Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It sounds nice in reality for the countries that currently have a universal healthcare system. But it sounds like you prefer our current system where we have millions of Americans without insurance and a system that costs more for the people who do have insurance and is inefficient.
And even with this, we will still have millions and millions uninsured.....so I go back to my original question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I thought this was the entire premise of the AHCA? This is what it was sold on, right, to ensure insurance coverage of everyone?
Yes, the Senate had the 60 votes needed to pass AHCA without a Public Option, which is what we currently have. The Democrats were shy of a few votes for a filibuster proof bill with the Public Option added in.
So the dems are the one who voted this option out....
It sounds nice in reality for the countries that currently have a universal healthcare system. But it sounds like you prefer our current system where we have millions of Americans without insurance and a system that costs more for the people who do have insurance and is inefficient.
Well those countries have high taxes, net surpluses and are exporters of goods, not importers.
Americans balked when their 2% FICA got reinstated.
Those socialist type programs depends on a healthy economy and surpluses to pay for them.
The US is up to its eyeballs in debt..both at a government level and individual level.
Yes, the Senate had the 60 votes needed to pass AHCA without a Public Option, which is what we currently have. The Democrats were shy of a few votes for a filibuster proof bill with the Public Option added in.
Indeed, and beyond that, perhaps the Democrats should have realized that the Republicans had no intention of being responsible legislators, and did away with the filibuster at the beginning of the session, so that they could have passed a public option regardless. However, how was anyone to know that the Republicans would be so grievously irresponsible?
So the dems are the one who voted this option out....
Yes, the Democrats in the Senate removed the Public Option when they realized they did not have the 60 votes needed for a super majority....it is like you weren't paying attention during 2009-10 while all of this was going on.
Yes, the Democrats in the Senate removed the Public Option when they realized they did not have the 60 votes needed for a super majority....it is like you weren't paying attention during 2009-10 while all of this was going on.
Or just paying attention to that carefully twisted "news" presented on right-wing reactionary services.
Indeed, and beyond that, perhaps the Democrats should have realized that the Republicans had no intention of being responsible legislators, and did away with the filibuster at the beginning of the session, so that they could have passed a public option regardless. However, how was anyone to know that the Republicans would be so grievously irresponsible?
That is true, it is one of the main things that I am still pissed at Harry Reid with not doing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
