>>54728907It's not a problem with his views, he's just being dishonest.
When Massachusetts was considering how best to fix healthcare in their state, they considered a lot of options, and one of them was single-payer. They didn't do it, because they didn't want to pay for it. And no one does.
If all of his ideas were things that people really wanted, they'd do it in an individual state. I live in WA state, and we could absolutely make college free. It wouldn't even be hard to do. We fund 13 years of free education, and we subsidize college already, so why not just make college free too?
Because people don't want it. States can't run deficits the way the Feds can. The Feds can print money, borrow money, invent money, and do whatever to keep the party going, but states need to pay for what they spend. If you ask your state to make college free, they'll say, "Absolutely! Totally! But it costs X, so we'll be raising taxes by Y," and people tell them to forget about it.
Even when he's being honest, he's being dishonest. He says that switching to single payer would save so much money that we'd be able to fix roads along with everything else, but he leaves out the part where all of the money that everyone's paying for healthcare needs to go the government as taxes. If you pay $300 a month for insurance, and $400 in copays a year, your taxes will increase by $4,000 to make his plans work. It's a hike on everyone, or else his math doesn't work, and it's deficits for us all.
If he said, "Give the government 50% of your earnings, and we'll take care of everything and fix the roads too" then he'd at least be honest. But people won't take that deal, and he knows it, so he's not offering it.
