Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
That’s the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination right now. With less than a year to go until Election Day, no one cares — least of all Democratic voters.
Joseph R. Biden, who served as The Chosen One’s vice president, has left Democrats yawning. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who for years thought she was an American Indian (oops, turned out she’s 99.9% white), has bobbed up to the surface, but voters know the free-everything-for-everybody candidate would never win in November 2020. And Sen. Bernard “Heart Attack” Sanders, another socialist, just turned 127, so he’s going nowhere fast, too.
The race is flatlining so badly that former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — who, get this, is just a year younger than Sanders — is dipping his big billionaire toe in the race. He filed as a Democratic presidential candidate in Alabama last Friday, just under the deadline, and barely squeaked in under the wire in Arkansas, too.
And man, he jazzed the Democratic throng like no one else. To show how bored Democrats are with their field, within days, Bloomberg topped President Trump by 6 points in a hypothetical 2020 match-up, according to a Morning Consult/Politico survey released last week.
“Forty-three percent of voters nationwide said they would support Bloomberg in a hypothetical election, while 37% said they’d vote for the incumbent Republican, a 6-point advantage that matches Warren’s margin over Trump,” Morning Consult wrote.
That ecstasy lasted two days.
“The Michael Bloomberg bubble lasted all of 48 hours,” Vanity Fair wrote Monday.
“Filing papers in Alabama was a ‘trial balloon to gauge interest,’ sources told [Axios]. That the balloon seems to have popped may lead him to stay on the sidelines, as he’d initially said he’d do. His prospects are subject to change, of course; the two moderates and two progressives at the top of the field are continuing to duke it out, and Democratic voters, still battered from a stunning loss in 2016, have continued to second-guess themselves in search of the right candidate to put up against Trump.”
So far, they’ve got bupkis. No candidate is pulling away, and, in fact, Democrats are getting antsy. In a recent Fox News poll, more than 1 in 3 — 38% — Democratic voters said they wish they had more choices.
Voters can be finicky.
“Just when they start to fall in love, they find something that gets them a little nervous,” Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times on Sunday. “They’re still searching for the horse that can win.”
Or at least a horse that doesn’t have to be shot after the last leg of the race.
How bad is it? Ms. Warren played last week to a nearly empty hall in New Hampshire, where the residents live and breath politics. Fewer than 100 turned out to hear her speak. That’s bad.
Then there’s the two-time loser who never went away. Hillary Clinton, who got crushed in the Electoral College vote 304-227 last time around, is still teasing that she’ll jump into the race.
“As I say, never, never, never say ‘never,’ ” Clinton told BBC Radio on Monday when asked whether she might run. “I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.”
Then Clinton said what all politicians say just before they jump into the race: “As of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans.”
Gallup released a poll last week that had some troubling news for Democrats. Just 66% of the party faithful say they’re enthusiastic about the upcoming election. For the Republicans, the number is 65%.
“This differs from the typical pattern Gallup has seen over the years, whereby those who identify with the political party of the incumbent president have been less enthusiastic about voting than members of the opposing party,” Gallup wrote.
Here’s what that means: Voters in the party not currently in the White House are usually far more enthusiastic than the incumbent’s supporters. In 2000, after eight years of Bill Clinton, Republicans enjoyed a 51% to 39% enthusiasm edge. In 2008, after two George W. Bush terms, Democrats were up 14 percentage points — 73% to 59%. And in 2016, after two Barack Obama terms, the GOP led by 8 percentage points — 51% to 43%.
“History would suggest that Democrats would be more keyed up to vote than Republicans, but that isn’t the case,” Gallup said.
Biden. Warren. Sanders. Bloomberg. Clinton. That’s who the Democrats have this time around. The collective age of that pathetic lineup is 366 years old, an average of more than 73. Not exactly the “new blood” the party has been talking about for years.
But it is exactly the reason Democrats are less enthusiastic than ever about the presidential election.
*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

Michelle Obama Campaigns With Hillary Clinton In North Carolina

CURL: Dullest Race Ever Bores Democrats Silly As Hillary Poised For Her Encore Call

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

Hillary Clinton

Joe Biden

Michael Bloomberg

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told ABC News Monday night that his new campaign trail-mate, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) would play a significant role in his White House if he is elected president.
<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-campaigning-aoc-potential-bloomberg-bid-shows-arrogance/story?id=66881233">ABC News wanted to know</a> whether Sanders was considering Ocasio-Cortez as a potential running mate in the unlikely event he snags the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and goes on to face President Donald Trump in a general election.
Sanders was non-committal on the answer but did say that Ocasio-Cortez would have a significant role in shaping both domestic and foreign policy in a Sanders administration.
&#8220;Look, I&#8217;ve said this before, let me say it again and I don&#8217;t want you to hear this because your head will explode,&#8221; Sanders said in the joint interview with the freshman New York legislator. &#8220;I don&#8217;t know of any person who, in the course of less than one year, has had more of an impact on American politics as a freshman member of Congress than she has.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s not only that she has focus on the real issues impacting the American people, like climate change, the usury rates that Wall Street are charging working people in this country, but she has been an inspiration to working people all across this country and to young people in particular,&#8221; Sanders gushed.
&#8220;I happen to believe that the future of this country depends on young people becoming increasingly involved in the political process and there&#8217;s nobody I know that can do a better job inspiring young people than Alexandria,&#8221; he continued.
&#8220;If I&#8217;m in the White House, she will play a very, very important role. No question. One way or another, absolutely,&#8221; Sanders concluded, acknowledging that her role could be a &#8220;Cabinet-level&#8221; position.
Ocasio-Cortez was among the first of the Congressional progressives to endorse Sanders, and has since brought fellow &#8220;squad&#8221; members, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), along for the ride. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), the fourth member of the &#8220;squad&#8221; bucked the trend with a more logical endorsement, throwing her support behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Sanders has definitely reaped benefits from Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s support, commanding more headlines and drawing more supporters to his events. His campaign re-launch, which came just a little over a week before the aging Senator suffered a mild heart attack, was one of his largest rallies to date. The Brooklyn gathering, which featured Ocasio-Cortez announcing her support for Sanders, drew thousands.
Sanders had hoped that Ocasio-Cortez, who grew up in a tony suburb of New York City and attended a pricey university before moving back to the Bronx to work as a waitress and bartender, would connect with the blue collar and working class Democrats he&#8217;ll need to secure both the nomination and win the election, <a href="https://time.com/5723329/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bernie-sanders/">according to TIME magazine</a>.
Although Ocasio-Cortez has brought a measure of excitment to the geriatric politico&#8217;s campaign, she hasn&#8217;t really brought the target demographic. In a New York Times poll released last week, Trump bested Sanders in all of the key &#8220;battleground&#8221; states in the working class Rust Belt. The only candidate challenging Trump for the presidency was former Vice President Joe Biden, widely criticized by progressives like Ocasio-Cortez who believe &#8212; without much evidence &#8212; that the electorate has taken a significant shift leftward since 2006.

Sen. Bernie Sanders And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Hold Des Moines Climate Crisis Summit

Yikes: Bernie Sanders Says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Would Play A Key Role In His White House

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

On Monday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about a New York Times column claiming that “multibillion-dollar fortunes” are “anti-democratic.” Video and partial transcript below: 
The Bernie Sanders attack on billionaires, and the Elizabeth Warren attack on billionaires, is cynical and just disgusting. &#8230;
Elizabeth Warren is worth $12 million, and there she is [paraphrasing]: “These rich people, these rich people, they must be stopped.” And you got Bernie Sanders, who&#8217;s basically a giant welfare queen living off the government for the last 30 years — what is he now, he&#8217;s 78-years-old — living off the government for 50 years of his life. He&#8217;s like [paraphrasing]: “Oh, well, you know, we can&#8217;t let any of these people who actually earned their wealth run anything. They shouldn&#8217;t run for office. Only I should! I&#8217;ve been useless my entire life, so useless I was kicked off a commune.” 
So you got Bernie ripping into billionaires, and then [you’ve] got Michael Tomasky over at <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/billionaires-warren-wealth-tax.html">The New York Times</a> saying, “Bill Gates, I implore you to connect some dots.”
“The billionaire class has begun unloading on Elizabeth Warren.” 
You see, it&#8217;s a class now. Now, just to recognize a fact: Bill Gates is basically a lifelong Democrat. Warren Buffett is a lifelong Democrat. A lot of these, quote unquote “billionaire class members” are lifelong Democrats, people who&#8217;ve given tons of money to left-leaning causes. But they’re a class now, you see. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z6oi-dHemkc?start=1584" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This is pure Marxist speak where you are judged by the basis of your income — on the basis of your wealth — not by what you think, or what you do, or how you vote, or any of that sort of stuff. George Soros is a billionaire, [and he] gives a lot of money to exactly the kinds of people that Jamie Dimon doesn&#8217;t like, so treating everybody as a class based on their income is really stupid, in any case. This dumb columnist for The New York Times says: “A few days ago, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase — at just $1.6 billion in net worth, a comparative piker — said Senator Warren &#8216;vilifies successful people.&#8217;” 
[This] is true. 
“Then Bill Gates ($107 billion), in an onstage interview with The Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin, mused about what his tax bill might be in a Warren presidency and left the door open to voting for Trump should Democrats nominate Ms. Warren.”
Which makes sense, because her wealth tax proposal is baloney. 
“And then Michael Bloomberg ($52 billion), who had previously criticized Ms. Warren as anti-corporate, signaled his intention to jump into the race, obviously out of concern at her rise.”
“I&#8217;m not expert enough to judge the wisdom of Senator Warren&#8217;s proposed wealth tax.” 
Well then, what are you writing about? Like this entire thing is about her wealth tax. 
“I know, there are questions about its constitutionality and that several European nations tried a similar approach and found it unworkable (though four countries still have it). I don&#8217;t get why the candidates aren&#8217;t simply proposing to increase marginal income tax rates on dollars earned above some very high figure. That seems a lot more straightforward to me.”
The reason — the stunning ignorance of The New York Times columnist. The reason, not to justify Elizabeth Warren, [but] the reason she&#8217;s proposing a wealth tax is there isn&#8217;t enough money at the upper end of the income bracket, in terms of income earned every year, to pay for her proposals. The wealth tax is a confiscatory, nasty tax designed to pay for her garbage proposals that amount to $52 trillion dollars in spending over the next 10 years. That&#8217;s why she&#8217;s going for the wealth tax. You can increase the marginal tax rate, [but] it ain’t going to pay for this stuff. It isn&#8217;t. But this guy says:
“So this column is not a brief for Ms. Warren&#8217;s wealth tax and for her candidacy — I don&#8217;t have a preferred candidate. Instead, I want to make a simple plea to the country&#8217;s billionaires: Multibillion-dollar fortunes are often called excessive and decadent. But here&#8217;s something they’re rarely called but ought to be: Anti-democratic. These fortunes will destroy our democracy.”
Let me get this straight. You earn a billion dollars because you have a bunch of consensual economic transactions of people, and that&#8217;s anti-democratic? What is democratic is for the government to come and seize the results of those voluntary transactions? Jeff Bezos has not seized wealth from anyone, but you want the government to do that — who&#8217;s more anti-democratic? Bill Gates has not seized wealth from anyone. In fact, he&#8217;s provided jobs to hundreds of thousands of people and indirectly, probably millions of people. You want to seize the wealth he has earned on the basis of those voluntary economic transactions — who&#8217;s more anti-democratic?
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

SHAPIRO: The Left Plans To Eat The Rich

Democratic Socialism

Leftism

Progressivism

Socialism

Former Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s once-solid double-digit lead over the rest of the field of 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominees shrunk, over the past couple of months, before generally re-expanding over the past few weeks. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Biden currently stands 6.0% above second-place Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)</a> in the average of recent national polling. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) round out the top five in most recent national polling. Increasingly, the field appears to be shaping up as a three-horse race among Biden, Warren, and Sanders, although Buttigieg has recently been surging in Iowa.
Biden&#8217;s once-formidable lead has narrowed since its high watermark in May, although it has since grown back substantially from a recent nadir of less than 1%. Warren has generally emerged over the past few months as a frontrunner, although her national polling has taken a bit of a drop over the past few weeks. Warren and Sanders seem to be competing for a very similar voting demographic, and it is interesting to ponder the possibility of how one candidate would likely be substantially elevated were the other to drop out and endorse the other. Some polling data suggests that Sanders hypothetically dropping out would help Warren more than it would help Biden. But Sanders may be <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/16/bernie-sanders-isnt-going-anywhere-anytime-soon/">in this for the long haul</a>, after all.
Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> still pegs Warren as the favorite to win the presidential nomination over Biden — with Buttigieg, Sanders, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang following. But while PredictIt showed Warren with a huge lead recently, her lead has over Biden has substantially narrowed, of late. It is likely that many of these bettors are skittish about Biden&#8217;s age and perceived substantive centrism — with the latter especially worrisome among a Democratic Party base that is increasingly brazen and unabashed in its promotion of ardent, full-spectrum leftism. But to the extent Warren is any frontrunner at all, she remains an extraordinarily weak frontrunner who only seems to be getting weaker still.
The <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> polling average for 10/8/19 – 11/05/19 shows Biden with an average national polling lead of 6.0%.
A recent <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cseozthmrp/econTabReport.pdf">Economist/YouGov</a> national poll conducted from 11/03/19 – 11/05/19 showed Biden, at 26%, with a one-point lead over Warren. Warren was up 11 points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_110619/">Monmouth</a> national poll conducted from 10/30/19 – 11/03/19 showed Biden and Warren tied at 23%. They were each up three points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/469490-poll-biden-support-hits-record-low-of-26-percent">Hill/HarrisX</a> national poll conducted from 11/01/19 – 11/02/19 showed Biden, at 26%, with an 11-point lead over Warren. Warren was up one point on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary-2-2/">Politico/Morning Consult</a> national poll conducted from 10/28/19 – 11/03/19 showed Biden, at 32%, with a 12-point lead over both Warren and Sanders. No one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HHP_October19_Topline_RegisteredVoters.pdf">Harvard-Harris</a> national poll conducted from 10/29/19 – 10/31/19 showed Biden, at 33%, with a 15-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up three points on Warren and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6538104-19433-NBCWSJ-Late-October-Poll.html">NBC News/Wall Street Journal</a> national poll conducted from 10/27/19 – 10/30/19 showed Biden, at 27%, with a four-point lead over Warren. Warren was up four points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1208a32020Democrats.pdf">ABC News/Washington Post</a> national poll conducted from 10/27/19 – 10/30/19 showed Biden, at 28%, with a five-point lead over Warren. Warren was up six points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-biden-leads-nomination-race-tops-trump-by-12-points-in-matchup">Fox News</a> national poll conducted from 10/27/19 – 10/30/19 showed Biden, at 31%, with a ten-point lead over Warren. Warren was up two points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-leads-elizabeth-warren-both-beat-trump-2020-election-ibd-tipp/">IBD/TIPP</a> national poll conducted from 10/24/19 – 10/31/19 showed Biden, at 29%, with a six-point lead over Warren. Warren was up ten points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
Will Warren and Biden remain the two frontrunners? Will Buttigieg or Yang catch more traction? Stay tuned.
Latest Aggregate Early State-By-State Polling Data
Iowa: Warren 21.8%, Buttigieg 17.5%, Sanders 15.8%, Biden 15.5%, Klobuchar 4.0%
New Hampshire: Warren 19.7%, Biden 19.7%, Sanders 19.0%, Buttigieg 11.3%, Gabbard 4.0%
Nevada: Biden 26.0%, Warren 19.5%, Sanders 18.5%, Buttigieg 4.8%, Harris 4.3%
South Carolina: Biden 35.0%, Warren 15.5%, Sanders 12.8%, Harris 7.0%, Steyer 4.5%
This article has been updated to reflect the most recent survey data.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate In Detroit Over Two Nights

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Pete Buttigieg

The following is satirical.
This weekend, Germans celebrated the thirty year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The wall divided the German capital between a thriving, free, capitalist West Berlin and an East Berlin so mired in poverty, lack of services and government oppression that it was almost as bad as living in California.
The wall was built in 1961 when the Soviet socialists who ruled East Germany realized that if they taxed people at the levels proposed by Elizabeth Warren, those people would leave and take their wealth and productivity elsewhere. But the socialists had a plan for that, namely anyone who tried to leave would be shot dead.
This policy continued through 1988, when Bernie Sanders honeymooned among the Soviets. So as Berliners celebrate the fall of the wall, perhaps they should also remember the good times, like when Bernie sat bare-chested with their Soviet oppressors and sang, “This land is your land, and so is Po-land, and so is Czechoslovakia and so is Hungary and so is East Germany and &#8230;” Well, you know, the rest of the lyrics.
On a side note, Bernie returned from his visit to the Soviets and said of the USSR and the U.S. &#8212; and this is a real quote: “Let’s take the strengths of both systems. Let’s learn from each other.”
Which would’ve made for an interesting country seeing as the strengths of the U.S. are freedom and capitalism, and the strengths of the Soviet Union were socialism and its necessary results: poverty, oppression, slavery and mass murder.
The Berlin Wall finally collapsed when the Soviets were confronted by Ronald Reagan, a freedom-loving president the American press hated so much they attacked him constantly and even tried to organize his impeachment. Thank heavens, that couldn’t happen today.
In fact, as we celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall, it’s nice to know that we have learned so much about the evils of socialism, it has been relegated to the dustbin of history — and the Democrat Party platform.

Berlin Wall Monument

Germans Celebrate 30-Year Anniversary of End of Democrat Party Policies [Satire]

Communism

Russia

Soviet Union

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) made a series of bizarre statements over the weekend while campaigning in Iowa for fellow socialist and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), saying that when a politician has let her down, &#8220;it feels like I never want to love again.&#8221;
Ocasio-Cortez made the remarks on Saturday during a “Climate Crisis” summit in Iowa where she spoke to an audience that appeared to consist largely of far-left climate activists.
After Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders both gave their speeches, the two had a question and answer session where Ocasio-Cortez tried to relate to the audience by talking about how she emotionally processes a politician letting her down.
&#8220;And so, when you elect a politician, and then they let you down, it feels like rejection,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez said. &#8220;It feels like heart break. It feels like betrayal. It feels like I never want to love again. That&#8217;s what that feels like.&#8221;
&#8220;And so, I understand how that feels because I felt that way,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez continued. &#8220;But you know what happens when you say, &#8216;I never want to love again&#8217;? Your heart gets black and you turn angry and get very anxious.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Socialist Ocasio-Cortez on politicians falling short: “Feels like rejection. Feels like heartbreak. Feels like betrayal. Feels like I never want to love again. You know what happens when you say, ‘I never want to love again’? Your heart gets black&#8230;angry”
Complete insanity <a href="https://t.co/gSz667PB7D">pic.twitter.com/gSz667PB7D</a>
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1193427045092487168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
During the event, Ocasio-Cortez also appeared to suggest that President Donald Trump was a virus or a disease that people needed to vaccinate themselves against.
“Trump is a symptom, he is a symptom of much deeper problems,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“Here’s the thing, is that we can beat him but we have to vaccinate ourselves against something like this ever happening again,” Ocasio-Cortez said in reference to Trump’s 2016 election victory, adding, “and the way we inoculate ourselves from late-stage hyper capitalistic concentration of wealth among the very, very few is with a labor movement.”
Ocasio-Cortez suggested that the only way that Americans could “get through this moment” was to “guarantee” health care to everyone.
“The way we inoculate ourselves from continuing to burn up our planet at unsustainable level triggering feedback loops that we have not even begun to comprehend is by honoring indigenous wisdom and allowing it to guide our climate policy,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “The way that we preserve our systems is by transitioning to principles of universality, that means I want you clothed, I want you educated, I want you paid a living wage – no ifs, ands, or buts. And what that also means [and] what Naomi talked about as well is directly, consciously, combating white supremacy in the United States of America.”
“When people try to accuse us of going too far left – we’re not pushing the party left,” she said, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/bernie-sanders-aoc-iowa.html">The New York Times</a>. “We are bringing the party home.”
&#8220;Yet what remains unclear, even after her positive reception this weekend, is whether Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and the political ideology that she and Mr. Sanders embrace resonates beyond Iowa’s more liberal pockets,&#8221; The Times added. &#8220;Mr. Sanders is still running third in most polls, faces formidable competition from Ms. Warren for progressive voters and is likely to endure nagging doubts about his fitness right up until the first Iowans caucus on Feb. 3.&#8221;

Ocasio-Cortez

Ocasio-Cortez: Politicians Letting Me Down ‘Feels Like I Never Want To Love Again’

Climate Change

Environmentalism

As the 2020 election looms closer, health care has choked out virtually every other issue to stand alone as the primary focus of several top-tier candidates in the Democratic primary race.
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have each put forward a “Medicare for All” plan, candidates like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden have taken a softer position, proffering smaller ideas that would reportedly cost much less.
On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with health care policy expert and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Scholar Joe Antos about “Medicare for All.”
In part one of this interview, which you can read <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interview-part-i-health-care-policy-expert-joe-antos-breaks-down-the-dangers-of-medicare-for-all">here</a>, Antos breaks down the complexity of the current Medicare system, and discusses the damage that a “Medicare for All” system could cause, such as rationing of care, the raising of taxes on the middle class, provider flight, and innovation drain.
In part two below, Antos talks about a more “free market” approach to health care, understanding “universal” coverage, the way in which conservatives and Republican lawmakers should approach health care legislation, and the ultimate damage that a “Medicare for All” system could do.
<blockquote>DW: Is it realistic to think that someone could keep their doctor if we were to move to a “Medicare for All” system? A friend of mine from another country claims that she can see whatever doctor she wants under their plan, which is essentially a state-run plan.
ANTOS: That may be the case, as long as your doctor remains in practice. There’s a generational issue that may explain your friend’s comment. Young, healthy people typically do not have a doctor that they see regularly. In that sense, you could see any doctor you like, but you would not much care who it is. Older people or those with chronic conditions become attached to their doctors, so being able to keep their doctor is a more serious concern. One other point: older, more established doctors may be more likely to leave the active practice of medicine under a plan that sharply cuts their payments. In such a case, their patients would have no choice but to establish a relationship with a new doctor.
DW: Some people claim that the United States is a free market healthcare system, but that&#8217;s obviously not quite true. What are the differences between what we have and what a truly free market system would look like?
ANTOS: It is not very clear what people mean when they say “free market healthcare.” Our system is a mix of public and private coverage, with nearly everyone receiving a government subsidy. Private health insurance is subject to state and federal regulations, and providers are subject to licensure and other government regulations that are supposed to protect patients from unqualified providers – but also protect providers from competition. As a practical matter, government would have a role in a “free market” system, but it would be sharply reduced from what we see today.
One vision of a free market system would emphasize the role of consumers making their own decisions about their health care and bearing the full financial consequences of those decisions. Insurance would still play a financing role, with high-deductible plans accompanied by health savings accounts becoming even more common than we see today. To be workable, consumers and their physicians need information about treatment alternatives, provider performance, and cost. Both consumers and their doctors need strong financial incentives to select cost-effective care from efficient providers.
We’ve been edging our way toward a consumer-driven system for some time.
The latest Kaiser Family Foundation-HRET survey found that employer-sponsored coverage has shifted away from unmanaged fee-for-service plans. Between 2014 and 2019, enrollment in high-deductible plans with health savings accounts grew from 20% to 30% of the market. HMOs grew from 13% to 19% of total enrollment. Preferred provider organizations, which are fee-for-service plans with provider networks, shrank from 58% to 44% of total enrollment. That is a direct response by employers and employees to the high cost of unmanaged care.
However, we are sending consumers into the battle completely unarmed. It&#8217;s very hard to know what anything costs. It&#8217;s very hard to know what your insurance will pay for until after you have received the medical service. It&#8217;s very hard to judge how effective a treatment may be and whether there are alternatives that might be better. Patients depend on their physicians for good advice, and physicians often do not know whether a specialist is in your insurer’s network or what your plan will cover.
Lower back pain is a good example of the challenges we face as consumers, and how large employers are beginning to address them. In most cases, back surgery is the treatment of last resort. Patients with lower back pain need physical therapy, which in many cases will resolve the problem as long as the patient consistently follows the exercise regimen at home. Unnecessary spine surgeries are expensive, debilitate the patient for extended periods of time, and may not be effective.
Several large corporations, including Wal-Mart and Boeing, have contracted with well-known medical centers to evaluate their employees with lower back pain. Instead of an incentive to do more surgeries that is seen in unmanaged fee-for-service plans, these contracts reward appropriate care. The patients are assured that their care is being managed by high-quality providers, and the savings comes from reducing unnecessary use of high-cost treatment.
This example also highlights the critical role of the physician in guiding the patient’s decisions about the course of treatment. Health care is complex. To be successful, consumers need the guidance of their physicians, whose financial incentives should promote cost-effective care.
DW: Proponents of universal healthcare systems say that their primary goal is to get everyone covered because everyone should have good health care. What is the more optimal, free market-based plan, and how do we get there?
ANTOS: One of the things that advocates often get wrong is that health insurance does not guarantee appropriate care. The political focus for the last decade has been on expanding insurance coverage, with far less attention paid to what that coverage actually buys.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) relied on a mandate and penalties to force people to buy health insurance. Although the mandate was not effective, the idea was that the threat of a penalty would make younger, healthier people buy coverage that they would not otherwise purchase. Because premiums in the health insurance exchanges were high, coverage options were not attractive, and the financial penalty was small, exchange coverage attracted an older, sicker population.
A better approach would change the culture of health insurance. Instead of the ACA’s approach, which mandates consumers to buy expensive coverage, we could adopt automatic enrollment. Under that method, everyone would be automatically enrolled in a high-deductible health plan financed by restructuring existing federal health insurance subsidies. Consumers would not be charged a premium for this basic plan, but they could buy better coverage if they wished to. Anyone not wishing coverage could drop out, but few would take the time to do so. This approach makes insurance coverage the default without imposing unaffordable costs on consumers.
Under automatic enrollment, everyone would be eligible for a basic subsidy tied to their income level. Catastrophic expenses would be covered, but the benefit could be expanded to allow free or low-cost primary care. Covered California, which operates the ACA exchange in that state, requires all plans to offer such basic services, which has helped promote enrollment.
Implementing automatic enrollment would not be as difficult as skeptics think, but enrollment would take time to expand. Uninsured people who should be automatically enrolled can be identified through normal interactions with state and local government agencies. Enrolling a child in school, getting a driver’s license, voting, and other activities can be used to enroll the uninsured in this default system. Similarly, public health clinics and hospital emergency rooms can help enroll people who otherwise do not have coverage.
Automatic enrollment is not an instant solution, but it is also not disruptive. The measure of success is not how many people are newly covered by the default plan in any one year. Instead, the goal is to set up a process that will eventually cover everyone without locking them into unaffordable plans.
DW: Do you think Conservatives need to be more aggressive in offering their own solutions, instead of just pointing out the flaws in “Medicare for All” style systems?
ANTOS: Conservatives should offer their own proposals, but to be useful, the proposals need to be developed carefully. All too often, proposals focus on broad themes without the detailed specifications to implement those themes through legislation. It is important to work through the implications of one’s proposal to avoid overlooking problems that could make it technically and politically unworkable. The flight of Democrats from Elizabeth Warren’s plan demonstrates the importance of thinking through the details, and not ignoring the potential for a negative response from the public.
Republicans have too often reacted to Democratic initiatives rather than taking positive actions of their own. I think that partly explains the 2017 collapse of repeal and replace efforts in Congress. Well-developed conservative proposals can fill the policy void, but they must be realistic about how much any single piece of legislation can change the system. Realistic proposals should build on the best of what already exists, rather than pretending that we can start with a clean slate.
It&#8217;s very important to move away from simply reacting, and embrace a positive political approach. In my opinion, that means supporting the goal of making affordable coverage available to everyone. Affordability is not measured solely by the subsidies that help people pay for insurance, although subsidies targeted on those most in need are an essential part of any reform. We also have to improve the efficiency of the system to slow the growth of health spending, without rationing care and driving out innovation.
This takes hard work. The emphasis by liberals on expanding coverage is the easier message. Improving system performance is much more complicated, and that is what conservative proposals should focus on.
DW: What damage, aside from fiscally, could a “Medicare for All” system cause to patients, to doctors, etc?
ANTOS: I see a large waiting room filled with millions of people as doctors decide that another line of work makes more sense. Seriously, we will have growing access problems. The promise of free health care means that patients will have no financial reason to question whether a service is necessary. The reality of reduced provider payment rates means that physicians will have a strong incentive to try to make up their income losses by providing more services, especially those services that Medicare overpays. We could see increases in the volume of services that are not very effective, not very harmful to the patient, and more highly remunerative than more necessary care.
The broader effects on the economy could be very damaging. Warren has admitted that thousands of people now employed in the health industry would lose their jobs, but she claims that they will just shift to good jobs in other industries. That’s not so simple if you don’t have the skills needed for that next good job. If it exists. That’s the rub. Warren’s proposals to tax companies, individuals with high incomes, and wealth would create a serious drag on the economy. What she overlooks is that those taxes will take vast sums out of more productive sectors and pump it into the notoriously inefficient health sector. By and large, the wealth of this country goes into productive investments that create jobs, largely outside the health sector.
Access to care will become more difficult once it becomes “free.” The fiscal drag from “Medicare for All” will result in lost jobs and lower productivity, economy-wide. Business investments that would have been made in the U.S. will move to other countries with more favorable tax codes. It is not unreasonable to expect a recession that we might not recover from unless we come to our senses about our health system. Nearly one-fifth of our economy is in the health sector. That provides plenty of leverage for bad health policy to do serious damage.</blockquote>
I’d like to thank Joe Antos for speaking with me about such a critical issue. For more information, check out Antos’ profile on the American Enterprise Institute’s website <a href="https://www.aei.org/profile/joseph-antos/">here</a>, and follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/joeantos?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Twitter.</a>

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

INTERVIEW (Part II): Health Care Policy Expert Joe Antos On The Harsh Realities And Dangers Of ‘Medicare For All’

Health Care

Medicare for All

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont running for president in 2020, has a brilliant idea: Get rid of of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that enforces America&#8217;s immigration laws and counters transnational crime.
That&#8217;s a terrible idea, according to one law enforcement official on the border.
Sheriff Mark Dannels, who protects the border between Arizona and Mexico, said if the senator&#8217;s plan were enacted, it would lead to &#8220;disaster.&#8221;
&#8220;If we don&#8217;t have a secure border in this country, we will have a different country. We need to stand united and the plan that Senator Sanders is putting forward is a disaster for this country,&#8221; he said on <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/border-sheriff-sanders-disaster">Fox News</a> on Saturday.
Dannels said Sanders&#8217; plan would be like a state&#8217;s governor abolishing all sheriffs and police chiefs. &#8220;It&#8217;s no difference at the federal level,&#8221; he said.
The sheriff&#8217;s comments came after members of a powerful drug cartel in Mexico massacred nine Americans, including women and children. In fact, Dannels presides in Cochise County, just across the border from where the massacre occurred.
Of the drug gangs now ruling Mexico, Dannels said: &#8220;They&#8217;re violent, they&#8217;re ruthless, and again, they&#8217;re core evil.&#8221;
On the campaign trail for the Democratic nomination, Sanders touts a plan to &#8220;break up&#8221; immigration enforcement agencies like ICE, end all deportations of those illegally in the United States, and grant full welfare access to illegal immigrants. He also wants to allow at least 50,000 &#8220;climate migrants&#8221; into the U.S.
Other Democrats vying for the nomination have similar plans. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Friday that she&#8217;s open to a placing moratorium on all deportations.
&#8220;I am open to suspending deportations particularly as a way to push Congress for comprehensive immigration reform,” Warren said. She said she thinks “that when ICE comes into our communities, takes our neighbors, our friends, our family members, that they do not make this country safer.”
Meanwhile, an action taken earlier this year by President Trump has greatly reduced the number of illegal aliens in the U.S.
The Trump administration enacted the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which became known as the &#8220;Remain In Mexico&#8221; policy. The protocols require that foreigners who enter the U.S. illegally be processed, then released into Mexico &#8212; not the United States &#8212; to await their hearings.
Instead of waiting, though, thousands of migrants who were returned to Mexico gave up their asylum claims and went home, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/migrants-returned-to-mexico-have-given-up-their-asylum-claims">Fox News</a> reports.
<blockquote>So far, the administration has returned more than 55,000 migrants to Mexico. The assessment describes the policy as an “indispensable tool in addressing the ongoing crisis at the southern border and restoring integrity to the immigration system.” It says that it has completed almost 13,000 cases as of Oct. 21.
The new assessment, significantly, cites estimates from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that approximately 20,000 migrants are currently being sheltered in Mexico near the U.S. border as they still seek entry to the U.S. The assessment says that number, though, suggests “a significant proportion of the 55,000+ MPP returnees have chosen to abandon their claims.”</blockquote>
In an <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/assessment_of_the_migrant_protection_protocols_mpp.pdf">a</a><a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/assessment_of_the_migrant_protection_protocols_mpp.pdf">ssessment of the Migrant Protection Protocols</a> filed last week, the government said &#8220;At peak of the crisis in May 2019, there were more than 4,800 aliens crossing the border daily — representing an average of more than three apprehensions per minute.&#8221;

Migrants In Caravan That Travelled Through Mexico Attempt To Be Granted Asylum At U.S. Border

Border Sheriff Warns Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Abolish ICE Would Be ‘Disaster’

Illegal Immigration

Former Vice President Joe Biden brushed off mounting calls from within the Democratic Party to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Friday afternoon, noting that the agency can be reformed with proper leadership.
&#8220;We shouldn&#8217;t abolish ICE. We should reform the system. ICE is not the problem,&#8221; Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-knocks-left-wing-of-democratic-party-we-shouldnt-abolish-ice">told reporters</a> at a campaign stop in Concord, New Hampshire. &#8220;The policies behind ICE are the problem, and that is easy enough to fix if the president knows what he or she is doing.&#8221;
Biden&#8217;s remarks come on the heels of a recently released immigration plan by his Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The proposal is a sweeping set of policy initiatives, which in addition to abolishing the immigration enforcement agency also imposes a moratorium on all deportations, grants complete welfare access to illegal immigrants, and accept no less than 50,000 individuals in the first year who are migrating to the United States because of climate change.
The plan was reportedly crafted in partnership with various illegal immigrants who are currently residing in the country and are shielded from deportation by former President Barack Obama&#8217;s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
&#8220;My father came to America as a refugee without a nickel in his pocket, to escape widespread anti-Semitism, and find a better life,&#8221; Sanders said during the release of his proposal. &#8220;As the proud son of an immigrant, I know that my father&#8217;s story is the story of so many Americans today. When I am in the White House, we will stop the hatred towards our immigrant brothers and sisters, end family separation, and locking children up in cages.&#8221;
Biden, however, has been relatively vague on his immigration stances and has yet to release a detailed immigration platform. The presidential hopeful has called for comprehensive changes to the U.S. immigration system that would increase the current level of immigrants, legalize the status of DREAMers, and provide a pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants living in the United States that don&#8217;t have a criminal record and are employed.
During the second Democratic National Committee (DNC) primary debate, Biden revealed that he still opposed decriminalizing border crossings, stating that those seeking to immigrate &#8220;have to wait in line.&#8221;
&#8220;The fact of the matter is, you should be able to – if you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back,&#8221; Biden said at the time. &#8220;It&#8217;s a crime.&#8221;
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who ended her bid for the presidency in August, was one of the first 2020 Democratic contenders to call for abolishing the agency. She received widespread backlash months earlier after saying multiple times that ICE needs to be abolished, but her comments came at a time when numerous other congressmen were advocating for the abolishment of the agency as well.
House Democrats introduced a bill in early July to abolish ICE, but after House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced he planned to bring the proposed bill to a vote, those same Democrats called it a &#8220;political stunt,&#8221; and vowed to vote against their own proposal.

Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Files Paperwork For New Hampshire Primary

Joe Biden Comes Out Against Abolishing ICE: &#8216;ICE Is Not The Problem&#8217;

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

As the 2020 election looms closer, health care has choked out virtually every other issue to stand alone as the primary focus of several top-tier candidates in the Democratic primary race.
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have each put forward a “Medicare for All” plan, candidates like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden have taken a softer position, proffering smaller ideas that would reportedly cost much less.
On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with health care policy expert and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Scholar Joe Antos about “Medicare for All.”
In part one of this two-part interview, Antos breaks down the complexity of the current Medicare system, and discusses the damage that a “Medicare for All” system could cause, such as rationing of care, the raising of taxes on the middle class, provider flight, an innovation drain, and more.
<blockquote>DW: “Medicare for All” is said by many people, especially on the Left, to be popular among Americans. Is this true, and if so, why do you think that is?
ANTOS: Well, if it is popular, it&#8217;s because people don&#8217;t actually understand what the consequences would be for them personally. Opinion polls conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and other organizations ask for respondents’ reactions to “Medicare for All” without explaining what that could mean in terms of access to care or higher taxes. The public at this point is responding to a phrase that sounds good but might not be. Would “Medicare for All” actually be something that people would welcome? I think the answer is no – based on what we already know about Medicare.
The traditional Medicare program is a not a great insurance program. Medicare’s structure is extremely complex, unlike any other health insurance available today. Its benefits are not up to the level most middle-class people receive through their employer plans. The program is hard to navigate, and most beneficiaries rely on supplemental coverage to fill in Medicare’s gaps.
To give you a few examples. Most private insurance requires a single annual deductible – perhaps $1,000 or $2,000 for a family plan. Medicare has multiple deductibles. If you are admitted to a hospital, you pay a deductible, which is $1,364 this year. If you are admitted again more than 60 days later, you pay another $1,364 deductible. You are also liable for coinsurance starting at $341 a day if you are in the hospital for more than 60 days. There’s another deductible of $185 for physician and other services under Part B, and 20% coinsurance after you’ve satisfied the deductible.
That’s a sharp contrast with typical private coverage. If you were used to paying $20 for a visit to the doctor under your private insurance before you turned 65, Medicare’s high cost and arcane rules would come as a shock. Your out-of-pocket costs under Medicare are both expensive and unpredictable. There are arbitrary limits on what Medicare will cover and how long that coverage lasts, and those limitations vary by the type of medical service. It’s a very confusing program.
This is one of the reasons why Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown rapidly, especially over the last decade. About 35% of Medicare beneficiaries are in MA plans, which are all structured similarly to the kind of coverage you had when you were working. MA generally offers better benefits than traditional Medicare, and it&#8217;s in one easy-to-understand package. Traditional Medicare, by contrast, requires seniors to work their way through a maze of rules that frankly baffles experts, not just the average person.
Warren and Sanders only want parts of Medicare in “Medicare for All.” They would dispense with the success of private plans in containing program costs, and extend Medicare price controls to the entire health sector. They would add benefits and eliminate premiums and cost-sharing, opening the door to a massive increase in the use of services. Even most contenders for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination know that won’t work.
The Kaiser Family Foundation polls demonstrate another important point about the public’s views. If asked how they feel about a “public option” or an “optional federal plan,” responses are much more favorable than for “Medicare for All.” The public likes the idea that there might be an alternative that might be better, but they don&#8217;t want to be forced into it because it might not be better. That says to me that the average person is leery about taking government promises at face value.
Anyone who has employer coverage knows what to expect. You may not be totally thrilled by it, but you know what it is. To be told that you will lose that coverage and be enrolled in a new, uncertain government plan is a disruption that many people would not welcome. Despite the enthusiasm from some on the Left, that&#8217;s not a positive political message.
DW: Sen. Elizabeth Warren&#8217;s plan is said to cost an additional $20.5 trillion over the first decade, and it would require major legislation to be passed, such as immigration reform. Sanders&#8217; plan would cost roughly $32 trillion, and he says middle class taxes would go up. Can you talk about that?
ANTOS: The Warren and Sanders plans are basically the same. Everyone would be enrolled in the government plan, and benefits would be expanded well beyond Medicare’s benefits to include dental, hearing, vision, and long-term care services. As a result, the bottom line cost would be about the same – about $32 trillion over the next decade. That’s the additional amount the federal government would have to pay to finance “Medicare for All” over the next decade.
Warren’s $20.5 trillion is lower only because it assumes some questionable sources of savings that total about $12 trillion. Her plan assumes that the federal government would receive the full amount state and local governments now pay for Medicaid and insurance for employees. Some spending would be reduced due to lower administrative costs. Health care providers would be paid substantially lower rates than they now receive from private insurers.
Warren’s plan would pay physicians and most other providers Medicare rates, which are about 40% below commercial rates. Recognizing that hospitals are a more potent political force, her plan offers hospitals 10% more than Medicare rates. That would have a devastating effect on many small and rural hospitals, many of which likely would be forced to close without additional subsidies. This proposal would directly challenge two of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington. That probably isn&#8217;t going to work out too well.
The remaining $20.5 trillion would be financed by a raft of new taxes. Nearly $9 trillion would be collected from employers to capture the amount they contribute to their employee’s health plans. The proposal also increases taxes on wealth, large corporations, financial transactions, and assumes increased tax revenue as a result of higher wages paid to workers who no longer have employer coverage. It is clear that the middle class will foot much of the bill for Warren’s proposal.
DW: If somehow the “Medicare for All” plans are paid for, is there a fear that talented surgeons, doctors, and even prospective surgeons and doctors who are planning to enter into medical school, might choose a different career path because those jobs won&#8217;t pay as much anymore?
ANTOS: That’s a legitimate concern, and we see this happening already. There is high demand for highly-trained physicians in roles that do not involve the direct delivery of care to patients. The hours are better, and the pay is good. That shift would certainly increase.
Delivering health care is not an easy job. It&#8217;s very time-consuming. There&#8217;s administrative hassle, which would not decrease under “Medicare for All.” At the end of the day, you&#8217;ve got to keep your business going, and now they&#8217;re going to cut your rates. For many providers, that would not make sense.
Young people would be less likely to go to medical school under such circumstances. Just as important, the health sector would be less attractive to investors who finance research that can lead to the next innovation in health care. This is a concern raised about pharmaceutical research, but it spans all of heath care. New diagnostic methods and new treatment approaches can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our health system. Those advances will be less forthcoming under “Medicare for All.”
DW: If there&#8217;s a type of doctor, say a therapist, that doesn&#8217;t accept insurance currently because they don&#8217;t make enough money from it, and they just accept check or cash payments, how would they be affected under a “Medicare for All” system? Would they be able to keep their practice going, or would they have to accept insurance?
ANTOS: That&#8217;s a difficult question to answer. Sanders is clearer about this than Warren. He flat out says that private health insurance would be banned by law. The only services that could be offered by private providers would be ones not covered by “Medicare for All.” That would restrict private health care to a narrow range of services, such as elective cosmetic surgery, which is generally not covered by insurance now. The market for such limited services is very small.
The bread and butter of health care would be delivered under the government plan, without a private sector alternative. It might be possible for some providers to establish concierge practices that accept only cash customers, but few people would be able to afford this. It seems likely that proponents of “Medicare for All” would try to outlaw such work-arounds, arguing that everyone should access health services on the same terms with no exceptions.
DW: What the proponents of “Medicare for All” systems continuously say is, &#8220;Yes, you may pay more in taxes, but the overall cost will go down.&#8221; What do you say to that?
ANTOS: Some people will gain financially, some will lose. Where you come out depends on many factors, including your income, the generosity of your previous coverage, and your health status. Warren says she will tax the rich without increasing taxes on the middle class. That doesn&#8217;t mean the middle class won&#8217;t pay more in taxes. They certainly will. There just isn&#8217;t enough money from taxes on high-income people and wealth to finance the kind of expansions they&#8217;re talking about.
For the middle class, it is a close call. If you are likely to use expensive medical services and your previous coverage required significant out-of-pocket payments, you are more likely to save money looking narrowly at health costs. However, even in that case, you could end up with higher total costs when taxes are taken into account. The amount you currently contribute to your employer premium would become taxable income, and the employer tax is actually a tax on part of your total compensation – so you pay that as well.
A major goal of both proposals is income redistribution through the health system. Low-income people who are not eligible for Medicaid would have their medical bills paid. High-income people would see their taxes increase. But everyone would face longer waiting lines to access medical services. We can look to Canada to see that.
We&#8217;re also going to lose access to services that simply won&#8217;t be there because we will not have put the investment in, and nobody on the private side will take the risk.
DW: I was talking to a friend of mine from Canada who said that her mother had a ligament injury in her knee, and she had to wait six months to get an MRI. Despite the injury being terribly painful, it wasn&#8217;t life threatening, so they pushed her down the waiting list. On the other side of that, I have friends from Italy, from Canada, from the U.K. who have told me that they love their medical systems.
ANTOS: People&#8217;s attitudes about their health system depend on their expectations and, for many, whether they had a good experience the last time they needed care. Americans have high expectations. The British may be less demanding, partly because Britain is a less wealthy country and people may be more willing to wait for services. Opinions in other countries have no bearing on how a government health system would be viewed here.
The example of a torn ligament is revealing. If you are in pain and are told to wait for treatment, you won’t be happy regardless of your nationality.
Sally Pipes, the president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute in California, is Canadian. She has pointed out that a dog would have more rapid access to an MRI than a human Canadian. The reason is that veterinary care is not part of the Canadian health system, and the private market responds to consumer demand. Moreover, since veterinary care is not subsidized by the government and insurance is not involved, prices are lower – reflecting what pet owners are willing to pay. Fido does not wait in line even though his owner does.</blockquote>
In part two of this interview, which will be released on Sunday, Antos talks about a more “free market” approach to health care, understanding “universal” coverage, the way in which conservatives and Republican lawmakers should approach health care legislation, the ultimate damage that a “Medicare for All” system could do, and more.

Bernie Sanders &#038; Elizabeth Warren.

INTERVIEW (Part I): Health Care Policy Expert Joe Antos Breaks Down The Dangers Of ‘Medicare For All’

There has been a discussion this week about how much of Bill Gates&#8217; money Bill Gates should be allowed to keep. Gates himself has said, I think reasonably, that he doesn&#8217;t mind paying taxes but he&#8217;d prefer if the majority of his own money stayed with him. Elizabeth Warren has generously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/bill-gates-elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax.html">promised</a> not to appropriate all of it, though she would skim a healthy sum off the top. But Bernie Sanders asks us to at least entertain the notion of levying a near 100% tax on billionaires like Gates.
&#8220;Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion,&#8221; Sanders <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1192478435693780992">tweeted</a>. &#8220;We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country. Bill would still be a multibillionaire. Our message: The billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little.&#8221;
This may not have been a serious proposal (then again, none of Sanders&#8217; proposals are serious), but he certainly does believe that taking lots of money from rich people can solve nearly every societal problem. Here he says we could &#8220;end homelessness&#8221; and &#8220;provide safe drinking water to everyone&#8221; with a mere $100 billion confiscated from a dastardly billionaire. I&#8217;m not sure where he gets that figure, but it doesn&#8217;t matter. Let&#8217;s think about this.
<iframe title="Only 100 Billion Dollars Away From Utopia | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 367" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LMCSC1oDvCA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If $100 billion would enable the government to establish a utopia with 0% homelessness and clean water for everyone, why aren&#8217;t we living in that utopia already? After all, <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762">annual federal tax revenue</a> is approaching $4 trillion. Let&#8217;s call it $3 trillion, because what&#8217;s a trillion dollars between friends? So, the government already brings in $3 trillion. In the last decade, they&#8217;ve earned (well, taken by force) over $30 trillion in taxes. We should note that all of the physical money in the world <a href="https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-much-money-is-there-in-the-world.html">adds up</a> to about $36 trillion. Since the beginning of Obama&#8217;s first term, therefore, the U.S. government has raked in more money than exists on Earth.
Sanders swears that homelessness could be utterly and completely solved with just 1/30th of what the government makes in a year. Why isn&#8217;t it solved, then? Are you really telling me that the government has confiscated more money than exists on Earth — and that&#8217;s still not enough? If you were to build a giant tower out of $3 trillion, it would nearly <a href="https://www.ehd.org/science_technology_largenumbers.php">reach the Moon</a>. A pile of cash over 200,000 miles high isn&#8217;t sufficient? They need more? Can Bernie and his friends not find a way to peel a measly $100 billion out of that galactic stack of tax money to solve the homelessness problem?
Here, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/these-wasteful-government-programs-need-go">let me help</a>. The Maritime Administration costs us almost $1 billion a year. The Appalachian Regional Commission runs $100 million or so. The Justice Department&#8217;s Community Oriented Policing Services sucks up another $300 million. I could <a href="https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book">list</a> dozens of other programs, agencies, departments, and projects that are redundant, pointless, inefficient, ineffective, and yet cost us hundreds of millions of dollars a year. What do you say — should we end homelessness or keep the Appalachian Regional Commission going? Which is more important?
And we haven&#8217;t even scratched the surface. The major waste in our government comes in the form of entitlements and defense spending. We sink trillions into both. Do you think these two behemoths could spare $50 billion a piece? I mean, we&#8217;re ending homelessness here. And giving everyone clean water. I&#8217;m sure the twin beasts of defense and entitlements would love to chip in. If they don&#8217;t, take it anyway. These aren&#8217;t private citizens. A phrase like &#8220;they cannot have it all when so many have so little&#8221; actually applies and makes sense in reference to governmental entities.
What about foreign aid? We give about $50 billion a year to countries around the globe. According to Sanders&#8217; figures, we could put an end to homelessness and thirst, and save thousands of lives, if we just redirected that money from the pockets of foreign bureaucrats back into our own country. Cut off foreign aid to everyone for two years and homelessness goes away, according to Bernie Sanders. Why aren&#8217;t we doing that? Why hasn&#8217;t he suggested it?
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and all the rest of the Democrats, insist that more money — more and more and more and more money — is needed to solve our problems. They look at the $4 trillion already available to them and scoff. That&#8217;s because these people have no interest in solving any problems. And they know that problems like homelessness can&#8217;t be solved with money anyway. Most homeless people are homeless because of drug addiction or mental disorder. Give them a bag of cash and they&#8217;ll be dead by morning. Give them a free house and they&#8217;ll be on the street again in a week. I&#8217;m not saying we shouldn&#8217;t help the homeless. I&#8217;m saying that we can only treat homelessness by addressing what causes it — and you need more than money to do that. Sanders knows this. So does Warren. They all do. But, for them, homeless people, sick people, poor people, college students in debt, etc., are just pawns to be used in pursuit of more control and more power.

WALSH: The Government Rakes In Over $3 Trillion Dollars A Year In Tax Revenue. That&#8217;s More Than Enough, Bernie Sanders.

Taxes

On Thursday, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, apparently deciding he was his own version of Robin Hood, attacked Microsoft CEO Bill Gates by tweeting, “Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion. We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country. Bill would still be a multibillionaire. Our message: the billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion. 
We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country.
Bill would still be a multibillionaire. 
Our message: the billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little. <a href="https://t.co/fVlxuIGygf">https://t.co/fVlxuIGygf</a>
&mdash; Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1192478435693780992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Of course, Sanders got it wrong, as the communist sympathizer must envision Robin Hood as the man who restored wealth stolen by the rich from the poor. But if Sanders indeed had any literary knowledge beyond the Communist Manifesto, he would know that Robin Hood took money from those who were unfairly taxing the citizenry. Taxing the citizenry is exactly what Sanders continually advocates as he maligns wealthy, successful people who have created millions of jobs while he sits comfortably in the Senate without having created jobs on his own.
So how many workers does Gates keep employed while Sanders flies around advocating redistributing the accumulated wealth of the United States? <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerenblankfeld/2016/10/18/american-billionaires-behind-the-most-jobs/#35845291693f">Forbes</a> noted three years ago:
<blockquote>Since Gates and his friend Paul Allen founded Microsoft in 1975, the software firm has acquired a slew of companies, including video and calling application Skype and Nokia&#8217;s device and services business. Altogether, Microsoft now has more than 114,000 full-time workers. These do not include employees of professional network company LinkedIn, which Microsoft announced in June that it has agreed to acquire; once that acquisition is complete, it will add another 9,900 full-time employees to Microsoft&#8217;s roster, bringing its total employment closer to Oracle&#8217;s.</blockquote>
Forbes also noted: “The top 12 billionaire job creators — all together worth more than $308 billion — have generated at least 2.3 million jobs globally.” As of three years ago, Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank of Home Depot had created 385,000 jobs.
Now let’s take a look at Sanders: after his graduation from college, he worked as a Head Start teacher, a psychiatric aide, and a carpenter. Not many jobs created there. After that he became a politician. Not many jobs created there.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sanders-was-kicked-out-commune-laziness-hank-berrien">The Daily Wire</a> noted in 2016
<blockquote>If you think socialists are lazy, good-for-nothings who want things just because they are breathing, rather than working for them, Bernie Sanders <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/bernie-sanders-asked-leave-hippie-commune/">would agree with you</a>. At least, if he believes in himself.
According to the new book We Are As Gods, by Kate Daloz, which tells the tale of the rise and fall of the Myrtle Hill Farm in northeast Vermont, Sanders was told to leave the commune in 1971 because he didn’t work, instead “sitting around and talking” about politics.
Daloz writes that Sanders engaged in “endless political discussion,” while the residents seethed; one resident, Craig, “resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie’s orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day.” Daloz concludes, “When Bernie had stayed for Myrtle’s allotted three days, Craig politely requested that he move on.”
The commune’s politics must have <a href="http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/">agreed with Sanders</a>, who made several “goodwill” trips to the USSR, Cuba and Nicaragua. He called the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government in Nicaragua a “heroic revolution.”</blockquote>
Gates and his wife? According to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/philanthropy-50-how-much-bezos-gates-zuckerberg-charities-gave-away.html">CNBC</a>, &#8220;&#8230; the Gates have given a total of $45.5 billion through their foundation and other family foundations, dating back to 1994, the Chronicle of Philanthropy notes.&#8221;

Bernie Sanders Minneapolis rally

Bernie Sanders Attacks Bill Gates’ Wealth. Gates Employs Over 100,000 People. Sanders Does Other Things.

Bill Gates

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) suggested on Thursday that he is not opposed to asking Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to be his running mate in the event that he secures the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2020.
&#8220;You said Elizabeth Warren is a friend of yours, you say you have a similar approach on &#8216;Medicare for All,'&#8221; host Mehdi Hasan asked Sanders during an appearance on his &#8220;Deconstructed&#8221; podcast. &#8220;Would a presidential candidate Bernie Sanders be open to Elizabeth Warren as his running mate?&#8221;
&#8220;Elizabeth Warren is somebody that I have worked with for many, many years. I had worked with her before she was a United States senator,&#8221; Sanders replied. &#8220;So obviously if I am fortunate enough to become the Democratic nominee and president of the United States, I would look absolutely to Elizabeth Warren as somebody who would play a very, very important role in everything that we&#8217;re doing.&#8221;
Hasan pressed Sanders further on whether, in a time when Democrats have been heavily focused on identity politics, he would be OK with an all-white or all-male presidential ticket.
&#8220;It is too early to talk about it, but I do believe — let me just repeat what I have said many times — my administration and my Cabinet will look like America. It will be the most diverse administration and the most diverse Cabinet this country has ever seen. We are proud of our diversity. I am the proud son of an immigrant and I think when people look at our Cabinet and our administration, they will say, &#8216;Hey, that&#8217;s what America looks like.'&#8221;
Both Sanders and Warren have notably been shying away from attacking each other while they compete in the progressive lane for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. They have also been repeatedly asked to explain what sets their far-left campaigns apart from each other, but have consistently dodged providing an answer.
Sanders&#8217; remarks coincidentally come on the same day that Warren was also questioned about the diversity of her potential presidential administration. While speaking at North Carolina A&amp;T University, the Massachusetts senator revealed that she might tap some of her Democratic primary rivals.
&#8220;One of the values of this country should be diversity, so when you think about the makeup of your Cabinet, what three African-Americans do you feel like you have to have in your Cabinet?&#8221; CNN&#8217;s Angela Rye asked Warren.
Warren immediately responded that she wanted to refrain from naming people because she is currently running against some of them in the primaries. After Rye again asked for her to name three potential nominees, Warren put forth former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and some of the presidents of historically black colleges and universities.
&#8220;I&#8217;m trying to think, because I&#8217;m trying to stay outside the current Washington part,&#8221; Warren said. Where is the best place to go for Cabinet members? You know it&#8217;s to have people who are in the fight.&#8221;
&#8220;People like Melody Barnes, my friend of more than 20 years who has been in this fight from the beginning, who under President [Barack] Obama was a domestic policy adviser,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Someone like Melody, who may not be as well known to this crowd, but who is out there fighting every day for money for higher education, money for public schools. So that&#8217;d be somebody I&#8217;d love to have in a Cabinet.&#8221;

Celebrity Sightings In New York City &#8211; October 19, 2019

Bernie Sanders Isn&#8217;t Ruling Out A Sanders-Warren 2020 Ticket

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) stated during a Minnesota campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders – an <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-socialist-successes">admitted</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-is-an-avowed-socialist-and-democrats-are-actually-pretty-ok-with-that/">socialist</a> who has a history of <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bernie-sanders-praised-communist-cuba-and-the-soviet-union-in-the-1980s">sympathizing</a> with communists – that she was excited at the prospect of a Sanders&#8217; presidency because he would &#8220;fight against Western imperialism.&#8221;
Omar made the remarks toward the end of her speech, which last approximately 20 minutes. Omar stated:
<blockquote>As a refugee who escaped war and persecution as a child, I am honored to stand with the son of a Jewish refugee who survived genocide. The acknowledgement of pain and suffering is personal for both of us. The fight for human rights is undeniable and when we recognize injustices of the past and present – whether it is genocide against Jewish people, Armenians, or Rwandans, or Bosnians, or Native Americans, or more – we recognize, we realize that that recognition isn’t about punishing our political foes, but leading within a moral obligation.
I am beyond honored and excited for a president that will fight against Western imperialism and fight for a just world … I am excited for president Bernie Sanders. [emphasis added]</blockquote>
So, what is &#8220;Western imperialism?&#8221;
Generally speaking, when someone talks about &#8220;the West&#8221; they are referring to the non-communist states in Europe and North America, which have been largely formed by Judeo-Christian values and where capitalism is the dominant economic system in place.
According to the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism">Encyclopedia Britannica</a>, Imperialism is a &#8220;state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.&#8221;
The encyclopedia adds that the term is &#8220;frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.&#8221;
So, in essence, what excites Omar about Sanders is the fact that she believes that he will essentially shrink the United States&#8217; role and influence in the world for the sake of having a &#8220;just world.&#8221;
Omar&#8217;s statement was met with thunderous applause by those who most likely have no idea what her words really mean.
Shrinking the United States&#8217; influence and power in the world will likely only breed conflict as it would allow terrorism and communism to spread, the latter of which is starting to become a serious threat because of China.
China, which is ruled by the Communist Party of China (CPC), is widely considered by U.S. officials and experts to be the greatest threat to America from an economic and military standpoint.
An advocacy group – Stand For America – founded by former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, labels China as the &#8220;Biggest Foreign Threat to America.&#8221;
&#8220;China engages in hostile trade practices, stealing America’s intellectual property, and manipulating their currency for trading advantages against us,&#8221; the group writes. &#8220;China is aggressively enlarging its military, taking over islands in Asian waters, and dangerously expanding its industrial reach into all corners of the world. And we must not forget that China is still a Communist dictatorship that is perhaps the world’s single worst human rights violator, taking surveillance and imprisonment of its citizens to truly Orwellian levels.&#8221;
Over the summer, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/world/asia/united-states-china-conflict.html">reported</a> that many senior U.S. officials &#8220;now view China as a steely ideological rival, where the Communist Party aims not only to subjugate citizens but to spread tools of authoritarian control globally – particularly surveillance, communications and artificial intelligence technology – and establish military footholds across oceans and mountains.&#8221;
An NBC News article from earlier this year outlined the growing threat that China poses to the United States, stating that China&#8217;s &#8220;efforts to penetrate American society and gain influence are insidious – and growing.&#8221;
“The Chinese counterintelligence threat is more deep, more diverse, more vexing, more challenging, more comprehensive and more concerning than any counterintelligence threat I can think of,” FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
The official written intelligence report that was created by the the major U.S. intelligence agencies stated that China &#8220;remains the most active strategic competitor responsible for cyber espionage against the U.S. Government, corporations, and allies. It is improving its cyber attack capabilities and altering information online, shaping Chinese views and potentially the views of U.S. citizens.&#8221;
The author of the NBC News report – David A. Andelman, executive director of The RedLines Project, formerly a correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News in Europe and Asia – further highlighted the spying threat that China poses to the United States in the academic realm.
Andelman <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/russia-monopolizes-headlines-china-s-threat-u-s-goes-way-ncna966196">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>The American intelligence community appears especially concerned by China’s patience. Chinese ambitions seems to be part of a much broader strategy – one that goes far beyond military capabilities and seeks to “significantly expand China’s penetration of the economies and political systems” of the U.S. and the West, according to the intelligence report.
Some of this expanded espionage appears focused on colleges and universities. “The use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it’s professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country,” the FBI’s Wray said in 2018. “It’s not just in major cities. It’s in small ones as well. It’s across basically every discipline.”</blockquote>
China, which has aggressively expanded its military to the point where it can challenge the United States in the region, is positioning itself to become the world&#8217;s leading superpower.
As a totalitarian state, National Interest <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-happens-when-china-becomes-most-powerful-country-world-51887">reports</a> that if China becomes the world&#8217;s most powerful nation that it will aggressively attempt to spread its communist ideology around the world.
&#8221; &#8230; Under totalitarianism it is not enough for citizens to just mind their own business and refrain from political opposition to the regime,&#8221; National Interest reports. &#8220;Instead of being satisfied with their political complacency, a totalitarian regime demands strict adherence to its rules and ideas in people’s everyday lives, including in the matters that have nothing to do with politics. In effect, it seeks to control everyone’s every step.&#8221;
&#8220;This is precisely what the Chinese ruling regime is now working to achieve,&#8221; National Interest continued. &#8220;Modern digital technologies offer it a possibility to build an actual dystopia in the sense until now only described in the science fiction – something totalitarian regimes of the past could not do for practical reasons. A new Chinese system relying on total surveillance and big data to notice and assess everyday actions of the citizens is set to become fully operational in 2020.&#8221;

Ilhan Omar

Omar: Bernie Will ‘Fight Against Western Imperialism.’ Here’s What That Could Mean.

China

This is from PolitiFact, so you can be sure there’s more to the story. The “fact checking” website gave former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley a “Mostly False” rating after she sent an email for policy group Stand for America discussing the Green New Deal and saying candidates who supported it “touted everything from putting limits on red meat consumption, to promoting abortion in third world countries to control the population!”
To get the “Mostly False” rating, PolitiFact, naturally, ignored part of what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said during a debate.
Haley’s rhetoric was likely based off of Sanders response to a question during CNN’s September 4 climate change town hall. Here’s what PolitiFact highlighted:
Question: &#8220;Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it&#8217;s crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?&#8221;
Sanders: &#8220;Well, Martha, the answer is yes. And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions. And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.&#8221;
But PolitiFact leaves out what Sanders said immediately after this. As the BBC reported at the time, Sanders went on to say:
So, I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.
Now, Sanders said “birth control” instead of “abortion,” but the two are interchangeable to today’s Left.
Now, PolitiFact is correct to note the Green New Deal does not mention “abortion” or “population,” but Haley didn’t say it did. She said candidates who support it (like Sanders) have promoted “abortion in third world countries to control the population.”
Here’s how PolitiFact determined their ruling:
<blockquote>The email distorts the Green New Deal resolution by linking it to abortion. (The linked petition is even more direct.) The only element of truth in her attack is Sanders, one of the 2020 presidential candidates, linked climate change, population control and reproductive rights in a town hall.</blockquote>
So, the “only element of truth” is almost exactly what Haley said, yet she gets a “Mostly False” rating.
PolitiFact didn’t even mention the fact that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who first proposed the Green New Deal, asked in February 2019 whether it was “OK to still have children” given the future effects of climate change.
These are the kinds of rulings that cost “fact checking” outlets credibility. If a Democrat made a similar statement about what a Republican said about, say, gun control, they would receive a more favorable ruling.

Nikki Haley

PolitiFact Gives Nikki Haley ‘Mostly False’ Rating For Saying Green New Deal Candidates Suggested Abortion As Population Control

PolitiFact

With the rollout of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) health care plan on Friday, a “Medicare for All” style system has now been officially proposed by two of the most popular Democratic presidential candidates.
Multiple analyses have concluded that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “Medicare for All” plan would cost as much as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/465894-new-study-full-scale-medicare-for-all-costs-32-trillion-over-10-years">$32 trillion</a> over a decade. Warren claims her plan would require approximately <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775339519/heres-how-warren-finds-20-5-trillion-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all">$20.5 trillion</a> in “new” federal spending.
Many progressive commentators and politicians claim that “Medicare for All,” or its more general counterpart, “Universal coverage,” is popular among voters. Poll after poll appear to suggest the same thing – except upon closer inspection, that’s not quite the case.
In February, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/poll-only-13-americans-want-government-run-frank-camp">The Hill-HarrisX</a> released a survey that asked respondents the following question about health care: “Which of the following comes closest to your views?”
<ul>
<li>15% of respondents said that “the government should remove itself from paying for all health care.”</li>
<li>14% said “the current health care system should be kept as is.”</li>
<li>26% said “any citizen should be able to sign up for Medicare/Medicaid regardless of age or income while those with private plans could keep their existing insurance.”</li>
<li>32% said “Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded to cover all citizens regardless of age or income but people should be able to purchase private supplemental plans.”</li>
<li>13% said “Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded to cover all citizens regardless of age or income and private health plans should be abolished.”</li>
</ul>
A July poll from <a href="http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3">NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist</a> asked respondents if “Medicare for all, that is a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance,” was a “good idea” or a “bad idea.” 41% said it was a “good idea,” while 54% said it was a “bad idea.”
An August survey by <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_082619/">Monmouth University</a> asked: “Which of the following comes closest to how you would like to see health care handled:  A) Get rid of all private insurance coverage in favor of having everyone on a single public plan like Medicare for All, B) Allow people to either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage &#8230; or D) Keep the health insurance system basically as it is?”
Only 22% selected A, while 53% selected B, and 11% selected D.
In September, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6426498-19357-NBCWSJ-September-Registered-Voter-Poll-Final.html">NBC News/Wall Street Journal</a> released a survey in which respondents were asked if they supported a Medicare for All-style system in which “private health insurance would be eliminated.” 22% said they “strongly support” such a system, 19% said they “somewhat support,” while 44% said they “strongly oppose,” and 12% said they “somewhat oppose.” That’s a combined 41% supporting such a system, and 56% opposing it.
In October, the <a href="https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/">Kaiser Family Foundation</a> (KFF) asked respondents: “Would you favor or oppose a national Medicare-for-all plan if you heard that it would &#8230; eliminate private health insurance companies?” While 37% said they would favor such a plan, 58% said they would oppose it.
What these surveys demonstrate is that once the glossy buzzphrase of “Medicare for All” is wiped away, and the American people are faced with the elimination of private insurance, the majority react negatively. Despite this fact, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren, two of the leading Democratic candidates for president, have put out plans that would indeed eliminate private insurance.

Sanders and Warren.

POLL DATA: Majorities Oppose ‘Medicare For All’ If It Eliminates ‘Private Health Insurance’

On Tuesday, a new poll from <a href="https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&amp;context=survey_center_polls">CNN/University of New Hampshire</a> was released showing former Vice President Joe Biden falling to third place in the Granite State.
“If the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary were held today, 21% of likely primary voters say they would vote for [Sen. Bernie] Sanders, 18% would vote for [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren, 15% would vote for Biden, and 10% would vote for [Mayor Pete] Buttigieg,” according to the poll.
This is a stark contrast from the previous <a href="https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&amp;context=survey_center_polls">CNN/UNH poll</a> released on July 16, which had Biden in the lead with 24% of the vote.
While Biden’s favorability in New Hampshire has seen a negative shift since July, it has been relatively minor. Meanwhile, the former vice president’s chief rivals, Sanders and Warren, have risen to first and second place despite also experiencing negative shifts in favorability.
In July, 57% of “likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters” had a “favorable” opinion of Biden, while 25% had an “unfavorable” opinion. In this most recent poll, 55% of Democratic primary voters in the state have a “favorable” view of Biden compared to 30% who have an “unfavorable” view.
Let’s look at the numbers for Sanders and Warren. In July, Sanders and Warren had identical numbers &#8212; 67% “favorable” compared to 18% “unfavorable.”
According to Tuesday’s poll, Sanders has shifted to 66% “favorable” versus 23% “unfavorable.” Warren has shifted as well, with 63% “favorable” and 25% “unfavorable.”
Despite these relatively minor changes in favorability, the former vice president’s position in the state race has plummeted, while Sanders has leapt to first place with 23% of the vote. Warren has actually dropped by a single percentage point (19% to 18%), but Biden’s 9% fall is much more significant.
According to the poll, a staggering 57% of Democratic primary voters are “still trying to decide” on a candidate. That number was 64% in July. 23% have “definitely decided.” In July, that number was 16%.
For a candidate once considered the “frontrunner,” Biden appears to be losing momentum or treading water in other early primary/caucus states.
In Iowa, Biden sits in third place with 15.7%, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html">RealClearPolitics</a> (RCP) polling average. Warren and Buttigieg place first and second, with 22.3% and 17%, respectively.
In Nevada, Biden remains in the lead with 22.5%, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-6866.html">RCP average</a>. However, it should be noted that the most recent polling data for the state is from late-September. In the most recent poll from CNN, Biden is tied with Sanders at 22%, with Warren close behind at 18%.
In South Carolina, Biden still commands a substantial lead, with 35% of the vote, per the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html">RealClearPolitics average</a>. The four most recent polls from the state appear to show the former vice president struggling to keep his lead (34%, 43%, 33%, 30%), while other candidates remain steady or move slightly upward.
As of publication, the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics national polling average</a> has Biden in the lead with 27.6%, Warren in second with 20.4%, Sanders in third with 17%, and Buttigieg in fourth with 7.1% of the vote.

Joe Biden.

Biden Tumbles To Third In Latest New Hampshire Poll

This week, four of the top candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro and Bernie Sanders — gathered at the J Street Conference to explain why the United States ought to pressure the state of Israel to make concessions to terrorists, why the Obama administration was correct to appease the Iranian regime and why American Jews ought to value the opinions of Bernie Sanders over those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the future of Jewish safety. Two other top Democrats — Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden — sent video messages in support of the group.
By contrast, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee held its annual conference in March, not a single Democratic presidential candidate showed up. The Democrats are, by and large, simply too ashamed to stand with an actual pro-Israel group, although prominent congressional leaders still show up to mouth nostrums about bipartisan support for Israel.
But the heart of the Democratic Party has moved against Israel. That&#8217;s because Israel is economically successful, while its enemies are not; Israel is liberal, while its enemies are not; Israel is the tip of the spear of Western civilization in an area known for its tribalism and brutality. This means that according to the radical left, Israel is an exploitative country hell-bent on domination, despite its lack of territorial ambition — Israel has signed over large swaths of land won through military victory to geopolitical enemies, and offered much more repeatedly.
So the Democrats built up and gave credence to J Street, a Trojan horse group dedicated to undermining American support for Israel and justifying left-wing hatred of the Jewish state. J Street was founded by Clinton operative Jeremy Ben-Ami and Israeli far-left political figure Daniel Levy in late 2007. One of its chief sources of funding — a source obscured in the early years by its founders — was anti-Israel radical George Soros.
The media quickly began treating J Street as a legitimate representative of mainstream Jewish opinion on Israel, and so did Democrats, particularly in the anti-Israel Obama administration: Rather than having to deal with those troublesome actually pro-Israel voices at AIPAC, it was easier to bring in a few ringers from J Street to pretend that advocating for negotiations with Hamas represented an acceptable opinion in the pro-Israel community.
Read the rest <a href="https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro">here</a>.

US-POLITICS-NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Shapiro: The J Street Democrats

Amy Klobuchar

Barack Obama

Israel

J Street

Julian Castro

Last week, BlazeTV released a new sketch from comedian Victor Dweck.
In the sketch, called “Icepick and the Murderers for Bernie,” Martha Hyde-White, a parody of Barbara Walters, interviews inmate Jerry John Davis, nicknamed “Icepick,” who is “serving a 180 year sentence for setting his local Equinox gym on fire after exiting the shower and finding no fresh towels.”
With a fire-scorched voice, Icepick sits across from Hyde-White and tells her that he is a staunch supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for president.
“With help from the Sanders camp, Icepick has been allowed to spend his one hour a day out of solitary confinement canvassing for Bernie,” Hyde-White states while we see Icepick holding a “Murderers for Bernie” sign and chanting, among other things, “My body. My choice.” He is accompanied by a security guard, who chants with him.
In a particularly funny man-on-the-street interview, a local “woman” says that she supports Icepick’s efforts for Bernie Sanders because she hates President Trump’s “draconian health care system.”
At the end of the segment, Hyde-White notes that since the interview, Icepick has had more years added to his prison sentence because he murdered her cameraman.
The sketch parodies a real-life moment. During a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bernie-sanders-let-terrorists-sex-predators-ryan-saavedra">town hall in April</a>, Sanders was asked: Would [you] support enfranchising people like the Boston Marathon bomber, a convicted terrorist and murderer?”
The senator replied:
<blockquote>If somebody commits a serious crime – sexual assault, murder – they’re going to be punished. They may be in jail 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. That’s what happens when you commit a serious crime. But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away … you’re running down a slippery slope … I do believe that even if they are in jail, they’re paying their price to society, that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.</blockquote>
Host Chris Cuomo followed up by telling Sanders that he was essentially “writing an opposition ad against” himself – but Sanders doubled down.
When The Daily Wire spoke with Dweck about the creative process behind this particular sketch, he said:
<blockquote>Well, we knew that we wanted to do something with prison, and we were talking about hot button issues like prison reform, being locked up, police brutality, and we remembered Bernie’s policy about giving voting rights to people on death row, such as the Boston Bomber. Without being mean about it or taking sides, we thought, “Well, what might a best case scenario look like?” Icepick, although having burned 89 people to death, as you know, is a big supporter of the fight against climate change. So, we decided to have fun with it.
Also, our goal is to bring people together with non-polarizing comedy around socio-political issues, and neither have us has ever met someone who actually supports this policy of giving voting rights to serial killers, so we figured it’d be a good policy that everyone can laugh about in a sketch.
One of the things I love about this piece is that although Icepick is a ruthless, serial-killing psychopath, the radical Bernie supporters love him simply because the two share a love of Bernie Sanders. It really speaks to how far radicals – on both sides – will go to stand by anything having to do with their politicians of choice.
I also love how the reporter talks to Icepick as if he chose Bernie over the other candidates for his policies. Icepick obviously likes Bernie. He has no other option! This is a nod to how tone-deaf reporters can be. The whole thing is ridiculous, and ridiculously truthful.</blockquote>
Check out the sketch here [Warning: Some Strong Language]:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ADIpFB5-484" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Dweck.

WATCH: Comedy Sketch Brilliantly Skewers Bernie Sanders’ Stance On Felon Voters

BlazeTV

Comedy

The following is satirical.
It’s Halloween, which means over-excited children pretending to be what they’re not will be coming around your house asking you to give them your stuff, so it’s kind of like the Democratic primaries.
There’ll be monsters, witches, vampires and ghosts everywhere, so it’s kind of like the Democratic primaries. You’ll go out and spend your hard earned money on treats and then spoiled brats will come to your house and demand that you give those treats to them or they’ll pull destructive tricks on you, so it’s sort of like the Democratic primaries.
This year’s popular costumes include a walking dead man who will devour your brains, a screeching harpy whose hideous demeanor will paralyze you with fear and disgust, and a succubus — a female spirit who will drain you of your life force. Those are the Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren costumes, respectively.
There’s also a Pete Buttigieg costume where you look normal until someone gets up close and then you suddenly become terrifying. And, of course, the Joe Biden costume in which you become a ghost of your former self and everyone can see right through you.
Halloween has a long tradition based on ancient superstitions and irrational beliefs — so that is also sort of like the Democratic primaries. The word Halloween means All Hallow’s Eve and comes on the eve of All Hallow’s Day when believers honor the saints, who are dead people whose power is still felt on earth, sort of like Democrat voters, only good.
Over time, the holiday developed its present fun traditions where young people dress up in various costumes and then other young people shriek in their faces about cultural appropriation, then try to get them expelled, then go home and tell themselves what wonderful people they are all the while harboring the secret suspicion that they actually suck which, it turns out, is exactly right.
Thus Halloween has been transformed from an interesting annual event into a riot of rage, guilt and shame — sort of like the Democratic primaries.
&nbsp;

Menu