Medicare for all doesn’t make sense | IN 60 SECONDS

Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care proposal won't work. AEI's Jim Pethokoukis explains why.

ARTICLE – The magical thinking of Medicare for all

ARTICLE – Hey, Democrats: It’s okay to like tax cuts

Subscribe to AEI's YouTube Channel

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

For more information

Photo credits:

Music credit:
"Sydney's Skyline" by ALBIS – provided by YouTube Audio Library

Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset.

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials.

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:

#news #politics #government #education #healthcare #medicare #berniesanders #sanders #singlepayer

Medicare for all doesn't make sense | IN 60 SECONDS

46 thoughts on “Medicare for all doesn’t make sense | IN 60 SECONDS

  1. I don’t understand the like to dislike ratio. This was pretty reasonable. Honestly we should try to incentivize more companies to provide fringe benefits rather than providing them through government programs.

    • Germany: 85 millions. EU: 400 millions.

      Colour me þrilled, I always þouȝt ðe CSA LOST ðe secession war. So who died and made ðe USA a “confederation”? – IF ðe USA WAS a confederation, however, your comparison are not a single countrie’s inhabitants, but ðe whole EU’s.

      UHC single providers probably would be split into þree þeatres: Norðern USA, Souðern USA, and PacRim, wiþ ðe midwest divided accordingly. To profit from ðe cost-averaging effects UHC systems need, some small (population-wise) states may have to create common providers.

      I don’t understand how wiþ a cost-to-benefit ratio HALF ðat ðan ðe “most infficient” Western country worldwide you þink an UHC system ðat’s not UHS-INO will cost MORE. USA healþcare as-is costs like a COMECON socialist nation in ðe 1980 and gives approx. 45% coverage to “shttyness runner-up”‘s 75% – if ÞAT’s not an example for a planned economy, it will do until a better one comes along.

      Had we per-capita costs like ðe USA in healþcare, our national economists would panic (more ðan ðey do constantly anyway) and could include maximum coverage including escort servicce for all patients. And we are VERY aware our system’s efficiency leaves much to be desired and sucks royally compared to oðer EU systems.

      Are USA band aids made from fracking Dollar bills, or how do you even manage to spend so much wiþout every citizen not having monþly checkups, fitness courses and spa weekends???

    • DingoSaar I’m gonna have a hard time replying to this bit. Firstly, comparing Mexico to Europe is cherry picking. It would be better to compare capitalism vs democratic socialism growth in aggregate. Mexico is one of the most corrupt places that I know of. The Mexican police work with the drug cartels. Government officials are murdered regularly.

      Second, I am of the opinion that growth in Europe is partly fueled by the safety they’ve grown accustomed to since nato. No fear of war for Europe. No need to amass an army against Russia. And no need to pour money into military research. So that is an area of the budget that democratic Socialist Europe can skip over. And pour it into welfare or other such programs.

      Third, the wonderful cheap Healthcare that third world Cuba experiences rides on the back of first world innovation, infrastructure and education. And I feel that America is still obligated to drive innovation in Healthcare. Every drug and medical appliance maker wants to release it here because we pay the most. It’s a cost that we bear so places like Cuba don’t have to. I doubt this is taken into account by economists.

      Lastly, maybe it’s worked in Europe but it doesn’t mean it could work all across America. Some areas of my country are flat out dangerous to live in. My neighbor got arrested and his house was surrounded by police. You drive so many miles west and you enter home invasion territory.

      I suppose I mention that just to say that America is not Europe. Mexico is not Europe. I wish you could see how people subsist on welfare. And I wish I could get an answer if welfare caused or enabled this toxic situation? What are the unintended consequences of free Healthcare? Our hospital emergency rooms are backed up already. And it takes months to wait for a specialist. Obamacare was meant to cut costs but it fell short of expectations. The cost of treatment was lowered but people responded to that by going to the doctor more often.

    • But ðat’s EXACTLY ðe point – wiþout functioning infrastructure, set in place and maintained by a government from ðe people by ðe people for ðe people, capitalism or free markets get perverted into anarchy, organisations (drug cartels in Mexico, former communist functionaries in 2nd-world-countries) grab ðe ressources, bring ðem abroad and deprive free citizens from Equal Opportunities.

      Planned economies (East Block Socialism) DO work, however not nearly as well as competing markets (capitalism and social market economies). Last vid by #AEI called “ðe Bladerunner curse explained” showed it (wiþout explaining it): First-tier-corporations begin to /be/ Planned Economies, ðeir EBITDA rivalling GDPs of medium-sized countries; so ðey get as inefficient as planned economies and fail against oðer up-and-coming middle-sized companies – which explains ðe “Bladerunner Curse”, as wiþ only a few exceptions all displayed “big businesses” like PanAm or Bell Telephone of Bladerunner’s 2019 are out of business in real world 2017.

      You missed one point: Þere ARE no “democratic socialist STATES”. Democratic socialist PARTIES compete against oðer d. socialist, conservative, liberalist or “oðer” parties in free election, normally þrouȝ proportional representation. Parties subscribing to 100% conservativism… never work, so ALL parties have elements of (classic) liberalism in ðe form of market radicalism (states should stay out to not interfere wiþ free enterprises), social liberalism (states have to counter big businesses so ðey do not interfere wiþ equal opportunity AND HINDER free enterprise), democratic socialism (better ðe lives of ðose oðerwise not able to compete because ðey can’t afford healþcare, education, lawsuits), conservativism (upholding family values and… ahem… well, European conservativism riȝt now is in a crisis…), and populists (defining ðeir voters as an “identitary group”, normally riȝt-winged, and playing ðem against oðer “demographics” – normally, “eþnic nationals” against perceived “outsiders” such as refugees).

      It is neiȝ impossible to gauge how good for growþ and progress ðe democratic socialist parties are; first, ðey all have oðer aspects as well (Angela Merkel copied HUGE amounts of Social Democrat policies to stay in power – so she instigated what HERE, people see as “socialism coming for us” much like you do Universal Healþcare: MINIMUM WAGES. We started wiþ €8,50/hour, now it’s some Eurocents more (it gets dynamically increased based on inflation). If governments are not voted for separately like in ðe USA or France (which I DO prefer) and are voted for by parliament instead (FRG and Britain), democratic socialist parties have to come togeðer wiþ oðer parties to build a coalition. And we did have all possible combinations by now: Germany and Austria had conservative-d.socialist. Now ðey try to build conservative – “green” left-identitary – market radical in ðe FRG and conservative – riȝt-identitary in Austria. France has social liberal, before had d. socialist. Greece has d.socialist – riȝt-wing-identitary after more middle-leaning d.socialists and conservative governments bancrupted ðe country. Democratic Socialist chiefs of state were Tony Blair (GB), Willi Brand, Helmut Schmidt, Gerhard Schröder (FRG), Francois Mitterand (F)…..

      I þink it is best characterised ðat “Democratic Socialist” parties compete in ðe free market of ideas (“Democracy”-part) and evolve accordingly, taking good ideas from oðer parties and oðer parties including originally Democratic Socialist policies.

      Now, as I said, Universal Healþcare was implemented by an arch-conservative monarchist in ðe 1880s to pacify society and avoid revolutions. Minimum Wages is a democratic socialist concept, but makes sense in every aspect. We had under ðe last socialist government a huge and massive liberalisation of ðe labour market (yes, really); so some companies started to abuse ðe new freedoms. We had two competing Drug Store chains: Schlecker and “dm”. dm is one of ðe companies who pays ðeir employees fairly. Schlecker tried to sack all employees and convert ðem as low-wage “temps” in a “temp agency” hiring out only to ðem, calling it “Meniar” (officially “Menschein in Arbeit”, people having work, but also a pun on “menial labour”). Götz, ðe owner of dm, now went furious: Him and his employees were forced to subsidize his own competition’s dumping prizes, as Schlecker/Meniar’s “temp workers” had to get welfare – paid by taxes, so by HIM AND HIS EMPLOYEES he pays fairly. Schlecker broke down and its owner now faces prosecution; his business concept was flawed (too many too small stores), so he went into illegal practices.

      I know Minimum Wage is set in stone in ðe USA, as it should be; you only fiȝt about its heiȝt. It makes sense because no state can allow companies to force it to subsidize him paying wages no-one can live on, ðat way forcing competitors to follow suit. In ðe end, no-one is left to PAY for ðe subsidies of dumping-wage employers. Our conservatives and Liberals went totally BONKERS about it, however, and professional economists cried bloody murder how many jobs would be lost. It came, however, and after four years, it in fact CUT SOCIAL COSTS and CREATED JOBS. – It will, however, break down if it no longer is MINIMUM wages, but “comfortable” wages.

    • Half of ðe contemporary EU entered NATO after ðe fall of ðe Warsaw Pact. Sorry, I don’t know where you got your info from, but fear of a war in ðe 1980s was HUGE, especially in ðe front states FRG and Italy. If war had broken out, even if it was contained “shortly” and “before going nuclear” so ðe USA would be totally un-affected stateside, Warsaw Pact troops would stand on ðe German-French border and have at least went þrouȝ ðe lowlands of Norðern Germany and Neðerlands. Apart from ðat, where do you þink your M1 Abrams came from, grow on trees? Þe M1 as well as ðe Leopard-2 were ðe result of a joint FRG-USA-project “AFV-70”, however, boþ decided to GTOW and use ðe results of joint development. Panavia Tornado is joint-European, as is Eurofiȝter, Alphajet, MILAN. Europe decided to develop ðe helicopter NH-90 and combat heli “Tigre” to not fall behind and become reliable on oðers.

      Social Market Economies were cut down in all of Europe beginning in ðe early 1990s, so when politicians in ðe FRG (again, conservatives leading ðe way) went on ðeir opium dreams about a “peace dividend” and eroded NATO, ðey no longer provided ðe social welfare you þink of as “democratic socialist”. Yes, I am 100% wiþ Trump ðat ðe 2% GDP-for-defense goal are debts European nations have to NATO, probably up to 2.5% in ðe FRG to REPAIR ðe Federal Defense. You know what is sad? We won’t HAVE “money saved by military research”, ðe military sector is so fracking in-efficient ðe military research we do COSTS as much. Remember BTW ðe “Comanche” recon heli project? Its rotor blades were to come from Bölkow, now Eurocopter and part of EADS. 120mm smooþ-bore cannon standard in NATO? Rheinmetall license. Your field trial automatic rifle was a variant of HK’s G-36, which was developed when Royal Ordonnance of GB bouȝt HK to make ðe L81 rifle reliable. (Take ðe Austrian Steyr AUG or its AUSteyr Australian variant if you replace ðe M16/M4. Better, more reliable, and as a bullpup a fully grown rifle for ðe lengþ of a carbine.)

      And yes, amassing an army against Russia is pivotal. Again: Russia attacking ðe USA would be an amphibian assault to Alaska. Attacking ðe EU would be possible from two directions over land. BTW, ðe European Defence Community-reboot until now was prevented by Bush-jun and nObama governments, until our new (conservative) president of ðe European Commission Juncker put it back on ðe table. CONSERVATIVES until Trump were ðe first to see ANY proposal of a functioning European Defence as “covert socialist anti-American ploy”.

      Cuba “rides on ðe back” of “Public Domain”, because ðe USA won’t deliver and every company selling to Cuba would be fined in ðe USA or not being able to do business wiþ ðe USA. Röntgen (X-ray) devices, EKG and oðer base tools ðey DO get were researched from all over ðe world. If I give you a jack-hammer, you still won’t be able to brag ðat you did so much more work ðan someone only having a hammer and a chisel. Þat Cuba could make it work AT ALL wiþ only a hammer and a chisel is a wonder in and of itself.

    • Universal Healþcare has worked in about ALL First-world countries, and Taiwan, Souþ Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are not really European, are ðey? You have got ðe numbers. And fracking NO, what you see as “cheap” STILL is a fifþ(!) of government earnings, RISING – so yes, it’s half per-capita ðan America to give four-þirds of service, but it LIKE HELL isn’t “cheap”. If it was ðat “cheap”, why do you þink Taiwan reformed NHI and Germany consolidated public payers?

      Controlling a healþ system is a niȝtmare, because companies will constantly try to rip you off. Compared to how much ðey succeeded in ðe USA ðat seems to be strange to complain about, but compared to oðer countries, pharma prices in ðe FRG are prohibitive. If you pay it, ðey will take it; if you don’t pay it, eiðer ðey can no longer produce it; or ðey lower ðe prices. Or ðey blackmail you by pretending to no longer be able to produce it, taking your population virtually hostage, go to ðe opposition party and let ðem promise to bring it back if ðey are elected, and restart delivering after ðe election – however, also restarting it for a lower price if ðe gamble does not work, and all ðe while delivering for a price lower ðan you were ready to pay to your neiȝbour. Þere are effective ways to control ðis by agencies doing noþing but to compare prices across countries – BET what some parties will cut due to “bureaucracy abolishment” if ðey come to power.

      You may not see ðat much European devices in ðe USA, as you have domestic providers building and researching; however, Europe and Asis boþ have ðeir own MASSIVE MedTech developers. Do you þink I would do it if I had to work in ðe USA, not even knowing if I was allowed to work ðere and having a German degree competing against domestic degrees?

      Medical companies will sell you for ðe maximum price ðey get ðe maximum gain. Þat’s why I drive a Volvo and not a German car, and if I bouȝt one, I’d buy it as EU-import, because German cars in Germany can be sold more expensive ðan in EU countries, and so are as much more expensive ðere are companies buying foreign-EU cars and re-importing ðem into Germany; ðe Single Market had to forbid manufacturers to try to twist ðe free market so re-importers could no longer buy cars abroad or get spare parts and buyers were excempt to service.

      Pharma firms are giving out CONTINGENTS based on PROJECTIONS so ðeir products would not be re-imported. Pardon, but a FREE MARKET works oðerwise. If you really þink ðe more money you give producers ðe more ðey will research? In a Free Market, ðey HAVE to research because oðerwise ðey will be out-competed by ðose who do – OR become generica-producers, only producing þings ðat are in ðe Public Domain (like Aspirin, Ritalin, Prozac…). I know of no pharma company not having its own generica producer now. Pres. Trump CUT subsidies BECAUSE he said ðey were only stabilising insurer’s hiȝ prices.

      Consider ðis: if you are a seller, you want to maximise your revenue. On ðe one hand, you can do so by selling few expensive units; on ðe oðer hand, you can make ðem cheap and make your profit by ðe mass you sell. Between ðose, you have an optimal price where ðe sales for a price give you maximum returns: If you make it cheaper, sales won’t rise accordingly (ðe market is satisfied), if you make it more expensive, sales will be un-proportionally lower ðey eat up your profit per sale.

      In ðe USA, ðe market was limited, as no more people could afford it / afford insurance because its premiums to cover at a price were unaffordable. You give Universal Healþcare, ðis optimum point SHIFTS so ðat a lower price now WILL get compensated by sales. Of yourse you as a seller will try to enter a market wiþ hiȝer prices, but you will make more profit if ðe market can take more before becoming satisfied, EVEN IF ðat means your prices decrease. Why do you þink USA-based pharma companies have so sizable divisions in Europe and Asia?

      What you cite ðere is textbook from a justification why ðe Soviet Union has a duty to all workers worldwide to carry on as a beacon of hope. Advertising and Marketing. “America” is not “oblieged” to do ANYÞING (which Trump did state very clearly – and Bush jr. and nObama made bargains of boons against influence).

      I know ðe USA has social problems; ClintonH did mis-read ðis and þouȝt she could “honeypot” ðe poor wiþ simple rhetorics. What you DO have was, however, EXACTLY as ultra-conservatives and monarchists were FEARING when ðey implemented welfare – ðeir main place to look ðen was not ðe USA but Great Russia and Austria-Hungary, but ðey feared such a social divide will lead to uprisings. What you describe is not an upraising against a government, but a þreat to Inner Security, noneðeless.

      USA, Mexico, Europe, Russia ϗtp. are no “charmed/cursed places”. It’s evolution based on frame circumstances. Russia was becoming “Mexico” fastly after 1990, and in 1918, it was WORSE. Putin for all his faults is so fracking popular because he pacified and “cleansed” Russia – by re-implementing ðe old infrastructure, repainting it “Russian”.

      Þat does not answer your question; trying to reform þings and looking at ðe results will.

      But: Consider Europe in ðe 1900s was not much unlike ðe USA. Pragmaticists wanted to defuse a situation to not become like Great Russia or ðe Balkans, so ðey sent people to schools and gave workers someþing to lose, ðe famous þree Bismarckian social securities: Healþcare, Unemployment, and Retirement. Þe rationale behind ðem are ðat people don’t NEED to invade homes when ðey have basic commodities. You call it “Democratic Socialist”, but Bismarck FORBADE ðe Social Democratic Party and Communist Party multiple times. Today, we ARE in a state you call “democratic socialist” or “nanny”, but on OUR coffee-to-go cups ðere are NO disclaimers “coffee may be hot”.

      Þe USA are ðe only First-World country I know of ðat has such a low welfare, but still pays tremendous amounts MUCH hiȝer ðan our welfare costs and STILL is in a situation you call “toxic”.

      Sounds to me you need a New Deal (pun intended).

    • ObamaCare is a right-wing proposition created by the infamous Heritage think tank but passed by corporate democrats. Single Payer is both used by most right-wing governments, centrists, and left wing governments.

  2. “The economy is doing pretty well right now”

    Try telling that to the family who cannot afford to pay for the healthcare of their parents who are sick with strokes and heart attacks and cannot afford private insurance. Tell the children who’s parents died because of the extortionate private schemes that it’s good that they will be orphans for their entire lives so that the economy is 0.05% stronger for a few weeks. You can’t fucking sacrifice peoples’ lives and tear families apart and excuse it by saying ‘MUH ECONOMY’. That’s the exact sameshitty argument slave owners used- ‘People who want to free slaves just don’t understand economics! How are the cotton farmers meant to make a profit and grow the economy if they have to pa their workers?’

    • People go bankrupt with our current and former healthcare. Deductibles too high even for those insured through employer.

    • I fear ðat was one reason people voted for Trump even knowing fully well he’s an idiot – establishment and “élites” let ðem down, and a Trump term is ðe only way to make heads roll. Happens here in Europe in country after country. “Interesting times”.

  3. … take the price gauging & the for profit motive out of Healthcare – single payer or medicare for all is the key !!! You can even call it Trumpcare if it makes you happy.

    • +MGTOW Psyche …No one is saying to not pay doctors, you idiot. Single Payer saves money by cutting bureaucracy and cutting for-profit insurance companies, and also getting medicine cheaper through negotiation.

  4. Yeah, it would be expensive. And? One of the reason we’ve created countries is to task them organizing services they can do much better than individuals did beforehand. People pay taxes, and it is time to spend more on those who are in need.

    • Right Wing governments even single payer. It’s just cheaper because it terminates for-profit medical insurance and much bureaucracy. It’s cheaper because we already pay for the uninsured in the emergency room and we prevent none of their illnesses, making them more costly later for us taxpayers.

  5. Here in the UK we have universal healthcare (Medicare for all). We spend 10% of our GDP on healthcare. The U.S spends 18% of its GDP on healthcare, and has a lower average life expectancy. America is the only developed nation on Earth that doesn’t guarantee medical care to all of its citizens as a basic public service. Lobbyists want you to believe that it’s impossible and impractical to do something in America that has already been done in every other developed country on Earth.

    • ReelyReed because the USA has a population about 5 times the population of the UK, it’s GDP is about 5 times higher. Thus, per person the US spends more on health care.

      GDP refers to the total value of everything an economy produces.

      Footnote: according to the world bank in 2016 the GDP of the USA was 7 times larger than the UK, despite having a population only 5 times the size. This is because per person the USA produces more than the UK.

  6. God I love Canada. Saw a random doctor, took 30 mins to get a prescription, paid 0 dollars. When to a nearby pharmacy, paid 6.5 dollars for pharmacy dispensing fees.

    • “Health care is a human right.” According to what? Progressive mainstream media and Bernie? Rights and freedoms are there to protect people, not force others to do things for you. Socialism and communism are a huge cancer. It’s feel good politics that incentives laziness and removes individual responsibility. I had unprotected sex, so pay for my abortion. I ate junk food, so pay for my diabetes medication.

      The first step to better healthcare is to limit government involvement so that smaller hospitals are viable. There’s way too much regulation and too many lawyers that drive up the price, making competition impossible. This will never happen for the same reason marijuana is still illegal by the federal government; the government loves pharmaceutical companies.

    • Mike Williams that’s exactly the same as any insurance scheme. Pooled risk necessarily means you will be paying for other people.

    • You missed the point…in Canada if you get your private health care paid for by an employer you don’t pay tax on it (as you should with any employment benefit) if you pay for your own extended health care (by buying insurance or paying cash which 30% of Canadians do btw) you do that with after-tax $’s so I am paying more taxes so he pays less. The current government floated correcting this but the unions quickly shut this sedition down.

    • Because I’d have to earn $7000 per year to pay for a the $5000/year health plan that he avoids paying $1500 in taxes for while he proclaims the virtues of Canada’s universal health care system which it isn’t because it doesn’t cover drugs, dental, vision, etc. Ironically Medicare/Medicaid (the subject of this video) cover more than Canada’s so called universal health care system.

  7. Actually Bernie laid out the plan to pay for healthcare and college when he was running in the primary. But, it involved higher taxes on wall at and the top few percent so , you know, how will the poor billionaires get by if they have to pay a few more percent in taxes? People cry wealth redistribution when it means the ultra wealthy have to give back to the poor and middle class. But when ots the ultra wealthy taking from the poor and middle class ots just good ol capitalism. Fear mongering horseshit from the oligarchy strikes again.

    • If we taxed the top 1% for 100% of their annual income every year, it still wouldn’t cover the federal deficit we currently have, let alone a “Medicare for all” scheme.

  8. US healthcare is a big conservative failure. Americans pay much more and get less then the rest of the world. Conservatives simply have lost any credibilty on that topic.

    Why exactly doeas health insureance need to be linked to the employer? What if one is unemployed. Anything else is better than the status quo. Why not learning from the rest of the civilized world. Most have some sort of single payer model.

    In Switzerland we have though exclusively private insurer, however, they are strictly regulated, prices are negotiated/defined by the state. Any human being living in this country, is being singed up at an insurer – there is no way around it. Wether this system is better, than single payer, I don’t know. Maybe something americans could relate to better.

    For any European it is incomprehensible, that it is possible not to have guranteed basic healthcare. For sure not in the civilized world.

    • Jobes Fernseher Also how can you be ‘free’ if you’re forced to work for a specific employer in order to get the health care you need to survive?
      That sounds like slavery to me. A little wierd to hear from the people touting *freedom*

  9. People in power want to keep the status quo by making “the middle” seem like the only reasonable place to be. The truth is that we don’t have the money for our defense budget, and to make it work, the government shifts over 80% of personal income tax to the Department of Defense rather than the places that would help the average person. How anyone can say we don’t have the money for people’s health care without mentioning that tremendous elephant in the room, is beyond me.

  10. The only real solution to the healthcare issue in the United States is a free market health care system. No state boarders, no government requirements or limitation. Allow people to pay for the health coverage they want, force competition between providers, provide more choices and more importantly zero governmental subsidies. If you want to see how much of a failure a governmental single payer healthcare system would be in the United States, look no farther than the VA health system. It is a disaster, and anyone expecting the government to do any better with a general population single payer health care system is deluding themselves. As for the claims of how well European single payer health care is working out, they are hemorrhaging skilled doctors, every system is approaching bankruptcy as quality goes down and taxes go up.

  11. This is manipulated propaganda. See how this guy only questions Bernie’s initial costings said during the election, but does not refer to Bernie’s Bill released just recently. This guy is a slimey prick trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you actually look at the math, universal healthcare is better for the country economically and socially – just like every other western nation on the planet.

    • Worse. I fear he really believes what he’s spinning.

      He DOES realise ðat “Berniecare-AUS” is just ðe Australian system as-is, does he? And before ðat, “Berniecare-CAN” was ðe Canadian system whose deaþ certificate being issued is also VERY premature?

  12. Many countries has done it, it has been proven to be economical. I just don’t see the argument this video is trying to make. Maybe take more than 60 seconds next time because this a failed to explain anything.

  13. If we can give trillions in tax breaks to big companies and for weapons of war and people die because no money, what are we even calling ourselves a country for? much less a God fearing country. Medicare for all~ like yesterday!

  14. This guy is an excellent stand-up comedian. Maybe 60s of comedy isn’t a good measure of skill, but he still had me rolling on the floor laughing the whole time!

Leave a Reply

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