You can compare the two. The difference is the amount of regulation that has gone into each, and the amount of government involvement.

Then it was a worthless plan. But the idea in itself is not worthless. There were plenty of plans that were similar that worked just fine.

Sorry. Yes, that is a typo. Clinton got 5% less of the Black vote than Obama did. I think it’s significant that 1 out of 20 Black voters thought it less risky to vote for Trump than Clinton.

It doesn’t matter. The Democrats left prescription drugs off of the ACA table. And they over-regulated. There were more reasons to avoid ACA than there were to get into it.

This is my point. Those plans should still be available. Instead of providing the categories of coverage, the ACA attempted to remove categories and regulate the process and price. That never, ever works well.

How did no one see this coming? They built it so that this would happen.

I understand how it works. I know how we offset costs between high/low risk pools. But the fact of the matter is that the ACA didn’t do enough in this realm. 3-4 tiers isn’t enough.

Yeah, single payer would’ve been a no-go.

Here’s the problem:

A big portion of the issue here is that to contain the cost of healthcare, you have to open up the system, not close it. The ACA created a closed system.

You are forgetting:

It was in response to “A time when portions of the population were prevented from competing for jobs due to either written or unwritten rules” and the line “swathes of the American electorate pine for what they perceive to be a better time in their country”.

Even with those numbers, you are making a massive assumption that Hillary would’ve carried nearly all of those votes, and that those folks would’ve actually voted. There are a lot of people who would not have showed up had there not been an opportunity to vote for a 3rd party (myself included).

They absolutely are the time. A 5% turnout for a 3rd party means guaranteed public campaign money in the next election. The 2 major parties have set up a system to box out any competition. This, and ranked-choice-voting (which the 2 parties hate) are literally the only way to get a 3rd party in. The 2 parties have…

This is why many voted for a 3rd party. If a 3rd party candidate can get 5%, then public campaign money opens up in the next election.

This is a crap argument. And I’m a left leaning person who didn’t vote for Trump.

I agree with you. I know so many people who simply voted against her, and were not for Trump.

Of course, we could’ve had a better candidate than both if we didn’t have a 2 party system.

The DNC also actively campaigned for her to win. She had resources available to her campaign (via the DNC) that was not made available to any other candidate.

It’s not overhyped. The States are a perfect example. States where the government has created a monopoly, notably on Internet, have the highest cost and worst service. States where the gov’t have required less regulation typically have better service.