Apparently “disaster” is code for “falls short of a standard of perfection accepted by the portion of the populace represented by people like me”.
By those lights, just about every POTUS has been an unmitigated disaster for this country.
I dunno… GWB was really awful also. I trend toward thinking the Shrub was worse. (But he was taking everything he did right out of RWR’s play-book.)
Politics is the art of the possible. Single payer is not yet at that point, while ACA was (barely).
So why do you think the Republicans opposed it? :dubious:
Your interpretation is incorrect. The claim isn’t that Democrats can’t cause disasters, it’s that what Clothahump CALLS a disaster during Obama’s presidency (the debt doubling; a lethal attack on a diplomatic site) could as easily (if not MORE easily) apply to recent Republican administrations, but he’ll never admit it because he’s a determinedly dishonest and ignorantly partisan person.
I’d like to suggest the greatest potential disaster any American president flirted with was the Cuban Missile Crisis, while the greatest actual disaster was fumbling the nation toward secession and civil war. Both cases: Democrats.
HeweyLogan, a few minutes ago I welcomed a Pitizen who, after his/her one-year internship, has consistently show he/she is not a fucking moron. It took longer, but I even congratulated adaher for his mental growth here. We still disagree, but I’ve come to respect his mental processes. Clothy, not so much. Don’t be like him.
(Not arguing; clarifying)
Please note that I said was . . . to date; this wording, AIUI, allows for the acknowledgement that worse ones succeeded it.
By those lights, the concept of “mitigation” is itself nonsensical.
Oh! I thought “to date” meant up to today’s date, not up to that point in history.
In that case, yes, total agreement. Reagan was, in his time, the worst President the U.S. has ever had. (We’ve had some real pig-fuckers, but he was a pig-fellating, pig-felching, pig-necrophile.)
Why is it a disaster? Here is a textbook example:
It should be ripped out by the roots and burned. What should replace it? Nothing. There is no provision in the Constitution for the government to provide health insurance, nor to mandate that people have health insurance. Having health insurance is the responsibility of the person, not the government.
Whose responsibility is it when insurance companies refuse to provide coverage at any price? Whose responsibility is it when their premiums are too high for people to afford?
Do you let people die horribly? Or should these people be euthanised?
That’s because the left lives in a socialist utopian dreamworld, full of unicorns that fart rainbows.
Nothing in the Constitution specifying that it’s the responsibility of the government to euthanize sick people. They’ll have to die horribly, unless they’ve saved enough money from not being able to afford their medical bills to pay for their own euthanasia.
I got it! We wait until they go bankrupt, then imprison them for “being without visible means of support.” Then they get health care in prison! It’s perfect!
No they don’t. You live in a fantasy world in which you can pretend people like me who have actual years of experience working with classified material in the military don’t exist when we explain what’s actually going on with the accusations against Hillary Clinton.
Are you kidding? An anonymous piece of paper, no company logo or letterhead, nothing to show it’s source and you expect it to be taken seriously?
And yet, nearly every other industrialized nation has far more comprehensive public heath care systems that provide higher quality care at lower costs. So yeah, socialist utopian rainbow farting.
I am guessing you are not in a position where pre-existing conditions means you cannot have gotten insurance at ANY price prior to the ACA.
Well, I live in a big, diverse Texas city. Where we’ve already begun voting for the Democratic presidential candidate. As other Texas cities have done in recent elections. Alas, it’s probably too early for the state to go Blue–but the Republicans are getting more nervous.
Hey, Clothalump lives here, too! No wonder he takes refuge in fantasy.
That doesn’t even address the right question, let alone provide some kind of answer.
The foundational question is whether it should be an individual responsibility to fund one’s own health care, much as it is an individual responsibility to pay for merchandise, like a new car or a washing machine. No money, no merchandise – simple.
And with regard to health care, that question was answered in the negative a long, long time ago, for a whole slew of ethical and completely practical reasons. The idea of health insurance, provided by private corporations as a business venture, is just an opportunistic happenstance that strongly took root in the US alone as a way to solve this problem. Turns out, it’s a really shitty solution that is only supported because of ideology and political lobbying.
There are other models for funding health care, and the logical choice of model would seem to be simply the one that works best, and provides the most health care for the lowest expenditures. There are many tweaks and variants, but the health care funding models that provide universal health care in every civilized country in the world are generally variants between single-payer (as in Canada and the UK) or highly regulated non-profits offering uniform community-rated plans (as in Germany) with minor roles for private insurance thrown in to the mix. No civilized country in the world has to endure the health insurance fiasco that prevails in the US – not one.
What state was this from? I suspect it’s one of the red ones that didn’t go with the Medicaid expansion, which means everyone else pays for some people’s healthcare when they visit the emergency room and can’t pay for it. If these people truly can’t get a cheaper plan from the health care exchange they must be very old and have a fairly high income, or costs must be ridiculously high in their state for some reason, which means their premiums would probably be even higher without the exchange.