It means that there’s a standard package of health care benefits which everybody gets, and is paid for through taxes.
It’s generally pretty comprehensive (depending on country), but for cost reasons, it never covers every last possible treatment option. You can generally buy private insurance in single-payer countries to cover the difference between what single-payer covers and what is medically possible.
Ignorance fought?
So very, very different from when a Republican takes office.
Not at all. That’s the problem with our two-party system. But that’s an argument for another thread.
Agree totally. Remember the unified Dem opposition to the 2001 or 2003 Bush tax cuts? How about the Patriot Act, or the Iraq war AUMF? Neither do I.
Similarly with Reagan, who got his big tax cuts without much of a fight either, back when the Dems controlled Congress.
Quinnipiac poll says Obama is the worst President since WWII, and that we would have been better off with Mitt Romney:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/02/who-is-the-worst-president-since-wwii/?hpt=hp_t2
Thirty-three percent of people questioned in the poll say that Obama is the worst president since the Second World War, with 28% saying George W. Bush was the worst. Thirteen percent picked Richard Nixon, with 8% naming Jimmy Carter.
“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
It’s important to note that Obama and Bush, his predecessor in the White House, are more in the public conscious than previous presidents, and that both have governed during a time of bitter partisanship that’s made compromise between the two major political parties extremely difficult. When Quinnipiac last asked the question, in 2006, Bush topped the list, with 34% saying he was the nation’s worst president.
According to the poll, Ronald Reagan (at 35%) tops the list of the best president since WWII, with 18% saying Bill Clinton was best, followed by John F. Kennedy at 15% and Obama at 8%.
You’re late to the party, adaher. We’ve been discussing that poll for a while (and there’s a thread in Elections about it).
Don’t forget the 54 times the House voted to repeal Medicare Part D. That didn’t happen, either.
Sorry, my bad.
Wow. 4 things in the last 35 years. And, it’s all been things that have actually *hurt *Dems. Why do they so slavishly follow what the Republicans want? (this line=sarcasm)
The Democrats do cooperate with Republican Presidents more than vice versa. But this has less to do with the relative morality of the parties than political skill. Why do Republicans oppose everything Obama does? Because there’s no political price to be paid for opposing him. He has no political capital. Reagan, on the other hand, had so much that Democrats feared opposing him except on issues that were most essential to their party’s values. When GWB was riding high they wouldn’t oppose him either. And the Republicans learned how to work with Clinton when he became popular.
Obama’s sycophants like to claim that he’s unpopular because he’s been sabotaged, but that’s putting the cart before the horse. He’s easy to sabotage because he’s unpopular. He put all his political capital into unpopular endeavours, then proceeded to mismanage the government and fail to enforce the law, and furthermore fail to interpret the law correctly(he’s been defeated in SCOTUS 12 times by unanimous vote. I challenge anyone to find such a record of stupidity from a previous President).
If Obama had lived up to his promise, Republicans would have paid a political price for opposing him in 2009 and 2010 and would never have won Congress.
Well, that’s much easier to do when you’ve convinced your base that corporations will be their benevolent protectors and the highest calling of government is to do absolutely nothing.
If only. I think the parties actually reverse in practice. Democrats are far more corporate-friendly since Republicans occasionally have bouts of free-marketism, like opposing the Ex-Im bank and corporate bailouts and subsidies. And Democrats are also more likely to be smart about the role of government, while REpublicans pass big and stupid legislation. Although Obama has tried really hard to go back to the bad old days. I guess he feels he’s restoring the proper order to politics.
It’s very difficult politically to oppose tax cuts.
And it’s also very difficult politically to oppose actions that are seen as militarily necessary, especially in times of crisis.
The notion that Democrats backed these actions (even to the limited extent that they did, in the case of the tax cuts) due to some desire to get along is completely ludicrous.
There is no difference whatsoever between Republicans and Democrats in this regard.
They also opposed him when his popularity was high. You are wrong.
He’s easy to sabotage because that’s how the system works. It’s always easy to sabotage, and hard to get things done.
And his popularity (which, if you go by favorability rating, is pretty close to 50%) is not as high as it once was for a variety of reasons. But it’s not for the reasons you think it is.
What a ridiculous reading of how the events played out. Many of those unanimous rejections by the Supreme Court, some of which were not-so-secretly welcomed by the administration, were simply continuations of executive powers utilized by previous administrations. If he had the powers, he was going to use them, but in many cases, he’s very happy that the SC has ruled that the Executive branch no longer has them.
They did pay a political price for opposing him. Hint – it’s the election year you never seem to mention… the one which sparked you to flee from this message board in fear of the vicious and gleeful mocking for your hilariously pathetic political predictions.
I agree! I saw the H.W. and thought Dubya. Grrrr.