Beaver wrote:Instead of Single Payer insurance like Canada has we get Obamacare which is modeled after Romney-care that he passed as Mass Gov. And it's modeled after the very conservative Heritage Foundation plan
Beav, what you say is all accurate, but you miss seeing the forest for the trees.
Who gives a flying fuck whether past generations of Republicans supported versions of Obamacare? Excuse the inexcusable nazi reference, but it's like saying in 1939 that the Germans of the 1920's were rather likeable, with their cabarets and all.
Today the challenge is the Tea Party, and they are organized and popular.
And frankly, nobody should be getting there undies in a bundle because they didn't get their way on single payer. Take 4/5 of a loaf and be happy.
I have two quotes to bring reality into focus.
From our friends down south, the response to fed-funded medicaid expansion:
In South Carolina, Rob Godfrey, a spokesman for Gov. Nikki R. Haley, said, “We’re not going to shove more South Carolinians into a broken system that further ties our hands when we know the best way to find South Carolina solutions for South Carolina health problems is through the flexibility that block grants provide.”
Paul Krugman summarizes:
But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can’t afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences. We should all be thankful that, for the moment at least, that effort has failed.
The Republicans of today are so passionately against universal health care, they will forgo their favorite thing in the world to stop it - money!
What "flexibility of fixed block grants for medicaid" means is Republican are prepared to create even more uninsured and uninsurable people. They will turn down money to do better. They are against helping the poor through government as a matter of principle.
Slavery had become economically disadvantagous by 1860. The South insisted on keeping it out of sense of sovereigty and pure meanness, or as they would call it, "principle."