Done. 1 guess.

Done, 2 guesses

tuco, you are not thinking straight, even about some of the most obvious issues. Case in point: you refer to the Dems losing the vital Senate seat when Kennedy died. In reality, the seat was lost when Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the subsequent special election on January 19, 2010. Kennedy had died almost five months earlier, on August 25, 2009. That makes a big difference in the ACA timeline.

You will never develop a firm grasp of history if you do not pay closer attention to timelines and the correct sequences of events.

The date on which Nancy Pelosi said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" was March 9, 2010. That was during the tense period when the House Democrats were desperately working on the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act which they needed to plaster over some of the defects in the ACA bill that they did not dare amend because it would then have to be sent to the Senate for a further precarious vote. When you know the background, it is easy to understand why Pelosi made that comment about the health care bill, because it was really two bills and one of them was still being worked on.

Oky, that was just one gues

TallMike yhat is not a nice thing to say about tuco, and it is also completely besides the point. You only react to little details, but never to the main arfguments. The main argument of Tuco was that a good health insurance ifor all is almost standard in any developed country in the worls, and that what the US now calls single pauer system is the standrd, not the exception. Tht is becuse helth is seen as one of the most important values, and eqaul access to health services as a human right. So the question is - why not in the US and the only answer given I haev seen is because it is too big. That of course is nonsense. If ACA has flaws then fix them, and use a democratic process to fix them.

MrO, as usual, you're insightful and correct. The big picture is generally absent in these discussions. I certainly understand taking an opposing view if one is very wealthy, but remain stumped when people support concepts against their own interests. Sadly, too many Americans look at the individual, not the society.

done

Tuco, in you bio you state "if you voted for Trump or Bush you should have your voting privileges revoked. Obviously, you have decided "it's YOUR way or the WRONG way".

Thinking like that is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

MrOoijer, thank you for telling me what tuco's main argument was. I find it difficult to tell sometimes. I will now act on the new insight you have provided, by commenting as follows:

In my view, providing health care to all of a country's citizens ideally should not involve insurance at all and should be entirely independent of one's personal or family employment status.

It is unfortunate that the US health care system largely evolved around the twin pillars of employment and insurance. Now that health care constitutes a huge portion of the country's economy, it seems impossible to switch to an entirely different health care system without a huge risk of destabilizing the economy and possibly triggering financial collapse.

Although I believe that nothing is impossible if it has enough public support, our so-called democracy is so much more influenced by money than by high ideals that I doubt that any of us will see common sense prevail in the health care arena in our lifetimes. And so we are at least temporarily stuck with the injustice of employment status and inconsistent insurance benefits and costs both having an influence on many people's health care. You can moralize all you want about the need for good health insurance for all, or equal access to health services as a human right, but we will always be fighting uphill battles as long as health care is dependent on insurance companies to control much of the funding and employers to arrange much of the coverage.

tuco says: "What is an "entitlement"? "; by definition having a right to something, the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment. You tell me. All of the items which you listed are provided by the government. However, there is a difference between what the role of government which is the debate here, as well as, between the US and say Canada, or Norwegian or Western Euro societies. None of those have created the wealth engine nor the wealth nor the innovation which the US has accomplished in in 250 years. The more wealth has been created the more the conversation has shifted from basic govt services like roads, education, police and military functions to the litany of 'ancillary' services which have been labeled "entitlements"; soc sec, medi/care/aid, food stamps, etc.

Tuco, I want to commend you for being consumed by the machinations of politics and which side is right and which one is wrong. And being so consumed with it that it appears to engage a healthy portion of your life energy which is a tremendously limited asset. I hope you can make a difference. Even if it means casually doing my puzzle and noticing your incessant daily rants of what you see is righteous injustice foisted on the world by the Evil America - that being all those who you disagree with or believe are purps of the social crimes which seem to be limited to America. Rant on, I am just getting my puzzle started after a short 18holes this morning. Looking for to read more of the same!

done