Diane. Sorry, I refuse to "grasp" your false facts. N-E-V-E-R ! But, getting back anyway:

Republicans have all the power and now own the healthcare issue -- so fix it!!! All the problems you listed are the predictable outcome inherent in allowing private insurance companies to corrupt the system by profiting on sickness and death. In the creation of this reality, you continuously deny that your chosen party and its donors had no ideological input, influence, or culpability from the very beginning of the year-long hearings in 2009, which is a gross deception counter to the historical record.

Sure, no Republicans voted for the final product, but that was more because they wanted to deny Obama any "win" whatsoever and "make him a one-term president" (Mitch McTurtle) than it was because of the negative or positive merits of the legislation -- which, had they been truly concerned for the public good, Republicans could have easily helped Democrats to iron out. I know you refuse to open your eyes to that sad truth, but Robert Draper's book should be required reading for those interested in actual history: "When the Tea Party Came to Town."

As far as the democratic wing of the Democratic Party is concerned, the ACA was only a frustrating compromise with the forces of privatization controlling both parties. Nevertheless, it was a small step in the right direction that did, in fact, succeed in insuring twenty million more people and in saving fifty thousand more lives each year -- a predictable and positive result that "the opposition" always neglects to mention. Why is that?

Sooo... replace the ACA with universal single-payer and all the problems you stated above disappear. At the very least, your party (if it wasn't so schizophrenic and its leader wasn't so pathological) could introduce and pass the public option with lots of Democrats onboard along with the vast majority of the public.

Let the people decide! You know -- freedom and liberty? C'mon, all you morally-compromised hypocrites, time to redeem yourselves, step up to the plate, and really make America great ...instead of always whining about whatever sins the Democrats may have committed.

Regardless of how the revenue might be spent, we need a truly progressive structure of individual income taxation. The reason, I assert, is that most high incomes are unearned by individuals. They come from passive, speculative investment, and what economists refer to as rent-seeking privileges under the tax laws. We could address this by combining tax simplification with progressivity. Exempt all individual incomes up to the national median, eliminating all other exemptions and deducations. Above this level, impose increasing rates of taxation on higher ranges of income. Even a 90% tax rate on incomes above, say, $100 million would not in any way affect the lifestyle of these individuals. And, as I say above, very few persons earn this level of income by actually producing goods or providing services to others.

obat perangsang wanita I'd like to hear anyone who favors military intervention in Syria to tell us just what group we can align with that has a snowball's chance in hell of developing a stable government that works in the interests of the Syrian people.

Certainly, no one can argue against the fact that, yes, this pathological liar with a shrunken cerebrum and a bloated ego (and, obviously, with too many "big and beautiful" chocolate cakes under his long belt and too-long tie) is a shallow, self-absorbed asshole, who only cares about appearances and how "good" he looks while trying to hide his numerous, major screw-ups.

Well, sorry, the Pussy Grabber definitely will never look good no matter how long he gazes at the mirror combing his laughable, 1950's hairdo, and he sure as hell will never fool anyone with a thinking brain.

That's the trouble with arrogant dummies like this stumblebum scatter-brain with a tiny vocabulary, who can't focus longer than a few seconds; they think that they are smarter than everyone else and that no one sees through their two-bit fakery. Hilariously, Mensa Man judges the acuity of others by the standards of his groveling groupies. So sad.

All such pathetic distractions aside, why do Republicans always consider money more important than life when discussing healthcare?

If Thump thinks he can wreck healthcare and blame democrats he is mistaken. If he wrecks healthcare the blame will go to the president by most people. Even if healthcare gets wrecked and Trump has nothing to do with it, Trump still gets blamed because he's the president. That's the way it is. The average person doesn't understand or want a voucher program. They just want to be able to go to the doctor and not have financial problems because they did. That's what republican politicians either don't understand or don't care about. If republican Trump and the majority republican house and senate can deliver better healthcare for all, I'm all for it. I mean BETTER healthcare for ALL, not access to better healthcare if you have the money to pay for it, and not options to choose health plans according to what you can afford. If they can deliver that, then I'm all for it. I doubt they can deliver on healthcare though, because they are too deep into the pockets of insurance companies, big pharma, and businesses engaged in healthcare money making. When they don't deliver, their voters will know because they will have medical bills they can't pay.

Hi Kend. You have repeated several false Republican talking points and have left out important elements.

Costs "skyrocketed" primarily because Republicans screwed the pooch with poison-pill sabotage, such as dumping the "risk corridors" and, now, with threats to withhold " cost-sharing reductions," as Thom explained above. Furthermore, other underhanded tactics were deliberately intended to derail key components of the ACA, such as a 5-4, right-wing Supreme Court decision that allowed Republican governors not to expand Medicaid in red states, forcing really sick people into really expensive emergency rooms, which drives up the costs for everyone else. Also, you forgot to mention that ridiculous premium hikes by private insurance cartels were massively more severe before the ACA, when greed-mongers had free rein.

Unfortunately, the original bill did not include anti-monopolistic legislation to inspire real competition, effective price-gouging controls, or the "public option" -- all serious flaws pushed by industry lobbyists, all of which, along with other more minor problems, can be easily corrected by Republicans if they so choose, since they are the ones who now have all the power.

Even given all that, every objective private and public actuary, including the CBO, has emphatically stated repeatedly that, once markets reach equilibrium, the ACA is not destined to fail over the long term, as long as Republicans honor the law and play by the rules. So, the ACA is not any longer "owned by the Dems" and will not "collapse under its own wait [sic]."

And, no, premiums will not "go from $300 to$1,200 a month" under a single payer system run by the government. That's another disgusting lie put out by right-wing think tanks to scare low-information voters.

First, a single-payer system won't even have any "premiums" at all because private insurance companies won't operate in the primary care market, ripping people off. Second, Medicare-for-all "graduated taxes" (probably deducted from paychecks, much like Medicare FICA taxes are now) will be a fraction of the monthly cost of for-profit premiums, because most everyone in working America will be paying their fair share into an ocean-size pool, and the government can run the program quite efficiently at only a 2-3 percent overhead.

"To have single payer the middle class has to subsidize the lower income or no income Americans." You seem afflicted with the same fundamental misunderstanding that has infected Paul Ryan's blood-brain barrier of how a graduated tax works fairly for everyone and how an insurance pool works to lower the costs.

See, all insurance programs follow the same basic formula: the people whose houses do not burn down subsidize those whose houses do; the people who do not wreck their automobiles subsidize those who do; the people who do not get sick (yet) subsidize those who do.

More pointedly, the rich who benefit the most from our economy -- by leaps and bounds -- should subsidize low-paid wage slaves who benefit the least! About 96 percent of Americans derive some sort of income and will pay their fair share, as previously stated. We are a very rich nation and can surely pick up the tab for the least among us. Besides, from a wider perspective, morality and empathy are actually the most cost effective way to run an economy, because a healthy workforce is a more productive workforce, and a society that cares for everyone, no matter their status, enjoys far less social ills.

Many do agree with you that if one state -- perhaps a big one like California, the world's 8th largest economy -- successfully implemented a government-run, universal, single-payer system, other states would wake up, smell the coffee, and follow suit. Many do not agree, though, that a state-by-state evolution is the "only" solution. There is absolutely nothing blocking the Federal government from expanding Medicare to include every citizen of every age in every economic strata except self-serving insurance industry lobbyists, crass corporate Republican ideological intransigence, and the gross ignorance of their indoctrinated constituents who watch Fux "News."

"Ay, there's the rub."

Both Dems and Rep. have a real serious problem here. The truth about the cost of healthcare has been told when average middle class tax payers healthcare cost skyrocketed as a result of Obamacare. To have single payer the middle class has to subsidize the lower income or no income Americans. I don't think they want to. I think in their hearts they do but when their premiums go from $300 to$1,200 a month it is a different story. They simply can't afford it. This makes it impossible for a politician to sell it to voters. The only solution is to start a single payer system in one state. When the smoke clears the rest will follow with a version that fits them. You can eat a elephant, but you have to do it one bite at a time. Trump is sitting pretty good as he knows The AHA is owned by the Dems and will collapse under its own wait.

I think the Democrats will surrender, but only after some political theater to try and make us think that they are really fighting for us. But in the end, the Right will get what they want. The leopard does not change his spots; and Democrats don't suddenly grow a spine. We have, for decades, watched as the Democrats lean, bend, and fold to the Right. As long as palms are getting greased and the campaign contributions keep rolling in, little will change; nothing changes if nothing changes.

The Clinton administration took the first steps. After ending actual welfare aid, they began similarly "reforming" Social Security. Social Security provides returement, disbaility, and survivors' benefits. Democrats targeted the disabled, causing a public response (liberals included) of a yawn of indifference.

Our former welfare aid system was ended one cut,. one part, at a time. First, general assistance was targeted. Next came AFDC. The same strategy is being used to end Social Security. When Social Security Disability is ended, retirement will soon go follow.

I agree on single-payer. And I agree that both parties have been out of step for a time. If only there had been a bit more realistic cooperation during just the past eight years...who knew starting over was so complicated...besides all of us watching and screaming from the sidelines?

Trump, Pence, the Cabinet, and all Republkkkans need to be charged with genocide and sent to the Hague for trial and hanging when they cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, school lunches and any other program that will cause the death of Americans by suicide, starvation or disease caused by their utter disdain for the American people.