No, I actually won. 
You’re the guy sitting in a pile of shit commenting on how sweet the roses smell.
ACA exists. And the Republicans dominate everything but the Presidency.
Not the Supreme Court 
And any “domination” of the Senate could be very short lived. We’ll see.
As Josh Marshall has pointed out, despite the decisions, John Roberts has moved jurisprudence in a much more rightward direction:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-mick-jagger-reality-of-justice-john-roberts
Whatever direction he’s moving it, it’s not towards the current Republican party’s ideals (not that it’s moving towards the Democratic party’s ideals either). But then, the current Republican party is more crazy than conservative, so this isn’t particularly surprising.
He’s not supposed to do that. The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical. What he is doing is defining the limits to the state’s regulatory reach that the New Deal court left an open question.
And if the Republicans lose just a few seats in the House and a lot of seats in the Senate, we may well see “more Democrats in Congress” than in 2008. Republicans won 57% of House districts while receiving on 52% of House votes in 2014, but the votes were funneled into a number of specific Republican victories due to the mapping of district lines. In 2012, Republicans took the House with only 48% of the votes. Shifts in demographics between decennial censuses could wipe out a number of Republican seats. His claim was hardly the sort of silliness we saw regarding the polls when running up to the 2012 Presidential election, but it was still a broad claim of undefendable exaggeration considering that it purports to depict a future that may extend thirty to fifty years for many posters in this thread.
the Senate goes by states, and demographic changes are not affecting states equally. Nor is it resulting in Democratic victories even where demographic change has occurred, such as in Texas.
Getting to 30 blue states is going to take longer than any of us will be alive. I suppose you could wait for Republicans to win everything again and screw up so badly that Democrats get a temporary 2008-scale win. Be a shame to just squander it through on doing health care again. But whatever floats your boat.
Now, you are just rambling. You are not so much moving the goalposts as taking your football and moving to a different basketball court.
I made no claim about “30 blue states.” The Republicans have already shown that a state can be one “color” and still send more members of the other “color” to Congress.
If you are happy with your prediction, I am happy for you. I am sure that you will get the same thrill the next time the President Romney addresses the joint session of Congress.
Maybe this will be easier to understand: Even with 60 votes, they couldn’t even get a public option, much less a single payer plan. So figure out how many non-conservative Dems you’d need and then look at the electoral map, even in 2050, and realize that you’ll never get single payer.
Ah, so you want single payer through the federal government? Not even Canada and Britain do that. That’s pretty radical.
The goofiness of this argument is amazing.
Singer payer / shitty American system isn’t a right / left issue. It’s a factual issue that there is very strong evidence for.
The right has made it a test of loyalty, but it doesn’t have to be that way. If the right’s leadership ever becomes intelligent and honest again, they’d jump at the chance for single payer, or some similar system. Because it’s superior.
Conservatives should want to save money. And paying extra for worse outcomes isn’t conservative, it’s profligate beyond all reason. It’s only the modern delusional stupidity of GOP politics that makes them hate it so. If the GOP becomes a big tent party again, with moderate, sensible members alongside the clucking snake-handlers that currently run the show, there could easily be enough support for single payer.
In a tick more than a decade we’ve gone from DOMA to universal gay marriage. Saying that you find it impossible that the GOP will contain fact-driven people interested in the best outcomes in two or more decades, shows you just lack imagination.
First you should demonstrate that single payer UHC is superior to multi payer UHC.
Why? The ACA is superior to what came before, and the GOP prefers what came before. From that I know that the GOP Base can choose things regardless of their relative worth.
Whether it is superior remains to be seen. More people are covered, that’s a plus. However, we won’t know if it’s actually an improvement until we stop being last among Western nations in many health outcome metrics.
More people covered while decreasing the deficit seems like a pretty good definition of superior.
More people covered but a lot of those who were covered having less coverage is not necessarily superior. I mean, it probably is, but I’m still upset about the fact that my sister cannot afford to go to the doctor when she could before.
The trouble with that sort of anecdote, is that there are endless variables. For instance, her employer could have petulantly cancelled insurance because… tyranny.
Or her previous coverage might have had cheaper co-pays but had a lifetime cap of 300k. Without the specifics it’s hard to say. And I don’t doubt that some people had negative outcomes, but anything whatsoever that changes will impact some people worse than others.
I wasn’t saying anything - just correcting your claim that Medicare and Medicaid are essentially the same program. They’re not.
But you are saying that single payer through the Federal government is pretty radical. Funny, most Americans would disagree that Medicare is a radical program. But it’s single-payer, through the Federal government, for the over-65 crowd.
While I’m posting, I’ll note that you still haven’t explained why going from Obamacare to single-payer in, say, 20 years would be a heavier lift than getting Obamacare passed in the first place.
By comparison, I’ll note that the heavy lift with Social Security was getting it passed in the first place. It’s been expanded and improved a number of times since, and none of those instances were the big political deal that getting it established in the first place was.
The GOP will undoubtedly continue to repeal Obamacare for awhile, but eventually that desire should change from a continual to an occasional focus, as it has with efforts to mangle Medicare and Social Security. (That might take a decade or two, but it can’t be front-burner with them forever.) Once it does, legislation to make Obamacare work better will become possible. (Again, it’ll be awhile, since we’re still at a point where legislation to fix drafting errors isn’t possible.) And eventually that’ll include a move to single-payer.
Unless the GOP Ahabs remain obsessed with the Black Whale of Obamacare for the next 60 years, of course.
Close enough. There were 60 Senators who were caucusing with the Democratic Party, two (Sanders and Lieberman) of which were independents.
Of those two, Lieberman had been a Dem throughout his political career until losing his race for renomination for his Senate seat to Ned Lamont forced him to run as an independent. And Sanders is basically a liberal Democrat, and IIRC he’s offically becoming a Dem in order to be eligible to be on primary ballots as he runs for the Democratic nomination for President.