The Trump Presidency Nein: Leistung, Korruption und Lugen

I oppose it for policy and political reasons.

As to the first, they're getting paid in cash and not paying federal taxes. Also, you're going to have some medical tourism if that's our policy.

As to the second, I don't want Democratic candidates up and down the ballot having to defend single payer for undocumented residents.

 

"Awkward and clunky?"

And if people think "it means no other options," they aren't smart enough to come in out of the hail, let alone rain...

 

The question in the survey doesn't spell out that your private insurance would no longer exist. I think the poll result would be quite a bit different if that was made clear. In fact, the survey admits that is the case.

"KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan (Figure 13), suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their currenthealth insurance coverage (Figure 14)."

 

I also think it's the right thing to do, but as a people, we're just not that generous, which is why I think it would benefit Trump more than it would a Democratic candidate.

 

All? No.

I never like to give out too much personal info on the internet, but given the particular circumstance of my family, I second-hand know a pretty good number of undocumented people, and they get paid in cash (or checks.)

You can either trust me on that or not, but that's my base of knowledge.

 

I've know a good number of American citizens who have worked a decade plus off the books and have never paid taxes. My grandfather now dead for roughly 25 years I'd guess never paid taxes.

 

"to" and "the" need to be crossed out to really nail the reference.

 

Sure, there's more to be said on the subject. Including by Democrats, who as yet haven't had the opportunity to argue why people shouldn't be worried that private insurance would cease to exist, because the discussion hasn't yet reached that stage.

I mean, you might ultimately be correct, it could be that eliminating private insurance proves to be a nonstarter, and that Democrats need to modify their proposal. But I don't know if that will be so, not until the discussion develops further.

 

My brother did for 20 years. He wouldn't be eligible for the government health plan, not if the Dems structure it correctly, because that plan would be for people who are on the grid, not off it.

 

So?

 

It means that limmigration status shouldn't be a qualifier, payroll taxes paid should.

 

Remember, this is a country that elected our current President. One of the reasons being was the perception of him being a good businessman. Thanks to a book from the 80s and a TV show. There are also people who think the ACA and Obamacare are two different things.

 

Mmm, Bernie is already there, and Warren may be as well. Harris has been somewhat ambiguous about it.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...alth-insurance-companies-should-be-eliminated

 

Hmmm. What I meant was that we are at the early stages of discussion on the topic. People initially are positive about the Dem proposal Medicare for all, then are less positive when they are informed by the Republican rebuttal that they can't have their private insurance any more. We know that much. What we don't know is how they will feel when the Democrats respond to the Republican rebuttal. We're not there yet ... very few people would know that third item. I certainly do not.

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

I'm surprised I've not seen health insurance pushback against this. I don't remember a single commercial against Medicare for all.

 

Good point. You'd think the insurers would want to get ahead of the curve on this, since the idea is being taken seriously enough to receive support from major Presidential contenders.