How is that an answer?
This is about the proper role of the federal government right?
So why do I have to pay for parks I never visit? Why is this a “proper role of the federal government”? If the federal government owns land that is fine but I should not have to pay for those roads or rangers and so on.
And why should health care be a state issue? The federal government funds the CDC. Clearly they think they have an interest in the health of the people of the nation.
I agree. But your elective representatives have determined that you SHOULD pay for that. And enough people have thought that you should pay for that.
They do. I’m simply stating what I think is the opinion of those opposed to Federal Government mandated health insurance. Asking the question numerous times won’t change the answer.
I say let it happen. The GOP ideologues have been banging on this drum for a good 7 years now. We’ll see what happens when blue collar white folk they’ve been bullshitting for the past 5-7 years actually start losing their insurance over this. I’ll tell you this: I live in part of the blue wall that Trump miraculously won, and healthcare affordability is an issue. The people here were not thrilled with Obamacare but they wanted improvements, not outright repeal. If I were Reince Preibus, I would be secretly praying for the American Healthcare Act to die in the Senate, because if it does not, this one act alone might be enough to cause a crushing mid-term defeat. My prediction is the Senate will kill it and the Republicans will probably gang up on ‘soft’ senators. That strategy can only go so far.
I would support ratification.
By the way, the house passed the bill by a fingernail. Twenty Republicans voted against it. That is just shy 10% of their caucus, which seems like a lot. They were:
Andy Biggs(Arizona)
Mike Coffman (Colorado)
Barbara Comstock (Virginia)
Ryan A. Costello (Pennsylvania)
Charlie Dent (Pennsylvania)
Dan Donovan(New York)
Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania)
Jaime Herrera Beutler(Washington)
Will Hurd(Texas)
Walter B. Jones (North Carolina)
David Joyce (Ohio)
John Katko (New York)
Leonard Lance (New Jersey)
Frank A. LoBiondo (New Jersey)
Thomas Massie (Kentucky)
Patrick Meehan (Pennsylvania)
Dave Reichert (Washington)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Florida)
Christopher H. Smith (New Jersey)
Michael R. Turner (Ohio)
(spoiler-boxed due to being slightly OT here)
Reasons are provided on this page
I agree, but don’t forget that Ontario’s plan is substantially self-funding from provincial tax revenues. I’m not sure what the numbers looked like back in Robarts’ day, but today federal health transfer payments for 2016-17 were less than $14 B out of total Ontario health spending of $53.8 B. The take-away here IMO is that if any conservative premier in any province believed that their citizens could have gotten a significantly better deal without having to conform to the Canada Health Act principles of UHC, they could have done it. Today, of course, any reversal of single-payer UHC in any province would be politically impossible since it’s so universally popular that the voters would revolt. This is the system that Trump recently labeled “a disaster” for unknown reasons that he forgot to mention.
You keep saying this.
If the question was answered we’d stop asking.
It has not been answered in a logical fashion. Distinctions between why one thing should be paid for and another thing shouldn’t be paid for are conspicuously missing.
Mostly it comes down to they don’t want to pay for things they don’t want to pay for.
By the way, on Monday. March 22nd, 2010, the House passed the ACA by 219 to 212. Is that slightly less than two fingernails?
I, too, sense the futility of trying to bring facts to this particular debate. The divide is ideological and arbitrary; it’s not about what the U.S. could afford to do to improve the health of its citizens or what the results of fewer medical-based bankruptcies could be or what effect separating health insurance from employment could have. It’d be like showing up with all your power tools and only then finding out the barn you’re raising is made of meringue.
It’s just more evidence that conservatism is against caring about other people, while liberalism isn’t.
Sure, you may individually care about other people, but the actual political concept is not to do so. The sole reason anyone had a problem with the ACA was the individual mandate, which is just selfishness.
I blocked a pastor over this, complaining he’d have to pay. I no longer consider him a Christian.
Why the appeal to religion for policy you favor? Would you support appeal to religion for bakeries?
Why not appeal to reason and logic?
Although I personally support mandatory seatbelt laws, I think your analogy fails to capture a key element of this debate. No one who wishes to wear a seatbelt is prevented from doing so because they simply can’t afford it.
Your position seems to be that if someone has a serious but treatable disease, and they’re too poor to afford health care, our government should just let them die.
I disagree with this position on moral grounds. But I’d be thrilled if the Republicans in Congress presented their plan in that way to the public, because I think it would be overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. The Republicans must think so, too, since they aren’t remotely being that honest about their plan.
What do you think. Is the plan being presented honestly? Wouldn’t it be better if they just came out and said: “We would prefer to let more people die who can’t afford health coverage, because it’s not the role of government to save the lives of people too poor to save themselves.” Surely the American people will recognize this as sound public policy, and not mistake it for utterly heartless cruelty, right?
Does this plan rely on California continuing to receive its current level of MedicAid and MediCare funding from the federal government? Does it rely on persuading the federal government to exempt California payrolls from making MediCare and MedicAid contributions into the federal pool? If the answers to either of these questiong is “yes,” I suspect the road to realization may be a little rough for the proposal.
Anyone know where I can learn more about it?
By the way, Bricker, while it’s hard to have very much credibility when telling someone that you’re “certainly sorry” that a policy change you support may result in the deaths of their friends, you’d be at least a little more believable if you could make it to the end of the sentence without a bad pun and a “ha!”
But again, I hope the Congressional Republicans are just as transparent about how much sympathy they feel for the people who are adversely affected by this decision.
I believe that if this passes the senate, I have relatives in the states who are literally going to die as a result. Because of a republican legislature that made it clear that their first priority was cutting health care to pay for a fucking tax cut on the wealthy.
I believe that anyone who believes that this is a wise policy move has had their empathy forcefully sucked out through a straw.
“You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”
A big majority of voters want “repeal and replace”. That is, replace with something that isn’t horseshit. When people realized, “hang on, this is gonna throw tens of millions of people off health care”, they started to oppose the bill. The AHCA is approved by about 17% of the populace.
The reason the AHCA is going to be a complete disaster for republicans is because it’s the fucking reckoning. It’s the point where the lies republicans used to push their agenda face the harsh reality of what the republicans actually support. Republicans constantly pushed “repeal and replace” under the premise of, “Obamacare sucks, we can do better”. But they never wanted to do better. They never, at any point, had any fucking intention of doing better, the lying shitweasels. Why?
That’s why.
Of course, it turns out, this is an incredibly unpopular position, especially among people who aren’t rich lawyers who can’t or won’t see past their own privilege (a term which freely describes most GOP politicians) - although they can’t even claim ignorance when they explicitly carve out exceptions in the repeal for themselves; they know exactly how fucking awful this bill is going to be.
Instead, they propped up a simple strategy: lie about Obamacare constantly, constantly avoid any substantive discussion about its merits and flaws, refuse any effort to fix the bill, and paint it as a literal satan. And because their repeal efforts never stood a fucking chance of passing under an administration that wasn’t a fucking kakistocracy, they could dance this merry little dance where they complain endlessly about how awful Obamacare is.
But when faced with the reality of Obamacare vs. No Obamacare, rather than the almost a decade of extreme right-wing spin, something’s gotta give. And that something is the lie, when people realize, “Holy shit, 24 million people are gonna lose their health care under this thing, and it’s all in service of a huge fucking tax cut.”
Of course, it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong. After all, if the right wing media was able to polish the turd that was the fucking Trump campaign, it’s hard to argue that they can’t find a way to make “respected bipartisan entity predicts law will cause 24 million to lose health coverage” into “leftist ‘referee’ lies about amazing health-care plan”. After all, these are people who, by and large, didn’t know that the ACA was Obamacare, or complained “why couldn’t it have been called something other than Obamacare”, or took Sarah Palin seriously when she lied about fucking death panels. So basically, how well this bill goes over among republicans depends on how stupid and misinformed the average republican voter is. So… It’ll probably be a huge success. Congratulations, this bill is the fucking Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen of policymaking.
Then allow me to state here how happy I am to be mistaken. 
Also, on a side note, any of the republicans here want to tackle the obscene hypocrisy that is this bill being rushed through in a matter of days, with little to no debate, no attempt made to cross party lines, and the full text of the bill not even publicly available until the day before the vote? I seem to recall some people getting extremely cross that Obamacare (a bill which took over a year to pass, with hundreds of republican amendments) was pushed through under cover of night with little to no debate, no attempt made to cross party lines, and that we’d have to pass it to find out what’s in it.
I seem to recall Republicans saying bills up for a vote would be available to the public three days beforehand. Must’ve been another of their lies.
But the thing is, much like allowing people to keep driving, universal health care would provide and Obamacare (flawed as it is) does provide more benefits than the clusterfuck of 2008, to most people.
Axiomatically, a country benefits most when most of its citizens are healthy and financially solvent. That’s when they’re most productive, most likely to invest or become entrepreneurs and create more wealth. Whether you like the principle of the thing or not, universal health care achieves that state of affairs better than “fuck you, got mine (through my employer, as long as I work for them)”. So it’s not just more humane, it’s also cold-bloodedly more efficient from a cost/benefit point of view.
When you state your opposition to this on the basis of “I don’t think health care is the purview of government”, you’re being just as irrational as the people you’re poo-pooing here for their appeals to emotion, because your reasoning is based on an appeal to abstract principle divorced from the factual.
Schwarzenneger vetoes single-payer health bill (2006)
Gov. Schwarzenegger again vetoes single payer bill (2008)
You guys walked right into that one. But your experimental hearts may be cheered as yet again California tries it again. As I said, should it pass, watch the state become a haven for medical refugees. As you said, I’m sure there will be residency restrictions, but there are limits to how strict states can be with this, and I doubt many people will have trouble with the provenance of an electric bill. But hey, bigger pool, broader risk spread, so it may well work out.