It's not that the modern republicans want to kill off the poor, they just don't want them having the same chances of survival than the well-financed and mostly white populace. It's not eugenics, it just shares some similar results.
It's not that the modern republicans want to kill off the poor, they just don't want them having the same chances of survival than the well-financed and mostly white populace. It's not eugenics, it just shares some similar results.
It's the right-wing version of freedom.We're not killing you. We're just ensuring you don't have the resources to live.
That's not a cap on what premiums can be that I'm aware of. There's a line to determine where people get government subsidies towards their health spending. The issue I'm pointing out is the artificial incentive to be inefficient, guaranteeing cash flow from the government if they're inefficient enough doesn't solve that problem. Which is not a criticism of that cap, I'm not against helping people get healthcare they can't afford, but it doesn't make "cap their margins, they'll be more efficient that way" work out any better.Indeed. Good thing there's also a cap on chargeable premiums to address it. You must be pretty enthused about Biden's plan to set that cap lower, given your concern for affordability?
I've read news stories about Republicans in surveys being perfectly fine with the Affordable Care Act, but they were absolutely convinced that Obamacare would destroy the country.Take the Affordable Healthcare Act and change not a single thing about it except that the Republicans passed it instead and you'd find that the Republicans wouldn't be making a peep.
Yes. A lot of it is about presentation.I've read news stories about Republicans in surveys being perfectly fine with the Affordable Care Act, but they were absolutely convinced that Obamacare would destroy the country.
An assumption very well grounded in past decisions about Garden Bridges, ferry contracts, and airport runways in the Thames.When a right-wing party proposes the same it can get far more traction. It's not just partisanship, it's that they have a higher trust in ways - firstly not to tax and spend to excess, and also that because this is not what right wing parties normally do, so there's an assumption they must be doing it because it's really important.
As I have said before, the Tories have a teflon-like capability to withstand ill repute from their economic blunders.An assumption very well grounded in past decisions about Garden Bridges, ferry contracts, and airport runways in the Thames.
A pattern I've noticed lately is that extreme right wingers prefer the illusion of freedom to the real thing. Like how they refuse to support public mass transit because cars are a symbol of freedom. A symbol that also happens to be expensive AF, costly to maintain and fuel, has to be insured and can rather easily kill you and others if you're not paying attention, which is somehow more free than the ability to purchase a ticket and go literally anywhere in your country in a fraction of the time it would take to drive.It's the right-wing version of freedom.
Other people should not stop you doing what you want, but if you don't have the resources to do anything then that's no-one's problem but your own.
It's because the car gives the owner personal freedom that they don't have to share with others. If everyone has the same freedom, then it's not special anymore.A pattern I've noticed lately is that extreme right wingers prefer the illusion of freedom to the real thing. Like how they refuse to support public mass transit because cars are a symbol of freedom. A symbol that also happens to be expensive AF, costly to maintain and fuel, has to be insured and can rather easily kill you and others if you're not paying attention, which is somehow more free than the ability to purchase a ticket and go literally anywhere in your country in a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
# of total bills isn't exactly a good way to measure legislative impact in the first place, especially with respect to accomplishing an agenda.The last time the Democrats controlled both the Senate & the House (111th Congress), the House passed 461 bills, against 411 for the current Congress.
So, they actually pass more bills when they are more likely to be signed into law.
That's what Porsches and Bentleys are for. Sure, the hoi polloi can buy cars too, but at least they can't get those cars.It's because the car gives the owner personal freedom that they don't have to share with others. If everyone has the same freedom, then it's not special anymore.
Yeah, that'd be right. But it's the metric you used to begin with. I was just pointing out a factual error.# of total bills isn't exactly a good way to measure legislative impact in the first place, especially with respect to accomplishing an agenda.
They're doing... things! is all that says.