if someone is in dire need , we're going to act ...Society made that decision long ago. So in light of that revelation , we have to find a way to make it affordable ... and the only way to do that is remove the insurance agent and his associated costs. They take something like 0.35 of every dollar spent on healthcare. (My wife is an insurance executive and my son an agent , so consider the source). Ask yourself what you get for your money - the answer is literally nothing. Its not risk management like auto or home insurance. The healthcare insurance agent is nothing more than a collection agent .... who makes 35% or more of what he collects and distributes the rest ... When you come to those realizations - We're going to treat people anyway and insurance isn't risk management at this point , single payer makes a lot more sense - with the caveat that we don't have to put up a fight to get medical procedures done and quality of care is not reduced as a byproduct. We're all going to pay .... no matter what , the question is how much. Currently its too damn much.
With all due respect, the insurance industry and more specifically, the healthcare insurance industry (and pharmaceutical industry) is absolutely the problem, and those corporations operate on what is essentially the pure evil form of capitalism. I say this as a healthcare worker, who has experienced the perils of the industry through many people's eyes, but the one that most strikes home was a man, who would have died in a couple days had he not come to the ER. He was a transplant patient who couldn't afford his antirejection meds, or the visit to the ER as his body was failing him. He waited it out as long as he could. I encourage your wife and son to seek a new career because I hope their field gets wiped out. And as someone in the cancer treatment field, I hope mine does too.
I hope the HC insurance industry goes the way of the dodo too ... Neither my wife nor son are in the health insurance side .... my wife does risk management , commercial liability , professional liability and property among others , multi million dollar accounts , my son does home & auto for now , he's looking to move to commercial eventually.
It's very, very easy and straightforward. Something both Warren and Yang have flat out said. Tax the corporations that don't pay tax, tax the very wealthy in a way they can't use loopholes, regulate offshore banking, stand up to corporations and industries that leverage the poor health and options of the have nots (agriculture, pharmaceutical, predatory banking) give those who aren't great academically free money and move forward as fast as possible on automation technology. It solves everything fast, but the problem is the financial leverage of the lobbyists with these forces.
I think the Republicans might be surprised at how the tide has turned in terms of taxes and the fear of taxes they can use to run against the Democrats. At least in the conversations I have on either side of the isle, taxes seem to be talked about much differently. Pretty much everyone on both sides is pretty furious at the freeloaders at the top and support for wealth tax is really popular. Thinking that you can just run attack ads on Warren and Bernie that they’ll increase YOUR taxes might be foolishly spent campaign dollars.
If you look at the turn out numbers last election, the only demographic that didn't tun out were black people. That was the main difference. I'm a left leaning moderate but I know plenty of swing voters that would rather vote for trump than a commie socialist that is going to take guns away from people. Think of when Beto jumped the shark. It was when he proclaimed that we should take existing guns away from people. America isn't that liberal yet. It's not going to happen until the boomers die off.
Except that the last time the Democrats were in power, they raised taxes on the wealthy and brought down the deficit. The whole "both parties do it!" stuff ignores reality.
Fossil fuel jobs....Texas? Who cares lol. Re-purposing those jobs for clean energy will bolster the economy
Medicare for all is a pipe dream just ask your democratic senators... Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH): “I don’t think we are in a position yet where we can get rid of private insurance.” “Assuming Democrats control the Senate, I think that we would look to build on the Affordable Care Act so you would not have to deal with the financing that Sen. Warren’s proposed,” said Sen. Benjamin L Cardin, D-Maryland “There are different ways to get at this issue,” said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, adding that he did not think eliminating private insurance under a single-payer plan would be the right approach. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Wednesday embraced the GOP’s line of attack on “Medicare for All” proposals, arguing that the government can’t even pay for the program it has now. “We can’t even pay for Medicare for some and to go Medicare for All, we can’t take care of those who are depending on it right now,” Manchin said at The Hill’s Future of Healthcare Summit. “No, I wouldn’t; I’ve said consistently that I am not for Medicare for All,” said Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) Sinema, (D-AZ): "I do not support Medicare for all. I am really focused on the solutions that are realistic, are pragmatic and can get done in our current situation." Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) took a shot at some of his fellow Democrats on Friday, saying that "Medicare for all" is not a practical idea. The other Democrats in the Nevada delegation want to take a more incremental approach to health care reform by building on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Obama-era law that expanded access to health insurance but left the private health insurance system intact. “I believe health care is a right, not a privilege, and my number one focus is protecting and expanding the ACA,” Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen said in a statement. A spokesperson for Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto did not return a request for comment. But Nevada’s senior senator has also dismissed Medicare for all, telling reporters earlier this year that she supports other ways to expand access to health care coverage.
Both are corrupt, but at least I am not brainwashed like you are. I swear you are one of the worst posters on the BBS's history.
I wasnt trying to have a serious conversion. But if we are to get beyond the platitudes, what are we really discussing? The accepted level we tax the wealthy? Are we efficiently spending tax dollars? The repercussions of the growing deficit or the repercussions of reducing the deficit? To simply say 'raising the taxes on the wealthy' and 'bringing down the deficit' is nothing more than waving around a participation trophy. Its no different than offering "free" and never addressing the root causes of the growing cost of said program we should offer for 'free'. Lets instead discuss how wealth continues to accumulate to the top. I'll gladly pay a few extra points in taxes if you pass legislation ... or ignore the market, which allows me to multiply my wealth in an unfair market. It should concern everyone how these massive companies continue to buy each other out and stifle competition.
Seems pretty clear that the free market, small government party has continually won and this is the result....
It is right now, but the goal is to get there or at least something similar. But give me a candidate that fights towards real healthcare for all, not a candidate that is going to leave a crappy system largely intact.
