121–130 of 1001 posts
What about quality of care tradeoffs? In Canada, for example, you are forced to use the government system, and if it doesn't deem you important enough, there is no private option.
What about quality of care tradeoffs? In Canada, for example, you are forced to use the government system, and if it doesn't deem you important enough, there is no private option.
While I love the idea of never having to think about health care costs for a variety of reasons, I do like that some services are available to anyone with a wallet and not locked behind government controlled gates.
We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…
ACA is not Universal Health Coverage. So this would be different enough. And you don't need perpetual majority control, only sensible politicians for about a generation (like FDR/Truman/Eisenhower/JFK) to lock in a popular entitlement.
We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…
> if your solution requires perpetual majority control I think once universal health coverage is established, it amounts to political suicide to try to take it away again.
We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…
These types of studies, and the goals they aim to support, always frustrate me as solving a surface-level problem rather than root cause. The problem with US healthcare isn't who pays for it, its how damn expensive it is. As always there are multiple factors at play, my list would include corruption, lack of legal accountability/responsibility, and a population that is much less healthy than reasonable. Go after any…
Saving $1,000,000,000,000/yr is directly addressing how damn expensive it is.
This is why it doesn't happen: politicians get bought. "Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation between 2013 and 2021, but in August 2026, he stated he shifted his stance and stated that he no longer supports or co-sponsors the proposal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare
There are many reasons Jeffries might change positions; why do you say the reason was that he was bought? Is there evidence? Many Democratic politicians are moving away from progressive positions, including Ocasio-Cortez. They seem to be following the old (and failed) Democratic Party tactic of moving to the center to get elected.
Look at his health PAC contributions over time:
https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/hakeem-jeffries/us_cong...
We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…
You're not wrong at at least for the forseeable future, single payer does seem untenable politically, but I'd argue that dismissing studies like this on the basis that it needs solved before debating it on its merits is circular, because the only plausible political objection to a policy like this is financial. If you reflexively claim that nothing without broad consensus appeal at a given point in time is worth discussing, you're essentially arguing in favor of freezing our public policy to whatever the current public opinion is today. I don't think you need to go very far back in history to see some pretty striking examples of why that would be undesirable.
The US is far too broken for such a thing to ever come to be. Politicians are bought and paid for, and the impact on the insurance companies and their profits make this impossible. US legislators will never, ever, ever put the needs of the people above the needs of corporations, not as long as corporations can wield their massive wealth as "free speech" in the form of lobbying and political donations. Sounds nice, th…
We can and should expect a lot out of the people around us and especially the ones who choose civil service.
Our grandparents ended slavery, got votes for women, established a merit-based civil service, fought fascism, passed equal rights legislation, and created the most dynamic large economy in history.
We have problems, too, but we are not powerless to fix them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what world is the Republican Party pro entrepreneur/small business enough to make these rhetorical questions meaningful?
When they make campaign promises, they go to small towns and talk about "Main St" businesses. Not sure why anyone believes them at this point (for the reasons you mention), but it is what they campaign on.