Unfortunate choice of words, so I fixed it. ‘Access to’ is not the same as health care and I am sure you know that.
I’m sure the countries with UHC will be happy they have it when they are in concentration camps, just like the French were so grateful for their social state while under German occupation. Why, Leon Blum, who was in a concentration camp, was thanked by his fellow inmates for making it so they would get paid for overtime!
UHC is affordable because they outsource their defense to us. And even then, they can only provide a basic level of care.
The first paragraph is just goofy mush. As for the second, it’s not much better. You are wrong twice. UHC costs less than what we do. So saying that they can afford it because we pick up their defense is just nonsense. We can afford it because it costs less than what we pay now.
As if that weren’t enough you’re wrong again about only having a “basic” care. Other first world countries pay less and have better outcomes than we do.
I’m used to your…interesting…take on reality, and I’ve read this a couple of times. But I suspect I speak for many of us when I say, “huh?”
Well, if the threat of every being invaded and occupied again is past, I guess there’s nothing to worry about. The Eastern Europeans will be gratified, I’m sure.
So, we can have universal health care if everybody joins the Army? Or is that crazier than what you are actually saying?
Apparently adaher thinks the extra $2 trillion spent annually on health care by U.S., compared with per capita spending in the rational developed democracies, is for our soldiers injured defending Europe from Gog and Magog. Maybe adaher isn’t from around here and is unaware veterans are covered by V.A. with spending much more efficient than the U.S. norm.
… Or maybe he gets his information from The Onion.
Yes, we’ve seen how those efficiencies in the VA are achieved.
I’m convinced it’s Mallard Fillmore.
The ones your guy Bush warned Obama he’d be inheriting? 
Again, your point isn’t coherent.
Even if we are carrying Europe’s defense burden, that doesn’t mean that we can’t afford UHC. Let me break it down so you can follow:
UHC is cheaper than not having UHC. Every other country with UHC pays much less than we do.
So if our paying a lot for defense has nothing to do with us not being able to afford UHC. UHC would cost less than we’re paying now. We have the ACA, but it’s much weaker than it needs to be. The idea that going back to the system we had before is a good goal is utter drivel. Never mind that the GOP “version” is a phantom fart in a maelstrom.
The fact that you’re so confused on this issue explains why you support the GOP’s position on it.
UHC is cheaper only if public spending displaces private spending. Since Americans aren’t about to give up spending lots of money on health care and pay taxes on top of that, we can’t afford UHC.
The most Obamacare like system is seen in Switzerland, and yes, they can afford to cover all their citizens.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is set to hear Obamacare Round 3 in King v. Burwell. This case, which was dismissed out of hand altogether a little over a year ago by a Republican judge, should have never gone to the Court in the first place, yet here we are. It is based on nothing more than categorically false historical revisionism & Fox News soundbites, and, if successful, would tear health insurance away from at least 9 million people (as well as 5 million KIDS); more than that, however - & I’ve been harping on this for months - a ruling against the government would DESTROY the institutional authority and legitimacy of SCOTUS. I know Republicans are giddy about potentially taking health insurance away from so many Americans, but they’ll also have to contend with the fact that their beloved SCOTUS will become a certifiable joke to the rest of the world. That problem will be a generations-long dilemma for them, & it’ll dwarf the remaining two years of Obama’s presidency.
I think conservatives have once again talked themselves into believing something is going to happen (SCOTUS gutting Obamacare), and there is going to be incredible shock and gnashing of teeth when it doesn’t turn out the way they earnestly believe it would.
Not withstanding 2ManyTacos hyperbole on the matter, yes the SCOTUS hearing in King v. Burwell is scheduled for this week. The court will likely post an audio recording of the oral arguments on its website later the same day.
One non-partisan note. The hearing is scheduled for one hour. There are no other cases set for hearing that day. SCOTUS Blog, in a piece by Lyle Denniston, says that this may allow the hearing to run long, should the court so wish.
Expect much gnashing of teeth in the press until the ruling is handed down. Each side will pontificate on the end of the world as we know it that is sure to befall us all if the court rules the wrong way. If it goes down to the wire then expect the ruling in late June or early July – nearly four more months of this glurge.
Kind of like saying if Sarah Palin endorsed Ted Cruz, it would destroy her reputation for keen political insight.
Time to eat my words on this point. The court has posted same day audio in the past, but according to a report by Tony Mauro in the Legal Times, apparently the court will not do so in this case.
The report is referenced in the SCOTUSblog Wednesday roundup by Amy Howe, but a subscription is required to the Legal Times to read the report.
We’ll have to wait to hear the justice’s questioning ourselves.
More info.
Apparently the audio will be made available on Friday, according to SCOTUSblog.
They’re taking an extra day to edit out the “You gotta be shitting us, right?” questions from the non-activist justices, apparently.