The real fear to me is that the GOP will consist of crazy people but just enough low information voters to not know/care how crazy and irrational the GOP is becoming.
Hopefully the GOP destroys themselves. I think they realized they’ve alienated latinos so badly that they started pushing to remove the 14th amendment from the constitution to take away the right of millions of latinos to vote.
There was a thread recently discussing how a majority of Americans were OK with “gays” in the military but did not want “homosexuals” in the military (or maybe it was the other way).
My most humble opinion is that talking about polls means absolutely nothing UNLESS we look at the actual questions asked in the poll. Even then, they mean only a shade above nothing–they just illustrate the ever-changing mood of people on a particular subject. (And all of the above assumes the poll is completely random–non-random polls are worse than worthless.)
Yes, but the point is that the two choices are *not *mutually exclusive, and some people might choose option 1 or 2, while actually supporting option 3. This is just poor formatting and framing.
“Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of buying into a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get – that would compete with private health insurance plans?”
“There is proposed federal legislation that gives any American, regardless of age, the option of joining the Medicare program. Americans who choose this option would share the cost of the coverage with their employer through increased Medicare payroll deductions, instead of paying private health insurance premiums. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?”
Most polls don’t specify the consequences of adopting a law.
“There is proposed federal legislation that gives any American, regardless of age, the option of joining the Medicare program. Americans who choose this option would share the cost of the coverage with their employer through increased Medicare payroll deductions, instead of paying private health insurance premiums. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?”
Or that “repealing” it would require a constitutional amendment, which is in fact the route that various committee members have tried unsuccessfully (you’re being much too literal for your own good once again, Bricker).
But the real answer is that they knew, and know, they’d alienate more people than they attracted if they did any more than that, that it would fail and they’d look even worse, and that it would take away a rallying cry for their base.
OK, Bricker, not take away the franchise from one who already has it, but deny it to some who don’t have it yet.
We already have laws that deny naturalization to immigrants, & thus the vote, in conflict with the spirit of the Fourteenth. The nativists have tried for a century to rules-lawyer it so that you can live here disenfranchised because they’re just protecting the national culture by delaying naturalization. Now they’re trying to change the rules themselves.
Eventually he finally gave in “OK well clearly you have no creative ideas at all, let’s at least make the current system more friendly and less evil (preexisting condition etc)”.
And then he relented and said “well I guess universal coverage won’t make it this round, but hey, maybe you can make some sort of provision where anyone can buy the congressional member plan at the same price” (big whoop!!).
And then there’s was some other stuff that was kind of random. Might as well just go to UHC with specific provisions to avoid the tropes of bad UHC.
