And because it results in an outcome you favor anyway, apparently you can’t find much fire in your heart to criticize the method this time…
Well you’d also apparently be glad to see HIS taxes go towards that outcome too, and Steve’s down the road. His point (I think) is that he has a problem with you being so generous with anyone else’s resources.
…And because it results in an outcome you favor anyway, apparently you can’t find much fire in your heart to criticize the method this time…
Your repeated question has now been answered twice. Choosing to ignore the answers does nothing to help your case. You pointed out yourself that Vermont tried and failed. We’re supposed to be left with the impression that therefore single-payer and/or UHC can’t work, yet every civilized country on earth has made it work, and as I pointed out, every single Canadian province implemented its own separate single-payer system, all of which have been highly successful and saved a great deal of money.
And none of them were “forced” to do it. Each and every one could either choose to do it under federal guidelines and cost-sharing agreements, or go their own way with private insurance or whatever they thought was better.
Vermont is a tiny state. Why can’t California try it? Huge state. Enormous economy. Very liberal, right?
That’s not a bad idea. California would love to oblige your experimental spirit, but their Republicans keep shooting it down.
Anyhow, it makes no sense to try it in a single state. As states have no lawful authority to control immigration, they have no means of protecting themselves from free riders from the rest of the country. Republican states already soak up way more than their share of tax revenues, so why should California support these moochers any more than it already does?
I don’t think you understand how insurance works.
I think that on a qualitative level, Bricker would disagree with that assertion.
Ironically, perhaps, the ability of strong labor unions a couple of generations ago, to negotiate health insurance benefits may have contributed to the commodification of basic healthcare. Especially ironic in light of the greatly weakened state of labor unions today.
Democrats have a supermajority in both houses in the CA legislature and the Governor’s seat. Republicans aren’t shooting anything down in CA.
CA Senate: 27 D, 13 R
CA Assembly: 55 D, 25 R
Last time California had a R legislative majority: 1970.
Sure they do. Make residency a requirement for “free” medical treatment.
Cool:
Which proves my point. CA would be doing it right. Instead of trying to force square pegs into round holes.
And if this succeeds in CA, it would be a great example to the other states, wouldn’t it be? Too bad that if this fails, the liberal excuse will probably be “It failed because it was only in one state. Should be US-wide.”
Bricker’s arguments in this thread, which are clear and simple, illustrate the essential problem with this debate, and the ridiculousness of discussing it at all. Once a man makes it clear that he does not view reducing the impact of death and morbidity as a worthwhile goal for a society, what conversation is left to be had? If we disagree on such a basic premise, what basis do we have to even approach compromise or mutually satisfactory outcomes?
I mean, it’s fine for people like Bricker and people like me to talk past each other on a message board, but neither of us will ever be persuaded. What happens now is, we see whether more people agree with me or with him. I have to hope that most people agree with me, because the alternative - that the majority of people are foolish enough to think that reducing death and morbidity is not a worthwhile use of our resources - is too profoundly sad to contemplate.
To whom is this argument directed? Obviously, there’s no point in directing it at Bricker (who has already rejected it with the “well, society functioned before X existed” universal counterargument).
Why can California legally force their citizens to pay for this but the federal government can’t?
If that’s still a thing, by the time it reaches the Senate floor.
Side point: AIUI, certain aspects of the prior bill made it ineligible for consideration as a reconciliation matter, which I have been given to understand does not require a cloture battle. Presuming my understanding is correct, is the current bill also ineligible for such treatment?
Ask Bricker, he explained it several times in this thread already, maybe he’ll do it again.
I already debunked Bricker as have others. Maybe you can give me your reasons.
Jesus Christ man, is this still a question? Because some people believe the Constitution doesn’t say the Federal Government can do this. And they believe the states CAN do it. Is it really that hard to understand?
Jesus Christ man, it is NOT a question any longer. The Supreme Court said they can.
End. Of. Story.
You can disagree if you want with the Supreme Court but as it is today it is perfectly legal.
Is it really that hard to understand?