efcdons
efcdons
efcdons

1) is not necessarily true. If coverage is written in to the statutory language of a M4A bill then it won’t matter who is President. But since Obama promised Bart Stupak he would sign an executive order outlawing the use of federal funds abortion coverage, a person seeking coverage for abortions must pay the full

There have been multiple single payer bills introduced in both the house and Senate over the past couple of years. Those bills set out in the kind of detail typical of legislation (i.e. it doesn’t address every possible scenario in the entire universe because, like almost all legislation, it delegates responsibilities

The Medicaid expansion is a classic single payer system of providing health care. Raising the income cap would have expanded the reach of the program into a larger, healthier pool of insured. At some point it would become a de facto public option and would out compete individual insurance bought on the exchange. Since

Medicare and Medicaid are structured differently. Medicare is administered by the federal government. Medicaid is administered by a state and federal partnership. In NFIB v. Sibelius there was a discussion about how the different relationship between the states and feds with Medicare and Medicaid meant a Medicare

No. His uselessness and lack of substance was pretty obvious before he launched his campaign for the Democratic nomination. Any popularity he’d been able to attain from his run for senate was despite his suckiness. The sheer horribleness of Ted Cruz served to make whomever ran against him look much better than they

He represents a district (TX-16) that is strongly Democratic. In the last three presidential elections the district voted for the Democratic candidate by 30 or more points over the republican. He doesn’t “need” to support “centrist” policies. That’s entirely by his own choice. Like many Democratic members of congress,

Why is the “fiscal” conservatism more “respectable” than the “social” conservatism? Not only are they arguably inextricably linked, it’s arguably even more incoherent than right wing “social” conservatism.

It’s also an incoherent ideology which requires one believe the inherently unprovable idea that god/nature/whatever “establishes” private property outside and unrelated to the state. Which is ironic considering how many libertarians are also the absolutely insufferable type of unbearable, in your face atheists.

Someone woke up on the bitch side of the bed this morning! Apparently a majority of Americans have drunk the kool-aid over the last couple of days. Just like us foaming at the mouth lunatics who are crazy about insane ideas like all Americans having health care without having to pay huge deductibles, co-pays, or

Keep my name out ya mouth.

It’s pretty interesting how right wing republicans are willing to use the power of the state incentives to try and “force” a company to comport with the politician’s insane social conservatism. A similar “kerfuffle” happened in GA when some republicans (like current governor Brian Kemp when he was just a state

It’s a transaction within a capitalist framework embedded in our society. It has been long accepted transactions are not just agreements between individuals as they see fit. Instead, society has a voice in determining the contours of the transaction. Even being able to go so far as disallowing a transaction entirely.

But that’s the libertarian line of thinking which can be used to argue against any regulations or restrictions in the employer/employee relationship. A worker’s body is theirs to use however they choose and if they want to work for less than minimum wage or with no safety protections, then who are we to interfere as

But surrogacy isn’t just the labor of pregnancy. It is also forcing a woman to convert her body and bodily functions in to a form of “capital”. The capitalist system doesn’t just want to commodity all work in to “labor”, it also wants to turn anything it can in to capital which is to be owned and exploited. We already

Marxism does envision something “totally different”. That’s the ultimate “stop” on the “train” of history. Setting aside how Marxism is an analytical framework created to examine socio-economic relationships rather than a blueprint for a future society, the final “stage” as envisioned by Marxist analysis (which sees

Hamilton mentions Scottdale, GA. Scottdale is barely a “suburb” in the context of the Atlanta metro. It’s “inside the perimeter” (ITP), the traditional boundary between “city” and “suburbs” for Atlanta. It’s also very diverse. And it’s between the ridiculously expensive city of Decatur, GA and the city of Clarkston,

Almost certainly. At least under the FLSA the claims can be brought against the “owner” personally as well as the corporate entity. Which at least makes the asset shuffle more difficult for the defendant owner. But even then guys are conveniently “broke” and the entity just happens to have zero assets. Only debt.

That’s the problem. We don’t know what “most people feel”. We only know what we “feel” and “feeling” something about an issue isn’t the same as “knowing” something. It would be much better if we stuck to figuring out our own personal preferences then trying to convince others as to why our preference is correct. Not

Does UPS provide $0.47 letter delivery from the Barrow, AK to Key West, FL? Does Fed Ex? No. Those are “supplementary” services. We literally have “universal mail delivery” because private companies would not provide those important services at a reasonable cost to every American.

Are you just doing a real good impression of a stupid person or are you actually being stupid? The claim was the word “insurance ” is in fact acting as a proxy for people to describe their current health care experience. Polls showing people like their insurance company or say they are concerned about losing their