Muppet, the opposition are people too. Don't insult them.
It doesn't have to be very regressive. We can subsidize the lower end at least to the point where that tax doesn't become a large part of people's annual budget.
That just seems painfully stupid. I mean how do you spin that to Joe butfuck "hey guy we aren't going to give you and your hoarde of kids affoardable health care so good luck with that, but don't worry 'murica is still strong". Its more worrying that people who do not benifit from this, ie pooer republicans/tea party/mad people, would vote for this with out realising the consiquences of their actions.
To get more nitty gritty about it; political parties get their cool citizen manipulation tactics informed by research based think tanks, who give out guide books on phraseology and rhetoric. Here's a Heartland Institute (independent conservative think tank) report on ACA if you're really that interested in how politicians sway public opinion: http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/28485.pdf
Republican politicians/their assistants read these reports and develop talking points and rhetorical tactics and whatnot to convince people it's bad for them. It really helps that they can easily maintain voter loyalty by focusing on moral/religious issues, getting someone to believe an un-equal free market solution to health care makes sense is probably fairly easy after that.
Essentially there's millions/billions spent on researching what Americans care about and what will influence their voting, and how you can rhetorically merge this w/ whatever end you wish to accomplish.
Anyway, the ACA was likely the best we were going to get.
Ah yes, the good ol' "this is the best we'll get" argument. Backed by so many intellectuals before, such as the rousing speech by Winston Churchill when he said " we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, but they can keep the hills because that's a reasonable compromise," or the great Thomas Paine quote "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, so fuck it let's settle for constitutional monarchy," though my favorite musing on the "this is the best we'll get" philosophy was when Timothy Leary said "turn on, tune in, give up."
Yo Steve, you're forgetting that a huge portion of the cost-saving from the law will be that universal insurance will mean that hospitals no longer need to eat the costs of treating the uninsured, which should hopefully lead to greater standardization of the (currently, essentially random) costs of treatment, which makes everyone's insurance more effective! Also, it makes preventative treatment more practical, so lifetime costs go down, meaning everyone's premiums go down.
Muppet, the opposition are people too. Don't insult them.
They're brainwashed ignoramouses, and that's a statement of fact. I'm not dehumanizing them, but I am being realistic about what we're up against. It's complete nonsense to say that in the course of representing reality, insults are verboten. If the shoe fits, it fits. Ignoring that it fits is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.
Muppet, the opposition are people too. Don't insult them.
They're brainwashed ignoramouses, and that's a statement of fact. I'm not dehumanizing them, but I am being realistic about what we're up against. It's complete nonsense to say that in the course of representing reality, insults are verboten. If the shoe fits, it fits. Ignoring that it fits is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.
Anyway, the ACA was likely the best we were going to get.
Ah yes, the good ol' "this is the best we'll get" argument. Backed by so many intellectuals before, such as the rousing speech by Winston Churchill when he said " we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, but they can keep the hills because that's a reasonable compromise," or the great Thomas Paine quote "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, so fuck it let's settle for constitutional monarchy," though my favorite musing on the "this is the best we'll get" philosophy was when Timothy Leary said "turn on, tune in, give up."
It's the best we were going to pass in the current political climate. There's a lot of stuff in the ACA that, properly handled, could easily pave the way for single payor, but it depends on a lot of variables.
The realistic alternative at the time was no healthcare reform of consequence at all, which would have been much worse.
It's not about apologizing for the ACA or settling for a flawed bill, it's about representing reality. This is what we can do today. Tomorrow let's work on pushing it further. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and so on.
Muppet, the opposition are people too. Don't insult them.
They're brainwashed ignoramouses, and that's a statement of fact. I'm not dehumanizing them, but I am being realistic about what we're up against. It's complete nonsense to say that in the course of representing reality, insults are verboten. If the shoe fits, it fits. Ignoring that it fits is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.
Fuck you, you conceited, condescending twat.
Fuck yourself. If it's out of bounds to call ignorance what it is, then you're doomed to a dead end, Orwellian discourse. You're being absolutely ridiculous.
It's OK to call all US politicians (or at least all GOP politicans) idiotic assholes, as you did above, but you take some sort of exception with similar descriptors for victims of rhetoric and propaganda? That doesn't make any sense, dude.
Muppet, the opposition are people too. Don't insult them.
If "opposition" is other citizens then I agree, but if you mean GOP politicians and wealthy, govt manipulating individuals/corporate citizens are people, then ahaha no way.
While it should not be a reason not to go to single payer it is a huge issue that needs an answer. Not just the workers but also all of the institutions that have investments in the industry (institutions like pension funds?)
Given how absolutely and unapologetically corrupt our financial sector is (for fuck's sake, we have banks that launder money for drug cartels and go unpunished)... I'm not sure it would be a great loss. It would be a NOISY loss and require some lip service, but no great loss.
The jobs are a harder problem. I'm not sure what the fix would be. But it's a problem we've had before, as it's not the first industry to ever become obsolete, so... there's got to be some precedent.
Democrat negotiation: how do you want to change the bill to make it better? Republican negotiation: how do you want to kill the bill to make us feel better?
While republicans are scared that people might like Obama Care I also think Democrats are worried that people might also like the partial government shutdown. So while Republicans spread FUD about all the horrible things the ACA will do Democrats will be spreading FUD about the impact of the partial shutdown. Some legit claims will be made on both sides but it will mostly be emotional pleas.
All that this has demonstrated is that the US needs a Parliamentary style government. First past the post is destroying our country, and we need a built-in no confidence mechanism for intractable problems like this one.
Comments
I'll be sure to send someone over to clean up your mangled remains.
The problem with going that way is that it would be a regressive tax.
It doesn't have to be very regressive. We can subsidize the lower end at least to the point where that tax doesn't become a large part of people's annual budget.
Republican politicians/their assistants read these reports and develop talking points and rhetorical tactics and whatnot to convince people it's bad for them. It really helps that they can easily maintain voter loyalty by focusing on moral/religious issues, getting someone to believe an un-equal free market solution to health care makes sense is probably fairly easy after that.
Essentially there's millions/billions spent on researching what Americans care about and what will influence their voting, and how you can rhetorically merge this w/ whatever end you wish to accomplish.
The realistic alternative at the time was no healthcare reform of consequence at all, which would have been much worse.
It's not about apologizing for the ACA or settling for a flawed bill, it's about representing reality. This is what we can do today. Tomorrow let's work on pushing it further. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and so on.
It's OK to call all US politicians (or at least all GOP politicans) idiotic assholes, as you did above, but you take some sort of exception with similar descriptors for victims of rhetoric and propaganda? That doesn't make any sense, dude.
What happens to everyone employed in the health insurance industry?
The jobs are a harder problem. I'm not sure what the fix would be. But it's a problem we've had before, as it's not the first industry to ever become obsolete, so... there's got to be some precedent.
Try it, it works!
Republican negotiation: how do you want to kill the bill to make us feel better?
While republicans are scared that people might like Obama Care I also think Democrats are worried that people might also like the partial government shutdown. So while Republicans spread FUD about all the horrible things the ACA will do Democrats will be spreading FUD about the impact of the partial shutdown. Some legit claims will be made on both sides but it will mostly be emotional pleas.