The GOP has assured us that they will [del]find those WMDs in Iraq[/del] [del]catch bin Laden[/del] [del]create jobs and increased revenue through the Bush tax cuts[/del] provide a better replacement for ACA and I for one think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
I support them and even I don’t believe it. Not so much because they are insincere but because the disagreements over how to do it are too wide.
How about this for a compromise? Obamacare for all. Why have different systems for different people?
By the way, did you ever get around to my question about just, perzackly, what jobs these people are going to be moved into when we don’t have enough jobs to begin with? We gonna have ten thousand people in reflective vests wandering the side of the highways picking up scraps of paper? What?
When Clinton signed his welfare reform, it made some sense, we had a booming economy, there were jobs to be had. That was then, and this is now,and there are no jobs to send these people to. And penalizing them for failing to get what doesn’t exist is a cruel joke.
Who’s gonna provide daycare? Start with that, just tell me that. Obviously, we are not going to pay these people for their work, so we aren’t going to pay someone to watch their kids while they do the work we aren’t going to pay them for.
If this sort of heartless and mindless brutality is your idea of “reform”, it fucking well deserves to be gutted!
“In America, its not a crime to be poor. But it may as well be.”
- Will Rogers
Better idea: Medicare for all. Why have different systems for different people?
Well, if you want to get technical, there is some logical validity to that statement.
Conservatives “tell the truth” so poorly that any activity, no matter how ineptly carried out, is done “better.” 
That observation says a lot more about conservatives (or at least Newt Gingrich) than liberals.
Liberals probably lie about as often as the general population–meaning far less often than they tell the truth. What Newt’s really saying here is that conservatives find it incredibly difficult to engage reality directly–likely because it so often contradicts the worldview they’ve developed in their Fox News echo chamber.
Except it’s entirely possible to get insurance under single-payer (in fact, if one adds the cost of comprehensive insurance under Bupa with no copay in the UK to the per capita cost of healthcare, it’s still under the per capita cost of healthcare in the US). Were you aware of this? Also, Medicare constantly rates as higher approval than private insurance. It’s pretty simple: marginal costs are lower when the bulk of people are under one plan, then those rich enough to afford private are probably going to be healthier and thus costs for the insurer will be down. Plus the added benefit of people going to the GP and hospital when they think they’re sick, which diffuses costs by prevention.
Medicare for all can’t even get the support of all Democrats and wouldn’t win a single Republican vote.
Republicans want Obamacare for seniors, essentially. Since Obamacare is supposedly a wonderful thing for non-seniors, how could Democrats possibly object to that compromise?
That’s true, but that’s not how a transition would work. The day a single payer system went into effect, most employees would lose their employer insurance and be on what is essentially Medicaid. That wouldn’t be very popular.
How do you know this?
Why would most employers continue to bear that expense when there was already a single payer system?
Also, are we talking about single payer where private insurance competes with the government, or single payer where private insurance can only cover what the government does not.
Well many employers are dumping health insurance effectively for lower echelon workers by putting most of the expense on the worker. I have worked jobs where, if I had taken the health insurance option, my paycheck would have been $0 per week or less after the cost of my health insurance contribution was deducted. (To be accurate, I was as an entry level worker at Target, the poorest I have ever been while actually employed).
ANY kind of health insurance beats no health insurance, adaher.
Why do they do it now?
I was asking how you know it wouldn’t be popular.
It wouldn’t be popular because many workers would lose their health insurance and get dumped into the equivalent of Medicaid.
I don’t understand why you think that would be unpopular.
No, more like Medicare, not Medicaid.
Medicare is more highly regarded among its beneficiaries than private insurance is among its beneficiaries.
Fun fact: my employer provides me with private health insurance despite having free public healthcare. I think I’ve used it exactly once, but I’ve got it.
Medicare’s payment rates are set to drop below Medicaid payment rates. The Medicare model is unsustainable for elderly folks alone, much less extending it to cover everyone. Medicaid’s payment rates are more sustainable.
Be sure to tell all those beneficiaries in the poll who like Medicare then.