The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

China and the NoKos

For the past three decades the diplomatic elites in Washinton have told us that China is the key to controlling the aggressive ambitions of North Korea. I accepted that conventional wisdom and have cited it in a number of posts over the years. But I'm beginning to think that the entire 'China-is-the-key-to-North Korea' meme is wrong—that the NoKos crazy behavior benefits China. Like many ideas emanating from our diplomatic elite, our reliance on China to control NoKo is doomed to failure.

In a fascinating article on this subject, Abram Shulsky and Lewis Libby write:
Three decades of failure should lead us at least to question the conventional wisdom [of the 'China is the key to North Korea'meme]. Perhaps the true Chinese attitude toward the North Korean nuclear program is more favorable than appears. It might do well to reflect on the phrase “barbarian handlers” – that is, Chinese official or unofficial representatives whose job it is to shape foreigners’ perceptions of China.

The conventional wisdom ignores the geo-strategic benefits that China derives from the North Korean nuclear program. The prospect of North Korean nuclear weapons has distracted U.S. attention in Asia since the Clinton Administration, and has rendered the U.S. a supplicant to China, soliciting its help.

This pays off for China in many ways. As we have seen, the Trump administration has withheld its fire on trade and financial issues as a result. The Bush and Obama Administrations welcomed Beijing convening leading nations in multi-party talks, thus enhancing China’s regional and diplomatic prestige. China may not unreasonably believe that all this gives it a freer hand to act aggressively in other arenas, such as China’s unlawful efforts to seize control of the South China Sea ...

If China truly wanted to press North Korea to end its nuclear program, such measures would be on its agenda. But there is no indication China is thinking along these lines.

If, on the other hand, China actually regards the North Korean nuclear program as geopolitically advantageous, then its current policy makes good sense. By keeping the U.S. hoping that the next set of sanctions will do the trick, China buys time for the other gains it reaps.

All this would suggest the U.S. adopt a course less tolerant of China’s role. Indeed, the Trump Administration has hinted at stronger measures.

None of this proves, of course, that America’s decades-long conventional wisdom is wrong. But if policies based on it have repeatedly fallen short, isn’t it at least time for the general Washington community to rethink basic assumptions and the policies toward both North Korea and China that flow from them?
I'm not sure there is any way we can force the Chinese to act. In fact, trade sanctions, although potentially a viable forcing function, would hurt us as much as they would hurt China. In fact, I'm not sure sanction that raise the price of goods and potentially create unemployment would be politically viable in this country.

But if China won't act in a manner that is effective, then what?

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Rules

Maybe its just the era we live in, but it does seem that the rules of political correctness change not by the day, but by the hour. Obviously, those same rules are applied selectively—if a favored person (e.g., a liberal entertainer) violates the rules, there are giggles and smiles, but if a conservative violates the same rule in the same way, there is staged outrage. Jokes or satire by a conservative are never viewed with humor, but are taken literally as evil intent. The benefit of the doubt is never given to anyone who is not a member of a favored identity politics group.

To illustrate, consider the following reported by Heather McDonald:
To the list of forbidden ideas on American college campuses, add “bourgeois norms”—hard work, self-discipline, marriage and respect for authority. Last month, two law professors published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the “cultural script” that prevailed in the 1950s and still does among affluent Americans: “Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. . . . Eschew substance abuse and crime.” The weakening of these traditional norms has contributed to today’s low rates of workforce participation, lagging educational levels and widespread opioid abuse, the professors argued.

The op-ed triggered an immediate uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, where one of its authors, Amy Wax, teaches. The dean of the Penn law school, Ted Ruger, published an op-ed in the student newspaper noting the “contemporaneous occurrence” of the op-ed and a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., and suggesting that Ms. Wax’s views were “divisive, even noxious.” Half of Ms. Wax’s law-faculty colleagues signed an open letter denouncing her piece and calling on students to report any “bias or stereotype” they encounter “at Penn Law ” (e.g., in Ms. Wax’s classroom). Student and alumni petitions poured forth accusing Ms. Wax of white supremacy, misogyny and homophobia and demanding that she be banned from teaching first-year law classes.
This instance is typical of PC bullying (some would call it PC facism). Who knew that "hard work, self-discipline, marriage and respect for authority" would somehow be akin to "white supremacy?" The point is that the hard-left wants every writer and social commentator to toe the PC line and to be sure they do, the rules keep changing, keeping everyone who is worried about be called a "nazi" or a "bigot" off-balance.

Conservative firebrand Kurt Schlichter raises an interesting point:
... liberals leverage their ability to create new rules out of thin air as a means of asserting their power over us normals. What was A-OK yesterday is now forbidden, and what was forbidden yesterday is now mandatory. Their goal is to keep our heads spinning and paralyze us with fear, like nearsighted corporals caught in a minefield and terrified that if we take one wrong step we will detonate a concealed wrongthink booby-trap. They want us living in fear of their fussy wrath, and that is precisely why it is so important for us to keep abreast of pseudo-scandals like this [the ESPN "boob" interview] so we can nip these libfascists' schemes in the bud and deny them the ability to rack up yet another victory in the culture war.
But that's not easy. The PC outrage machine is daunting. The progressives' trained hamsters in the media pile on the minute a PC rule is violated. The resultant onslaught of outrage, coupled with cries for radical punishment of the offender, is so strong that few can stand up to it. Most whither under the smears, coupled with accusations of sexism or racism or nazism or any of the other tired epithets are hurled by the Left. It is awful—and at the same time, quite effective.

Schlichter, never one to mince words, goes on a classic rant:
Alinksy was right – we must hold our enemies to their own stupid standards, and that's especially true if it's a newly-invented standard designed only to silence and suppress us conservatives. We must take their new rules, roll them up real tight, and ram them down the left's collective collectivist throat, if not elsewhere.

They make it easy for us by being so ridiculous. Are women the strong, powerful equals of men, or fragile flowers who wilt at the mere mention of lady parts? It depends on which one is the most useful to the liberal narrative right then and there. Can you talk about lady parts? Apparently the new rule is that you can't, at least in the normal context of heterosexual men citing the parts that they like. But if you want to wear a gynecological sombrero on your pointy head, apparently that's muy bueno.

Part of the strategy behind the new rules is to not actually have any firm rules, to make you so uncertain and timid that you're unwilling to take any action because anything you do, at any time, can be a violation of a rule that didn't exist 30 seconds before. If you do talk about female body parts, you're wrong because you're insulting womyn, and if you don't talk about female body parts, you're wrong because you are invisibling womyn. Basically, if you don't have any female body parts, you're just wrong all of the time ...
Over the long haul, the rule makers are the ones who win, and progressives have taken the initiative to make the rules. The only thing that might defeat them is if they change the rules so rapidly that the general public begins to see these rules are arbitrary and ridiculous. In fact, the only thing that might work is ridicule. I hope that happens, but I'm not confident it will.

UPDATE:
----------------

A commenter, "RWE3" at the Belmont Club wrote something intriguing that has an indirect bearing on those of us who push back against ever-changing and increasingly totalitarian PC rules: "Far more important than speaking truth to power is speaking truth to lies and stupidity."

Monday, September 18, 2017

The Middle Class

It looks as if political tone, an emphasis on a pro-business agenda, and a unrelenting focus on jobs, and an attempt, at least, to reduce taxes for all Americans have done more to improve the lot of the Middle Class, than all the words that have eminated from Washington, DC in the past decade. Robert Samuelson reports:
WASHINGTON -- The middle class is back -- or so it seems.

That's the message from the Census Bureau's latest report on "Income and Poverty in the United States." The news is mostly good. The income of the median household (the one exactly in the middle) rose to a record $59,039; the two-year increase was a strong 8.5 percent. Meanwhile, 2.5 million fewer Americans were living beneath the government's poverty line ($24,563 for a family of four). The poverty rate fell from 13.5 percent of the population in 2015 to 12.7 percent in 2016.

The Census report reinforces Gallup polls -- reported here a few weeks ago -- that Americans have re-embraced their middle-class identities. The Great Recession made people feel economically vulnerable and betrayed. Nearly half of Americans self-identified as belonging to the "working and lower classes" -- a huge shift from the nearly two-thirds that, before the recession, had classified themselves as "middle class." Now, Americans have reverted to tradition. Almost two-thirds again call themselves middle class, Gallup finds.
It is true that we are now nine years out form the great recession, and as a consequence, our capitalist, market driven economy is healing itself, despite the efforts of the past administration to reek havoc on jobs and economic growth. But tone matters, and the current administration is solidly and unashamedly pro-growth. Good on them!

As this recovery is going on, left-wing Democrats (the majority of all Dems in the Congress) are pushing for "Medicare for All," a socialized health insurance policy that will decimate good health coverage for the same middle class. Hatched by socialist Bernie Sanders, Medicare for All will singlehandedly undo the modest gains noted by Samuelson and will push this country ever closer to bankruptcy. Betsy McCaughey notes the experience of single payer medical coverage in the U.K.:
... Sanders’ bill imposes an annual hard-and-fast dollar limit on how much health care the country can consume. He makes it sound simple — Uncle Sam will negotiate lower prices with drug companies. Voilà. But driving a hard bargain with drug makers won’t make a dent in costs. Prescription drugs comprise only 10 percent of the nation’s health expenditures.

Limiting costs will mean also limiting how many mammograms, colonoscopies, hip replacements and other procedures Americans are allowed.

That’s how single-payer systems work. Britain’s National Health Service — the oldest single-payer system — is struggling to stay within its annual spending limit. Patients have to wait 18 weeks just for a referral to a specialist, and routinely wait 15 months for a cataract removal, according to a new Harvard Business Review report.

In Sanders’ scheme, regional health authorities will curb “overutilization” of care, just the way British local health authorities manage the skimping. British patients at high risk of colon cancer are waiting as long as 13 weeks for a colonoscopy. Heart patients who could benefit from angioplasty have to settle for “watchful waiting.”

This month, NHS doctors warned that “a record number of patients could lose their lives if waiting times and bed shortages remain as bad as they already are.”

At least in Britain, people are free to buy private insurance, and go outside the government system for care. That’s also true in most European and Scandinavian countries with universal coverage. But not the Sanders plan. It traps you.
If the Democrats are actually delusional and irresponsible enough to promote Sanders' plan, they will reinforce the notion that they talk plenty about the "middle class" and how much they care about them, but in reality, their only true care is to insert big intrusive government into every aspect of our lives. McCaughey continues:
The biggest losers are working people — including union workers enjoying their “Cadillac” coverage with its generous benefits. They’ll be sitting in line for care in crowded clinics next to guys on unemployment.

Progressives like Sanders used to boast they had workers’ backs. Now Sanders is bragging that his plan will free people from having to work at all. Literally, he says Medicare for All will enable people to “stay home with their children or leave jobs they don’t like knowing that they would still have health-care coverage.” So much for the dignity of work ...

People who work hard should have the freedom to spend their earnings on the best insurance for their family, if they want. Outlawing that is immoral.

The new leaders of the Democratic Party — including Sanders and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Cory Booker (NJ) — don’t see it that way. They’re letting leftist ideology crush the priorities of everyday people.
The middle class is slowly and painfully climbing out of a hole that was created by a financial crash fostered by irresponsible politicians (including many prominent Dems), banks, and Wall Street. Let's not let Bernie and his leftist hordes push them back to the bottom with lies masked as promises.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

If Only ...

In Venezuela, things have gotten so bad that people have begun to eat animals that are sometimes pets. A once vibrant economy has been wrecked by a marxist dictator (who, of course, claims he isn't a Marxist), shortages of everything from food to medicine, electric power to public services abound, and the country spirals downward toward failed state status. It's quite sad and wholly predictable. Just another example of the failed socialist model—in real life.

This week Bernie Sanders unleashes his "Medicare for ALL" plan—a prescription for socialized medicine. Many Democrats have already endorsed Bernie's ideas (some, thankfully, have not) but the leftward tilt of the Democrat party continues. With it the endorsement of leftist, even Marxist ideas, begins to accelerate in the media, in academia, in the entertainment industry, and the arts. Those constituencies have a profound influence on culture, and that could mean trouble in the long term.

Brad Torgersen comments on Marxism when he writes about claims that communism and marxism are anachronisms that cannot take root in the United States:
Yet another Orwellian restatement of the obvious: Marxism isn’t done. It’s alive and well. Every time it fails, it re-brands itself, peddles itself to the next generation of wishful thinkers, and wrecks another country. Venezuela is the most recent, glaring example. The U.S. may be wrecked in time, too, because the proselytizers of Marxism (under various types of shiny Christmas wrapping) infest our university system, the entertainment establishment, the news media, and government.

Think Marxism will never happen here? Upton Sinclair—the ardent socialist intellectual—said: the American people will never accept socialism when it’s labeled as socialism, but they *will* accept socialism under different names.

Which is why modern American Marxists will so hotly and adamantly deny that their brand of socialism, is in any way Marxist, or especially communist. Because they know Marxism and communism have a bad rap. They are depending on their ability to re-brand the same bad ideas (which “sound good” in the words of Thomas Sowell) in order to push those ideas forward.

In the end, every time socialism fails, the Marxists will claim it’s magically not socialism. We have had numerous examples of different interpretations of Marxist theory implemented at the national level, and those examples speak of unprecedented human suffering. Which somehow doesn’t count, we are told, because these countries weren’t doing it right.
Indeed. It seems that whenever the blue model fails, it's not because the underlying premise (i.e., that dependency on big government is somehow freeing) is flawed, but rather that proponents of the blue model simply weren't aggressive enough in making dependency the core element of our existence. If only they provided a guaranteed income, guaranteed "free" healthcare, guaranteed outcomes, regardless of effort. If only they could ban any idea that conflicts with the marxist/socialist ideal (by shouting down or criminalizing those ideas), if only they could rid the world of every "ism", if only ...

Friday, September 15, 2017

HRC-Postgame

Hillary Clinton travels the talk show circuit submitting herself to softball interviews that promote her new book, What Happened. In each interview, Hillary blames everybody and everything possible for her loss. She "takes responsibility" but you kind of get the feeling that phrase is hollow. The reason Hillary lost is really quite simple—she was, throughout her political career, dishonest, unethical, and largely incompetent. She skated on the edge of criminality. She was stiff and lifeless as a candidate.

A real, not fawning, interview of Hillary Clinton would probe her dishonesty surrounding the events at Benghazi—why she lied to the public about the causes of the attack and countenanced the jailing of the maker of an anti-Muslim video (protected free speech) when she knew the video was NOT the cause of the attack. A real interview would probe all of the pay-for-play aspects of The Clinton Foundation, it's pathetic record of charity outlays (about 6 percent of the millions it took in), and the manner in which it was used as a money laundering scheme for her political ambitions. A real interview would examine her use of a private (and ethically questionable) email server, her lack of proper security for secret documents and, most important, her destruction of 33,000 emails after an investigation of her wrong-doing was initiated—that's obstruction of justice, folks. But the trained hamsters of the media don't do real interviews, not of Hillary and not of most Democrats.

Kim Strassel comments further:
Hillary spent eight years planning her first presidential bid, and the next eight warning Democrats not to get in the way of her second. The Clinton Foundation was erected to serve as bank and Rolodex, and to enable the Clintons to retain their grip over the party. And that party was committed to a Clinton coronation, right up to Mr. Sanders’s cheeky assault.

Mr. Obama aided Mrs. Clinton’s ambitions by decimating his party. By the time Barack Obama finished his eight years in office, his party held 65 fewer House seats, 14 fewer governorships and controlled 30 fewer state legislatures. It had turned a once-filibuster-proof Senate majority into minority status. The big-tent Democratic coalition shriveled to a coastal, progressive minority, wiping out a generation of Democratic politicians and most of the party’s political diversity.

And so the party nominated perhaps the only Democrat in the country who could rival Donald Trump in unpopularity—and beat him in untrustworthiness. Mr. Sanders refused to go after Mrs. Clinton on her ethical baggage, even though it was her biggest weakness and despite how glaringly obvious was the risk that her foundation and server scandals would hobble a general-election campaign. The parties gave the country a choice between two unpopular people, and the country disliked her more. The real question is how Democrats rebuild a party whose senior leaders in the House boast an average age of 72 and which has almost no young, experienced up-and-comers.
Rather than hyperventilated about "white supremacy" or Islamophobia, income inequality, misogyny (of course!) or universal healthcare, the Dems might be well-served to ask themselves why after Barack Obama's eight years in office, "his party held 65 fewer House seats, 14 fewer governorships and controlled 30 fewer state legislatures.

Then again, it looks like they've already answered that question by doubling down on potential candidates who want go even further left than Obama. And they claim that the GOP is stupid.

Cutting Off Your Nose

Karl Rove does a good job of describing the vagaries of getting tax reform legislation passed in a fractured congress. The legislative "process" combines arcane rules with duplicitous self-interest, with one party more interested in #Resistance than getting anything meaningful accomplished, and the other party more interested in "principle" and abstractions than moving the country forward. It's a mess.

Rove does, however, identify the small group that is most culpable:
The biggest obstacle is the House Freedom Caucus. This group of just over 30 Republican congressmen has already slowed up the process by threatening to vote with Democrats against the GOP budget resolution unless they can see and approve, in advance, every major provision of the tax-reform bill. The Freedom Caucus tried in late July to block the House Budget Committee’s passage of a resolution unless the border-adjustment tax was taken off the table—which it then was. Now the Freedom Caucus’s members say they’ll flake on the budget resolution if tax reform includes full, immediate expensing of business investment. But if that’s agreed to, they’ll have more demands.

These lawmakers say they want Congress to operate in “regular order,” with committees grinding away to write legislation instead of leadership handing it down. This is hypocritical bunk. What they want is for their caucus to dictate the details of tax bills to the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Republican majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill. Their approach is to make demands while threatening to join Nancy Pelosi in opposing the budget resolution unless they get their way.

If the Freedom Caucus acts on its threat, the budget resolution could be voted down, making tax reform impossible. No doubt, following their M.O., the group’s members would then blame the GOP leadership. Even if the resolution passes, the Freedom Caucus’s shenanigans may delay tax reform until 2018. These lawmakers are demonstrating once again that the freedom they most prize is freedom from the responsibility of governing.
There's an old aphorism about "cutting off your nose to spit your face." That's what the Freedom Caucus is doing. By sabotaging any attempt a tax reform, they are sabotaging the administration's attempt to spur economic growth. And in doing that, they're sabotaging the biggest driver (economic growth) of government revenue that might actually reduce the annual deficit and help control the ever rising debt.

The GOP Freedom Caucus is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Odd Alliance

The media and the GOP elites are apoplectic over Donald Trump's odd alliance with Democrats to create a short-term fix for the debt limit and consequent federal funding as well as move forward on immigration reform and DACA approval. Trump did this as a pragmatist—to remove the drama associated with the debt limit and government shutdown that would have pervaded Washington for the remainder of this month. He also did it to clear the way for an attempt at tax reform and to move the possibility immigration reform forward. It was possibly the best political move that Donald trump has made.

The GOP conservative wing do have a point when they emphasize when they note that the federal debt is very bad and getting worse and that there has been no real attempt at reigning in federal spending. But a point is all they have. It seems that GOP leadership and the elites of the party can pontificate about debt and spending, but can't accomplish anything tangible to reduce either. In essence, Trump just laid them off.

Maybe now the Congress can focus on tax reform and immigration reform, and later on crafting a health care approach that is not delusional. But the GOP seems unable to develop any legislation that is acceptable to all GOP members. With the continual opposition coming from the Dems, the GOP leadership is paralyzed. They tell us all how "hard" all of this is, but they've had years to develop a plan of action.

Although I am a strong proponent of bi-partisan legislation, the Trump administration must be careful. The Dems have never seen a big government program they didn't like; they are perfectly willing to bankrupt the country with ideas like universal healthcare (a.k.a., socialized medicine), and they demagogue any attempt at entitlement reform. Getting in bed with them may be pragmatic, but Donald Trump must be careful.

James Freeman comments:
Since Senate Republicans have proven unable to fulfill their signature campaign promise to reform the ObamaCare entitlement, it seems unlikely they would agree to reform any of the other entitlements that drive the federal budget, or to economize on discretionary items like hurricane response—unless they can gain more conservative colleagues in the 2018 elections. Reforming entitlements doesn’t seem to be a priority for Mr. Trump, either.

What’s certain is that the problem that concerns Mr. Barton isn’t going away. In its annual long-term budget outlook released in March, the Congressional Budget Office noted:

At 77 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), federal debt held by the public is now at its highest level since shortly after World War II. If current laws generally remained unchanged, the Congressional Budget Office projects, growing budget deficits would boost that debt sharply over the next 30 years; it would reach 150 percent of GDP in 2047.
This would be getting into Italy territory. A dysfunctional government carrying a debt load that heavy, on top of a slow-growing economy, would normally be cause to fear societal catastrophe. But thanks to the magic of modern government intervention, Italy isn’t yet serving as a cautionary tale.

In fact, flying in the face of all logic, the government of Italy now pays lower interest rates on the money it borrows than the U.S. Treasury. So do Spain and France and various other places that wish they had economies like ours.

How is this possible that investors demand more compensation to lend to the world’s superpower and leading economy than to the basket cases of Europe? The answer is that private investors aren’t really in charge. After the financial crisis, the European Central Bank didn’t start as quickly as our Federal Reserve in creating money to buy up government debt, but it has embraced the strategy with gusto. Governments around the world have managed to manipulate the price of credit and therefore the price of just about everything.
The Dem and GOP elites see nothing wrong with this approach—but it's a house of cards. At some point, the house will collapse and the damage will hurt the masses, not the political elites and their cronies who will have made moves to avoid the wreckage that the they themselves have created.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Universal Healthcare

Bernie Sanders is about to push his current version of universal healthcare. Sander's utopian dream of "free" healthcare for all, supported by significant tax increases on businesses, including small businesses, and on 47 percent of the adult population who do pay income taxes. The menagerie of early Democrat hopefuls for the 2020 presidential election have jumped on board, endorsing Bernie's plan.

Over the coming weeks, I'm certain we'll hear promises about keeping your doctor, improved health care, lower costs, fewer waits, blah, blah, and blah. Oh, wait! Those were the same "promises" that were offered by the previous administration when they sold Obamacare to a gullible public. The promises were lies, just as future claims about universal healthcare will also be purposeful lies.

Those of us who in 2010 warned that Obamacare would be a disaster, have been proved correct. It is a failing program, with rapidly escalating premium costs and reduced options for those who must use it.

I just hope this isn't a case of deja vu, where Democrat lies and posturing result in a system of healthcare that will provide bad care, longer waits, rationed coverage, less medical innovation, fewer new life-saving drugs, high costs to the taxpayer initially, shortages of both doctors and other healthcare professionals, with stratospheric costs longer term that just might bankrupt us all.

Sen. John Barrasso M.D. offers a little reality from the point of view of an actual physician, not a left wing politician:
Supporters of putting the federal government in charge of personal health care decisions often cite the United Kingdom as their model. Democrats in the U.S. are pushing this idea at the same time many in the U.K. see their system of nationalized health care entering an ObamaCare-like death spiral.

The number of patients [in the UK] left waiting 12 hours or more for emergency care has spiked this year. There has also been a jump in the number of people [in the UK] waiting 18 weeks or longer to start treatment for long-term conditions.

Democrats would import these wait times to American health care. Everyone will get to experience the kind of delays at the heart of the VA hospital scandal a few years ago.

Some patients will never get the care they need. When Washington pays all the bills, it will soon decide to exert tighter control over everybody’s care.

In Britain, the rationing of health care has meant prohibiting certain medications and limits on surgery for things like cataracts and knee and hip operations. Some medical boards have banned routine surgeries for patients who are obese or smokers.

The British have found rationing necessary partly because of the exorbitant cost of “free” medical care. Another reason is the shortage of professionals to provide this care. The number of general practitioners has fallen, and four out of 10 say they are unlikely to be practicing in five years. Just since March 2016 there’s been a drop of 5,000 nurses and midwives across the British health care system.

Many cite disillusionment with the quality of care provided to patients. It’s a legitimate concern. The U.K. ranks 20th out of 24 western countries for breast cancer survival. The U.S. is first. For ischemic stroke the U.K. is 25th out of 30 countries. The U.S. is fourth.

If that’s the kind of quality care Democrats are planning, they should know that it won’t come cheap. Democrats in the California state senate passed their own version of “single-payer” earlier this year. The plan was estimated to cost about $400 billion per year – more than double the entire state budget.
The GOP shares the blame for the coming debacle as Dems jettison reality and push the dream of universal healthcare. The GOP's inability to craft a reasonable repeal and replace for Obamacare has provided an opening for the far left (meaning the vast majority of all Dems in Congress) to demagogue this issue. If you think Obamacare was a failure, just wait until your healthcare is turned over to the same people who currently run the VA.