"If the Czar only knew...." I didn't post this because of the Russia thing, just because I remembered the similarities. Except Putin a least as a possible excuse that the sanctions are imposed by outsiders.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/w...oze-putin.html

http://mattbruenig.com/2017/06/22/ho...and-ahca-kill/

I have some serious methodological problems with that blog post.

You can't take a statistic like 1 in 830 people w/o insurance die and apply it to a bunch of totally different insurance strategies.

For example, under Obamacare almost anyone that wanted/needed insurance could get it. So the 'uninsured' people will be much healthier / lower risk than 'uninsured' people in a system like the AHCA where lots of people just can't it under any circumstance.

And of course there's a bunch of really sick people that are going to die whether they have insurance or not. So a lot of the dead people attributed to lack of insurance in AHCA/Obamacare would still be dead with Single payer insurance.

There's a Trump pee joke in here somewhere. But kidding aside, what does McConnell gain by this bull****?



https://twitter.com/ColleenFlangan/s...74792749461505

Sure, but the methodology is about people who will die because of the lack of insurance that they would otherwise have under the status quo. A single payer is going to have, by nature of the definition, 0 deaths. That doesn't mean no one's going to die. Which is really the point of the post. Those who argue about the inhumanity of letting deaths that can be attributed to a lack of healthcare that they might have otherwise have applies to Obamacare as well and to any program that isn't universal. It's the logical conclusion of the argument. It's really just to trap the liberal element that's talking about the inhumanity of Trumpcare while opposing universal health insurance.

The **** is wrong with these people? There are ADA-accessible bathrooms all over the National Mall, escort her over to the National Gallery or something. Or maybe just let these protestors go? Are we seriously going to charge them with anything?

Also:

Not a peep over at Fox News dot com. Shows seem to want to talk about Pelosi.

Free pee? Not me.
It comes with a Ruskie fee, you see.
If I could get past Co-mey.
This may just start World War 3.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...l-votes-239872

lol oh noes.

Thune is doing a better job messaging for the Democrats than the Democrats.

"If we don't kill the people now, we'll never get our tax cuts. Then we will end up with a fair system in '18. Oh noes."

i still don't get why they don't need 60 votes to pass this?

Thune being a bit melodramatic.

It'll be awhile until single payer happens. Dems will need congress and presidency to make it happen.

Because they're using reconciliation which just requires a simple majority.

Don't worry, though. After this passes, and after thousands of people die as a result... and after the luckier thousands just suffer with illnesses they can't afford to treat... and after the luckiest manage to get the treatment, but go bankrupt in the process... and after Democrats take over all three branches as a result.

Don't worry, because then it'll need 60 votes to pass. Then, we're counting on the Dems to go nuclear to get single payer through, and... LOLdems.

Single Payer is delusional.

The whole individual market ~7%.

You'd have to throw half the country off their (heavily subsidized) employer plans for single payer. It's just not realistic.

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indic...2:%22asc%22%7D

What makes it unrealistic for the US? What is different than other countries where it works?

Because he's a trump nut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service
The National Health Service (NHS) is the name of the public health services of England, Scotland and Wales, and is commonly used to refer to those of Northern Ireland. They were established together by the Labour Party as one of the major social reforms following the Second World War.

It's simply this. While "health care" goes back to antiquity, modern health care really has only been around since post-world war II. In the 1950's, health care wasn't much more than penicillin and opioids. We had a very rudimentary understanding on health care. Europe started back then with the single payer, government/taxpayer funded model. As health care grew, so did the scope of the government's role.

In the United States however, due to wage caps et al, health care coverage began to be an "employer provided" perk in lieu of salary. And as health care grew, so did the value of this perk.

We now have 70 years or so of growth of each of these models. Imagine a 70 year old tree. Sure, you can cut it down, but it takes a lot of effort compared to cutting down a 1 year old tree. And there can be severe complications. In the 1940's-50's if the US elected for a Medicare for all, it would just be a different discussion. For whatever reason, it was dediced on Medicare for the elderly (and you see clearly now that Medicare --- a single payer --- plan for 65+ is untouchable, just as the NHS is the UK).

You simply would have to BLOW UP the United States' employer provided model which insures ~50% of patients for single payer in the United States. It's not tenable. There is no political will for that.

If trump is in office I don't think they'll need the presidency. He's dumb enough that they could trick him into signing anything. Also, he literally doesn't care or know about any policies whatsoever.

This country spends twice as much as any other per capita and our outcomes are below average. There is not one good reason not to have national health care. EVERY SINGLE BULL**** ARGUMENT OTHERWISE IS ABOUT MONEY. All that extra money other countries don't spend goes to line the pockets of scum: big pharma, insurance companies, lobbyists, hospital executives, you name it. When you hear people talk about health care, ask yourself what their financial incentives are. Things will be very clear.

Oh and guys, it's ok for poor black people to get health care. Even health care that's as good as yours.

You could do single payer for people not receiving employee coverage. Medicare for 50+. Allow employees to opt into gubmint healthcare and recieve the difference versus market plan in their salary. There are lots of ways to get the ball rolling. No change would ever be the instantaneous cutting down the tree metaphor of awval.

It's telling how you conclude your argument with - and I paraphrase - "There's no political will, you fools. Give up." That is what we have been talking about over and over again. We want to CREATE the will by raising awareness, and then do it. We need einbert itt to fill in the appropriate quote about there being no political will for civil rights, and women's suffrage was just delusional.

Republicans are pushing for a plan that has like 17% public approval and people are arguing about a lack of public will?

Yes, it's incredibly unrealistic to think we could cut out the middle man and just have the government pay for insurance instead of giving companies tax breaks to cover their employees.

Imagine all the business owners who would be so frustrated that they didn't have to waste days of their time trying to find the most affordable plan for their company every ****ing year.

Speaking a Avik, here he is admitting to Chris Hayes that the party is doing this because of it's ideological goals, not to improve healthcare


https://twitter.com/Avik/status/878243944861016064



https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...45275583655936