Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Let it stay at a state level... What works, or is popular, at a state level is not necessarily what's best for an entire country...The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.
Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.
Not a chance... There is no groundswell of American support for single payer...
It hasn't been offered as an option by any politicians, except at the state level, where it is popular.
Medicare may be popular with those who need it, but it is a government money pit...Note what I posted above about the popularity of Medicare.
If You alter the meaning of a Quote, it is more than poor form. It is against the Rules.
If struck down in it's entirety, do you think congress would do anything at all to replace it? Not a chance in hell, we get to wait another ten or twenty years for something that should have been done twenty years ago.
Have you heard of this thing called "The European Debt Crisis"
Only in right-wing propaganda outlets, even if that had any bearing on the subject under discussion, which it doesn't.
European and other single-payer health-care programs are doing fine and are nowhere near bankruptcy.
Except for the Statist Progressive Attack on Individual Liberty, you are so Right.
Since there is no such thing -- it's a radical right-wing turnip ghost -- that means I am right, period.
Medicare may be popular with those who need it, but it is a government money pit...
You want to EXPAND that exponentially?
Fuck that...
then tell us why all other countries who have a single payer system have better care that is cheaper than ours?
Medicare may be popular with those who need it, but it is a government money pit...
You want to EXPAND that exponentially?
Fuck that...
The reason why Medicare is facing financial problems is because it is limited to old people. Old people are the most expensive to cover, and because it is so limited Medicare lacks the bargaining leverage to control health-care costs.
If it were expanded to cover everyone, as similar programs are in other advanced nations, it would do fine, as those programs do.
The Greatest threat to the Statist Progressive is Individual Witness, especially when the Testimony is against you.
It is very telling that you continue to remove the context of our discussion when quoting me. Its as if you know you lost the argument but are being desperate trying to make something stick.
It's not "telling" at all, and you are simply making excuses. I always simplify quoted posts to the part that I intend to reply to, and I have no intention of changing that practice. If it bothers you, put me on ignore.
Not as long as it is being mismanaged, sorry.
Yeah right i'm not going to put you on ignore, you are too fun to easily disprove with facts.
If struck down in it's entirety, do you think congress would do anything at all to replace it? Not a chance in hell, we get to wait another ten or twenty years for something that should have been done twenty years ago.
You're right about that. Costs aren't going down. So persons that would have gotten their preventative medical care done will now wait until they self-present to the emergency room. What would have been handled by drug therapy for pennies will now be handled by procedures that costs dollars; hundreds of them.
Still, the mandate is unconstitutional as far as I can tell.
I'm really amused at the theory that all of the good ideas in the world were contained in our Constitution and anything suggested is prohibited (or may as well be) since it wasn't installed in 1787.
Yeah right i'm not going to put you on ignore, you are too fun to easily disprove with facts.
It is just very telling that you have no valid argument against my responses, if you did you wouldn't have to remove the entire context of my argument to try and "make a point"
How would you know until you' try?
Not as long as it is being mismanaged, sorry.
If other governments do fine with a single-payer system, why would ours mismanage one? Is there some reason why the U.S. government is uniquely incompetent, compared to foreign governments?
Medicare may be popular with those who need it, but it is a government money pit...
You want to EXPAND that exponentially?
Fuck that...
The reason why Medicare is facing financial problems is because it is limited to old people. Old people are the most expensive to cover, and because it is so limited Medicare lacks the bargaining leverage to control health-care costs.
If it were expanded to cover everyone, as similar programs are in other advanced nations, it would do fine, as those programs do.
We have examples of how our govt would not be able to manage something this large.
If You alter the meaning of a Quote, it is more than poor form. It is against the Rules.
It's actually not (I read them to check the first time someone brought that up), but in any case I never do alter the meaning of a quote.
I always remove superfluous rhetoric and personal insults, as they have no significance. I often remove "padding" that merely restates in more words the core statement that I quote and respond to. If a structure of argument hinges on one core point, I will sometimes quote and reply to that one core point and let the rest fall by implication if I succeed in refuting that point. And that's it.
