It would certainly screw less than just the "extremely poor". See every other industrialized nation's health care system.
You mean the industrialized nations with far less people and better safety nets for its population? Those industrialized nation? I
My point is this, the amount of changed required to make sanders plans viable is far too extreme for the average American to accept. They won't accept it.
Personally, my main concern is a democrat winning in november to ensure a progressive supreme court and to keep the republicans from fucking shit more. His plan will never be accepted because it is easy to spin it to a tax increase that hurts people.
$1.6k increase on those making around $34k is fucking highway robbery.
This is why I do not support Bernie Sanders. Hillary's tax plan is a LOT more reasonable.
His plan is too unrealistic and idealistic to ever go through congress.
I would personally prefer a system that lowers the unreasonable cost of going to the hospital. I mean india doesn't have nationalize healthcare, but it sure does have cheaper healthcare. That is far more reasonable and easily to get people excited about it.
I am a pessimist. This plan will never fly with the average population.
It is better to let people die than having a little less luxurious life.
I am disgusted by this thread.
The go old emotional appeal fallacy. If you can't make a good argument why not just try to appeal to people emotion. Let me ask you this, if you care so much about people, do you ever spend time to volunteer at homeless shelter? Do you donate money to the poor? Right now, you have internet and water while kid have none. Emotional appeal is usually a horrible argument to make since it can be easily reverse. I mean even the pope that cares about the poor isn't going to be come homeless just to help the poor.