It was part of his campaign. The conservatives hated it and passed it anyway. Possibly because, like in 2008, both major party candidates had a plan to expand coverage.
Republicans nominated Bush. Republicans enacted his agenda. I know they’d like to distance themselves from the results of those policies by saying “it was all Bush’s fault, and he’s gone now”, but those of use who can look up the record don’t have to believe it.
OK then. The Republicans expanded Medicare, Democrats had nothing to do with it.
Pointing out that countries with UHC have better outcome for this or that metric is missing the point of the disagreement. A lot of American political arguments are like this, like when liberals point out that abstinence education leads to more pregnancies and STDs compared to sex education, as if their opponents were managerial liberals like them confused about the most effective policy.
And made no attempt to pay for it, yes.
At this point, the Republicans have two plans, either of which could be used:
-
Repeal the ACA. Then take the ACA, change two periods and a comma,(and maybe put something in that guarantees more profit for health insurance corporations) and re-name it the “Republican Best Trumpcare Act”, and fly that through the house. If anyone points out that it is essentially the same act, scream at them “FAKE NEWS!”. Get support from Fox News, and the usual suspects with Authoritative Talking Heads who assure the public that this is Much, MUCH better than that terrible Obamacare.
-
Repeal the ACA. Chaos ensues. People lose coverage. Put together a comprehensive plan to manage the optics. Blame Obama. Blame Hillary. Blame other Democrats. If anyone points out that the damage was caused by the repeal itself, scream at them, FAKE NEWS! Get the usual outlets to blame, blame, blame the Democrats in the face of every bit of evidence, until that becomes reality.
That’s funny. I have seen a lot of Medicare-for-everybody ideas lately, but not a lot of planning how to pay for it.
Yeah, but at least some people are admitting that it will have to be paid for, somehow. It’s another to pass massive new spending with no thought on how to pay for it, and blame the other side for mounting deficits.
There are many options, starting with raising or eliminating the cap on payroll deductions, transferring some (or all?) of the burden to unearned income, and progressivizing the rate structure. Specific numbers have to be left to the actuaries, of course. It can be done, and easily, once the fuck-ems’ resistance to the basic idea is finally broken - that’s the barrier, not the funding mechanism.
Oh, and Part D? How about letting Medicare buy drugs with competitive pricing? The Republicans let that bill pass only by giving Big Pharma a big present.
Here’s the L.A. Times on how Obamacare has succeeded, and how the GOP has nothing (yet, if ever) to offer as an alternative: Column: Republicans call Obamacare a 'failure.' These 7 charts show they couldn't be more wrong
Now whose stupidity is on display
You assume i would let you do heart surgery on me, or half kill me to try to cure cancer and what? make me sick as hell to die anyways when i could have made better use of the functional time i had left to begin with?
If you go doing any of that stuff to me of your own volition, you are in violation of my advanced directive and have now created a legal mess that is going to cost someone money.
Are you are giving examples of what you would do.
That’s fine, but speak for your self.
I already stated exactly what i meant, in plain and simple english, but you choose to insert ideas between the lines that aren’t there.
What the hell is with all the assuming here? I say red, you assume i include blue yellow and green too, no i said red and only red i meant red and nothing else, is that an impossible concept to grasp?
You realize he is a columnist, not a reporter, right?
But your suggestions would involve the rich paying more. Not enough more to hurt–but they’re Important Donors.
So no palliative care? Does your advanced directive say “nothing more than stitches”?
Your ignorance of medicine is obvious but that doesn’t make your idiotic beliefs correct. Not all surgeries are major; not all medical interventions are catastrophic and life-threatening. Just for one example, many lifesaving procedures that used to involve major surgery are increasingly being done with minimally invasive techniques involving precision robotics and advanced imaging and sensing technologies. Not for you, though. High-tech ORs with that kind of equipment cost millions of dollars. You’re only covered for stitches.
Yours. Again. As usual.
But are mud and leeches covered as well as stitches?
And the maggots.
Leeching is making its way back into modern medicine.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/modern-leeching/
Bring back poultices and bloodletting and we’ll have an affordable healthcare system. If it was good enough for the authors of the constitution it should help make America Great Again!
Drop down and give me venae, you maggots!