Comments by "Animal Farm" (@animalfarm7467) on "$11 Trillion Reasons Warren's Medicare for All Saves Money" video.

  1. No, Thomas isn't wrong, he is doing exactly what he is being paid to do - protect the interests of Wall Street and keep people within the constraints of the plutocrats' two (one) party system. But he is doing a very poor job; there are too many waking to his scam. If he doesn't improve his performance, he will be dumped from the DNC payroll.
    2
  2. That’s a bit of a surprise; I thought Warren’s “Medicare for All” was going to separate healthcare from the corporate world. So if you’re unemployed, are you covered under “Medicare for All”? Is this just another variation of “Access to Healthcare”? I wonder if the next step in Warren’s strategy is to privatize “Medicare for All” and give employer payments directly to the Medical Industrial Complex? Like every scam; the devil’s in the detail. If you go to Warren’s “Medicare for All” webpage and select “I don’t have healthcare right now”, you will be taken to a page that states, “This means practically free health care for you”. So what does “practically free” actually mean? It doesn’t mean “free” otherwise she wouldn’t have used the word “practically”. So how much does “practically” cost? Is it a similar price to “access” in “everyone has the right to access to healthcare”? Now I may be a little too cautious, but after the recent treachery of the Democrat Party and DNC, I believe it’s important to be skeptical until the detail has been explained. Sure, Warren puts up a convincing front with her rants against Wall Street and the Financial Sector, but still no-one in the executive class has been successfully prosecuted. Warren appears to talk the talk, but that’s about where it stops. Sorry Thomas, but I think of Warren and her narrative as Wall Street’s best offer to the people. If you look at her Wiki page, you will find, “Friends and colleagues of Warren's from her high school days to the early part of her academic career in the 1980s have characterized her as a ‘die-hard conservative’ with a belief in laissez-faire economics and ‘surprisingly anti-consumer views’.” Can a leopard change its spots? To put it simply, I don’t know. The only observation I have made is one should always be wary of anyone who has been heavily influenced by an ideology or has changed their political affiliation earlier in life. This leads to the next question of being a Wall Street mole running a scam like “Hope & Change” Barack Obama or Bill “Third Way” Clinton. Sure, her policies superficially appear to be better than the more definite Wall Street mole Buttigieg, but one should always be wary. What I don’t understand is why we haven’t seen Bernie Sanders on Hartmann’s show; after all, in earlier days Bernie used to frequent this show quite often. I wonder what has happened. I would have thought Hartmann couldn’t wait to promote his old acquaintance now that Bernie has a good chance of success. Maybe they’ve had a difference of opinion on some topic; who knows? Personally, I like Bernie.
    2