Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Wyrt]

So, now we're supposed to believe that Bernie, who has been fighting for civil rights since college, is a bigot?

Please try harder corporate media. Trying to go for transphobic, racist, and sexist all at the same time is just fucking pathetic.

[Blur4stuff]

Joe Rogan is a fantastic endorsement for Sanders. His appearance on the show and this endorsement could honestly generate millions of votes.

Completely ignore the fake outrage about things Rogan has said in the past. It's 100% bullshit because Clinton went on Howard Stern and you didn't see this group of dems saying it disqualified her in 2016 and that Sanders should have been the nominee.

[Gestopft]

Another self inflicted wound by Bernie and his senior advisers. It's another Cenk endorsement!

From what I can tell, Joe Rogan's version of politics- dislike of it what you will (I'm sure I dislike plenty)- is kind of what the American swing voter looks like, I think.

Why was the Cenk endorsement so bad? Because of things he said that he not only deleted years ago, but has continually disavowed for a long time?

Accepting endorsements from Millionaire Podcasters is problematic. These guys are just grifters preying on the working class.

Rogan has never quite struck me as one of those guys. Granted, I haven't watched him very much, but most of the grifter types are really out there pushing an ideology, trying to 'own' people, etc. He seems to act more like a sounding board for his guests- which is problematic when he has awful people (such as the aforementioned grifters) on that he doesn't push back on, but then there's the times when he lets cool people like Cornel West riff for a while, and finds a ton of common ground.

[Blur4stuff]

Just like any complaints from lefties about Rogan is bullshit, so is the trolling from anyone on the right. They would fucking love for Rogan to endorse Trump. If anyone you know supports Trump/republicans tries to pretend Rogan's past is a bad thing for Sanders you immediately know they are full of shit.

[Gestopft]

Joe Rogan is a fantastic endorsement for Sanders. His appearance on the show and this endorsement could honestly generate millions of votes.

Agreed. And it could bring in people more in the middle- guys (generally) that might find they agree with him on things like healthcare or tackling wealth inequality, but (like Rogan) aren't as keen on the 'social justice' aspects of the Democratic platform.

I’m not here to defend Joe Rogan by any stretch, but I think that a good chunk of his audience may not necessarily be particularly inclined to vote for Democrats

[Elegiac]

So, now we're supposed to believe that Bernie, who has been fighting for civil rights since college, is a bigot?

Please try harder corporate media. Trying to go for transphobic, racist, and sexist all at the same time is just fucking pathetic.

Accepting endorsements from a transphobe does not help the "Bro" image, no corporate media required.

[JohnBrown1917]

They're trying to throw everything at him and see what sticks. None of it seems to stick though, most of the wall isn't gullible enough.

It worked on Corbyn, so I have a feeling the media everywhere will just start doing this to any left-wing candidate. Atleast in the anglo countries.

- - - Updated - - -

no it doesnt, burn it all down and start again is mad accelerationist talk. There is active Coalitional accelerationism ongoing.

They are a thing, tankies love that shit not to mention Third Positionism.

No, that is called a revolution.


And repeating it wont make red-brown allainces a think outside a few crazies on twitter, sorry.

[Elegiac]

Agreed. And it could bring in people more in the middle- guys (generally) that might find they agree with him on things like healthcare or tackling wealth inequality, but (like Rogan) aren't as keen on the 'social justice' aspects of the Democratic platform.

I’m not here to defend Joe Rogan by any stretch, but I think that a good chunk of his audience may not necessarily be particularly inclined to vote for Democrats

That’s an exceptionally wordy way of phrasing “racists and other assorted bigots”.

Like I said, it does not help the Bro image surrounding his campaign. Especially since his supporters have done a complete about face with regards to purity testing simply because Rogan agrees with them economically - in other words, exactly what his campaign is being accused of in terms of insensitivity to minority issues.

I was wavering with regards to my primary vote prior to this, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Bernie save as a last resort over Biden simply because of the clear risk that his camp is going to open the door to a virulently chauvinistic brand of leftism.

[Skroe]

You expecting Bernie supporters (outside of the Youtube Outrage Pundits) to believe they're going to get 100% of everything is about as asinine as the Dump supporters who claim we expect Dump to actually be convicted and impeached by the Senate Republicans.

Most of us know damn well we're not going to get everything in one tour of Bernie - hell, even most of the stuff. We're just happy to finally be getting the damn ball rolling and are going to start making serious attempts! If he just manages to pass Medicare For All in his first 4 years - that alone is enough of a win for most of us!

Oh I don't think they're expecting to get 100%. I think they're expecting to get 30% (I'd qualify "just M4A" as at least that). That too, is delusional.

The real amount they'll get is about what Trump got - 5% - and much of it from executive action the successor President will quickly undo.

Right now there is not anywhere close to a majority in the House for M4A. Under President Bernie, maybe - just maybe - Democrats in the House could create a narrow majority for one with the right bill.

In the Senate, the situation is worse. The number of Senators Presently down for M4A is, ball park, less than 30. President Sanders could concievably convince most of his caucus. Even if Democrats get the majority, they'll need somewhere in the ballpark of 7 to 9 Republicans to break the 60 vote filibuster threshold. Which they'll never do. That is unless, a Democratic Majority breaks the filibuster on legislation, which politically speaking they absolutely should do but almost certainly will not under any circumstances. The more probable scenario is that Moscow Mitch narrowly holds the Senate in 2020and M4A doesn't come up for a vote, and a if Democrats somehow have two good elections after 2020 - lets say 2022 and 2024, which isn't out of the ballpark given how monstrous Republicans have behaved - they're still almost certain to still be short votes in the Senate. Well short.

The fact of the matter is Bernie Sanders will likely be six feet under for twenty years before M4A comes into focus. This should not be terribly surprising when you look at it from a historic perspective. "Universal Healthcare" was the rallying cry for Democrats for decades, but was largely detail free (does "Universal" mean access? Affordable? Government run? There wasn't much specificity or agreement). But it really started to come into focus in the 1990s, and remained the Democratic core cause for most of the next 15 years, when Obamacare was passed. Obamacare is, in effect, the real-world implimentation of the "Universal healthcare" agenda of Democrats. And on paper it pushed the number of uninsured down to a level that, like with unemployment, people could start to seriously debate the statistical significance of the remaining un-insured. Obamacare was a coverage bill. It only indirectly addressed costs. The entire Democrats Universal Healthcare agenda going back to the 1990s did not give much thought to cost suppression. M4A rises now chiefly because controlling costs has risen far above the largely (but not completely) accomplished goal of expanding coverage.

The point I'm getting at is the "idea" of Universal Healthcare, between its first serious modern day proposals in the 1990s, took over 15 years to be legislated into existence in the form of Obamacare. It was the big Democratic Healthcare Bill they always wanted, the legacy of Ted Kennedy. And when it did come it was in a form that many progressives considered deeply compromised. But it was also the only bill that could get through the House and the Senate. A more progressive bill would not have gotten the votes.

That represents how M4A, or whatever we want to call "Single-Payer" is likely to follow. Will America get single payer one day? I happen to believe it will. Will it be M4A or will it look like an alternative model (as we've discussed before)? Who knows. But it will come through a process of compromise and years of consensus building that leads to a bill that can get *just* enough votes through the Senate, at exactly the right time.

So for you to say and I quote "If he just manages to pass Medicare For All in his first 4 years"... that just illustrates how far out there you are on the political realities of this country's political system that is purpose designed to inhibit drastic change like that (in fact, change on that scale that fast would be irresponsible governance on most topics). He won't pass Medicare For All in the first 4 years. He won't even meaningfully advance the topic. If it's tied to him, he'll find it difficult to grow political support beyond a certain level, just like the Clinton's attempts at healthcare. Obama was able to pass 'Obamacare", because that name was, in fact, a Republican attack line, and the Obamacare bill largely was a product of the House and Senate staffers (albeit with input from the Obama White House).

The real Single Payer Bill, when it becomes law deep in the 2040s, will be the product of a similar process. There will be a President at the time willing to sign, but it will be a bill whose time had finally come after years of slow progress, like the ACA. Most of the great legislation in this country's history follows this path.

My problem with Bernie Sanders supporters is they think their passion for the topic invalidates these political realities. As if M4A was Tinkerbell, if they clap hard enough, they can bring something to life. This isn't cynicism. It's realism.

Consider my pet-topic, manned Mars exploration. We could do it with any technology we've had since the 1970s (though at far greater risk than today). It would just cost somewhere between $200 billion and $1 trillion depending how you did it, if you wanted to squeeze it in a 10 year effort. I'm realistic. This country will never spend that much money on a Space megaproject. Nor should it really. Space is important, but it's the province of countries with cash to burn and only indirectly benefits the lives of everyday taxpayers. So instead the effort is to modestly grow the budget by a couple billion and build up capability, commercial and government, slowly, over many years, so that when the time comes to make the Mars leap, it's largely a matter of just buying what is already built and not engaging on a hugely expensive crash R&D program. This is why I've said repeatedly the last thing we need is some fucking President talking about Mars during the State of the Union or some other useless Kennedy-esque speech. What we need to get to Mars is for NASA to have budgets that grow just-slightly ahead of inflation, for many years on end, and a budget crafted by House and Senate Committees that prevent White House meddling, so that when a new President comes in, they don't get to change the direction of the space program whatsoever. We do this for a few administrations, and we'll be ready for Mars by the late 2020s and probably at Mars by 2040.

In other words, my big pet project will happen. Steathily. It won't be attached to any President or any party. It's been the slow consensus build in Congress that this thing has value and a slow unfurling of capability to justify further expansion of the effort. You build the capsule then the rocket, then the space platform, and then you put a nuclear engine on the space platform (funded for the first time in FY 2018), and call it an interplanetary vehicle. They you need a lander and an ascent vehicle - the next two parts and both queued up - and broadly speaking, you've done it.

If I were a Bernie Sanders supporter, instead of laughably dreaming for M4A at the end of 4 years (realistically, just 2, because the first two are the President's most productive years), I would think far more about how to stealthily expand Medicare, with congressional action specifically and slow-grow Medicare out to cover more people. Little by little. The Medicare For All question is almost too big. Instead, try making people 60 and older able to enroll. Then a few years after that (second term?) 55 and older. Try and pull in more dependents. Let's call it the Amoeba Strategy. Just feed it little by little and have it grow out. Give the House and Senate bills that are EASY to get 60 votes and ones they'd have a hard time opposing, by not proposing the most offensive thing. Bernie arguing for M4A could easily be weaponized as "Democrats will destroy your healthcare".... a much harder argument to make when the message is "President Bernie wants to let 60 year olds access Medicare like 65+ can". After all, how many Americans are 65 who have spouses who are 60-64.9? Millions. And then step it down and do it again.

That's realistic plan to accomplish the goal and make 4 years meaningful. It will also set the stage for gradually growing the argument to allow for a more comprehensive argument of "okay everyone 50 or older is in medicare now... why don't we just let everyone from 0-50 on it too, since they aren't that expensive anyway", in the 2040s.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Most Bernie Sanders supporters don't want to just win the argument, they want to wave the flag of the cause. But that's worked a handful of times ever in this country, and never on something as big as transforming healthcare.

This is why I don't take them seriously and never will. Because nothing I wrote above is particularly insightful about politics. It is retreading a commonly known and also highly successful model of consensus-building in politics that Bernie Sanders supporters seem to think doesn't apply to them and their passions.

Well it does, and they either learn that now, or they learn that later. But just the same, M4A isn't going to happen in one fell swoop, and certainly not in 4 years, and that's just the bottom line.

- - - Updated - - -

Just like any complaints from lefties about Rogan is bullshit, so is the trolling from anyone on the right. They would fucking love for Rogan to endorse Trump. If anyone you know supports Trump/republicans tries to pretend Rogan's past is a bad thing for Sanders you immediately know they are full of shit.

Joe Rogan will forever be an actor on Newsradio and Fear Factor to me. I don't care what he's done since. It's like this weird historical oddity that a bad sitcom actor and old gameshow host somehow got in big with the UFC and also has some kind of acclaimed high profile podcast.

It's still like... "What?! That Joe Rogan?"

- - - Updated - - -

Joe Rogan is a fantastic endorsement for Sanders. His appearance on the show and this endorsement could honestly generate millions of votes.

Completely ignore the fake outrage about things Rogan has said in the past. It's 100% bullshit because Clinton went on Howard Stern and you didn't see this group of dems saying it disqualified her in 2016 and that Sanders should have been the nominee.

There is little evidence endorsements matter any which way. Perhaps the most meaningful in modern history was Oprah's surprise endorsement of Obama, in no small part because she was expected to endorse Hillary Clinton and had been a big democratic donor and Clinton supporter for years. It certainly helped pull off the black and woman vote from Hillary in 2008, two things the Clintons thought they had locked down.

But that's the exception rather than the rule. People rarely vote because a big name does.

Basically this doesn't matter any which way. It doesn't hurt, nor does it help. Sanders would win Iowa over his competition on the basis largely of his ground game and infrastructure they built, and not on distant one-offs.

[Draco-Onis]

SNIP

I think you are stuck in the old days of how the government works, though I would love for executive power to be curtailed I see a Bernie Sanders presidency running like Trump but opposite. The fact is right now Trump is using congressional funds to build his pet project the wall on a false claim of national emergency. Therefore it is no stretch to think that Bernie does in fact not need congress at all because the Trump precedence is now on the books.

President Bernie can declare a national emergency and institute medicare for all and just like the wall there won't be enough democratic votes in congress to go against him and reverse it. The same goes for a number of issues we've crossed the rubicon you can say we crossed it a long time, congress is no longer relevant the separation of powers clause by the founders is now toilet paper. The executive branch can rule using national emergencies and executive powers then obstruct congress by claiming absolute immunity. Though it will be sad because of the state of our nation, I will enjoy watching right wingers getting their panties in a twist when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Skroe]

I don't think nor believe anybody has said or heard that outside of your business circles. Your point of Raytheon may be true, but I'm just talking about that line.

Nah it's been shot around for a bit. It's not particularly a fair critique because a Senator's first priority is to represent the interests of their state, and one of Massachusett's biggest recpients of federal dollars and employers in Raytheon (it used to be its largest single employer, but that changed last decade).

But that's not particularly unusual. Democrats in shipyard and aircraft centric states and districts vote for massive dollars for their defense companies too. This is logical, because the defense budget is a massive money pool, and is too large to offset through other means. You couldn't, for example, cut the navy budget, spend more on green tech research, and expect the same people in the same districts to benefit from the tax dollars in both scenarios. Far easier to just keep the spigot open.

It's why the defense budget is almost impossible to cut. Because really the only people who want it are not in areas that see that money, and that's a distinct minority of the country.

I only mention it to highlight how the sausage is made and bring a douse of realism to who elected officials are. Take Bernie Sanders. Rails against defense spending. Except the F-35, which his state of Vermont got a privileged role in for a small, out of the way state. He's fine with the F-35, the largest defense program ever, because it brought dollars to his state.

Should I damn him for that? I'm not. That's who he *really* is. A politician serving his state.

This is why I've said before it's going to be hilarious when President Bernie Sanders buys 80 B-21 raiders (20 per year for 4 years) and not a dime for free college. Because it represents an instructive case of functional political consensus operating as it should be. The B-21 will see part suppliers in dozens of states like most programs. It'll be politically bullet proof. Its final assembly is in California, which means no Democrat will touch it if they want to win the 2024 or 2028 Democratic Primary (California is a Super Tuesday state). And California's political delegation, the largest in the union, will protect every dollar on a bipartisan basis.

That is how a fleet of stealth bombers happens and free college doesn't. Moral of the story, if Sanders supporters want free college, figure a way to build political protection on that scale. Because the defense industry complex didn't have this level of distributed protection in the 1980s and early 1990s. They built it, after the post-Cold War defense consolidations savaged them and contracted the industry. They built it to protect themselves from political winds shifting. It's a construct that is the product of smart people thinking about their interests. Sanderistas would be wise to emulate.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are stuck in the old days of how the government works, though I would love for executive power to be curtailed I see a Bernie Sanders presidency running like Trump but opposite. The fact is right now Trump is using congressional funds to build his pet project the wall on a false claim of national emergency. Therefore it is no stretch to think that Bernie does in fact not need congress at all because the Trump precedence is now on the books.

President Bernie can declare a national emergency and institute medicare for all and just like the wall there won't be enough democratic votes in congress to go against him and reverse it. The same goes for a number of issues we've crossed the rubicon you can say we crossed it a long time, congress is no longer relevant the separation of powers clause by the founders is now toilet paper. The executive branch can rule using national emergencies and executive powers then obstruct congress by claiming absolute immunity. Though it will be sad because of the state of our nation, I will enjoy watching right wingers getting their panties in a twist when the shoe is on the other foot.

That's a very bad reading of what is going on and pretty much waving it all away by saying "Trump has legislative power now cuz reasons, so Bernie can do the same".

He doesn't. And Bernie won't

Trump has access to those funds exclusively because Congress wrote into all annual defense bills going back decades, that the Secretary of Defense, at the direction of the President, can move around a certain amount of funds, up to a limit to address certain contingencies. Democrats tried to remove that as part of the FY2020 budget bill. They ran out of time and had to pass a budget, so they capped the funds instead. They will do it again next year.

But without this delegation of authority, the President couldn't do it, regardless of what emergency he declared. Declaring an emergency doesn't mean Trump gets a free credit card, only what Congress has already authorized and appropriated (two distinct steps) in response to those contingencies. The DOD has this. No other agency of government does at anything approaching this scale.

So no. I'm completely in correct and not "stuck in the old ways". Sanders supporters have no magic wand here to get around Congress. They get to do it the proper way.

That being said I'll go beyond this: there exist no crisis or emergency, certainly not Healthcare under any circumstance, that justifies giving the President the ability to appropriate taxpayer dollars at will without the approval of congress. Any President who tries that must be removed by any means necessary, and anyone who supports hit is an adversary of liberal democracy and a friend to authoritarianism. It is unjustifiable, under any circumstance. And any Bernie Sanders supporter who tries to snake some half-baked rationalization as to why this crisis is just sooooooo important only serves to expose themselves as someone whose democracy cred is on the level of a member of Putin's United Russia Party. Really, it is the reddest of red lines. A President who can do that can do anything and we will have successfully created a dictatorship.

We are not there with Trump. Close? Yes. But Congress still has the exclusive authority to appropriate money and the three budgets Trump has signed has advanced practically none of his priorities, which is why he has to resort to this obscure delegation of authority in the first place.

[Draco-Onis]

That's a very bad reading of what is going on and pretty much waving it all away by saying "Trump has legislative power now cuz reasons, so Bernie can do the same".

He doesn't. And Bernie won't

Trump has access to those funds exclusively because Congress wrote into all annual defense bills going back decades, that the Secretary of Defense, at the direction of the President, can move around a certain amount of funds, up to a limit to address certain contingencies. Democrats tried to remove that as part of the FY2020 budget bill. They ran out of time and had to pass a budget, so they capped the funds instead. They will do it again next year.

But without this delegation of authority, the President couldn't do it, regardless of what emergency he declared. Declaring an emergency doesn't mean Trump gets a free credit card, only what Congress has already authorized and appropriated (two distinct steps) in response to those contingencies. The DOD has this. No other agency of government does at anything approaching this scale.

So no. I'm completely in correct and not "stuck in the old ways". Sanders supporters have no magic wand here to get around Congress. They get to do it the proper way.

That being said I'll go beyond this: there exist no crisis or emergency, certainly not Healthcare under any circumstance, that justifies giving the President the ability to appropriate taxpayer dollars at will without the approval of congress. Any President who tries that must be removed by any means necessary, and anyone who supports hit is an adversary of liberal democracy and a friend to authoritarianism. It is unjustifiable, under any circumstance. And any Bernie Sanders supporter who tries to snake some half-baked rationalization as to why this crisis is just sooooooo important only serves to expose themselves as someone whose democracy cred is on the level of a member of Putin's United Russia Party. Really, it is the reddest of red lines. A President who can do that can do anything and we will have successfully created a dictatorship.

We are not there with Trump. Close? Yes. But Congress still has the exclusive authority to appropriate money and the three budgets Trump has signed has advanced practically none of his priorities, which is why he has to resort to this obscure delegation of authority in the first place.

What emergencies is there now to deploy troops at the border? build the wall? Bernie can just up the ante and take it a step further, what is congress going to do exactly to stop him? impeach him? good luck with that after Trump. There's no consequence for a president violating the law especially with congressional funding, President Bernie Sanders can easily sell this to the nation.

Also good luck convincing people getting free shit is worth impeaching him over, Bernie has the same anti establishment cred that Trump does except without all the lying and corruption. There are no longer any limits it's not magic it's reality and this is coming from someone who doesn't wish that.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

I was wavering with regards to my primary vote prior to this, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Bernie save as a last resort over Biden simply because of the clear risk that his camp is going to open the door to a virulently chauvinistic brand of leftism.

I'm wavering an even voting for him in the general at this point. Thankfully, I'm in a state where it won't matter. To be perfectly honest, when a policy chop shop like the HRC issues this kind of warning it's more serious than a lot of folks realize. LGBTQ legislation and rules making generally flows out of policy orgs and the biggest ones seems worried now.

Which makes me reluctant to ever consider putting my healthcare in the hands of the federal government. The last thing our community needs is to lose access due to a religious freedom ruling or HHS rules writing when the Republicans regain power. I'll take my current insurance and Illinois protections. It's a LOT safer.

[JohnBrown1917]

I'm wavering an even voting for him in the general at this point. Thankfully, I'm in a state where it won't matter. To be perfectly honest, when a policy chop shop like the HRC issues this kind of warning it's more serious than a lot of folks realize. LGBTQ legislation and rules making generally flows out of policy orgs and the biggest ones seems worried now.

Which makes me reluctant to ever consider putting my healthcare in the hands of the federal government. The last thing our community needs is to lose access due to a religious freedom ruling or HHS rules writing when the Republicans regain power. I'll take my current insurance and Illinois protections. It's a LOT safer.

HRC disliking him is only a good thing.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

HRC disliking him is only a good thing.

And why is that?

[JohnBrown1917]

And why is that?

Because of hated she is and pretty much the model of what is wrong with the DNC. Just endorsing him as the candidate that opposes the right-wing of the dems. Somebody willing to make progress.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Because of hated she is and pretty much the model of what is wrong with the DNC. Just endorsing him as the candidate that opposes the right-wing of the dems.

This is why no one takes you seriously. HRC = Human Rights Campaign, or the largest LGBTQ org in the US.

[JohnBrown1917]

This is why no one takes you seriously. HRC = Human Rights Campaign, or the largest LGBTQ org in the US.

lol wat. How is it my fault that Clinton and the HRC share the same initials?


But hey, you continue to only care about yourself, fuck poor LGBT folk, I suppose? Disgusting. Who gives a fuck Rogan endorsed him? As much as a dick Rogan is, the whining from right-wing libs and conservatives is just pathethic, they don't even support Bernie's policies, only caring about how something makes them look.


Well, atleast you all dropped the whole vote blue no matter what bullshit. It was clear as day most of those poeple would never vote for a left-wing dem, they just needed an excuse. Almost makes we feel like the US deserves somebody like Trump, but that would be bad for the refugees, so I suppose its better if he does not win.

[Milchshake]

I'm wavering an even voting for him in the general at this point. Thankfully, I'm in a state where it won't matter. To be perfectly honest, when a policy chop shop like the HRC issues this kind of warning it's more serious than a lot of folks realize. LGBTQ legislation and rules making generally flows out of policy orgs and the biggest ones seems worried now.

Which makes me reluctant to ever consider putting my healthcare in the hands of the federal government. The last thing our community needs is to lose access due to a religious freedom ruling or HHS rules writing when the Republicans regain power. I'll take my current insurance and Illinois protections. It's a LOT safer.

That's were I am about this point. The last thing we need is another 4 years of twitter buffoonery from the Presidency.
Bernie keeps doubling down on the professional trolls in his senior staff. That is insight to Bernies thought and character.

His speech writer, director of communications, a few of his co-chairs all blasted out the rogan endorsement. No coincidence these people also like to brag about voting for Jill Stein in 2016.
I used to say, if Bernie fired these people I would totally endorse him. But frankly its too revealing at this stage of the game. By all means, Bernie hang onto these people and listen to no one else.


I will take Biden or even fucking Bloomberg over a Bernie at this point. The fact they dont have a a weird twitter campaign is a big plus .

[GreenGoldSharpie]

But hey, you continue to only care about yourself, fuck poor LGBT folk, I suppose? Disgusting.

You mean like rules making here in Illinois where medicaid covers all trans care now? Who typically uses medicaid, btw? Poor people.

Are you certain a court system stacked by Trump is going to allow such care to occur in a federal universal healthcare system in the middle of a policy street fight to implement it? Because the Republicans sure sued and then wrote out such coverage from the ACA.

Your policies are risky as hell.