Only Tulsi will get Medicare for all to pass
But it won't be this year. Tulsi is playing the long game. She is building name recognition and with that name recognition, she will be publicizing her political stances. Tulsi does agree that Trump is not ideal, but those opinions are relegated to a minor point during her campaign appearances. She is forward-looking, issue-oriented. You will not hear Tulsi mentioning Trump 76 times in one speech like Creepy, corrupt Joe Biden did last week in Iowa. Tulsi will tell you about ending these interventionist wars we are fighting.
Without cessation of interminable external wars of aggression, we will never be able to reduce our military budget. Without restriction of the current $780 B FY 2019-20 budget, and likely bloated military spending yet to come in future years, there will not be enough money available except by running up a tax raise. Without making any predictions on my part about the necessary yearly M4A expenditure, we simply can't pay for it.
Democrats have not hit on the key reason we're not getting M4A now or in the near future--and it has nothing to do with Nancy or Chuckles. The American public is getting the following pushback against M4A: it's socialism, puts government in control of your healthcare (which of course insurance companies would never do [s/]). Furthermore: "you won't have your choice of doctor" (false); bureaucrats will run your health care blah, blah and blah. But the most telling argument against M4A is cost.
M4A will NEVER be accepted by the public--despite what polling says--until the specter of drastically rising taxes is removed. Even though a progressive tax increase of up to 70+% on the 1%ers would pay for a lot of stuff, including part of M4A, it will be cast in a negative light. A tax on the rich will be conflated misleadingly as a tax on all. Indeed some of the cost will have to be balanced with some increase on lower tax brackets. But the Repugs and establishment Dems will NOT make the distinction that a tax on the elites is not the same as a tax on the rest of us.
The only way to really get M4A paid for in a budgetary friendly way is to massively reduce military spending. This will not happen unless foreign military entanglements plus the new arms race are eliminated. Who is presenting a coherent policy about this? No one except Tulsi.
Don't remind me about the pseudo-doves in the Dem party, now including Bernard Sanders, who either do not or will not take on the military industrial complex. The M4A train will not leave the station until the conjunction of reduced military spending plus the positive aspects of M4A are simultaneously emphasized by a believable candidate.
So who's going to push the real reset button? Won't be Biden. That creepy criminal will say anything to get elected, just like Obama, then do a 180 once in office. The rest of the twenty mule team of Dem Klowns won't do this either--except Tulsi.
M4A is maturing slowly in the minds of Americans, just as that which is leading to the continuing ratification of public opinion, which now overwhelmingly supports the liberalization of marijuana laws. Emphasis on the last sentence is the word "slowly". We don't like gradualism which equate, rightly, with stalling on a progressive agenda. But the reality is that the grass root level, the two ideas of M4A and military spending have not yet melded.
The bogeyman here in MIC reduction is not the elites even though they are the primary beneficiaries of such a policy. The bogeyman is the politically uneducated, which comprise the majority of American voters, do not see the connection. Furthermore, the uneducated see a strong military as an essential asset for the defense of USA. This is true. But the current bloated military / MIC budget will not be necessary after cessation of imperial extensions of American bullying. The thought of reducing military spending raises reflexive fears amongst the electorate, which as stated above is majority uneducated, that America is less safe. In actuality, reducing military spending will enhance our country. Lower deficit increases money available for productive changes to the economy besides the military.
In this essay, I am concentrating on the political aspects. The political aspects of M4A are going codetermine the passage or defeat of M4A. The multi-faceted range of benefits which actually occur through M4A will not sell this program to the public.
Money, folks, is the name of the game. Isn't it always? Whether spent or received, this is always the overwhelming motive. Until the public realizes they will be spending less overall and getting better care devolving from the combination of M4A plus reducing the military bloat, M4A will not occur.
Some of us former Berniecrats, which previously included me, believe the BS of BS--he hasn't got the cajones nor political support to cut military adventures. He is a creature of the elites, despite promoting good things such as free public college tuition, amelioration of student debt, improved basic wages (e.g., minimum wage raises and stronger labor unions).
The gutsiest people in government are two. One of whom is Tulsi Gabbard. I would donate to the limit for her if she goes third party. Otherwise donation to any Dem candidate goes to the DNC and most likely to the Clintons.
So now I'm living on Tulsi Time
Play it LOUD