Bernie Sanders Pushes Medicare For All On MSNBC

Watch More:

Follow Kyle on Twitter:

Here's The Secular Talk Amazon Link:

Like the show on Facebook:

Clip from The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio Monday – Friday 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Eastern time zone.

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:

Check out our website – and become a member – at:

Bernie Sanders Pushes Medicare For All On MSNBC

74 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders Pushes Medicare For All On MSNBC

  1. Won’t work. Amerifats will reject universal healthcare because it would mean they’d have to actually get healthy and stop leading the world in obesity reates.

  2. America,  I am confusion. How could you have the chance to get Bernie Sander but choose someone like fucking Trump??

    • it’s not the american people… we are propagandized beyond belief and our unfettered laissez faire capitalism causes brain damage… and this dumbass “secular talk” does too… check out thom hartmann, peter joseph, karl marx, el che guevara, etc.

    • Because Bernie’s plan would throw us $20 trillion dollars in debt in the first decade, effectively killing the economy of the world.

    • Tylr … You got it wrong … USA already has socialism, Medicare, Medicaid .. Social security … We’re talking about social programs not a totally socialized economy … Free market works great when you mix in socialism … Fact

    • the jester
      Are you dumb? Universal healthcare are paid by taxes. There won’t be debt because it federal funded by the people.

  3. whether Kyle is on full scope of things or whatever, he’s most always real as fuk. the only acting out of him is just for affection; human.
    i appreciate this guy.

    • Thongmaster you know sarcasm doesn’t translate well over the internet… I’m pretty sure if you are calling him a big seltzer sell out you are a fan just making a joke but again sarcasm doesn’t translate well

    • Vincent Moore
      That’s why a sort of “sarcasm symbol” exists: It’s either /s or s/
      I can’t remember, but you put it at the end of a sarcastic comment to denote sarcasm.

    • +celvester allison The beauty of Sarcasm comes from not revealing when you’re beimg sarcastic. It doesn’t have to translate here, or in real life

  4. this is good now we need to push for real socialism and worker democracy via worker cooperative federations and housing cooperatives.

    • +BPD MF
      “They can choose not to” what? When you are part of a market, you have to produce for that market and there is no way that capitalism is the most equitable system for a society large made up of workers. If you like cooperative democracy and markets so much, then why don’t you support Mutualism? This would be a far more democratic and accountable market-based economy than what stands currently.

    • “Democratic socialism” is like sticking a bunch of generic band-aids on the massive axe-wound that has been delivered to the world by capitalism’s catastrophic expansion, which can only be *_transiently constrained_* by this so-called “hybrid” system whose elasticity is _finite._ So this kind-of fake socialism is basically a *_luxurious temporary delusion_* that simply cannot last…. Perversely, many of us live in a time where the inevitable collapse of (or forced transition from) capitalism doesn’t matter much, since it will come long after we’re dead and buried. In essence, we’re living in the “eye of capitalism’s storm.” Eventually though, that eye WILL shift, at which point our grandchildren will be the ones exposed to the TRUE & HIDEOUS FACE of capitalism, at a time when even reams of propaganda will no longer be sufficient to filter and hide that face, as they so effectively do today. Democratic socialism can neither properly, nor permanently contain capitalism’s unstable nuclear reaction. It *will* go Chernobyl. The question is not IF, but WHEN.

    • +c4p0ne Baseless assertions grounded in nothing more than your personal opinion. Mindless ideologueism, nothing more nothing less.

  5. So that’s pretty clear. Medicare for All. Single Payer. I wondered because he’d mentioned public option and Medicare age lowered to 55, but it seems as though he’s all in on the Conyer’s version, HR 676. The clearest indication being that Tulsi Gabbard just co-sponsored HR  [good on you, Tulsi!]. Fasten your seatbelts!

    • +Al Fabeech ……………
      Just going to put the point of you missing the meaning of the phrase aside.

      You “heard it was notorious.”

      Who said it? What was their evidence? In what way is their ‘revolving door’ any worse than any other government position?

      You’re clearly unaware that Obama actually started that policy. Which, admittedly, Trump somehow blundered in the correct direction and strengthened it…. if he actually keeps it in effect.

      You might support, what, Medicaid for all?
      Any sane person should without much problem.

    • grand wombat…I think most people are decent. BUT. For instance. My mother worked at a defense contractor for years. It helped feed us and put a roof over our heads. My dad did also. I eventually got drafted in last draft of Vietnam. I was apposed to the war, and every war since. Should my mother have quit her job? Should my Dad have? You are aware that Trump gave Merkel a bill? Correct? You understand that 50% of our budget is defense? War is a jobs program for America. Other countries can get their healthcare free because they get free defense from America. Should the countries we help, help us with our healthcare? Should we abandon our allies? Trump took out full page ads about this in the 80’s. Almost $100,000 per ad……Have you ever considered looking at things like this?… What is the history of Socialism. How irresponsible can you be over there with your immigration policies? How about how the assholes in this country are trying to start a war with Russia they hate Trump so much?  Russian’s are just good people also…..

    • nenafan1…I watch tons of docs. Don’t have a source link for FDA. I have watched how Trade Associations work. Those Associations are lobbyists. They often pay for the studies in their related industries. They manipulate the results. Drug companies often fund, or do the studies themselves, that get drugs to market through the FDA……Flint Michigan. Are you aware that back in the 20’s, Lead Trade Associations hid the dangers of lead, influenced politicians to overlook the threats. I never knew we used solid lead plumbing, almost into the 60’s….Have you watched a doc about Sugar, or Agriculture Trade Associations. Do you know that methane is 84% worse than CO2?…..Animal agriculture is the largest reason for the destruction of the rainforest. Pasture. We knew about this in the 70’s. Cow farts. Big joke. Do you remember what they did to Oprah over beef?….Trade Organizations……Employees move in and out of politics and the related industries they regulate? Who do you think will be on the boards making policy when we get Single Payer? People from the medical industry? Who will decide who gets on those boards? Politicians?…..Single  Payer. Utopia. It will be good for a while. Then it will get bloated and inefficient and corrupt.

    • +Al Fabeech
      Just because you watch something doesn’t mean you understand it. Just as simply because it’s a documentary doesn’t make the information accurate nor the narrative truthful.

      ….. the FDA isn’t a trade association. I shouldn’t have to tell you this simple, simple fact.
      It’s a regulatory agency.

      Yes, both food and drug companies do their own testing. A function of the FDA is reviewing those findings and making sure the experiments are done properly. If need be, the FDA does their own studies.
      Granted one of my personal ‘issues’ is that I feel the FDA is UNDERpowered in how it can rule and regulate. Especially but not limited to ‘nutritional supplements.’

      And Big Tobacco knew for 30-40 years before the rest of us that cigarettes cause cancer. Just like Exxon knew of Climate Change back in the 70s.

      So your issue is NOT the FDA, but rather money and lobbying influence in politics.

      It depends entirely on who passes single payer, and how they go about it.
      Simply passing a one sentence law that says ‘Medicare and Medicaid is now available to all’ is a whole lot different than developing a more in-depth system, what with the different health concerns of the many people not currently on those programs.

      Again, it seems as though your issue is undue influence in politics moreso than ‘big government.’

      ……. your points are muddled at best. It’s rather difficult to determine what the heck you’re trying to communicate.
      Further, if I am interpreting this correctly, your reasoning stops a step or two short, and misappropriates ‘blame.’

    • +Al Fabeech
      Do you think that having ‘defense’ be a ‘jobs program’ is maybe part of the PROBLEM?

      Very few people in America or even abroad (Europe, Japan) actually advocate socialism. What is advocated is social democracy.

      There’s plenty of valid reason to hate Trump, literally the worst president in American history, bar none, and a daily source of utter and absolute embarrassment.
      Not enough to go to war with Russia over. But that was one jackass saying Russian hacking was an ‘act of war.’ That’s literally ONE jackass, though.

      And if there is proof that Russia meddled in the election? That is a HUGE deal, and NO ONE should be defending that sort of action.

  6. Another thing I hear from the anti Medicare for all people is that those other country with single payer aren’t as big as us so that’s why it doesn’t work. Never really got that agruement, what is the mindset behind this

    • Ryne Green they will claim anything firstly to shut down and kill this line of critical thinking. as I’ve never heard this position before the only things that would indicate such a thing would be administrative costs but looking at Medicaid we know that’s not the case and research costs which again we know is not the kids looking at other countries such as Finland Switzerland Denmark and so forth.

    • They mean like taxes. So they are claiming other country’s can afford universal healthcare because they have far less citizens. However, this argument completely falls flat when you factor in that we significantly collect more taxes because of our larger population.

    • The more local government is the more control the people have over it. That is where the argument lies. Also, with a larger country you have more diversity. Hop on a plan in Oslo and in four hours you are in London. Hop on a plane in Minneapolis and the same amount of time you are in Dallas. Anyone who has spent significant time in MN and TX knows they are different in terms of culture.

      Healthcare is a complex issue and should be managed by the states (many of which are larger than some of those countries). You can micromanage the program much better. That is the reasoning behind the argument. But those that can’t see the reasoning simply feel that all we have to do is raise taxes and tax revenue and than all of a sudden healthcare will appear.

  7. Free market theory only works in markets where consumers have choices where to spend their money. Consumers don’t shop around when they need healthcare because THEY ARE SICK AND JUST WANT TO FEEL BETTER. Plus, in many areas around the US, they are lucky to have a hospital let alone a single clinic that serves everyone within 20 miles.

    • jbulmer, most of what you listed, such as schools, libraries, roads, are locally ran and funded. There is a desire to have government and taxes, granted that the government serves the people and the people get their money’s worth. You do that with more local government.

    • True, but it’s similar in principle, which is the point I’m trying to make. It’s just a different level of government. Many people have an inherent fear that federal = bad and local = good, but cities and states aren’t always better when it comes to funding.

    • “but cities and states aren’t always better when it comes to funding.”

      That is simply not true because at the city and state level you can micromanage programs better and the people can see if they are getting their money’s worth. You might have an argument that a state is better than a local community and I would agree depending on the situation. But not with federal vs states as states have plenty of resources to manage what they need.

    • “Always funny when I can predict the sort of response I’ll get. Trust me, I grew up in a family of people like this. They hate big government and feel oppressed when they have to pay taxes like everyone else. I’ve heard these arguments a thousand times. ” – not an argument

      “You don’t get to live in a modern society without contributing to it. It would be nice to live in a libertarian fantasy land, but the real world doesn’t work like that. ” – not an argument

      “I really don’t understand what’s so bad about having healthcare covered by taxes like everything else
      – roads, utilities, public schools, libraries, the military… We all benefit from these. Other countries figured this out long ago.” – finally. Do we ALL benefit from these? New roads and repairs only help those you use them. The alaskan bridge to no-where stands out in my memory. Utilities are paid for even if you are self-sufficient, and in some cases collecting rain water is illegal. Libraries are seriously the most run-down places I’ve ever seen, and they have no reason to exist in the age of the internet. The military seems to blow up a lot of people that pose no threat to the US.

      But aside from all that, You still have not dealt with the ethical argument of using force against people for things they don’t want.

      Just because my neighbor is loving his heroine addiction doesn’t mean I need to get myself addicted too, just because I’m less happy than he is. It’s a personal choice.

  8. When I’m lying on the street waking up after having a seizure and covered in blood I don’t think “Hmmm… I want affordable healthcare through a free, capitalist market.”
    No! I think that I want to live!!!!

  9. If this is what Bernie is doing after losing just imagine what this guy could do with the highest seat of power in the US. I wish we lived in that timeline.

  10. When you state that the U.S. spends twice as much as Canada on healthcare, is that per capita or in total? Because the population of the U.S. is more than 9 times that of Canada, so of course it makes sense they would pay more in total. However, if the stat is based on a per capita basis, then that’s valid statistics, and I believe that healthcare is for sure more expensive in the U.S. than in Canada. Plus the premiums are ridiculous for health insurance in the U.S. In Canada, we still have to pay for certain luxuries in healthcare, such as dental work, drugs, plastic surgery, specialists, etc. However, surgery for necessities is paid for by our government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *