Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   If the GOP rush to get ACB on the court to kill Obamacare, they will only usher in a Democratic Majority that will pass Medicare for All in record time. Much like their Confederate heroes they will win the battle but lose the war   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, President of the United States, Immune system, President Trump, Republican Party, Bill Clinton, White House, Facebook video, Michael Caputo  
•       •       •

1069 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2020 at 9:54 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-28 10:26:43 AM  
Remember everyone, there is no clause in the constitution that says SCOTUS judges get grandfathered into their seat until they resign or die if the size of the court is reduced.

On Jan 20, the Democrats just have to present a bill to the newly sworn in President that reduces the size of the Supreme court to 6, or 5 or even just one judge.  Make it tied to seniority - newest judges are off first.  I think size of 2 is about right.  Make Breyer the chief.  So sorry Roberts, you're fired.

Then on the 21st of January another bill shows up - this time expanding the court to 13 justices, and all 11 "new ones" are "pre-approved".  Just load 'em up there Joe.  Those justices that the Democrats wanted to keep, well they just get re-appointed again.

I so want to see that happen.  The tears... oh boy the tears.

BTW, this only requires a bare majority in each chamber to pass.  No super-majority required.  And yes, the wheezing corpse of the Filibuster will finally be declared dead next year.
 
2020-09-28 10:27:01 AM  

bainsguy: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

well your fatalism is, as always, noted and ignored.


It's like somebody wrote a Blake's 7 chat bot for Vila, and then forgot to make it witty.
 
2020-09-28 10:27:18 AM  

NuclearPenguins: Sophont: NuclearPenguins: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

bluejeansonfire: Democrats are on record rejecting making Medicare For All part of their platform. Biden is on record saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk.

Let's not rewrite shiatty history just because people are getting adrenaline highs over SCOTUS.

TonySoprano: The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.

I see that team stupid is here in force this morning.

Can't defend your party's opposition to M4A, so you pretend criticism is illegitimate.

See this:

Hector_Lemans: How about we kick Trump out this November first. Then we'll talk about other stuff.


See this:

Sophont: Can't defend your party's opposition to M4A, so you pretend criticism is illegitimate.

 
2020-09-28 10:29:30 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:30:28 AM  

mdemon81: You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.


ABC fixed that for you (yes, I'm CDO)
 
2020-09-28 10:30:29 AM  
If you think that the corporate wing of the DNC will ever allow Medicare for All to get out of committee then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2020-09-28 10:30:49 AM  
Conservatives have lost every important battle in American history - but they will still persist, and keep murdering and oppressing their fellow Americans, in their futile pursuit of a past that never existed.
And they will lose again - but do lot's of damage in the process.
I think that's what they are in it for - they know they can't win, but they can inflict pain.
 
2020-09-28 10:34:45 AM  

GardenWeasel: ...
g.fro: Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

When said government was illegitimately put in place by a foreign power, yes.


And then you just change the rules back when the other party wins?

I would think this whole experience would have taught people that anything you do to the other guy, he can do to you, and anything you can stop him from doing, he can stop you from doing.
 
2020-09-28 10:35:37 AM  
I respect her deeply held religious beliefs.  So on that note, if she wasn't a virgin when she got married, we must kill her.  For Jesus.
 
2020-09-28 10:38:34 AM  

MadHatter500: Remember everyone, there is no clause in the constitution that says SCOTUS judges get grandfathered into their seat until they resign or die if the size of the court is reduced.

...


Yes, there is.

Article III, section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
 
2020-09-28 10:40:14 AM  

A Cave Geek: "Win the battle, lose the war.
Choice of evils lie before your feet!
Retreat!  Retreat!  Retreat!"

"If you win, then you will lose"
"Retreat!  Retreat! Retreat!"


A horse, a horse, My Kingdom for a horse
 
2020-09-28 10:40:58 AM  

mdemon81: You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.


To be fair, I think ACB earned her moniker by going after ACA.
 
2020-09-28 10:44:46 AM  

indy_kid: Busta Clown Shoes: Umm, them appointing a new SC justice is the war. That shiat lasts for much longer, like a generation.  The house/senate is the short term battle in this case.

This site is delusional sometimes.

Appointing Barrett is just another battle.  If Dems sweep in November, Biden can add 2 or 4 new justices to flip it back to progressive.

/Make it 21 justices
//Appoint 12 young, black women to SCOTUS
///Watch MAGAt heads explode


Democrats will not get rid of the filibuster nor add justices to the supreme court.  Unlike republicans, democrats are giant pussies.

They'll pretend to try and pass stuff, it'll all get blocked via filibuster, and then they'll throw up their hands going 'well, we tried!'
 
2020-09-28 10:45:34 AM  

Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.


It was rewritten to prevent it from being used on Supreme Court nominees, but it certainly does apply to (most) legislation.

Imagine the crap that would have passed between early 2017 and early 2019, when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress (but not a filibuster proof majority) and the Presidency.  Instead, they passed nothing of significance, other than the tax bill (which was written in a way it couldn't be filibustered under the rules).

So that's the dilemma-Do you make it so good stuff doesn't pass now to prevent horrible stuff from not passing some time in the future, or do you take the gamble that the type of full Republican controls as in 2017/18 never happens again (or not care about such now)?
 
2020-09-28 10:48:08 AM  

LurkLongAndProsper: So, maybe Biden wins the white house, democrats keep the house... That probably means the GOP will hold the senate for whatever reason.



I'm not following you here.

But as we know, the only way this gets fixed is if the dems take the senate.
 
2020-09-28 10:49:10 AM  

g.fro: GardenWeasel: ...
g.fro: Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

When said government was illegitimately put in place by a foreign power, yes.

And then you just change the rules back when the other party wins?

I would think this whole experience would have taught people that anything you do to the other guy, he can do to you, and anything you can stop him from doing, he can stop you from doing.


Dems just want to govern. The GOP is consumed with spite, revenge, and retribution. Governing is not their concern. I don't know how to fix the rules to allow the former and not the latter.
 
2020-09-28 10:51:45 AM  

g.fro: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.

Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?


Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.
 
2020-09-28 10:51:45 AM  

FlashHarry: LurkLongAndProsper: So, maybe Biden wins the white house, democrats keep the house... That probably means the GOP will hold the senate for whatever reason.


I'm not following you here.


BSAB voters who think "gridlock" is a good thing and split their vote.
 
2020-09-28 10:53:32 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: ...

Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.


My party?

Quite the assumption there.
 
2020-09-28 10:56:56 AM  

GardenWeasel: FlashHarry: LurkLongAndProsper: So, maybe Biden wins the white house, democrats keep the house... That probably means the GOP will hold the senate for whatever reason.


I'm not following you here.

BSAB voters who think "gridlock" is a good thing and split their vote.


tse3.mm.bing.netView Full Size


I'm Joe and I can hold a gun. I've got your back.
 
2020-09-28 11:00:23 AM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


No, that thing that works out great in Germany could never work here because reasons.  Only the one true SandersPlan can provide health care, all those other countries that do it well without single payer are Fake News.
 
2020-09-28 11:02:15 AM  
Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.
 
2020-09-28 11:04:13 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: g.fro: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.

Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.


You funnied this.  Neat.  It's cool, I expected as much from you.

Anyway, you weren't actually interested in anyone's answer, and I understand that, believe me, because I don't actually care what you think either. But that's why I don't think your party should be allowed to carry out its agenda, and why I have come to want to see everything that you love bulldozed. Because your policies cause actual damage to other human beings, and not only do you understand that, you actively delight in it.
 
2020-09-28 11:05:30 AM  
If an extremist rightwing super-majority Supreme Court can strike down ObamaCare for [reasons], then they can find [reasons] to strike down ANY national healthcare plan enacted by Democrats.

And they're coming for Social Security and Medicare too.
 
2020-09-28 11:08:05 AM  

qorkfiend: Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.


Assumption: the SCOTUS upholds Medicare, period.
 
2020-09-28 11:08:42 AM  

MadHatter500: Remember everyone, there is no clause in the constitution that says SCOTUS judges get grandfathered into their seat until they resign or die if the size of the court is reduced.

On Jan 20, the Democrats just have to present a bill to the newly sworn in President that reduces the size of the Supreme court to 6, or 5 or even just one judge.  Make it tied to seniority - newest judges are off first.  I think size of 2 is about right.  Make Breyer the chief.  So sorry Roberts, you're fired.

Then on the 21st of January another bill shows up - this time expanding the court to 13 justices, and all 11 "new ones" are "pre-approved".  Just load 'em up there Joe.  Those justices that the Democrats wanted to keep, well they just get re-appointed again.

I so want to see that happen.  The tears... oh boy the tears.

BTW, this only requires a bare majority in each chamber to pass.  No super-majority required.  And yes, the wheezing corpse of the Filibuster will finally be declared dead next year.


Not going to happen. Biden isn't a French Revolution" type guy. It may be what the country needs, but it will never be signed by Biden.
 
2020-09-28 11:10:25 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: qorkfiend: Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.

Assumption: the SCOTUS upholds Medicare, period.


Indoor plumbing isn't in the Constitution. We're in for a world of sh*t.
 
2020-09-28 11:12:10 AM  

American Decency Association: only fools ignore the pendulum of time

[Fark user image image 381x263]


vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 11:13:28 AM  

GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.


They ate Mercury here and there as well.
 
2020-09-28 11:17:02 AM  
We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.
 
2020-09-28 11:20:32 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: qorkfiend: Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.

Assumption: the SCOTUS upholds Medicare, period.


Oh, that'll be fine. Republicans love their seniors.

It might be bankrupt, but the law will be intact.
 
2020-09-28 11:24:17 AM  
 
2020-09-28 11:30:29 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: g.fro: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.

Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.

You funnied this.  Neat.  It's cool, I expected as much from you.

Anyway, you weren't actually interested in anyone's answer, and I understand that, believe me, because I don't actually care what you think either. But that's why I don't think your party should be allowed to carry out its agenda, and why I have come to want to see everything that you love bulldozed. Because your policies cause actual damage to other human beings, and not only do you understand that, you actively delight in it.


Wow, you're just full of assumptions today. You assume I'm a Republican, you assume who funnied your post, you assume the reason they funnied your post, and you assume what kind of policies I support and my motivation.

Any other baseless assumptions you want to make?
 
2020-09-28 11:33:24 AM  

shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.


There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.
 
2020-09-28 11:41:08 AM  
It occurs to me that with a little more intelligence and a little less ego, McConnell could have gotten everything he wanted while eliminating any meaningful Democratic retaliation.

If he had given Garland an up-or-down vote and the GOP had voted him down, the Dems would have screamed bloody murder but would have little actual recourse because the process would have been legitimate.  McConnell would still have gotten *, Ragebro and Serena Joy on the Court, but Dems would have no moral authority to pack the Court in the future.

McConnell can't do that though.  It's not enough for him to win, he has to rub his opponent's noses in it.  Specifically, he needed to send a message to the first black President that "You're dogshiat and I'm going to deny you even the most basic dignities of the office".  In order to do that though, he had to come up with some justification, the half-assed "Biden Rule".  But then he had to come up with a new justification for each of the following GOP appointments.  Now vulnerable GOP Senators are twisting themselves into knots trying to reconcile all of their past justifications, the Dems have a casus belli not just for reforming the Court but for neutering the Senate Majority Leader, and they have popular support to do it.

Of course, being Democrats, they'll falter.  Protecting a horrible status quo is always preferable than fighting a noble fight.
 
2020-09-28 11:44:39 AM  

GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.


Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.
 
2020-09-28 11:46:07 AM  

BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.


Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.
 
2020-09-28 11:50:09 AM  

BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.


True, every time the Democrats do something good, they get politically punished for it. Therein lies the problem with our country. The Civil Rights Act cost them. The ACA cost them. Passing anything that would be good for this country costs them instead of lifting them up.
 
2020-09-28 11:52:17 AM  
Translation: We're losing, but we can still dream. Democrats have been going on like this for decades.
 
2020-09-28 11:56:21 AM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


Just a reminder that Medicare and Medicaid do different things.
 
2020-09-28 11:56:33 AM  

madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.


They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.
 
2020-09-28 11:57:03 AM  

GardenWeasel: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.


Stop being a despair troll.
 
2020-09-28 12:00:23 PM  

shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.


One of the failures of every time Dems have both houses and the presidency.  Force the Republicans to say no and remove it when they have control
 
2020-09-28 12:02:04 PM  

GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 12:05:02 PM  

madgonad: Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.


Assuming the filibuster continues to exist, it would be as hard to repeal as it would be to pass.
 
2020-09-28 12:07:17 PM  

madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.


The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.
 
2020-09-28 12:09:54 PM  

shut_it_down: The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet.


Because Roberts cared more about his legacy and didn't want to do massive change with a 5-4 majority.  Just watch and see how much restraint they have when they have 6-3 and his legacy isnt on the line.
 
2020-09-28 12:09:57 PM  

shut_it_down: madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.


It also goes to show that if you're going to sacrifice your career to do something decent, why not do something great like Medicare For All instead of half-assing it like the ACA or public option?
 
2020-09-28 12:10:07 PM  

Podna: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

[Fark user image image 420x417]


It turns out that the Trump campaign had data on millions of black voters and tried to deter them from voting in 2016. Isn't that interesting?
 
MFK
2020-09-28 12:13:52 PM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


this would be the cleanest, most efficient way of getting to M4A. If given the choice between a not-for-profit plan that covers everything and is cheaper vs a private plan that's more expensive and has deductibles while siphoning off billions for executives, people aren't going to stay on the private plans very long. I'd guess a 10 year transition barring any political interference tops. Medicare isn't the greatest program anyway and everyone on it needs supplemental private insurance anyway because it's limited in what is covered.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.