Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out

[Gadawg73]

Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.

I have many Canadian friends and there are many great things about their health system.
But in many areas of Canada health care costs are the largest cost to government.
And Canadians do not have a large and growing moocher class.
No such thing as food stamps in Canada. They rely on other forms of assistance and audit and monitor their programs unlike us. Their means testing does not allow the assets allowed here.
Apples and oranges.

 

[GHook93]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Just a comment: Comparing the problem with VA to problems with single payor are a little off. Not saying single payer doesn't have issues, but the comparison isn't apples to apples. The VA problem was with the way the government ran the hospitals. No privately run business in there. Single Payer just pays for the treatment at a private sector hospital.

The doctors at the VA stated the best thing that could happen to a patient is that they needed a service not offered by the VA. Then the patient would be provided a voucher to go to a private sector hospital.

 

[Meister]

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.

It wasn't all that long ago when I stated that it was the plan all along. Nothing new here, except the lefties are now admitting it.

 

[Meister]

and yet you live under a centralized federal government.

I suspect you'd actually like a time machine to take you back to the articles of confederation because what you want is a fantasy.

I just said that I was for states rights and yes we all live under a massive centralized govt. You love bigger govt even though it is mediocre and doesn't operate efficiently.....we get it.

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders
The Founders and the ?general welfare? « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?" James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
The General Welfare Clause



There is plenty more out there for you to Google, Jillian.

 

[The Rabbi]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Just a comment: Comparing the problem with VA to problems with single payor are a little off. Not saying single payer doesn't have issues, but the comparison isn't apples to apples. The VA problem was with the way the government ran the hospitals. No privately run business in there. Single Payer just pays for the treatment at a private sector hospital.

The doctors at the VA stated the best thing that could happen to a patient is that they needed a service not offered by the VA. Then the patient would be provided a voucher to go to a private sector hospital.

It's a distinction without a difference. As the single payor the gov't is effectively in charge of policies and procedures.

 

[Stephanie]

I just said that I was for states rights and yes we all live under a massive centralized govt. You love bigger govt even though it is mediocre and doesn't operate efficiently.....we get it.

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders
The Founders and the ?general welfare? « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?" James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
The General Welfare Clause



There is plenty more out there for you to Google, Jillian.

there is no way she is an attorney or she is a all out Socialist/commie

 

[hipeter924]

What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?

"Well Vermont is mostly white people, and there is less violence so of course healthcare costs are easier to keep under control"

They don't understand that UHC doesn't remove private insurance companies. Any waiting lists can be avoided by taking out private insurance at low cost to cover complex operations. BTW, US private health insurance is crap compared to public healthcare in New Zealand (as I have tried both).

The US only does well in complex or experimental treatment in private hospitals, but only if you have a half a million or above for the operation. But if right-wingers want the pre and post ACA status quo they are welcome to it, their states will not only go bankrupt from spiraling healthcare costs but will be a case study for how other countries should avoid running healthcare.

So, you advocate paying for it twice. You see, a single payer system is one in which every resident pays into the system in the form of higher taxes. Crushing taxes in fact. Then, those who are well off, can purchase additional insurance (Can we hear more cries about the elites in the future?) for more complicated systems.

The poor can just make do with the longer lines and inadequate service provided by healthcare workers who can't cut it in the rest of the nation and have to settle for the low-wage professionals in the government system.

No, those that need extra cover can pay for it. Healthcare spending by GDP is lower in most OECD nations with UHC, in comparison to the US: Statistics:- Data visualisation for key OECD data - OECD

2011 OECD Total % of GDP (Private and Public): 9.3%
2011 US Total % of GDP (Private and Public): 17.7%
2011 NZ Total % of GDP (Private and Public): 10.3%

But I know how much you love blind nationalism and ignoring government and private waste in healthcare because of it, otherwise you wouldn't be spinning anti-UHC propaganda, which has no basis in fact. Also most nations in the OECD with UHC have the added benefit of living at least one or two years longer than Americans and paying much less for their healthcare (after you combine public and private healthcare costs). Even Russia has UHC.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just said that I was for states rights and yes we all live under a massive centralized govt. You love bigger govt even though it is mediocre and doesn't operate efficiently.....we get it.

I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders
The Founders and the ?general welfare? « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The Truth
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
The Facts
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?" James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
The General Welfare Clause



There is plenty more out there for you to Google, Jillian.

Rightwing nuts like you can think the Constitution means anything you want to think it means.

What it actually means is what it does. The Founders are dead. Get over it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Having a third party, an insurance company, paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
Until government enters the picture and fully assumes that role. Single payer in America with plaintiffs lawyers running up the tab as high as they can telling their clients to go to the doctor non stop to raise the damages on their accident cases.
We have become a nation of village idiots.
Health care costs will either skyrocket in Vermont or doctors will leave or not go there to practice when they first get their license. Or both.
Whatever happened to folks taking responsibility for their own health care? They have cash for their toys. Sell them and pay for your own damn health care.

you do realize that some people have health problems and cant afford to pay for everything that they need right?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The state of Vermont has fewer people in it than most of our Congressional Districts. They are not putting any national company out of business. If they can afford it, more power to them, but they are politically and economically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

i hear ya......they have 600,000+ in the State.....i live in a County with 3 million people....the city i live in has half their Population....

 

[Gadawg73]

The government can not even get a website right and folks want them running the health care market.
I need a bottle of whiskey.

 

[Gadawg73]

Having a third party, an insurance company, paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
Until government enters the picture and fully assumes that role. Single payer in America with plaintiffs lawyers running up the tab as high as they can telling their clients to go to the doctor non stop to raise the damages on their accident cases.
We have become a nation of village idiots.
Health care costs will either skyrocket in Vermont or doctors will leave or not go there to practice when they first get their license. Or both.
Whatever happened to folks taking responsibility for their own health care? They have cash for their toys. Sell them and pay for your own damn health care.

you do realize that some people have health problems and cant afford to pay for everything that they need right?.....

I do.
You do realize there are existing remedies in place and currently no one is denied treatment anywhere I know of. Do they get blank check health care right now? No, they shouldn't. But they get indigent care now through Medicaid. They now get care that is better than what everyone will soon get.

You do realize that, don't you?

 

[Political Junky]

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.

Yes, only a matter of time before the nation follows suit, as you said. It begins with one state. Look how fast they are coming on board with same sex marriage.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.

This GOES NOWHERE...Vermonters seeking timely and quality medical care will go to bordering states.
Let us not forget, Vermont save for tourism has a small economy. The wage structure is such that inbound revenues to Montpelier are limited.
With the resulting possibility of medical professionals leaving the state to earn a living according to their level of skill, this will erode the state's already shaky tax base.
The state government would be in no position to increase taxes which would surely be necessary with a state funded, state controlled system of medical care.
Three things will happen. Medical care will be rationed. Medical care will become very expensive( taxes). Quality of care will suffer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This shouldn't surprise any New Englander. Vermont is about as Leftist as you get on a large number of issues. This will be a massive failure, as employees and medical staff head for the borders like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They're trying to one-up those of us here in Massachusetts who have had to deal with the failed results of Romney-Care for a number of years now. Glad I don't live in Vermont and this will just further increase my resolve not to step foot in that state.

You have resolved to never step foot in Vermont?

Vermont is a beautiful place. Why not go?
Just would not live there. It's paradise for libs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

... as employees and medical staff head for the borders like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Well, maybe the Central Authority can step in and forbid those people from working in other states. Make it some kind of criminal act to ever practice medicine outside of state borders.

That'll teach 'em to think for themselves.



.

Maybe the Vermont State govt will forbid residents from leaving the state. Armed posts erected along the state line.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The **** is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.

To expect government to "provide for the people" is ludicrous.
This leads to central planning and crushes freedom and liberty.
This type of program will set itself up for failure because those that are forced to fund it( row the boat) will quickly decide that such extreme measures of government over reach are too much to bear. They will leave the state.
With a population of just under 900,000, Vermont can ill afford to lose people to other places.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.

Oh bullshit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.

Do you really think that health insurance is the key to good health and longevity?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

so "states' rights" only exists when you want to do LESS than the federal government, not more?



rightwingers are funny

Nobody has said they can't do it. We just recommend they don't since it won't work out well but they are free to try it.

I'm all for Vermont going single payer, the more models of failure we can get out there the better it is for the rest of us.

If they are going for single payer my only stipulation is they go all the way. No bailouts, no fed money, no pushing people off on obiecare. If they are going to do it then ******* do it all the way.