With the mandated health exchanges, either set up by states or imposed by the federal government, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act paves the way for states to adopt single payer systems. It's happening now in Vermont, and with Gov. Cuomo in New York signing an executive order to implement it, New York will likely be the first large state to implement single payer health care in the US.
It's a huge reason why the GOP was fighting it.
Red: They took a massive political hit to be sure, but already won a concession for the next large scale attempt to fracture the country, Immigration.
When you have 45 percent of the population locked up before you start a campaign, the political hit they took is meagre at best. Abortion, (no)Gun Control, Climate Change and Immigration are still out there to pander to for the base.
the same idiots that want to call it socialist and unamerican are probably huge NFL fans.
I really don't understand how the less fortunate in the US keep on voting for policies that negatively impact their day to day lives. Another symptom of the 'Murika syndrome, it's the same type of guys that nearly ran me off the road the other day in Massachusetts in their huge F-350 flying double Confederate flags.
The original reformed healthcare proposal put forward by Obama was a single payer type of program. There was so much outrage from the right and so much noise and bluster that their anger towards the plan ended up getting a lot of airtime. They said that freedoms were being taken away and that Obama was a communist, socialist and hilariously, also a fascist. The "white-noise" was repeated at face value by the US media, which, at that point had become so sensitive to the constant lies spewed by the Republicans that the MSM was left leaning, that they didn't dare challenge Republicans on the actual facts for fear of being labelled Democratic sympathizers. As the media repeated the lies a larger and larger portion of the public started to believe it. This pushed Obama to move to a more watered-down version of affordable healthcare. The ACA, was, about the 3rd proposal put forward by his administration. It was originally a Republican proposal so Obama thought he'd get some support from the right. He was wrong. The Republicans are not interested in doing what is best for their country or it's citizens. Their primary concern is power and all the goodies that comes with it. Of course, by that time the message that Obama was a communist-fascist-muslim was already a regular rallying cry of the poor, rich white man in America. The result is that the Tea Party rose to prominence during the 2010 elections. And now that same group that was elected on a platforms of lies, deceipt, hatred and selfishness is on the brink of collapsing the world economy.
But now the narrative is "well, if Obama had only put in a single-payer system I would support him and everything would be peachy..." Yeah, sure, whatever.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I really don't understand how the less fortunate in the US keep on voting for policies that negatively impact their day to day lives. Another symptom of the 'Murika syndrome, it's the same type of guys that nearly ran me off the road the other day in Massachusetts in their huge F-350 flying double Confederate flags.
Well , if you look at the numbers, the States that are predominantly republican and against social programs are the biggest leaches when it comes to taking federal money.
They're just not bright enough to realize it.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
Last edited by DuffMan; 10-16-2013 at 07:10 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
I really don't understand how the less fortunate in the US keep on voting for policies that negatively impact their day to day lives. Another symptom of the 'Murika syndrome, it's the same type of guys that nearly ran me off the road the other day in Massachusetts in their huge F-350 flying double Confederate flags.
They vote with their Bibles and their dreams when they vote Republican. The Bible is obvious, and the dreams are some faint glimmer of hope/delusions that one day they'll make it big and they don't want to pay taxes. If I was a big money backer of the Republican tickets, I would think that it was hilarious that so many poor white folks vote for a party that is obviously so contrary to their best interests.
Also, confederate flags in Massachusetts ... that's hilarious. It reminds me of the time I saw someone with a Confederate flag in their front yard in a Philadelphia suburb.
Somewhat paradoxically, as wealth disparity in the US increases, the more emotional attachment to preserving the remaining services become. The less wealth individuals have and the less agency they have to change their circumstances, the more selfish, insolent and combative they will become towards (potentially misguided) self preservation.
Much of this outrage from base republicans that isn't fueled by religion is fueled by a keen realization of diminishing agency in people's lives.
The manipulation comes in the form of blaming externalities for this decline in agency; Mexican Immigrants, Bloated Government, Wasteful Politicians, Overpaid Government Sector Employees, Food Stamps, Health Care, Prescription Drugs and the like. They view their diminishing wages and services as a result of these factors, and not of a streamlined appropriation of their wealth by the upper class. The upper class, in control of the megaphone, in turn further belabors the point that it is these externalities which are reducing their agency, creating new means of appropriating this public wealth. Examples are the Private Prison industry, border security contractors, the Financial sector.
Wal-Mart is probably the greatest, most apt allegory for this. By crushing unions and keeping wages below poverty levels, they create a market for their low cost goods. By squeezing manufacturers into lower, sometimes prohibitively low supply pricing, their profitability increases their scope, further reducing wages, increasing the need to supply underpaid employees with cheaper, affordable goods that can be purchased on their unnecessarily low wages. Unable to afford more costly product at retailers offering higher wages, they shop at Walmart and the higher wage retailers begin to suffer, widening the cycle.
Does the megaphone report that the Walton family has more wealth than than the combined wealth of the bottom 50 MILLION Americans? Of course not. Those 50 MILLION Americans aren't in control of the megaphone. Wealth inequality in the US is the worst in the industrialized world and mimics China in terms of the absurd gap maintained with politics. It's outpaced the robber baron period of the early 20th century, a time regarded as (darkly) comically absurd in it's scope and scale.
Incidentally, this is also happening here in Canada with facile appeals 'to the economy' in regards to reasons why progressive wealth management policies shouldn't be adopted. Stadiums for billionaire sports team owners, massive automobile-centric infrastructure projects and dependence on land development as an economic crutch.
In the 1950s, the largest private employer in the United States was General Motors, who paid an AVERAGE wage of $50 an hour, adjusted for inflation. Today, Walmart is America's largest employer, 4 times the size of it's next closest competitor, and has an average wage of less than 9 dollars an hour.
Let that sink in.
Poor Americans, the vast majority of the country and a disproportionately large percentage of the Republican base, are scared and are turning to whatever it is that makes them feel better about their plight. That's why they vote this way.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
So I have a question and wondering if someone can answer it. Is this raising the debt ceiling thing gonna be a continuous issue? Has it always been there but is just getting more press now? I just find the whole thing strange. Never heard of a "debt ceiling" in Canada.
The idea of a debt ceiling really is ridiculous. If you agree to the spending in the first place, borrowing the money to pay the bills when due should be implicit.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
So I have a question and wondering if someone can answer it. Is this raising the debt ceiling thing gonna be a continuous issue? Has it always been there but is just getting more press now? I just find the whole thing strange. Never heard of a "debt ceiling" in Canada.
It's essentially a non-issue exploited and misrepresented by members of the government and media to appears as if it's a substantive issue affecting the day to day lives of Americans and their children.
For example, Ronald Reagan is the far away leader in amount of times the debt ceiling has been raised, 16.
There is even an argument that a debt ceiling in and of itself is unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
ACA see's a lot of heat because of numerous reasons.
1. "you have to pass it to read it" from pelosi, that we couldn't see what was in the bill because the democrats shoved it down our throats.
2. Democrats didn't even unitedly want it, they had to bribe a few senators to get it to pass
3. those who thought it was "free" are now realizing that it isn't and are pissed. I know my housekeepers are freaking out about it. I don't make much being the AGM (lower end of middle class) and I wouldn't qualify.
True story, last week I was getting my haircut and the manager was passing around all the stuff about the ACA. Apparently in the back room one girl didn't like what she read and was screaming "that m'fer lied to us, what do you mean it isn't free?!?!?!"
People were under the impression that it was free and it isn't. They are taking the wrong approach to try and lower health costs. Instead of forcing those who cant afford insurance but dont qualify for it pay a fine, go after the hospitals for the $250 tylenol's.
Why do you think a single payer system "can and it will pass"? The rest of your post goes off onto a tangent critical of the ACA, but you don't explain how that translates into sufficient support for a national single payer system.
Just because someone is opposed to the ACA doesn't mean they are for single payer...
The Following User Says Thank You to NuclearPizzaMan For This Useful Post:
So I have a question and wondering if someone can answer it. Is this raising the debt ceiling thing gonna be a continuous issue? Has it always been there but is just getting more press now? I just find the whole thing strange. Never heard of a "debt ceiling" in Canada.
Well there is a stick man video a page or two back you could look at, however it has some serious errors.
This one describes the whole process of money creation, debt/limits, etc.
Oh, and a very up to date graph on the deb/debt limit/gold price. Funny how the take down in January happens just when the Germans want some of their gold back....
I haven't read all this thread, but can someone just confirm a point? I thought that the bill passed included a clause that they'll no longer have to approve debt ceiling increases, but instead they would have to vote to block the increases. Any truth to that? It would make things a lot easier down the road!
I haven't read all this thread, but can someone just confirm a point? I thought that the bill passed included a clause that they'll no longer have to approve debt ceiling increases, but instead they would have to vote to block the increases. Any truth to that? It would make things a lot easier down the road!
That's what a bunch of sites I'm reading are saying, that Congress can vote to deny the increase, but the President can veto that vote.
But when they say "the" increase do they mean just this one, or ANY one...
Quote:
The legislation also includes a McConnell-written proposal that would allow Congress to disapprove of the debt-ceiling increase. Lawmakers will formally vote on rejecting the bump of the borrowing limit - if it passed, it could be vetoed by Obama.
That's what a bunch of sites I'm reading are saying, that Congress can vote to deny the increase, but the President can veto that vote.
But when they say "the" increase do they mean just this one, or ANY one...
I don't know, but that's huge. It means that the US credit rating ought to be back to AAA, and we don't have to deal with this stupidity next time, or maybe again depending on the wording.
I don't know, but that's huge. It means that the US credit rating ought to be back to AAA, and we don't have to deal with this stupidity next time, or maybe again depending on the wording.
Or it means they can shut down the government next time, and complain about the debt limit, without having to actually be responsible for the debt limit, and keep the government shut down. The debt limit was like a nuclear option with lots of pressure not to use, so that worked against the Republicans, next time they won't have that pressure?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I can't believe they could concede that in negotiations, but it would be an incredibly victory if true.
I read somewhere (not sure if true) that part of the "win", the requirement to verify income for the ACA, is already part of the ACA. Hilarious if true.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
