I think the problem some people have with “Obamacare” is the name, itself: it reminds them that non-white people will likely be involved in their health care in their declining years…and that they have a black guy to thank for it.
If they changed the name, but left the policy un-changed, those people would be a lot happier…
But what to call it? How will Trump re-brand healthcare in America, and make it Great Again™?
…But if you close down the factories, the owners/shareholders won’t be able to skim billions from the American treasury! That’s just unAmerican!
Corporate welfare is desirable but the workers don’t need/deserve feeding at the public coffers. Socialism!
As your ‘President’ says, SAD.
I would say it doesn’t… and based on the last presedential election, it doesn’t need to. Actions speak louder than words.
Serfs had more job security… a Serf was bound to the land, just as the Lord was.
Yep. Branding is everything. Political branding is like a tattoo, it never goes away.
Goddamn it, it’s been 20 years and a different company now owns it, but the hammer lock on the Smith & Wesson revolvers is still called a Hillary Hole.
The experts predict rates to go up what 10%? I’m a little dubious that the mandate as implemented is actually as important as it is theorized to be, eg the only way to avoid actuarial death spiral.
On the other hand it did seem to cause one, at least at that time, republican relative of mine to log into the exchange website and discover they could get insurance basically for free. On the other other hand one acquaintance said they just paid the penalty because it was so vastly smaller than insurance premiums.
Oh, yeah; now we have the freedom to be unemployed, to be poor and hungry, to die of curable diseases, to see our close ones suffer.
So much freedom that it hurts!
Well he didn’t really kill it.
More like he locked it in the dungeon without food or water.
Fine by me, as long as they buy this nice Trumpcare I have to offer.
That has been my paradigm shift that some group programs can strengthen the unit as a whole. Like how a bundle of arrows is harder to snap than just one. United we stand, that sort of thing.
Surely you meant to say it’s like a brand.
Imaginary newspaper headline:
USA Still #1
ᴰᵉˢᵖᶦᵗᵉ ᴬᶫᶫ ᴬᵛᵃᶦᶫᵃᵇᶫᵉ ᴱᵛᶦᵈᵉᶰᶜᵉ⋅
You know Mister, sometimes you just have to drop the pretense that being an ‘independent’ has its positives. We live in a society where we all need to benefit, otherwise it’s not a society worth living in. If that means we pay higher taxes so the fire department will actually come to my house and put the fire out before it burns down and that there are safety regulations for labor, food, water, air and the environment in general than that is fine with me. This whole mindset of a smaller government is absurd. Government is there to make sure they serve us and still make a profit. A well regulated free enterprise system worked for this nation for decades until Ronny Raygun started this whole ‘government is bad’ concept. That was the sum of the Raygun revolution’, tear down the government and make it toothless and useless, unless you have the wealth to buy it and make it work for you at the expense of the general public. Independents think that private enterprise will step in where the government has been culled and help the American citizen. Private interests do not have our best interests in mind and heart. Today we are seeing the end results of that mind set. It is the same mindset of every ‘independent’ I have spoken to. We need a strong and involved government that will look after and “promote the general welfare” of the citizens of the United States as stated in the U.S. Constitution.
The argument over the size and scope of the Federal Government has been an issue since literally Day 1.
In general, the closer you are to a problem, the more good you can do. I’d rather pay the amount of taxes I pay to the feds to the state I live in, and vice versa.
The size our Nation is both a boon and a curse. Our problems vary wildly across the nation and the problem I have is that for a lot of things, the one size fits all solution doesn’t work for a lot of people.
Look at the EU. It acts, in some ways, similar to how the US Federal gov has oversight and regulates trade and currency between the states etc. Yet most of the power and specific social programs are independent of each country.
That is what a federal system does. They set overall policy for the whole country (“Education = good!”) then fund state-by-state or even community-by-community execution of that policy. That allows local implementation close to the problem while still leveraging the sheer size of the federal government.
What small-government advocates often fail to realize is that the federal government is the largest employer in the country. When they howl for smaller government (and lower taxes) during high unemployment, I like to remind them of that.
Yes, for some programs, but not others. I’ve had to correct many people about how hands off the feds are when it comes to direct involvement with education.
That’s true, and in fact the name Obamacare was cooked up by fox news to do just that work.
I remember a while ago there was a split when asked about obamacare vs. the ACA, and a majority of republicans were in support of the ACA because they directly benefited.
