I think you give them too much credit.
They didn’t fail miserably over the past 6 months as part of some master plan. They just fucked up. They don’t know how to govern.
They got elected on empty promises and snake oil.
It’s true that they have a lot of time left, but they’ve also HAD time, and a lot of it, to prepare for the exact situation they’re in. The US electorate gave them all the power they could dream of, and… nothing. ACA repeal was the closest thing they had to a single, truly unifying cause, and they completely squandered the opportunity.
I don’t believe the GOP has plotted out the next 3.5 weeks, much less years.
8 years of only talking about this one thing. Then they got the ability to do it. And literally had no plan at all.
And I think it’s during on them that Trump is literally a treasonous criminal, and they are directly enabling him.
We have spent nearly 50 million dollars already, just paying for his golf. Paid primarily to him, himself.
Trump has actually already earned tens of millions of dollars by funneling money to his businesses. He’s the most successful conman in history already.
To be fair to Rs, none of them thought Trump would win. That doesn’t excuse their lack of an alternative plan to the ACA, but it does indicate they were a bit unprepared.
And it’s not like the R party controls Trump. He’s the dog loose from the leash shitting in the neighbors yard and humping whatever leg is nearby.
Hrr, drr.
“Hey, I just bought the dog, brought it home, house it and feed it regularly. You can’t possibly hold me accountable for its actions! … Why yes, I did know it was rabid when I bought it, what’s that got to do with anything?”
Ha ha. :) Be careful what you buy. You buy the hard-right fringe, the hard-right is going to horse-whip you if they can.
If the party’s best defense is “we were unprepared to win,” that tells me they were never really planning to govern in the first place.
I mean they were getting paid regardless. If you win people expect results. Bitching about the other guy and just saying “No” to everything is a hell of a lot easier and the pay is the same.
BTW, let’s not get too greedy with throwing stones here on the Republicans and that whole last 8 years thing.
I think we’re moving, perhaps glacially, towards single payer. And so if you’re on the leftward side of the spectrum, this is a very good read.
SImple, they do that, Trump supporters will primary them and win.
That’s the single best article on healthcare that I’ve read this year, maybe even in two years. Damn, I must be on the leftward side of the spectrum. It covered pretty much all of the points I’ve tried to make over the last two years.
Probably the most important point is it is a hell of lot easier to control cost than it is to reduce them.
The comment section showed there is a lot of wishful thinking by the left on this.“We just need to have a can-do-attitude about single payer, wrote one person.” Yup, that approach has been a winner for Trump and the Republicans on ACA.
I have to say that I’m going to enjoy quoting the Nation in future discussions.
Fuckin’ libtard.
:) :) :)
Hey! If Strollen’s quoting The Nation, I’m going to muddy the waters by playing at being a cranky conservative!
I’ll happily provide some pointers. But you really need to talk to my Brother-In-law he is an absolute pro.
It is good (Thanks @triggercut) . A few quotes that jumped out at me:
Under the current Medicare-for-All proposals, we would be forcing over 70 percent of the adult population—including tens of millions of people who have decent coverage from their employer or their union, or the Veteran’s Administration, or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program—to give up their current insurance for Medicare. Many employer-provided policies cover more than Medicare does, so a lot of people would objectively lose out in the deal.
Bringing costs down is a lot harder than starting low and keeping them from getting high,” says Baker. “We do waste money on [private] insurance, but we also pay basically twice as much for everything. We pay twice as much to doctors. Would single-payer get our doctors to accept half as much in wages? It could, but they won’t go there without a fight. This is a very powerful group. We have 900,000 doctors, all of whom are in the top 2 percent, and many are in the top 1 percent. We pay about twice as much for prescription drugs as other countries. Medical equipment, the whole list. You could get those costs down, but that’s not done magically by saying we’re switching to single payer. You’re going to have fights with all of these powerful interest groups.”
Yes, that was a very good Nation article. It’s why although I support single payer, I am also open to a variety of more phased in options as well as well designed Swiss Model “multi-payer” plans.
There is definitely a surge in interest in single payer on the left but I think that’s b/c single payer has become synomous with “universal coverage” and “reduced deductibles and copays” in the minds of many. Single payer is just one method to provide universal coverage and it is just one method to reduce copays and deductibles. It is also just one method to reform health care pricing.
IMO the liberal goal should “affordable, good quality, universal coverage” and the means by which we reach that goal should be flexible.
Also, as that article points out, very few countries have true “single payer” systems, many are a mix of single payer and multi-payer, a Swiss Model with a strong public option. The real keys are universal coverage, appropriate subsidies to make care affordable, and pricing reform to prevent the inelasticity of health care demand continue to drive up prices in an unsustainable fashion. There are a number of ways to do that.
If I was to do something like this- I’d prefer a buy-in Medicaid model, you give a certain percentage of your income, you get Medicaid. If that’s a good deal for you, great- you win. If it’s not, you can get private insurance.