Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If the ACA Is Abolished, Then It's Pure Battle between Private Health Ins. and Single Payer [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)5. Their history with Medicare and Social Security for decades goes against that idea.
Voting for Repubs won't bring about anything but more privatization and selling off the commons. That has always been their policy. And they've just about stolen everything, the next generation will be so hedged in, they will never know there was anything different.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If the ACA Is Abolished, Then It's Pure Battle between Private Health Ins. and Single Payer [View all]
Yavin4
Mar 2012
OP
If presented in the right way I think you could get enough Republicans to approve Medicare for all.
CAPHAVOC
Mar 2012
#2
Their history with Medicare and Social Security for decades goes against that idea.
freshwest
Mar 2012
#5
Exactly. It is just about delusional to think that the Republicans will endose single-payer.
TheWraith
Mar 2012
#73
Either you or I totally misunderstand where the REpublican Party stands today.
rhett o rick
Mar 2012
#6
How do you see that happening? I'm wondering what would cause the GOP to have a change
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#11
I've always liked "Medicare for all" but didn't the insurance industry kill it, through the tender
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#16
I think he saw no reason to forgo health care reform by fighting for what he probably deemed
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#27
He's great. He's not my rep (Rosa Delauro is) but he is one of the really good guys.
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#44
And do what? What do you think he can tell people to change their minds, exactly?
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#40
Share some with me, and then lets video tape each of us making that argument to people who
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#45
For that very reason it will not be abolished. As you indicate, that action would
rhett o rick
Mar 2012
#3
And there you have it. "This country" meaning a free democracy is already gone.
rhett o rick
Mar 2012
#8
I don't think we can underestimate what Occupy has done. We are now talking about the
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#28
Then why doesn't it have to happen in Germany, France, Switzerland and Japan?
bornskeptic
Mar 2012
#33
They do have universal health care paid for through taxes, tho. They simply do it through
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#39
The Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act is private, for profit healthcare access.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#14
I always thought Medicare, being a trusted "brand" to the American people, would be a much
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#49
Every other modern industrialized country in the whole world have socialized medicine.
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#60
I dont see it that way. I see a defeat of the individual mandate as a proxy defeat for single payer
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#29
If we do it the way you mention where there are opt outs, I think it would be harder for them to
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#67
You would still be looking at a Supreme Court challenge via similar arguments.
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#42
Medicare is not provided to everybody, it's specifically for the elderly. It's not about commercial
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#52
Thats the problem, you are making an assumption. Think about this for a minute.
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#58
Not necessarily. Medicare can be justified as an exception because retired elderly dont work and
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#69
Although we disagree on how the public option would be viewed on review by the Court
jzodda
Mar 2012
#79
They arent arguing that at the SCOTUS. They are arguing forcing all people to pay for something.
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#53
Some want to think so.I dont think five conservative justices will find it different in a better way
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#59
Right but whose law was Medicare Part D and did it forceably cover every person in the country?
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#72
No politician in his or her right mind will lead the battle for public health care.
bluestate10
Mar 2012
#78