Two things. Donnie didn’t write this, hell he can barely read and secondly, this is just more of the same. He is flailing, he can’t govern, he has no plan but BY GOD AND TRUMP he will destroy anything good this country has to offer because HE doesn’t get to profit from it…and he calls us ‘dim’.
4 Likes
Now, now (AP) we both know that 45* didn’t write that, just say ‘the white house’ or ‘staff penned’ or something…
3 Likes
I ken hez sleezeburger
2 Likes
This claim drives me up a freaking wall. Almost every other first-world country (and a lot of second world countries too) provides single-payer, or at least universal, health care to their citizens. We’re the richest country in the world. If they can do it, we can do it.
It’s not that it’s cost-prohibitive; it’s that the GOP prefers to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to rich foreign investors instead of helping American citizens.
And that’s how Democrats should frame it.
5 Likes
John Roberts’ Citizen United Supreme Court decision sold out the USA to the money and not to We The People anymore. The health care companies earn $billions and pay a lot of that to congress to keep any decent health care out of the USA. It’s biz as usual: money is the only consideration in this corrupt country, the wealthiest on planet earth. It’s the same reason our military has lost the arms race and is now 3rd, easily defeated in any conventional war by both Chinese and Russians who have arms far more advanced, at least 2 generations in Russia now, than anything even on the drawing board in the USA.This article describes what we could have in the USA if the Pentagon were not destroying the USA with its greed:
https://popularresistance.org/heres-what-we-could-have-if-we-slashed-the-military-budget/.
Can not be said often enough. If you have the energy, write it to the media outlets of your choice
1 Like
And I am pissed that USA would even publish this screed.
4 Likes
I’m surprised (and also pissed) that they would publish it. USAToday was one of the earlier and more vocal opponents of Combover Caligula’s campaign and presidency- which was doubly unusual given that USAToday generally tries to avoid taking sides in partisan issues.
2 Likes
I favor comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all, especially the expansion of Obamacare to get there, but the “Medicare For All” proposals are thoughtless, if not downright stupid. Unless, of course, you favor eliminating Medicaid and forcing the poorest among us to pay premiums, because that’s what Medicare For All would do. Unless you favor getting rid of CHIP, which makes sure that the poorest children get health care without regard to income. Unless you favor taking away the premium-free health care that veterans get through the VA. Unless you favor eliminating the right of unions to negotiate health insurance plans with employers, thus further weakening the union movement. Unless you favor eliminating all employer paid or subsidized health insurance and increasing taxes on all Americans to cover costs that employers now pay. And unless you favor eliminating the Obamacare premium subsidies that about 90% of Obamacare enrollees get.
Trump is odious and dangerous, but he is politically smart. Moreover, he is right that the Medicare For All proposals will increase Medicare taxes for everyone, and he knows that seniors will respond to his assertions. If Democrats were as enthusiastic about voting as we are about slogans, we’d be in a better place. And so would America. And it would also help if the only snake oil was being pitched by the other side.
1 Like
Time for someone on our side to take the bully pulpit and counter this. Mr. Sanders, your table is ready.
Please don’t feed the trolls…
1 Like
Agreed. The actual government overreach is found in tax policies favoring the filthy rich and facilitating the massive transfer of wealth from the middle and working classes to the upper classes.
1 Like
I’m sure that it has absolutely nothing at all to do with concern trolls who routinely trash Democrats, though, right? Even on stories that have nothing at all to do with Pelosi? Funny how you chose this thread to bash her rather than, oh, I don’t know, pointing out the flaws in Trump’s op-ed.
2 Likes
Back on topic: would it have killed the AP to note that the Republican position is that we should gut Medicare?
6 Likes
Most of Europe doesn’t have single payer health insurance. IIRC, only the UK does among larger countries. France and Germany, which are regularly rated the highest quality, have Obamacare-like systems with public insurers.
2 Likes
I’d be happy to engage with you on the substance. Do you have views on that?
Yes, I do.
There are any number of successful models for single-payer systems around the world. Some are based on insurance models (Switzerland, Germany, France), and others are based on a nationalized health care model (Scandinavian countries, the UK). PPACA took the approach it did because at the time it seemed achievable with some level of bipartisan support.
I used to be of the opinion that PPACA pretty much locked us into an insurance-based model. Now that Donnie the Destroyer and his minions in the Gathering Of Perverts have dismantled the aspects of PPACA that made it work, I’m not so sure.
I was in favor of taking a blank slate approach in 2009. I’d seen enough of our health insurance system from the inside (I did a one-year sabbatical working on Medicaid issues in 2005) that I was pretty sure that putting a band-aid on matters wasn’t going to work in the long-term.Instead, we got a band-aid called PPACA.
Health insurance is tied to employment by accident of history. During World War II wages were frozen. Companies had to compete for workers on the basis of non-cash benefits. Health insurance was one way to compete. It turns out that tying health insurance to employment has some negative consequences: one of them is that it limits employment mobility. As health care costs have risen, this has been exacerbated in ways that the COBRA fixes didn’t fully address. So I don’t see separating health insurance from employment as a necessarily bad thing.
If you asked a dozen candidates what they mean by “Medicare-for-all” I think you’d get at least 18 distinct opinions. “Medicare-for-all” is a slogan, not a proposal. (BTW, the article alludes to this fact.)
When Medicare (and Medicaid) passed in 1963 the thought was that Medicare would expand eligibility downward in age and Medicaid upward and they would meet in the middle somewhere around 18- 22. That didn’t happen. One of the Medicare-for-all proposals I’d find it easy to get behind is a buy-in option for “near seniors” (55- 64). It would help fix some of the structural problems in our system and do it in a way that would strengthen Medicare (if it’s done right).
3 Likes
fake news
Look at abortion, the size of government, Senatorial term limits…
Your Republican elected representatives in Congress haven’t done any of that, because they don’t care about any of that, and you know it. You’re like radical liberals, conservatives… you keep beating your heads against your Party, hoping it will do what the hell you actually want it to do… and these Republican career politicians keep telling you you haven’t given them enough.
Jesus, conservatives, you own the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court, most State legislatures and governorships… and all this has introduced is corruption… huh?
Not to be crass about it, but when do we actually see money?
To hell with the soldiers in the MidEast, eating sand while slowly going insane while getting a boatload of welfare, when do I — mere taxpayer — get mine?
Make Trump pay - taxes
Make Trump pay - taxes
Make Trump pay - taxes
Make Trump pay - taxes
Make Trump pay - taxes
Make Trump pay - taxes
OK, I think we have the makings of a debate now, which is good. You say you favor taking a “blank slate” to health insurance, which means repealing all the current ways that Americans currently get health insurance, including employer based health insurance, union negotiated policies, Medicaid, CHIP, VA health system, and Obamacare. These current systems now cover about 90% of Americans. I disagree with your approach; rather than destroying the system that we have built, I would add on to it, principally by expanding and strengthening Obamacare. I respect your position, but I neither think it is remotely possible politically nor remotely what the American people would stand for once they saw what was being denied them and the additional taxes they would have to pay for your proposed “clean slate.” Moreover, the idea of giving the politicians the authority to decide what is and what is not covered in your “clean slate” almost certainly means women’s health care, including the right to get an abortion, would be in great jeopardy.
I am totally aware of the health insurance history you reference, including the accidental nature of its birth during World War II. I am also very much aware of the systems in the countries that you have noted, but the only system remotely like your preferred “clean slate” is Great Britain. I also agree with you that “Medicare for All “ is a slogan, which means 18 different things to 18 different people. That is precisely why I think we should advocate “Universal health insurance: comprehensive and affordable for all.” Then let’s see the best way, substantively and politically to get there. I think my approach is do-able with a Democratic President and Congress. I don’t see any path to getting a “clean slate” enacted. But I will never demean you for your position.