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
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: Message auto-removed [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)119. Politicians have one primary goal: Get and remain elected.
Their obsession for fundraising is to achieve that goal. But they still have to win. Which means if we convince blue state voters that a "government option" is a good idea, they will support it in order to remain in office.
Also, you cannot talk about a move to a true, single-payer system if you're going to suggest that it operate state by state. A system of healthcare cannot be dependent on the states; it has to be national or it defeats the purpose of healthcare for all.
So, Canada doesn't have single-payer?
Snark aside, the state-by-state phase is a step along the path.
California probably wouldn't fight it - and a handful of other states as well. But that only helps the people in those states and fails as a system of healthcare similar to the civilized nations.
In the short run.
The successes in those states will make it easier to expand to other states. And that expansion makes it easier to accomplish at the federal level.
Yes, living in Alabama is going to suck for a while from a healthcare perspective. But eventually we'll get the pieces in place for a true healthcare system.
The conversation has to come from the leaders of the nation and what they have told us is that the PPACA is the best they can do.
For now.
It's step 1. There will be many subsequent steps. That's why the Republicans are so desperate to stop it today - they won't be able to stop the next dozen-or-so steps, because they will be taking place in "blue" states.
So again, your previous post was claiming this state-by-state plan isn't going to work. I'm still looking for specifics as to why you think this is the case.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
185 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
CA's silver plan is considerably better than my corporate insurance and less expensive.
Warren Stupidity
Oct 2013
#3
Gonna cost a lot more than that for us here in Maine. :^( I am dreading losing my medicaid.
GreenPartyVoter
Oct 2013
#5
You have a Teabag governor who refuses to expand Medicaid or institute the exchanges.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Oct 2013
#16
Working on that now. Still wish they weren't taking away MaineCare, though. *blah*
GreenPartyVoter
Oct 2013
#24
Part of that pool are the Teabagger eedjits who won't be "forced into" getting health insurance.
riqster
Oct 2013
#154
Exactly. The ACA relies on Medicaid expansion by the states to cover the most vulnerable, and
jtuck004
Oct 2013
#138
This is great news, as this continues to roll out and more are insured the games being played out in
Thinkingabout
Oct 2013
#7
When I moved to Las Vegas from Anaheim I was shocked to find my auto insurance doubled.
Spitfire of ATJ
Oct 2013
#70
That's the other part of the reason for the shutdown. The GOP must have seen reports that said
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#9
Actually I am "miffed" because the RI healthcare website isn't working correctly at the moment
Marrah_G
Oct 2013
#179
You've just codified non-egalitarian, tiered healthcare that hinges upon self-rationing
NoOneMan
Oct 2013
#27
No, they noted that you are making assumptions about details of a plan that are not in evidence. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#44
There are certain preventive services that aren't subject to coinsurance and deductibles.
Hoyt
Oct 2013
#124
Back up to the part where you commented on the plan when the plan details are not in evidence. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#42
Oh I make sense. I only comment on facts in evidence. I dont imagine things to be upset about. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#67
And for this particular life, I can finally afford health care coverage when previously I couldn't..
LanternWaste
Oct 2013
#69
My argument is facts....your argument is that my argument is a "strawman argument" that
cbdo2007
Oct 2013
#96
You're fucking kidding?!??! That's great! I live in Maryland and I expect similar!
Liberal_Stalwart71
Oct 2013
#15
Because they need to soak us as much as possible for another year to pad their reserves ...
Myrina
Oct 2013
#149
"Why did Obama delay the cap on out of pocket expenses until 2015?" The deal...all part of the deal.
Safetykitten
Oct 2013
#165
Interesting that 4 people making double the money would pay a fraction of what one
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#29
I think it is more reasonable to assume the OP is speaking about a policy with high
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#64
part of it is health insurance companies are limited in non-direct-medical expenses
tomm2thumbs
Oct 2013
#54
I may be wrong it could be that Missouri's governor rejected Obamacare provisions to expand Medicare
tomm2thumbs
Oct 2013
#71
And wait until doctors and hospitals discover that they are going to get paid for ALL their work.
JDPriestly
Oct 2013
#131