many of whom would be first time voters (if they had registered) would have taken this important step and not cry about voter disenfranchisement.

This will be an easy win for Hillary this fall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-patina-of-cohesion-has-been-shattered-by-the-candidates/2016/03/30/850de0c6-f69c-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/30/bloodbath-alert-donald-trump-issues-new-threat-to-destroy-the-gop/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/politics/newest-policyholders-under-health-law-are-sicker-and-costlier-to-insurers.html

People newly insured under the Affordable Care Act were sicker, used more medical care and had higher medical costs than those who already had coverage, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association said Tuesday in a new study of its policyholders.

Because insurers’ premiums have to cover their medical expenses, the new report helps explain why Blue Cross plans have sought, and insurance commissioners have approved, substantial rate increases in many states. Another round of rate review is about to begin, with insurers generally required to file rate requests for 2017 in the next two months.

New insurance policies are often more generous and comprehensive than individual policies sold before the health care law. The new policies must, for example, cover maternity care and mental health and substance abuse services.

Whether you think the uninsured should be covered, which is a normative question, why does anyone think that moving to a single payer system will be cheaper at the overall system level if you cover MORE people for MORE benefits with FEWER cost controls (deductibles, co-payments)?

whether it's insurance premiums or co-pays or deductibles. Maths. You can't avoid it.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf

At this point, if people are still undecided, I don't think another debate is going to make a difference.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-digs-in-as-trump-moves-on-1459208576

As Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump aim to clinch their parties’ nominations, the former secretary of state is poised to start the general-election campaign with a far more sophisticated operation in key swing states than businessman.

Just trying to understand the argument here.

thanks!

without funding them adequately. Figured the future will take care of itself and by the time that happens, it's somebody else's mess to clean up and I'll be long gone.

What do you think of such an approach?

Personally I think such an approach is cynical and irresponsible and the politicians are just pandering to the voters by pretending they can give benefits without asking for cuts elsewhere or new taxes.

Now, is this something that Bernie is doing? Why is he so generous about his platform and pretending that somebody else will pay for it? His pot of gold is of course the high frequency tax which is supposed to bring in $300b a year and won't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it (which means 99%) and only hurts the 1%, which is kinda impossible if you think about it.

Instead of wasting her time and energy reaching out to the BernieOrBust supporters, maybe she should write them off and go after the moderates? Those who are grounded in reality and maths, and understand that getting somebody to pay for your free college and health care is NEVER EVER going to happen?

Does she have a path to victory under this scenario?