My question would be, though, will it actually do anything or make a noticeable difference? This lady says she didn’t know because “I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report.” Right-wing reporting isn’t going to be any different with this

Maybe I’m just crazy, that’s always a possibility *shrug*

Isn’t this also pretty much what a bunch of us were saying when the writers were screaming for him to testify, that it wouldn’t really move the needle?

“The federal government expanding a currently existing federal health insurance program which has already proven to be constitutionally acceptable by (as a simplified description) changing the statutory language regarding who is eligible for the program so it encompasses all citizens, not just those currently eligible…

Apparently not as I was called a troll above for voicing said opinion

About what, in what way?

Right which is why I’d say pushing M4A, exclusively, is a bad attitude

Exactly what I’m saying. The idea of “if it’s not M4A/single payer, it’s not good enough” is reductive bullshit

I’m a troll because I disagree with doing something that’s doomed to failure?

As to why/how they would work here? I’m not the one who made the assertion, they are; it’s on them to show evidence not me. It works just fine elsewhere (in the case of Germany it’s worked fine since 1883), so why not here?

I would say the reason there hasn’t been “an honest attempt” lately is because there is a literal 0.0% chance of it happening since the GOP controls the Senate and White House. When the Dems control both, sure, push it as hard as possible but right now? Why waste political capital on something that’s going to be dead…

But the question becomes, if M4A were to be shot down at any point in the process would you (or seemingly far too many others) get behind other proposals that could be implemented or just complain that your preferred solution didn’t happen?

You do realize that your post literally focuses on one word while completely ignoring that rest of the point and context, right?

I feel like we’re talking past each other a bit. I wouldn’t argue against almost any system as long as it’s better than our current one, which just about anything would be

Germany

That’s what I said

1. Pretty much everywhere with universal health care does, actually

Exactly. Plus, this is why incrementalism is necessary sometimes because it shows people that GOP fear mongering is bullshit (as evidenced by continually increasing approval numbers for ACA) and makes it easier to take the next step. As we’ve seen, making a major change is going to result in much more backlash

“Even if you don’t go bankrupt it doesn’t need to and SHOULDN’T be a major part of your finances. We can have health care that isn’t a real drain on anyone”

“It’s Medicare for All or Nothing”