The ACA situation and why other nations are wondering "WTF is wrong with America?"

[RBInMaine]

People from Canada, England, Germany, Finland, Costa Rica,...all these nations that provide universal single payer healthcare all over the world already look at us and wonder just WTF is wrong with Americans and why we actually fight with each other over providing healthcare to our people. It simply baffles them. And it is a sad, sad commentary on our society. Here we are fighting over providing healthcare instead of just getting the job done. We have a President who finally had the guts to take it on and is trying to help millions of uninsured people and millions more who are underinsured, and you have another party dedicated to the proposition that "You have the right not to have healthcare." offering no alternative that will get everyone insured, and instead of the society all rallying around trying to make the new system work, about half the population is opposed to it with some actually working to undermine it. Just astounding. No wonder other nations look at us on this and so many other issues (guns, education, etc.) and wonder just what the hell is wrong with us.

Well, what is wrong with us is we have rampant corruption at all levels of government which are bought and paid for by the corporate rich and dedicated to THEIR interests and not ours, and we have a corrupt corporate media dedicated to helping the corporate rich and undermining things good for the people, and we have one political party that is especially owned by the corporate rich and exists to help them and to hell with everyone else. THAT is why.

[greymattermom]

1. we are in decline

and folks are scared. Instead, they should think about how England is doing, now that it doesn't have to run a big empire. Has anyone been to London lately?

[RBInMaine]

2. Better yet, look at Finland. They are based on equity, cooperation, and investment in their people.

They are number one in education and very high in quality of life measures across the board.

[RBInMaine]

3. We have great people and are great in many ways, but in other ways we need to wake up and LEARN.

We have hard working people, a big diverse economy full of many wonderful small businesses and some good medium and large ones, some beautiful geography and resources, many big hearted people, are improving in our diversity and acceptance and embrace of that diversity, great educational opportunities if we can access them, etc. But in other ways we have serious problems such as income inequality, higher education becoming way too expensive, the healthcare problem (which is at least getting better with ACA but more needs to be done), too many guns, too much crime, and too much poverty, Worst of all, too much corporatism and its corruption of our government and our media.

[brush]

10. I haven't been to London lately . . .

How are they doing compared to us?

Pls clarify.

[riverbendviewgal]

24. I have. it is doing very well

And my US history teacher did tell the class that empires usually last 200 - 250 years. USA is pased the 200 mark, getting closer to that 250 mark. It is another countries turn.

But don't abandon your people be like UK, make sure your people are educated and have good education.

[Art_from_Ark]

30. I don't know where your US history teacher got his information about empires,

but I would certainly take it with a huge grain of salt. The US officially became an empire in 1898, just 115 years ago. Also, the British Empire lasted for around 350 years, if we start counting from the Jamestown settlement in 1607 to the independence of its African colonies in the 1957-60 era. The Spanish Empire lasted from around 1519 to around 1821, although Spain still held some colonies until at least 1898. The Roman Empire lasted for around 500 years, while the Byzantine Empire lasted for 1100+ years.

[CTyankee]

32. I was in London last May. It was lively and wonderful! Had a great time!

[Doctor_J]

71. More like circling the drain

[liberal N proud]

4. People all over the world laugh at how dysfunctional we have become as a nation.

[WinkyDink]

18. We'll just have to drone them!

[Myrina]

29. You mean, we'll have to "Liberate" them ...

... "bring them democracy" .... etc etc ...

[WinkyDink]

46. Mais oui!

[RC]

20. Too many people are not laughing at us, US, they are dying because of our dysfunctional government.

We are killing people in several countries, none of whom we are at war with, for the profit of our bloated war industry.

[Johonny]

39. I was out of the country traveling during the shutdown

I met many people from around the world. Not one of them could understand why we would shut our government down to prevent people from getting health care coverage. They all thought it was a stupid thing. So yes they are laughing at us.

[Fumesucker]

5. What makes you think the ACA is any different?

If everything is corrupt then the ACA is corrupt also.

It's the best we could get, like the slime oozing out of our TV set.

[RBInMaine]

59. You'll see in some replies I also said much about us is good, but yes, too many in government at all

levels are indeed corrupt. And the ACA was the best we could get though doesn't go far enough, although it is at least a step in the right direction.

[sabrina 1]

65. It wasn't the best we could have received, it was the best they were willing to give us.

The people are weak and allow themselves to be defeated by buying into the propaganda their Think Tanks are paid to provide. We are told 'we can't get a PO because the Republicans won't pass anything'.

When more than 200 concessions are made to satisfy Republican demands, and months are spent coddling ONE Republican Senator just to give the appearance of bi-partisanship as she played her game and in the end refused to compromise, not one Republican would support EVEN THE VERSION in which they got most of what THEY wanted.

Which logically means that the next move should have been 'okay, we can this without you and guess what, since that's exactly what we're going to do, we are taking back those concessions and we're going to put in the PO'.

If only concessions to Progressives had been made instead of the way they were dismissed, their ideas called 'retarded'.

But, what we have learned now is that it is all a game being played to keep the public fighting amongst each other, and look how well it works.

They actually got people on OUR side to sell their lies about it being impossible to get the PO without even having to pay them. They must be laughing at the 'peasants' as they watch from their ivory towers.

But, if the people had insisted on what they wanted, if they had refused to accept the propaganda that we couldn't get a PO when THEIR PARTY's votes were the ONLY ones to pass that bill in the end.

And now we who opposed the mandate for DECADES against the right, who opposed dropping the PO especially when it was clear Repubs were going to let Dems take responsibility for something THEY could not get passed but wanted all along, NOW we are expected to fight to support something we were very clear we did not support.

Enough of these games. This is OUR country, and the American people WANT Health Care NOT Health Insurance.

And since the Right is pretending to be fighting this bill now? NOW we should 'concede' to them and tell them 'Okay, you're right, NOW we are going to give the people what they wanted, we are going to insert a PO. How much more could they complain than they are already? Just ignore them and move forward. It wasn't hard for the Dems to ignore Progressives so they should have an easier time ignoring Republicans.

But they won't, until WE unite and force them to.

Otherwise the games will continue and instead of being participants in the government all we get to do is watch.

It's up to us. Not them, unless we allow it.

[flamingdem]

78. Zappa reference?

.. now which song is that

[Fumesucker]

82. ...

[treestar]

6. So true, they are desperate in their opposition to the ACA

They see it slipping away from them. They want to do away with Medicare and Medicaid, and yet here is another step away from that direction.

[Heather MC]

7. USA! USA! USA!

Sorry Couldn't resist.

You would think we would want to be a model of Democracy. Unfortunatly our Gov. is in the hands of a group of inbreeds who have no idea other countries exist

[RBInMaine]

60. Not all are bad, but too many are, especially the R's. Much is GOOD about us too, but too much

also is not good, the root of the worst being the corruption of our public officials by big money.

[newfie11]

8. Rampant corruption is right

And we are headed toward a third world country!

[polichick]

9. The corruption is at all levels - instead of inviting single payer advocates to the table...

this president invited Billy Tauzin and other lobbyists into the WH from the get-go.

Yes, people overseas think we're fucking idiots and they're right. We have two parties that serve corporations and the 1% at the expense of the country, the world community and the planet - and few Americans ever bother to say boo about it, much less get into the faces of our "leaders" and make demands.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. In many respects it's worse than that ...

Here we are fighting over providing healthcare instead of just getting the job done. We have a President who finally had the guts to take it on and is trying to help millions of uninsured people and millions more who are underinsured, and you have another party dedicated to the proposition that "You have the right not to have healthcare." offering no alternative that will get everyone insured, and instead of the society all rallying around trying to make the new system work, about half the population is opposed to it with some actually working to undermine it.

Not only do we have a party (on the right) fighting against providing healthcare ... we have those on the left fighting this meager attempt because it doesn't go far enough. Whether one is fighting from the right or the left, the end result is wasted resources and capital, and ultimately, stagnation of policy.

I imagine if SS were presnted in it's original form, today; it would be met with similar opposition ... from the left and the right, and we would likely not have this most basic of safety net programming.

[A Simple Game]

14. I get the impression you think the country is just right the way it is.

So the left and the right are equally evil in you eyes? Please show me an example of someone on the left trying to make SS worse. Last I read two Senators on the left wanted to increase SS payments and raise the limit of taxation to pay for it. Maybe you read different newspapers than I do.

Please read the about section, the link is at the bottom of every page on DU.

In case you don't have the time or even care, below is the first line from the DU Mission Statement, the bold is mine.

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

So, again, what was that you were saying about the left on what is primarily a liberal forum?

[RC]

28. You want an example of someone of the "Left" trying to make Social Security worse?

How about Barack Obama and the Chained CPI?
And as for your excerpt, there are a few too many people here that confuse Democrat with Liberal - or Liberal with present day Democratic leadership. They are not necessarily synonymous. I'll use rooting for Hillary is an high profile example.
The Left is is only Left because they keep playing catch-up to the Right, as we follow them toward the Right side cliff. Which is why we have the Conservative, birthed, health insurance lobbyist written ACA, instead of what the rest of the civilized world has, some form of Single Payer, Universal Health Care.
Who was in charge of what kind of health care we would be getting? Why a Democrat, none other than Max Sieben Baucus (D)amn, with 6 assigned lobbyist to help him get it Right.

We as a country are so far to the Right, there is confusion as to where the real Center is. Is it somewhere between the Democrats and the Republicans, as many here seem to think it is, or is it way over to the Left, almost on the horizon, where we use to to be when DU was started in 2000?

[Bluenorthwest]

33. The poster who equated left and right advocates Chained CPI and defends Obama's

putting it on the table. Has posted extensively about it since it was first mentioned.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. While I know better than responding to you ...

Yes ... I have advocated for a CCPI and defended President Obama's putting on the table ...

In the latter case, I explained how the offer was a gambit that had zero percent chance of going through; but a 1005 chance of exposing the modern gop for what they are. And the polling indicates that I was correct.

In the former case, my latest bout of advocacy, I stated that I would gladly accept a CCPI ... if the formulation excluded folks with incomes under $2000,000 and came with the closing of tax loop holes and the tax treatment of carried forward as ordinary income.

You can keep mis-representing what I post if you wish ... and the few (many) DUers that don't/won't verify your claims will be led to believe you ... But for those DUers that either do they due diligence, or have run across your posting style ... well ... they are unswayed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. well, then ...

your impression is incorrect. There is a bunch of things wrong with this country and the lack of access to affordable healthcare and income inequity, are among the two most pressing.

So the left and the right are equally evil in you eyes?

I didn't say that ... what I said was:

Not only do we have a party (on the right) fighting against providing healthcare ... we have those on the left fighting this meager attempt because it doesn't go far enough. Whether one is fighting from the right or the left, the end result is wasted resources and capital, and ultimately, stagnation of policy.

and:

I imagine if SS were presnted in it's original form, today; it would be met with similar opposition ... from the left and the right, and we would likely not have this most basic of safety net programming.

See the difference?

Please show me an example of someone on the left trying to make SS worse. Last I read two Senators on the left wanted to increase SS payments and raise the limit of taxation to pay for it.

I was responding to a thread about the ACA ... What are you talking about?

In case you don't have the time or even care, below is the first line from the DU Mission Statement, the bold is mine.


Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:


So, again, what was that you were saying about the left on what is primarily a liberal forum?

I was saying that "liberals" are not doing the American people ... people with pre-existing conditions and all the other people benefitted by the ACA ... any good, attacking this first charge out the gate, in favor of something that didn't/doesn't have legislative support.

The history of this nation's social policy is built on incremental change ... no matter how fast we wish to see change. There is the goal and there is moving the ball towards that goal. I would far rather see success in moving toward the goal than failure in accomplishing the goal due to moving faster than is politically possible.

[A Simple Game]

69. Well then indeed,

You said:

Not only do we have a party (on the right) fighting against providing healthcare ... we have those on the left fighting this meager attempt because it doesn't go far enough. Whether one is fighting from the right or the left, the end result is wasted resources and capital, and ultimately, stagnation of policy.

Bold is mine.
You really equate a group trying to destroy a basic right in healthcare to a group that is trying to improve it? Liberals see the examples of the best way healthcare should be done all around the world, why don't you? As for the ACA, do you think we would even have that if it wasn't for the liberals? And please don't equate the ACA with healthcare, it is insurance reform, has very little to do with healthcare except for increasing access for millions through subsidizing your insurance payment. Don't get me wrong, it's a good start, but as a liberal that is all I see it as, a good start. I would assume anyone that calls something a meager attempt to agree with that.

You said:

I imagine if SS were presnted in it's original form, today; it would be met with similar opposition ... from the left and the right, and we would likely not have this most basic of safety net programming.

Bold is mine.

See the difference?

No, I don't see what difference you are trying to point out. How do you get difference when you use words like similar? What I do see is someone that doesn't realize who did pass SS. Do you think it was the conservatives? It was the liberals, why would you assume it would be different today?

I said:

Please show me an example of someone on the left trying to make SS worse. Last I read two Senators on the left wanted to increase SS payments and raise the limit of taxation to pay for it.

You said:

I was responding to a thread about the ACA ... What are you talking about?

What am I talking about? Perhaps you could read the last paragraph in post #11, I assume you wrote it. Oh, wait, you quote yourself in the post I'm responding to, post #55. Maybe that is what I'm talking about.

You say:

I was saying that "liberals" are not doing the American people ... people with pre-existing conditions and all the other people benefitted by the ACA ... any good, attacking this first charge out the gate, in favor of something that didn't/doesn't have legislative support.

You don't think single payer would cover preexisting conditions? Do you really believe liberals want to return to discrimination for pre-existing conditions? You don't think poor people would like to have no deductibles or co-pays? I'm here to tell you I would like no deductibles or co-pays. I bet rich people would like no deductibles or co-pays. My primary care physician would like single payer--only one form to fill out, no multiple insurance companies to deal with, etc. Please don't equate trying to destroy with trying to improve. So if this is too soon to want to improve the ACA, when would you like the "Liberals" to start trying to improve it? Or is it just fine the way it is?

You also say:

The history of this nation's social policy is built on incremental change ... no matter how fast we wish to see change. There is the goal and there is moving the ball towards that goal. I would far rather see success in moving toward the goal than failure in accomplishing the goal due to moving faster than is politically possible

Other than tax rates and upper limits I failed to note reading about these incremental changes in SS since it was implemented. Perhaps you could point them out to me? Or you could tell me what should be next for SS if the present is just an increment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Well, we agree …

The ACA is a step in the right direction (but far from optimal). (and sorry for this long post; but I think we may be in the same book, if not on the same page.)

The point of my post was to point out that by pushing for more, at this point in time (with enrollment just ramping up, with the website troubles, and a media more than willing to promote the “ObamaCare Horror Stories”) we risk losing the ground that we have gained.

I would far rather the left marshal its resources to hold the ACA ground gained, by attacking the modern gop’s lies, than risk that ground by pointing out the program’s every real and perceived faults. We can re-visit the push toward single-payer, after those that wish to return to the bad old status quo days have been vanquished.

To the “difference” point:

Yes, I realize SS was a Democratic initiative … I, also, realize that at its inception, SS was far from perfect … it excluded vast segments of the population. I, also, realize WHY SS was drafted to be incomplete

… including the excluded groups, would have been the death knell for the program. Instead, the program was adopted, with all its flaws, and improved over time. That is my concern … the push for single-pay, could have the effect of killing off the ACA before it gains its footing.

Regarding my “what are you talking about” comment:

My bad … I mis-interpreted your response as commenting to my ACA comment, rather than the SS comment. It makes sense upon re-read.

Regarding your “You don’t think single-payer would cover pre-existing conditions” comment:

Yes … I understand that it would. My point is, it is very unlikely that this current fight over the infant ACA will move the policy from the ACA to single-payer; but rather, from the ACA back to pre-ACA conditions … that is what the modern gop is pushing for.

The current political reality is … conservatives have the modern gop legislators on board with killing the ACA; but they do not have enough support of the electorate, because the electorate sees/is beginning to see the need for insurance reform … Liberals have the electorate on board with insurance reform; but don’t have enough support from the legislators (Democratic and republican) to go single-payer.

History shows that politicians trail the electorate in terms of social change, but only in incremental steps. The ACA … the admittedly flawed, step in the right direction … is, undeniably, that incremental step.

Regarding your “failing to note the incremental changes in SS” comment:

Social Security, when first enacted in 1935, excluded government employees, railroad workers, the self-employed, farm workers, domestic help, and employees of nonprofit organizations. http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.basics.asp

This represented the vast majority of non-white, non-male population of the time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/03/a-second-look-at-social-securitys-racist-origins/

Finally, the next step in Social Security’s incremental change will/should be a lowering of the eligibility age, so that workers can enjoy more of their retirement years, a change in the initial benefit formula, so as to ensure that recipients are not thrown into poverty, and a change to the COLA, so that retirees will not face poverty.

Are we in the same book, if not on the same page?

[A Simple Game]

74. Sorry, we don't agree, you equate liberals with conservatives.

That is something I could never do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. No ...

I equate the ACTIVITIES/ACTIONS of some liberals to that of conservatives. There is a difference between what I have done and what you allege.

[A Simple Game]

76. What you have done is equate trying to destroy or eliminate the ACA with trying to improve

or replace it with something better.

Worlds apart from my point of view.

Just another liberal bashing post as far as I'm concerned.

I almost forgot, how did that incremental change work for SS again?

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Okay ...

you have clearly staked out a position ... one based on an inaccurate, intellectually lazy, reading of what I actually said ... and have stopped attempting to advance the discussion; so there is no need for me to continue.

I will leave you with this: Research SS to presentation (and coverage) versus its presentation today (a wiki will suffice for this very basic lesson in political history).
After doing so, I challenge you to attempt to argue that SS is/was not all about incremental progress.

[A Simple Game]

80. Why do you keep bringing up SS, the thread is about the ACA? n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. I this most recent instance ...

it was in response to you asking:

I almost forgot, how did that incremental change work for SS again?

It was initially raised to demonstrate the political reality that social policy change comes in increments.

But you know that.

[zeemike]

12. We are witnessing a slow coup.

Unlike most coups of the past that were right in your face this one is slow enough and behind the scenes so we don't really notice it...unless you are old enough and have been paying attention.
And it started 50 years ago this month, and when they got away with it the first time they knew it was a winner...and today we are ruled by oligarchs whether we notice it or not...the oligarchs control all levels of government and the media, and so the public knows what they want us to know...and they keep us fighting against each other...right against left and increasingly left against left...and the final blow will be the TPP.

[riverbendviewgal]

27. Shock Doctrine

By Naomi Klein
Good book that explains it.

[mountain grammy]

36. Absolutely the best book written on modern economic policies.

Should be required reading and taught in every high school in America.

[polichick]

31. And even here some will think you're a conspiracy nut...

for saying such a thing.

[zeemike]

37. Yep, CT is a great STFU tool

Used by the GOP and centrist Dems alike to preserve the status quo.

[riverbendviewgal]

13. Glad I live in Canada

We canadians think the USA is delusional thinking it is the greatest country in the world when it can not have health care for all. Your private health care insurance companies are criminals.
Up here health care is not for profit.

[pangaia]

22. Please don't rub it in.

[onethatcares]

54. will you please

adopt me? I am 62 years old and you'll only have to put up with my b.s. for about 3 years before we can terminate the adoption.

[DonCoquixote]

58. That's ok

You have Stephen harper to make sure you can send your oil to China. Not like you can actually get him out of office.

[RBInMaine]

62. I have Canadian relatives with two who are nurses. They love their system.

[Conium]

15. Family values

The U.S. is racially diverse and this is part of the problem. Many Americans do not think of their fellow citizens as family. Places like Finland and Sweden do not have such problems.

I attribute it to animal behavior toward those who are different than they are. Call it racism if you want, fear... jealousy... cruelty... indifference...

And Republicans pander to these raw animal emotions. We should be better.

[WinkyDink]

16. Because we have a rapacious Capitalistic system.

[Laelth]

17. I don't see "corruption" as the primary culprit.

Lots of governments deal with institutional corruption. Ours is no different. What we have, here in the United States, is a long history of low wages and legal exploitation of labor against which we (on the left) are constantly fighting.

FDR liberalism and the massive prosperity it brought are the exceptions to the rule, as this graph shows:



Just look at all the red in the following map. That's a long history of legal exploitation of labor (slavery, sharecropping, "right to work&quot that covers a large part of our nation. We're still fighting that.



It's our own history we're fighting, I think, much moreso than "corruption."



-Laelth

[RBInMaine]

63. Chicken or the egg? I am talking about being corrupted by money, which leads to your issue, ....

[Laelth]

67. Good question.

I'm not sure which issue came first, but I hope you didn't find my post too disruptive to this thread.

-Laelth

[pampango]

72. Nice map of the "American Nations".

[allan01]

19. millions of americans are demanding their freedom t be screwed

http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/freedomtobescrewed.html
we are in a period of great change . i understand that this same nonsense happend when other keynote legislation was enacted such as social security under lbj, sorry no likks available. if u want liks do it ur self . this was via my rw dentists secratary who went through the experiance , she didnt have flush rush and hanity and faux noize 24 /7 to deal with .

[Fumesucker]

51. And millions more are demanding that the slightly less severe screwing be mandated

Perspectives differ, even on the DU.

[cantbeserious]

21. The Empire Is Dying - Rotting From Within

eom

[JEFF9K]

23. Only in America, unfortunately.

[spanone]

25. greed & selfishness

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

26. My inlaws are European.

They ask every week, "what is wrong with your government?" They laugh at us, yet they still admire us from alternate perspectives. They're not laughing at our health care situation however.

[diabeticman]

34. I am amazed more people haven't asked this question sooner. This is a conclusion my wife and

I came too about 10 years ago.

[Mass]

35. Germany does not have single payer. It has insurance mandate.

France does not have a single payer either (but a two tier system), but people are puzzled by the mess.

What all these countries have is a cost control where the government has a strong influence in both insurance and drugs/medical acts pricing, something this country's elites continue to refuse. This creates the mess we are in right now, with people unable to afford the new updated policies and seeing their "better than nothing" policies canceled.

With no cost control and no transparency, prices get up exponentially, compounding the problem.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. Your statement implies a correlation between the German system and this

Rube Goldberg contraption of marginally-better-than-nothing legal guarantee of insurance company profits, when nothing could be further from the truth.

How many Germans have no access to health care? How many German families will be ruined by a medical bankruptcy this year? How many Germans won't be using their insurance to get needed health care because they can't afford the "out of pocket" expenses?

[Mass]

45. It does not. The point is that the German system is cost controlled and it is why it works.

I am for single payer, but if we need to have private insurance, we need to have strong regulation and cost control on the insurance companies and big pharma/Medical companies, something we do not have.

Amazing how you can imply something that is not there from my post. May be you should read them completely before answering?

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. I read exactly what you wrote and you do imply a correlation simply because all the nations

mentioned call it insurance. Health insurance companies in Germany, France, or Japan have nothing in common at all with the parasitic organizations that call themselves health insurance companies here, except for the name insurance.

And to answer the questions you ignored, none, none, and none. The answers to these same questions applied to the U.S., even if the Orwellian ACA were to be implemented exactly as envisioned are, tens of millions, millions, and more tens of millions.

Pretending that this "uniquely American" scam is simply another flavor of what exists in sane nations is, to be generous, naive.

[Mass]

49. Believe what you want. This is indifferent to me.

I never pretended anything but you are entitled to persist in your errors if you want.

[Orsino]

38. Money. Money is what's wrong with America.

We voted it into power, and it always votes for itself.

[bhikkhu]

40. I would change that "rampant corruption" to "willful incompetence"

largely of one political party. Otherwise, very much in agreement.

[RBInMaine]

61. Incompetence AND corruption, and we have a corrupt SCOTUS majority that allows it. Sickening.

[librechik]

42. Other nations should be aware--the same thing that has us under its boot is coming for them. n/t

[JEB]

43. WTF is wrong with USA? The greediest scumbags in the country are calling the shots.

[JoePhilly]

44. America is exceptional, but we hate each other, and we want to only buy Made in USA

products ... Unless some other country provides it cheaper.

But we don't want to trade with those other countries because it costs the jobs of Americans, who then can't get health insurance, and who we don't want to have health care anyway.

Americans have an exceptional ability to hold a wide array of totally disparate beliefs and attitudes, all at the same time.

[Romulox]

47. How many of those nations have mandatory, for-profit health insurance with no cost controls?

zero.

[Mass]

50. Probably none. I do not know any.

But I was called pro-ACA for arguing the same thing, so be careful.

[Doctor_J]

52. we had our annual open enrollment meeting today

We are changing insurance companies like we do every year. And like every year our employee contributions are going up by 20%. And like every year we are getting 2% raises. You would seriously think that by now there would be a basket full of heads of health insurance CEOs somewhere. Yet we just continue to take it.

[TheKentuckian]

53. Shit, that is what even Democrats believe to be somewhere between a model

and too generous.

[Phentex]

68. The biggest difference is...

now all of that normal stuff will be blamed on the ACA.

[Doctor_J]

70. The ACA is a symptom and latest manifestation of our completely screwed up HC situation

There was a chance for real reform, but Obama and Reid and Pelosi decided that the Heritage Foundation's plan was the way to go.

[devils chaplain]

56. It takes a super-majority to do anything around here...

And sometimes not even then. It took the most ideal of circumstances just to get the ACA passed.

[AZ Progressive]

64. The Modern American Ruling Class has MASTERED the art of PROPAGANDA

They have succeeded where their ancestors and predecessors have failed. In successfully controlling the population from revolting by successfully convincing them that its everyone but them that's responsible for their decreasing life quality. It all comes down to the WAR OF WORDS, and they have been winning the war of words!

[Skip Intro]

66. I think what other nations think about our domestic policies

is irrelevant.

[flamingdem]

79. These other countries are winning the civility contest

and we need to take a lesson.

[Skip Intro]

83. Please tell me more about the "civility contest." n/t