C’mon, give the GOP a break - they’ve only had 7 years to come up with a better health care law than their own idea from two decades ago. And give them some credit - they’ve voted on the first half of their “Repeal and Replace” strategy eleventy zillion times now. :rolleyes:
Meanwhile, in the world of UHC, middle class protesting: An illustration of the continuous tensions between medical professionals and conservative Government - this stuff has been going on back and forth for at least 30 years: ying and yang.
For those on both sides of this debate, Paul Krugman has two posts today that are worth a read. First in his blog and second in his NYT column.
Is he always HRCs man or just on this issue?
He’s obv a very serious man though it is a shame he doesn’t flesh out how “a disruption” to the employer > employee dynamic is reason to not pursue single payer. How can showing up with ID be more problematic then tying the health of your family to some corporate monster. It’s like some tithe > Medieval Baron shit.
Mainly becuase unions have negotiated themselves some pretty awesome plans. Unions would almost certainly demand to be exempt from the single payer system, and that’s only the start of your problems.
So what’s in the Republican alternative bill?
Puppies and rainbows.
And no unions.
The Supreme Court declined hear the latest anti-ACA challenge today. Note that George Will argued in 2014 that this lawsuit was going to “doom” the law.
Maybe this is the end of anti-ACA litigation, but after King v. Burwell who the fuck knows.
This was one of the stupidest challenges ever made to a law. Anyone who actually understands how Congress works knows it makes laws like this all the time, and they are perfectly constitutional. Even Will. Even the idiot congressmen who gave lip service to the challenge - they have voted for dozens of bills passed in the same way, and most of them know it.
George Will face plants in the crap pudding! Well deserved! Très dicque, mais non?
George is very smart. His flaw is that he sometimes pretends to be an idiot just to win points. He definitely did it with this issue.
When did you finally realize what a massive lie it always was?
I think a better argument, not against single payer itself, but against wasting time on it as a political issue, is that back when the Dems had a 60-40 Senate majority and an enormous House majority (>250 Dem Reps, too lazy to look up the exact number), getting Obamacare through Congress was a close thing. And that’s the best Congress we can remotely hope for right now, and we’ll thank our lucky stars if we see one that lopsidedly Dem anytime soon.
But that Congress wouldn’t have given the time of day to single-payer, and neither will the next one where the Dems are in the majority.
If the GOP still controls the House a year from now, then it’s all moot, but there’s always the chance that, given the opportunity to run against Trump or Cruz, the Dems could retake Congress. And I want to know what Hillary and Bernie would do in that situation. I don’t want daydreams that would require 300 House Dems and 70 Dem Senators.
No, George F. Will has made a long-term deliberate choice to be an idiot, and defend whatever intellectually indefensible crap the GOP serves up. For instance, he’s a climate denialist who’s used arguments to support that position that an eighth-grader could see through.
One can’t choose to be an idiot. That’s the burden of intelligence.
One can only choose to pretend to be an idiot for political gain. Which is what I said about George in the first place, and I think you’re trying to say in different terms.
FYI to everybody interested in in-depth ACA analyses, a new book just came out that seems to offer one of the most highly detailed looks at ACA implementation so far.
It’s also the first book I’ve found that includes analyses of King v. Burwell.
sigh
Trump recently released his health care plan, and it’s basically just another hodgepodge of terrible GOP ideas that would enable up to 60 million people to lose their health insurance.
This one bums me out, because Trump’s seeming heterodoxy on health care so far in the campaign was the one issue that I’d really hoped that he’d back up with policy. That isn’t the case.
National polling for the ACA hits positive territory: 44% support the ACA, 38% oppose.
There have been single positive polls on ACA going back to 2010. The average is still quite negative.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
That stops in May for some reason, but I’ll agree that one poll isn’t conclusive, and it would take several such polls to be truly and conclusively indicative of a significant change in opinion.