top of page

Would your focus be improving the Affordable Care Act or replace it with single payer?

Her answer:

“Yes. I would replace it with single payer (…) There is something fundamentally wrong when one of the richest and most powerful countries on the planet can’t make sure that a person can afford to see a doctor when they’re sick. This isn’t any way to live.  Health care is a basic human right and it’s time to fight for it.”

Our answer:

Do you know any government organization that runs things effectively, that innovates and is top notch in customer service?  The registry of motor vehicle?  The veteran hospital? The city building commission?

Do you think a single payer system, run by a government will be any different? It will not be.  It is not the case in other countries that have a single payer system. Single-payer has problems nearly everywhere it has been implemented. Canada ranks dead last in wait times for care, as compared to 10 other wealthy western nations (including the United States). The United Kingdom's National Health Service is contending with long wait times, funding deficits and deteriorating patient care.  France’ single payer system is plagued with corruption, with people trying to cheat the system and bribe doctors to get ahead of others.

Single-payer hasn't worked here, either. The news has been filled for years with horror stories about wait times and poor care (or no care) within Veterans' Affairs (despite its $200 billion budget) and the Indian Health Service. If the government cannot provide care for 9 million veterans (those actually enrolled in the VA health care system) or 5.2 million Native Americans, what makes anyone think they can provide it for 330 million Americans?

Warren claims her plan will save money. Bunk. Politicians' cost projections are always wrong. In 1965, Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost was $67 billion. Ditto for Medicaid, which was projected in 1967 to cost $12 billion by 1990 and actually cost $98 billion. Current projections put the costs of Warren’s proposal at $20 trillion dollars. If she's wrong then we're bankrupt.

You cannot have socialized medicine and open borders. Democrats don't want a border wall or deportations. They want lax border enforcement, "sanctuary cities," chain migration and single-payer health care. In practical terms, this will mean tens of millions more people streaming into the country demanding "free" health care. Unsustainable.  This is happening in England and in France and it has encouraged more illegals to come illegally and live off of hard working taxpayers.

Single-payer isn't a health care provision system; it is a health care rationing system in which innovation dries up and care declines.  Salaries for doctors and medical providers will severely decline and there will be a shortage of them.  Worst of all, people will suffer greatly from a single payer system with a severely reduced customer satisfaction.  A system which eliminates competition and free-market forces of supply and demand removes the best things a health care system needs: research, innovation, medical providers striving to provide the best customer service and competition in prices and services.  We understand Elizabeth Warren’s intentions are very good and that she means to give everyone the same care.  The problem is that as explained above, it will never work.  

How do you plan to deal with income inequality in this country?

Her answer:

We plan to empower workers through the “Accountable Capitalism Act”.  Wealthy shareholders of giant corporations have gobbled up trillions of dollars in surging profits. Giant corporations must focus more on the interests of their workers – not just their wealthy shareholders.

Our answer:

The “Accountable Capitalism Act” she is proposing is no different than Socialism and it is planning to destroy capitalism.  Warren’s Accountable Capitalism Act has serious enforcement powers. It will require corporations with annual revenues of $1 billion or more to obtain a “federal charter.” The charter will obligate the board of directors of a corporation to consider the interests of all the stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, the communities in which the corporation operates, and shareholders. An estimated 3,500 companies will receive a charter from a new Office of United States Corporations in the Department of Commerce. The AC Act permits the federal government to revoke the charter of a U.S. company.

Let us begin with a simple question: What if all the stakeholders disagree about the size of the next pay raise or the hiring of transgender workers or the construction of a new plant or how to market a new product? Who is going to resolve the impasse — the Office of United States Corporations? As the business ethicist Kenneth Goodpaster put it: Multiplying the number of stakeholders “blurs traditional goals in terms of entrepreneurial risk-taking” and “pushes decision-making towards paralysis.”

Warren is worried about the ones that succeed despite operating in ways that she doesn't like. What she really want is to put the federal government in a position of evaluating and approving how companies grow. She would substitute the decisions of people who run businesses with the prejudices and preferences of people who think like she does. And she wants to use the courts to enforce her ideas of how corporations should be managed."

Socialism has never worked wherever it has been tried, from the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela to China, India, and North Korea.  It’s not that the right people haven’t yet tried it. It’s not that we haven’t spent enough money. It’s that the people who want to impose socialism want to actually have control over you.  Socialists wants an economy that isn't free and open but subject to their boot on its throat.   This nation was founded on the concept of individual liberty and freedom, and that flies in the face and is a great threat to socialists and totalitarians. One of the fastest ways to take away liberty and freedom is to go in debt to the point that people have to pay so much in tax that they can never, ever accumulate any real wealth.

Do you think illegal immigration is a real problem in the United States?

Her answer:

The problem starts in Central America. People there are in a very difficult situation and are forced to flee and end up at the border whether they chose it or not.  I am for a system which reflects our values, not building a wall, which is a monument of hate (..)

Our answer:

A nation without borders ceases to be a nation.  Building a wall helps to control the flow to prevent illegal criminals, drug trafficking and human smuggling from happening. The President’s plan has two parts. First, it recognizes that full border security is the bedrock of any functioning immigration system and proposes functional, operational, and structural reforms to strengthen America’s border infrastructure and laws. Second, it creates a new merit-based legal immigration system that protects American wages and safety net programs, prioritizes immediate families, and creates a fair and transparent process for immigration to America.  Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand have a merit-based immigration policy in place.

In addition, we need to restore integrity to America’s exploited asylum process. Loopholes in U.S. immigration laws are driving a flood of human smuggling and other fraudulent activities along the southern border. President Trump wants to expedite relief for legitimate asylum seekers—and send those who abuse the system home promptly.

bottom of page