A Cover-up Cover-up? Establishment Dems Fight to Defeat 'Medicare-for-All' in Colorado

Free tuition.

that's all folks.

It really is OUR issue (at lease one of them.)

It doesn't link to sources that explain the situation and then after making the assertion tries to tie in several disparate people and issues. Finally as is necessary in all such articles it blames Clinton.

Its the only way we can have affordable health care. But - see the grey text below- we have to obtain carve outs from the existing and pending FTAs first.

Soon!

If you visit his web site you'll find how he intends to pay for his health care plan.

however it is barred by trade deals which create a great many intentional obstacles.

Going back to the mid 1990s- its been barred, they just neglected to tell us.

I want a national health care system similar to Belgium or Great Britain.

However for now I'd be happy with a public option.

and then let me know when you've looked at them, and we can discuss it more effectively.

You may need to turn on sigs.. you may have turned it off because of the annoying animations turn it back on and look at the urls below my posts there are four of them. the first one is the one you want to see first

https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/fcb50f80-def3-468b-b4dc-0af21010134f.pdf

Your first link doesn't work. Second link doesn't address why single payer is superior to other national systems, eg Germany and Switzerlands regulated private insurance, or Great Britain or France with government provided systems. The final two links are trade specific.

If you like medicare for all or some other flavor of single payer, fine. But imho single payer is not the most effective system. Expanded medicare still is at the mercy of private health care providers.

If you want a path to medicare for all a politically easier way is a public option. Once people get used to the idea that government health insurance is comparable in quality and less expensive than private insurance they're going to be more amenable to single payer.

You can download the paper from the link on the right.

You cannot have a "public option" there is no such thing, the third link explains why.

Also, to be legal in our trading policy it has to be pre, (And pre-existing which is impossible, but leaving that out, money has to be out of the picture completely, like it is in Canada)

"public option" was a scam thought up by the insurance industry. Even if it was FTA legal it would be impossible because the existence of insurance - private insurance would have to be protected by the government which would mean that it would have to be given the opportunity to be profitable by cream skimming, leaving the public system with all the expensive unprofitable sick people, which would lead to rising costs and a system collapse.




http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdf

of. We are not structurally suited to emulate the types of "public utility" set up other nations have in anything resembling an effective way because we love wild, wild west style business dealings.

Quarter measures won't cut it because we have a regulation adverse society so all we can do is transform the whole thing into a public service.