Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Verviedi wrote:
I'm wary both ways. Going for a single-party state is just as bad as Nixonian shenanigans.

Which now makes "drain the swamp" not a statement about removing corruption but removing Democrats..or more anyone who apposes Trump's absolutism.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
I'm wary both ways. Going for a single-party state is just as bad as Nixonian shenanigans.

Which now makes "drain the swamp" not a statement about removing corruption but removing Democrats..or more anyone who apposes Trump's absolutism.

with the bipartisan hate going on in the country, I think that statement was pretty much always about Dems.

 CptJake wrote:
We'll have to disagree. I know for a fact that having an operations guy in analytical organizations geared towards any type of intel/counter terrorism is a good thing. This guy may very well be good for the position they put him in.

You don't like the guy, we get it. You also have NO clue what his actual job is going to entail. The links you or someone else (I'm not gonna go back and look) provided were typical "We don't like Trump and want to poke fun at his choices' and had zero actual info in them. But they did confirm your bias, so hey, you do have that going for you, feth actual info, right?

Oh for feth's sake. The reason treasury is given this role is because they have a speciality in finance and accounting. Dropping in guys with no experience in finance, and no criminal/terror organisation skill in even working with people with that finance/accounting background is an obviously bad appointment. Then when you look at that guy's resume and it's clear he hasn't even got much of a resume in security & intel. He didn't study counter terrorism, he never worked in any agency that combats counter-terrorism, he's just declared himself an expert, written a book and then started doing the pundit circuit, while bashing out articles for Breitbart.

I mean, this really couldn't be a more obvious case of employing who you know, not employing who you know is good. But you come in here defending it, because of course you fething do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
with the bipartisan hate going on in the country, I think that statement was pretty much always about Dems.

It's always amazing to see historical revisionism happening in real time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have to say, mentioning loans a few pages back.
Student loans are quite frankly something that needs to be changed. Defaulting should be a thing. I have loans with no way to make the payment, I just had to get a special concultant to help me filing paper work to get me a consolidation and away from a company that is trying to get me to defer my loans(ever week my bill came saying if I cant pay, i can file for a deferment) but I know that is worse because it allows them to compound interest.

It's a complicated issue, because under normal bankruptcy all assets are lost and used to recover the debt. In this case you still have the asset you took out the loan to acquire, your degree and the knowledge it gave you. That can't be taken away. As such, if a student loan was able to be wiped clean in a bankruptcy hearing, what would stop someone doing law or accounting, finishing with no assets and $100k in debt, then declaring bankruptcy and wiping their debt, then going to work a nice paying job thanks to the education they never had to pay for?

I agree something needs to be done. Too many people have heavy debts and no means to repay them because their educations just don't provide significantly higher incomes. The most common reason is that the kid didn't finish, leaving him with debt but no degree. But it can also happen because the college is mediocre, and degrees from that institution are not valued. It can also happen because the kind of degree happens to have little market value compared to its cost, either because its in something without much demand, or because the ebbs and flows of the economy meant that a student was unlucky enough to finish their degree in a year when the number of graudates demanded was a lot less than the number of new graduates.

Here in Australia loans are made by government, not by private companies. This has allowed govt to set up its own repayment system, where repayments are only required once your income reaches a certain amount (about $60k AUD, so about $42k USD). Something similar could be done in the US, but it would require a complete overhaul of not just the loan scheme, but probably also the whole college accreditation system.

A more immediate fix could be for government funded debt relief. A scheme where an individual could apply to government, explain their circumstances, and possibly have their debt paid by government. It would likely need to be based around a basically economic argument, that the degree they have can't ever hope to pay for the debt it has incurred.

I don't know, just spitballing ideas. I hate hearing about situations like yours, and believe people need to be looking for solutions to prevent things like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Don't need to go to any Tier 1 schools (unless on scholarships).

Most State Universities are more than adequate for 4 yr degrees.

This is really, really good advice. Unless your fees are being paid by a scholarship or a trust fund, then a state university is just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Cool research on 2016 Presidential elections...
http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/blog/2016-election-study-published/

Wesleyan Media Project shares lessons, analysis from 2016 election cycle

That's a great post, thanks. I actually thought this election might have shown presidential advertising wasn't that valuable, but this shows it is still very valuable, as long as you spend it at the right time. It seems that time is before media saturation. There's a story often told about 2012, where Romney reacted against the obvious graft by Republican media buyers, who demanded as much as 10% of the bill just to place purchases with tv stations. Romney eventually gave in, but the delay had allowed Obama to get out in front and start defining the public's understanding of Romney before Romney could.

It seems something similar happened here, with Clinton realising far too late which states she was at risk of losing. Big spends at the very end of the campaign were for little, as by that point people had been saturated and made their minds up.

It seems the key is to spend early.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One thing that I think may be somewhat underestimated is the "leg up" people who do go to those schools have in many ways over those who don't.

I fully agree with, and believe that Yale history isn't much different from U. Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. But what Yale can definitely provide over those other schools is connections. Since I've gotten out of the army, and even before I got out, people were running with the idea that "it's not what you know, but WHO you know that gets you that good job."

Connections established can help provide a leg up, definitely. It's less certain there's six figures worth of help there though. And those connections aren't automatic. After all they'll have trust fund budgets to live it up on weekends, and you'll have a student debt growing terrifyingly by the day. You can't assume they'll become important connections because you won't necessarily be living in the same worlds, even if you attend the same college.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. Both the Treasury Sec and House Freedom Caucus are on record in opposing it.

But, it's Ryan's brain child, so we're going to keep on hearing about it.

Are people starting to cotton on the reality that Paul Ryan is as incompetent and dishonest as Trump? Between AHCA and this stupid border tax, people really should be starting to realise that reading Ayn Rand and talking about budgets with fully funded tax cuts doesn't actually make you a sensible politician, when the offsetting spending cuts are unstated and possibly unknown even by Ryan himself.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/mexico-cancels-sugar-export-permits-trade-dispute-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

The letter sent by Mexico's sugar chamber to mills on Monday partly blamed the situation on unfilled positions at the US Department of Commerce, which it said had led to a "legalistic" interpretation of rules with no U.S. counterparts in place in Washington for Mexican officials to negotiate with.

Obviously they need to pony up for some golf clubs and a yearly membership.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
I'm wary both ways. Going for a single-party state is just as bad as Nixonian shenanigans.

Which now makes "drain the swamp" not a statement about removing corruption but removing Democrats..or more anyone who apposes Trump's absolutism.

We really need to vote in some really vicious progressives. Assuming we have elections after Trump is done with the country.

 Verviedi wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
I'm wary both ways. Going for a single-party state is just as bad as Nixonian shenanigans.

Which now makes "drain the swamp" not a statement about removing corruption but removing Democrats..or more anyone who apposes Trump's absolutism.

We really need to vote in some really vicious progressives. Assuming we have elections after Trump is done with the country.

Never forget that in late October of last year, when it looked like Trump's chances of winning were poor, he said that the elections should be cancelled and he should be made the winner.

 sebster wrote:

Here in Australia loans are made by government, not by private companies. This has allowed govt to set up its own repayment system, where repayments are only required once your income reaches a certain amount (about $60k AUD, so about $42k USD). Something similar could be done in the US, but it would require a complete overhaul of not just the loan scheme, but probably also the whole college accreditation system.
.

That happens in the UK to, well the *theory* of it happens in the UK.
I'm Scottish, so my system is slightly different and, in fact, changed a lot in my years at uni so my understanding is sort halfway between an old system and an older one.

Even in England though, talking to co-workers whose kids are staying uni, they really don't seem to understand the system. Effectively though, despite it being a lien, it's in real life an income tax that you one day might pay is if your lucky. If you don't it's eventually written off once youb permanent stop having an income. In my understanding anyway.

Nothing in life really sees it as a loan either. When i got my mortgage the question amounted to "so you have a student loan? Yes or No." Banks in general don't care either.

Now i could be badly wrong but a few people going through the mess have been less despondent about the whole £9000+ debt thing the newspapers like panicking people over when i say to them "just think of it as a graduate tax."

 sebster wrote:

Here in Australia loans are made by government, not by private companies. This has allowed govt to set up its own repayment system, where repayments are only required once your income reaches a certain amount (about $60k AUD, so about $42k USD). Something similar could be done in the US, but it would require a complete overhaul of not just the loan scheme, but probably also the whole college accreditation system.

A more immediate fix could be for government funded debt relief. A scheme where an individual could apply to government, explain their circumstances, and possibly have their debt paid by government. It would likely need to be based around a basically economic argument, that the degree they have can't ever hope to pay for the debt it has incurred.

IIRC, I thought student loans in the US are backed by government, but funded by other companies. From what I've read on it, this was meant originally to help more people be able to get loans and be able to afford/attend college. Instead, we've seen parties on multiple sides raising various points against the students themselves, and it's all backed by Uncle Sam, so barely anyone seems at all interested in fixing the clear problems.


I have also heard, though I do not myself have student loans, that if a person dies with student debt, in some places in the US, that debt is then transfered to the NoK..... Anyone able to shed light on that one?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Here in Australia loans are made by government, not by private companies. This has allowed govt to set up its own repayment system, where repayments are only required once your income reaches a certain amount (about $60k AUD, so about $42k USD). Something similar could be done in the US, but it would require a complete overhaul of not just the loan scheme, but probably also the whole college accreditation system.

A more immediate fix could be for government funded debt relief. A scheme where an individual could apply to government, explain their circumstances, and possibly have their debt paid by government. It would likely need to be based around a basically economic argument, that the degree they have can't ever hope to pay for the debt it has incurred.

IIRC, I thought student loans in the US are backed by government, but funded by other companies. From what I've read on it, this was meant originally to help more people be able to get loans and be able to afford/attend college. Instead, we've seen parties on multiple sides raising various points against the students themselves, and it's all backed by Uncle Sam, so barely anyone seems at all interested in fixing the clear problems.


I have also heard, though I do not myself have student loans, that if a person dies with student debt, in some places in the US, that debt is then transfered to the NoK..... Anyone able to shed light on that one?

The Federal government is by far the largest issuer of student loans. FAFSA loans are treated as real loans and students are required to pay the money back. There are helpful explanatory videos on the .gov website:
https://studentloans.gov/myDirectLoan/index.action

A big part of the problem with the insane growth of tuition costs in recent decades is that the government will make unaffordable tuition costs affordable through loans. We have more colleges and universities than ever and more college students than ever and instead of competition bringing prices down prices have skyrocketed while colleges indulge in an amenities arms race funded by tuition that would price most students out of attending except the .gov makes up that shortfall. Higher Ed doesn't have to be this expensive but it has been enabled to be this expensive and the people that have to bear the brunt of the cost are the students the institutions are supposed to be helping.

When you die what you own is put towards what you owe. So if you were to die tomorrow your creditors would seek payment from whatever assets you leave behind. Student loans would be treated the same as a car loan or mortgage in that instance. Depending on the worth or your assets your creditors may have to settle for less than what they're owed.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Here in Australia loans are made by government, not by private companies. This has allowed govt to set up its own repayment system, where repayments are only required once your income reaches a certain amount (about $60k AUD, so about $42k USD). Something similar could be done in the US, but it would require a complete overhaul of not just the loan scheme, but probably also the whole college accreditation system.

A more immediate fix could be for government funded debt relief. A scheme where an individual could apply to government, explain their circumstances, and possibly have their debt paid by government. It would likely need to be based around a basically economic argument, that the degree they have can't ever hope to pay for the debt it has incurred.

IIRC, I thought student loans in the US are backed by government, but funded by other companies. From what I've read on it, this was meant originally to help more people be able to get loans and be able to afford/attend college. Instead, we've seen parties on multiple sides raising various points against the students themselves, and it's all backed by Uncle Sam, so barely anyone seems at all interested in fixing the clear problems.

Correct. When the government backs these loans, the risk basically evaporates for the lender and the schools. Hence why, many schools are spending boatloads of money back into the system, because they know that there will always be students with guarantee'ed loans.

I have also heard, though I do not myself have student loans, that if a person dies with student debt, in some places in the US, that debt is then transfered to the NoK..... Anyone able to shed light on that one?

Next of Kin?

I doubt that... it really depends on the co-signers.

It looks like the R's are still pushing ahead with their disaster of a health care bill, despite the fact that is is opposed by basically every group out there, millions will lose insurance, costs will go up for basically everyone, especially effecting the poor (while the wealthy can expect a sizable tax cut), and billions in medicare funding will be cut seriously effecting the poor. Or perhaps because.

You mean the House R's... I don't see enough votes on the Senate side...

So how likely is a libel suit from Obama against el Trumpo who's now walking back his wiretapping claims since, to the surprise of no one, he didnt produce any evidence?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So how likely is a libel suit from Obama against el Trumpo who's now walking back his wiretapping claims since, to the surprise of no one, he didnt produce any evidence?

I believe any suits are automatically suspended during his term. After that, thats an excellent question.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So how likely is a libel suit from Obama against el Trumpo who's now walking back his wiretapping claims since, to the surprise of no one, he didnt produce any evidence?

I believe any suits are automatically suspended during his term. After that, thats an excellent question.

Is that how that works against a President, cause isnt the contractor of his DC hotel also suing him for $2 million in unpaid fees?

He has lots of ongoing suits IIRC.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So how likely is a libel suit from Obama against el Trumpo who's now walking back his wiretapping claims since, to the surprise of no one, he didnt produce any evidence?

I believe any suits are automatically suspended during his term. After that, thats an excellent question.

A president can be sued for actions independent of his/her office by anybody, so the hotel suit could go through. However, suits that are in preview of office authority cannot be made (like a possible Obama suit) without a literal act of congress. In other words, a govt. cannot be sued by itself. So I could sue Trump for molestation, but not for accidentally starting a nuclear war with N. Korea. It's sort of like the pope and infallibility. Pope is right when it comes to the Church, not necessarily on anything else.

Plus Trump didn't mean wire tap when he tweeted "wire tap": http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/index.html

Also, apparently microwaves can turn into cameras.

Just in:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/cbo-report-health-care/index.html

(CNN) — Fourteen million more Americans would be uninsured under the House Republican health care bill than under Obamacare in 2018, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday.

The long-anticipated score immediately puts the writers and supporters of the GOP Obamacare bill on the defensive. It is also certain to complicate the party's already troubled efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

The Republican bill, titled the American Health Care Act, would reduce the federal deficits by $337 billion over 10 years, the CBO said.

The legislation, introduced last Monday, has sparked deep concern among Republican lawmakers in both the House and the Senate. The sources of unease are wide-ranging.







Prominnent conservatives on Capitol Hill, for example, have argued that the bill doesn't go far enough, labeling it "Obamacare Lite." One element of the legislation that has drawn fierce scorn is the refundable tax credits, which conservative Republicans say amounts to an entitlement program.







Moderate Republicans are also uneasy, particularly when it comes to the proposal's impact on Medicaid expansion. Thirty-one states -- including 16 with Republican governors -- elected to expand Medicaid under Obamacare and have found it to be a successful way of insuring low-income adults at little cost to their states.

The House GOP bill proposes scrapping the enhanced federal funding for Medicaid expansion in 2020 and overhauls the entire program so that states receive a fixed amount of money per enrollee.


Republicans downplaying the report

In the lead up to the CBO score, Republicans have preemptively downplayed its significance.

"The one thing I'm certain will happen is CBO will say, 'Well, gosh, not as many people will get coverage.' You know why? Because this isn't a government mandate," House Speaker Paul Ryan said on CBS over the weekend. "So there's no way we can compete with, on paper, a government mandate with coverage."

More important than the CBO's prediction of how many people would be covered under the bill, Ryan added, is the goal of lowering the cost of care by expanding choice and competition.

One House GOP aide put it this way: "They're saying people are losing coverage but in reality, these people are making a choice," the aide said. "We're not ripping coverage away."

White House spokesman Sean Spicer even went as far as to question the group's accuracy.

"If you're looking to the CBO for accuracy, you're looking in the wrong place," Spicer told reporters last week.

Republican backers of the bill are also stressing that the CBO score won't take into account the effects of other healthcare reforms that Republicans hope to enact, including through legislation and administrative actions from Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.

One particular promise from Price could soon haunt Republicans.

"I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process that we're going through," Price said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

Doug Elmendorf, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said on CNN on Monday that Price's claim was "absurd."

"This legislation will cut subsidies substantially; millions of people will lose health insurance," Elmendorf said. "But certainly people will be worse off."

Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

if you repeal it and don't replace it with something better there will be heck to pay.

EDIT: The only thing I can see as really being better is single pay.

The alternative of a national market etc is fine but that horse has left the barn.
Fix it. Leaving people hanging is not fixing it.

I dont know if the Repubs are that worried, I mean most of their voter base would be the ones losing coverage, but they voted for them anyways

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

And replace it with what? Republicans have had seven years to come up with a plan without the glaring spotlight being on them and they came up with this turd. Your idea is to repeal ACA, then what? Come up with a new plan in six or eight months in full view of the public allmthe while getting ramrodded in their home districts at every town all and meet and greet? Yeah, good idea. At some point the "blow it up" governing strategy doesn't work. That point? When you are them.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

And replace it with what? Republicans have had seven years to come up with a plan without the glaring spotlight being on them and they came up with this turd. Your idea is to repeal ACA, then what? Come up with a new plan in six or eight months in full view of the public allmthe while getting ramrodded in their home districts at every town all and meet and greet? Yeah, good idea. At some point the "blow it up" governing strategy doesn't work. That point? When you are them.

Incrementally introduce changes instead of one-size-fits-all strategy.

If the impulse still is to push a one-size-fits-all plan, just fething go to single-payor.

In fact, I'd argue we're better off going to single-payor... which will save a lot of future angst and turmoil.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

And replace it with what? Republicans have had seven years to come up with a plan without the glaring spotlight being on them and they came up with this turd. Your idea is to repeal ACA, then what? Come up with a new plan in six or eight months in full view of the public allmthe while getting ramrodded in their home districts at every town all and meet and greet? Yeah, good idea. At some point the "blow it up" governing strategy doesn't work. That point? When you are them.

Edit: Oops, missed "all of it" in his reply. Edit #2: But Whembly ninjad this and my original assumption defending his statement was correct

Yes, i was talking about the current plan... aka RyanCare.

1. Repal Obamacare!
2. Ah.......
3. .....
4. Profit!

IronWarLeg wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

And replace it with what? Republicans have had seven years to come up with a plan without the glaring spotlight being on them and they came up with this turd. Your idea is to repeal ACA, then what? Come up with a new plan in six or eight months in full view of the public allmthe while getting ramrodded in their home districts at every town all and meet and greet? Yeah, good idea. At some point the "blow it up" governing strategy doesn't work. That point? When you are them.

Edit: Oops, missed "all of it" in his reply. Edit #2: But Whembly ninjad this and my original assumption defending his statement was correct

TBF, I guess my response could've been interpreted the other way.

While I do wish that the GOP has that magic wand to pull Obamacare from it's roots... pragmatically, it's impossible since they don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

What RyanCare attempts to do, is to try to neuter much of the Obamacare budget/revenue/tax codes (thus, leaving much of its regulations and mandatory coverage plans) and replace it with his tax credit plan. And... claim a win by 'replacing' Obamacare.

It's horsegak and Rand Paul is right... it's Obamacare-lite.

Honestly, Obamacare isn't even "fixable" since much of the private insurance companies has left the exchange. Enticing them back is going to take some serious funding that even Democrats may blink.

I think the VERY first question that GOP (and their voters) must answer:
Do they concede the idea of Government expansion into the healthcare market? Yes or No.

Anything else and they're just nibbling on the edge.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

And replace it with what? Republicans have had seven years to come up with a plan without the glaring spotlight being on them and they came up with this turd. Your idea is to repeal ACA, then what? Come up with a new plan in six or eight months in full view of the public allmthe while getting ramrodded in their home districts at every town all and meet and greet? Yeah, good idea. At some point the "blow it up" governing strategy doesn't work. That point? When you are them.

Incrementally introduce changes instead of one-size-fits-all strategy.

If the impulse still is to push a one-size-fits-all plan, just fething go to single-payor.

In fact, I'd argue we're better off going to single-payor... which will save a lot of future angst and turmoil.

I, and every single democrat, would support a single payer system. How does that fly in the GOP of 2016 after years of poo pooing Canada and GB? Eating gak sure is tasty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

IronWarLeg wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

And replace it with what? Republicans have had seven years to come up with a plan without the glaring spotlight being on them and they came up with this turd. Your idea is to repeal ACA, then what? Come up with a new plan in six or eight months in full view of the public allmthe while getting ramrodded in their home districts at every town all and meet and greet? Yeah, good idea. At some point the "blow it up" governing strategy doesn't work. That point? When you are them.

Edit: Oops, missed "all of it" in his reply. Edit #2: But Whembly ninjad this and my original assumption defending his statement was correct

TBF, I guess my response could've been interpreted the other way.

While I do wish that the GOP has that magic wand to pull Obamacare from it's roots... pragmatically, it's impossible since they don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

What RyanCare attempts to do, is to try to neuter much of the Obamacare budget/revenue/tax codes (thus, leaving much of its regulations and mandatory coverage plans) and replace it with his tax credit plan. And... claim a win by 'replacing' Obamacare.

It's horsegak and Rand Paul is right... it's Obamacare-lite.

Honestly, Obamacare isn't even "fixable" since much of the private insurance companies has left the exchange. Enticing them back is going to take some serious funding that even Democrats may blink.

I think the VERY first question that GOP (and their voters) must answer:
Do they concede the idea of Government expansion into the healthcare market? Yes or No.

Anything else and they're just nibbling on the edge.

Another way to put it, do they concede that health is a basic human right.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Nuke it from orbit. All of it. It's the only way to be sure.

And replace it with what? Republicans have had seven years to come up with a plan without the glaring spotlight being on them and they came up with this turd. Your idea is to repeal ACA, then what? Come up with a new plan in six or eight months in full view of the public allmthe while getting ramrodded in their home districts at every town all and meet and greet? Yeah, good idea. At some point the "blow it up" governing strategy doesn't work. That point? When you are them.

Incrementally introduce changes instead of one-size-fits-all strategy.

If the impulse still is to push a one-size-fits-all plan, just fething go to single-payor.

In fact, I'd argue we're better off going to single-payor... which will save a lot of future angst and turmoil.

I, and every single democrat, would support a single payer system. How does that fly in the GOP of 2016 after years of poo pooing Canada and GB? Eating gak sure is tasty.

Yup, they'll have to own up to their past objections.

But, it isn't unheard of... just like you only need to go back a few years when Clinton/Obama have 'recently' changed their minds on SSM. (Trump being the first president who doesn't oppose it at the start of his tenure)


'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:



Another way to put it, do they concede that health is a basic human right.

That, I won't concede.

I'll concede that it should be a cherished entitlement. But a basic human right? It all sounds good, as long as the healthcare laborers are still working in the field and the bills are paid.