Stephen Hawking, Outspoken Progressive
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
good. i don't want them to support an incomplete, shitty bill like bernie lazily penned
we're gonna get a decent shot at this soon enough, we had better make it count.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
John Conyers has penned the bill since 2003, uninformed voter. HR 676 is a House Resolution...
96 House Democrats don't support universal coverage, but that's the Republicans fault..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sounds like establishment bullshit to me thenJohn Conyers has penned the bill since 2003, uninformed voter. HR 676 is a House Resolution...
96 House Democrats don't support universal coverage, but that's the Republicans fault..
give me some of that fresh new healthcare, not the shit that was drawn up when i still had a flip phone from cricket when rollover minutes were all the rage
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why blame Democrats for not supporting universal healthcare when 96 of them don't support universal healthcare?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i wouldn't support some bill that was written back during the theatrical release of finding nemo either
ever gonna make your way back to the jordan peterson thread to defend why women are hypocrites for wearing make up and expecting not to be sexually harassed?
or we can talk about how your hero cult leader believes in the anti-semitic conspiracy theory known as "cultural marxism", a sweetheart of an idea among neo-nazis, which posits that jews are agitating black people, feminists, homosexuals, muslims, and immigrants into destroying western civilization.
that promises to be fun
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What's wrong with the bill? Nothing much if you aren't the 80 million people who like the healthcare plan that they are already enrolled in.
Do you want to have another 6 more years of Republicans running this country? Force all Democratic prospects who are running for office to endorse this bill. Their Republican opponents will then tell the people in their districts that the healthcare plan that they are enrolled in and like will be forcibly taken away from them by "democrats" if their Democratic rival gets into office.
HR676 won't get to the floor or enjoy a healthy honest debate in today's congress. There can be no debate until Democrats are in charge.
I think the time is ripe for Congress to have a healthy debate on the subject. Maybe then, the electorate will have the chance to think about the issue and hear the issues debated from both sides. I support this bill and so do two of my three congressional representatives. I respect the reasons given by the third representative regarding why he can't. This is why we need to have a debate on this issue and strive to meet everybody's needs. There will be no medicare for all plan enacted until the 80 million people who are happy with the plan they currently have are convinced that this change will be good for them. It's going to take a lot more talking and educating the public before that can happen.
That fucking poster is a obstacle to discussion, not a help.
For a reasonable discussion regarding why some congressmen can't get behind this bill, here is an interview from Tim Kain that presents his issues with the bill.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tim-kaine-ive-got-some-concerns-about-single-payer-healthcare
The main issue is that 100 million people who receive healthcare through their employer or through private insurance would be forced into the medicare system. Those people deserve more than a fucking poster to explain why and what it means to them.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It's obvious you opposed the bill because you believed Sanders introduced it.. Even though he's a US Senator, not because of the actual contents of the bill. (Even though you claim to support universal coverage)
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why anyone else opposed that piece of shit, but I oppose it because it would create a thousand Martin Shkreli clones.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
may he RIP (rot in prison)
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Finally, a universal healthcare proposal that would work for everyone
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-medicare-extra-20180227-story.html
Medicare buy-in won't happen under this congress either. It does much to address the main problem with Sanders unfunded and idiotic, draconian measure that would immediately and forcibly remove 80 million people from health care plans that they like. Simply put, Sanders plan is a non-starter. So, here is something better, if not perfect and can be improved upon.
Some text:
It's not quite "Medicare for All," to cite the mantra used by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others who want a near instantaneous, wholesale transformation of the American health coverage system into a public service. Instead, it would preserve privately financed employer coverage for as long as employers want to stay in.
But within a few years it would become "Medicare for Most," as healthcare commentator Andrew Sprung observes. That's because newborns and those turning 65 would automatically be enrolled, along with everyone buying insurance in the individual market and all uninsured people, including legally resident noncitizens. Eventually, Medicaid and CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, would be folded in.
Extra would provide free preventive care, free treatment for chronic disease and free generic drugs, as well as services deemed essential by the Affordable Care Act such as hospitalization, prescriptions, maternity care and mental health and substance abuse treatment. It also would cover dental, vision and hearing services. Enrollees could choose from any doctor or hospital participating in Medicare, which is most of them.
Premiums and co-pays would be charged on a sliding scale. For households with income up to 150% of the federal poverty line — $18,210 for individuals and $37,650 for a family of four — there would be no premium or deductive. From there to 500% of the poverty level — $60,700 for one, $125,500 for four — premiums would be capped in a range rising with income, but no higher than 10% of income. Over 500%, the 10% premium cap would apply.
I regret that this can't all fit on a poster. But then again, my post was to inform and not inflame.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-medicare-extra-20180227-story.html
Medicare buy-in won't happen under this congress either. It does much to address the main problem with Sanders unfunded and idiotic, draconian measure that would immediately and forcibly remove 80 million people from health care plans that they like. Simply put, Sanders plan is a non-starter. So, here is something better, if not perfect and can be improved upon.
Some text:
It's not quite "Medicare for All," to cite the mantra used by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others who want a near instantaneous, wholesale transformation of the American health coverage system into a public service. Instead, it would preserve privately financed employer coverage for as long as employers want to stay in.
But within a few years it would become "Medicare for Most," as healthcare commentator Andrew Sprung observes. That's because newborns and those turning 65 would automatically be enrolled, along with everyone buying insurance in the individual market and all uninsured people, including legally resident noncitizens. Eventually, Medicaid and CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, would be folded in.
Extra would provide free preventive care, free treatment for chronic disease and free generic drugs, as well as services deemed essential by the Affordable Care Act such as hospitalization, prescriptions, maternity care and mental health and substance abuse treatment. It also would cover dental, vision and hearing services. Enrollees could choose from any doctor or hospital participating in Medicare, which is most of them.
Premiums and co-pays would be charged on a sliding scale. For households with income up to 150% of the federal poverty line — $18,210 for individuals and $37,650 for a family of four — there would be no premium or deductive. From there to 500% of the poverty level — $60,700 for one, $125,500 for four — premiums would be capped in a range rising with income, but no higher than 10% of income. Over 500%, the 10% premium cap would apply.
I regret that this can't all fit on a poster. But then again, my post was to inform and not inflame.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It's not JUST those pesky Republicans.
If you think it's that simple, it's no wonder you have so much trouble with politics.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You oppose universal healthcare
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How many Democrats support Pompeo and war criminal Haspel? 2 top government positions. Howbout Bolton?
Establishment Democrats are just as complicit as Republicans
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Stands to reason when they're funded by the same big money donors.
They're for damned sure not representing the rest of us.