Some, but a lot don’t. Even if that was the only way to reduce healthcare costs, it would be a great application for eminent domain. Luckily, everyone else has a better solution than ours.
The US is a big country in size and population. So, efforts in this area aren’t easy and very expensive. If you maintain everyone to have insurance, as with the ACA, you can lower about 1/3 of health care costs. Move to Universal Care, you’re looking at almost 2/3. Nationalize the entire Healthcare structure and you’ll see almost 3/3. I don’t really see that last one happening in my lifetime. It took a lot to convince people the ACA was good for them.
I agree that Joe was listening to those constituents who wanted to keep their jobs. And, if the public would have given democrats more of a majority in the Senate he wouldn’t have been an issue.
So 25k people vs 3 million? That’s not called listening to your constituents. He had been a democrat until a few years before this and broke ranks because of the Iraq war, so his disagreement on this issue came as a surprise to many Connecticut voters.
That’s disappointing, as I haven’t said anything untrue, but it doesn’t seem to have an impact on you, so you’re probably correct that there’s no point in continuing. I would encourage you to read more about Joe Lieberman, though.
You seem to suppose an entire population has the same opinion you do. This is not the case. You are not logical but wish me to spend time in dialog. I’m going to block you due to persistent nonsense.
Some, but a lot don’t. Even if that was the only way to reduce healthcare costs, it would be a great application for eminent domain. Luckily, everyone else has a better solution than ours.
The US is a big country in size and population. So, efforts in this area aren’t easy and very expensive. If you maintain everyone to have insurance, as with the ACA, you can lower about 1/3 of health care costs. Move to Universal Care, you’re looking at almost 2/3. Nationalize the entire Healthcare structure and you’ll see almost 3/3. I don’t really see that last one happening in my lifetime. It took a lot to convince people the ACA was good for them.
So we agree that Joe Lieberman voted against the interests of his constituents (the difference between the 1/3 and 2/3 of savings).
I agree that Joe was listening to those constituents who wanted to keep their jobs. And, if the public would have given democrats more of a majority in the Senate he wouldn’t have been an issue.
So 25k people vs 3 million? That’s not called listening to your constituents. He had been a democrat until a few years before this and broke ranks because of the Iraq war, so his disagreement on this issue came as a surprise to many Connecticut voters.
That’s nonsense. There is no reason to continue here.
That’s disappointing, as I haven’t said anything untrue, but it doesn’t seem to have an impact on you, so you’re probably correct that there’s no point in continuing. I would encourage you to read more about Joe Lieberman, though.
You seem to suppose an entire population has the same opinion you do. This is not the case. You are not logical but wish me to spend time in dialog. I’m going to block you due to persistent nonsense.