politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Making the Rs vote against Medicaid for all, and having Trump ultimately veto it would look very bad for them. Medicaid for all has broad support now.
(Yes, I know it's Medicare for all, but it should be Medicaid for all, most people don't know the difference.)
When my family was poor a couple decades ago we were on Medicaid and it was so simple compared to how complicated Medicare seems to be, including having copays, and medications generally not being covered, and different "Parts" (not to mention "Advantage"). We were able to take our kids to the doctor and get them meds, everything just worked with no extra work or money on our part.
I've said Medicare for all seems like a scam and what we really need is Medicaid for all for years now, nice to see I ain't the only one.
Son was on Medicaid for a while, due to being a preeme. An absolute dream of a health care program. You just get seen. Someone else deals with the paperwork.
Except payments are very low and most providers reject it. IIRC, $11or such for a routine dental visit. Which is fine if we had socialism where education didn't cost a lifetime of repayment.
Chuck Summer and Hakeem Jefferies don't want Medicare For All.
Then they should be on the record for it as well.
Medicare for the elderly and disabled.
Medicaid for the peasantry who qualify (and we'll make sure as many as people as possible dont)
Especially when medicare rejects more and more, doesn't cover drugs in itself, long-term care, and a plethora of other things.
In general, I disagree with empty, inconsequential political gestures—and even more so in this case. Something like this might not enjoy as much consensus among Democratic lawmakers as you think; it would shift the debate toward economic issues and face opposition from doctors and hospital administrators. I’m not saying that’s reason enough to avoid such a move when it could actually be implemented; I’m just saying the debate might not unfold the way you expect. I believe that focusing on enforcing existing laws and mandates could be more effective.