Fair enough. I guess he could respond, "The debate has already shifted. The next step, legislation, requires details, and this falls short."
But, in any case, your voting record, by itself, is why you're not the audience here.
-
-
I hear you. But I suspect many ppl who don't vote and/or don't have good employer-based coverage will also be uneasy abt lack of details.
-
Given that one of things they loathe right now is how many details they have I sort of doubt it. One reason Medicare works is fewer details.
-
But I admire your certainty that people who can't afford care would prefer some wonk lecturing about what they can't have.
-
I don't have much certainty about any of this and have expressed very little.
-
Ah. OK. Well, I suspect, based on details about ACA as implemented, that "more details" is not what sells stuff like this.
-
In fact, Trump managed to win against all odds by offering almost no details about his policy proposals.
-
But that comparison is interesting. Obama and Trump both won. But detailed ACA passed and detail-free Trumpcare failed.
-
Detailed ACA passed and was an anchor on Dems, including right before Trump's election, until people faced losing it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.