BLOG

Bernie Sanders Said Medicare for All Would Bankrupt the Nation in 1987 --- What Changed?

The big health care debate continues: Sen. Bernie Sanders made his case for universal health care this week with the Medicare for All Act.

The Medicare for All bill would theoretically expand the Medicare program to cover health care for everyone in the country within four years.

But thirty years ago, Sanders seemed to have an entirely different view. He can be seen on video explaining that if you expanded Medicaid to everyone, “we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that we would bankrupt the nation.”

Medicare and Medicaid operate differently, but they are both government health care programs.

Pat and Stu debunked liberal talking points and listened to Sanders’ flip-flop from 1987 to today on radio Friday.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: You know what's great is Medicare for all. Single-payer, that was evil. But Medicare for all, that's totally different.

STU: Pat, Medicare is a single-payer program. So it wouldn't --

PAT: Yeah, I mean, it's the same exact program. But it's a completely different name. Completely different name. People didn't like the name single-payer, but they love Medicare for all because that sounds really good. Why shouldn't everybody have -- we've already got a Medicare program. Let's just expand it for everybody.

STU: But Medicare is like Kleenex, and single-payer is like tissue. So people would say --

JEFFY: They're different.

STU: No, Kleenex and tissue -- Kleenex is a brand of tissue. Medicare is a brand of single-payer. It's the same thing.

PAT: Huh. I don't understand the words that are coming -- are you speaking English? I don't even understand what you're saying.

STU: I'm speaking in the metric system. That's why you can't understand it.

PAT: Bernie Sanders introduced it yesterday.

BERNIE: Republican colleagues, please don't lecture us on health care.

JEFFY: But you're going to lecture us.

PAT: Yes.

BERNIE: In the last few months, you the Republican Party have shown the American people what you stand for when you voted for legislation that would throw up to 32 million Americans off of the health insurance they have. And at the same time, give huge tax breaks to the rich and large corporations.

PAT: Okay. Complete lies. Complete lies. First of all, it doesn't throw anybody off any list. What it does do is take away the mandate. So if you don't want to get health care, you don't have to.

STU: So you would choose. You know what, I'd rather not have it.

PAT: So you would choose. Yeah.

STU: And the alternate to that is you pay a fine and you get nothing.

PAT: Yeah. That used to be called America.

STU: What they're saying is a good thing, is that you would spend your own money and pay a fine to get nothing. That is the alternative there.

And they're like, oh, we should have that system. That's much better than the people get to choose what to do with their own money thing.

PAT: And the huge tax cut for the rich there is that the rich don't have that extra 4 percent tax that is included in Obamacare. And that's a huge tax break they're getting.

BERNIE: You, the Republican Party, have no credibility on the issue of health care.

Today, we say the function of a rational health care system is to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, while depending on your income, your taxes may go up to pay for this publicly funded program. That expense will be more than offset by the money you are saving by the elimination of private insurance costs.

PAT: There's just not one word of truth in any of that. In any of it. And he knows it. I mean, thirty years ago, he was singing a different tune about Medicare for all.

STU: Yeah. You want to hear this clip? This is from 1987.

BERNIE: For example, if we expanded Medicaid, everybody -- gave everybody a Medicaid card, we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money, that, you know, we would bankrupt the nation.

PAT: Wow. Bankrupt the nation.

STU: We would bankrupt the nation.

PAT: Okay. But now that the nation is much, much larger than it was 30 years ago, we probably have 100 million more people than we did 30 years ago, now it won't bankrupt the nation? Now it's affordable for the nation? Now we're going to be great if we have Medicaid for all?

STU: Also, Bernie Sanders was always a crazy liberal and he was always so quirky and weird. When did he become such a jerk? The way he talks these days is he's so angry.

PAT: Yeah. I don't know.

STU: And I always saw him as old and quirky. He really seems as if he's a jerk.

PAT: Yes, he does. Yes, he does.

STU: I mean, I shouldn't be surprised by that. But his attitude is very odd on this stuff. He's just really nasty. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised he connected so well with the far left. I guess he's their candidate.

RADIO

How the WHO's 'pandemic treaty' could CONTROL governments

On May 22nd, the World Health Assembly — which is the governing body of The World Health Organization — will meet in Switzerland to discuss next steps for its ‘pandemic treaty [and its] quest to use public health to expand The WHO’s power over sovereign states,’ Daniel Horowitz reports for TheBlaze. He explains how certain amendments to be added to this treaty could ‘allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency in a country and unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions.’ The far-left and global elite continue to destroy our sovereignty, Glenn says, and this is just one more step toward their desired global government.

Read more: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-states-mus...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I read some stuff this morning. I've been doing some research on what's happening with the WHO. And I read their stuff today, that will make your head explode. And is really evil and important.

But let me give you this today, from -- from Daniel Horowitz at TheBlaze. States must preemptively nullify any WHO international pandemic regulation.

I'm going to read it verbatim because it's just so well-written. And now is the time, that things are shifting. We're going to. There's going to be a New World Order out there. And we've got to lead it. And we have to unite the rest of the free world in doing it. That's Joe Biden. March 21st, 2022.

Any Republican that is running without mentioning your intent to fight the global pandemic treaty or regulations, might as well run as a Democrat. This is really super important, and it is beginning to happen next week. On May 22nd, the world health assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, is going to meet in Geneva Switzerland to discuss the next step in its pandemic treaty. And the quest to use public health to expand the WHO's power over sovereign states. Representatives from 193 nations, including the US, will be attending the only country, not invited is Taiwan.

Gee, I wonder why. So what is this treaty? On January 24th, 2022, the director general of the WHO explained the treaty was a priority, to urgently strength the WHO, as leading and the director authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture. He laid out the guiding principle of this plot. We, quote, all want a world in which science triumphs over misinformation. Solidarity triumphs over division. And equity is a reality, not an aspiration. He said, we are one world, we have one health. We are one WHO.

Now, this has not been announced. Biden has not even spoken about it. They are deathly quiet about this. But they're going to be approving amendments. The proposed amendments are essentially going to allow the director general of the WHO to declare public health emergencies in any country. And unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions. Here's one of the amendments, a critical section from article nine. The WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party, whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. But this is the way it's going to read. Now, WHO may take into account, reports from sources of other than notifications or consultations -- consultations shall assess these reports, according to established principles. And then communicate information on the event, to the state party, in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.

Now, they have scratched out, before taking any action based on reports, the WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party. That's all gone. They're taking that out.

So WHO gets information, has reports, and they can act without verifying with the president or anybody else.

Why would you be erasing the requirement, for the WHO to consult with the government?

Number four. If the state party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO, it used to say, May. It now says, WHO shall -- when justified by the magnitude of public health risk, immediately share with other state parties, the information available, whilst encouraging the state party to accept the offer of collaboration, by the WHO. It used to say there, while taking into accounts the views of the state party concerned.

So they're erasing all of our sovereignty. This is going to be another thing. They're going to say, is a conspiracy theory. It is not. You can look it all up. It is the world health agenda. From the World Health Organization. They are meeting in Geneva, on May 22nd. So that's next week. They are intentionally quiet on this.

Because they know the power. Now, we also know what the WHO is. You remember, when everybody was saying, we have to get out of the WHO.

They're just a tool of China. Why would you say that?

Forget that I mentioned that Taiwan is the only country that is not invited to this in Geneva.

PAT: Yeah. That's completely -- completely irrelevant.

GLENN: Completely. Amen, brother.

PAT: I don't even know why you brought it up in the first place.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

PAT: It's a good thing they weren't actually -- I wish we weren't invited to it.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this. Another reason why Donald Trump. They fought so hard to keep him out: Because he wouldn't have --

PAT: He sure wouldn't have. That's exactly right.

GLENN: He wouldn't have empowered the WHO.

PAT: Well, he took us out of the WHO.

GLENN: That's exactly right. And this president is not only putting us back, they're taking away our sovereignty.

And so it's one more piece to the global governance of the left. Warning.

Shorts

Kamala repeats herself 5 TIMES in 30 seconds…

Kamala Harris, America's no. 2 in command, just spoke at a climate change conference. So how'd you think she did? Was she eloquent and able to lay out a vision for a better world? Probably not, but check this video out and let's all find out.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Right vs. Left: The Time for Compromise Is OVER | Jesse Kelly | Ep 146

The Left worked for decades to get control, and now they have it: “Every cultural pillar has been infected and taken over,” Jesse Kelly warns Glenn. So, it’s time to get out of the stands and onto the field. On this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," the host of the nationally syndicated "Jesse Kelly Show" joins with a blunt message for the Right: The time for compromise is gone. This system that’s raising young people who hate America can’t be salvaged, and while taking back Congress in 2022 would be nice, LOCAL victories are what really matter. But this won’t be a quick fight. Thankfully, Jesse has some solutions, and they involve Play-Doh …

Shorts

Where are our STANDARDS, America?

Since when are we the people that throw our hands up and accept the new normal?

We're the people, that despite all odds, we took it on. We didn't settle for less. And that's what they're telling you to do now, settle for less.

No. That's not who we are. Why would we be willing to sit around and wait for the government to fix it?

Don't lower your standards. That's un-American. We don't lower our standards. We raise standards. And that is our legacy.