Oakvale/Potus for Atlasia: Concession & endorsement

[Oakvale]

Friends!

I look around Atlasia and I see a country in its death throes.

Criminals run loose in the streets and sit in high places in Nyman. Tumbleweeds blow through the Senate. Incompetent goons kept in place by backroom backslappers and inertia. We have had three Presidents in a seventh-month period through a dismal display of neglect and disappointment. The incumbent spent a grand total of nine days as Vice-President.

In such stark relief is the collapsing scenery of the nation that Congress, the supposed reviver of the game, could not find a single living soul to appoint to a vacant seat, allowing Crooked Harry Truman to shamelessly exploit a legal loophole he wrote himself in order to hold two offices simultaneously.

Alongside so many of you, I cast my ballot proudly for dfwlibertylover seven short months ago. The Forgotten Men of Atlasia rose up to elect an outsider to our highest office. I do not regret my vote, but it is clear, tragically, that his presidency was a wasted opportunity, ending not with a bang but a whimper as he became just another entry in the long string of anonymous presidents run from the backrooms of Nyman. His singularly undistinguished successors have failed to impress in their brief and unremarkable tenures in office. Is the Presidency now a training ground for aspiring politicians?

The once-great Federalist Party has been hollowed out and lost its soul, lead astray by morons and becoming an amorphous ideological blob. So tragic is the party’s fall into indistinguishable mushiness that the treacherous Ted Bessell can flee to the Labor Party without so much as a eyelash’s difference in his political positions. Most of the party’s time is spent adopting Elizabeth Warren’s platform for some reason.

It is clear that we are slouching toward ruin.

We need radical change, and none of these two-dimensional grifters can provide it.

Let us consider the choices. The incumbent President is by all accounts a well-regarded person, but she will do nothing, change nothing. Can do nothing, can change nothing. She is an empty vessel, a puppet of the shadowy party hacks and cosy cronies that have stabbed us in the back. Crooked Harry Truman’s primary qualification for office is a pathological of shame. Electing this bargain bucket Nixon would be a laughable moment in Atlasian history. The incompetent Peebs has never shown any sense that she takes her job seriously so I suggest we treat her presidential campaign in the same way.

I could wax lyrical about my years of experience, but what does it matter? I have long been a visionary. I have predicted this point again and again over the years.

Our sickness is deep. We need to pull up the whole rotten system, root and branch. Cosmetic changes and tweaks lead only to a brief boost and then a steeper decline. Look at the godawful mess we’re in.

So, friends, we are at a turning point in history. We face annihilation. Our malaise is deeper than ever before, and I alone can fix it.

To make Atlasia great again, we must make the Federalist Party great again. We must toss aside the moderate hero junior President Fhtagn and nominate me, with conservative credentials that, yes, if heterodox, far outweighs the incumbent’s. In a single day, when I authored the landmark Roe v. ZuWo Supreme Court ruling, barring the federal government from legislating on abortion, I did more for the conservative movement than the last three Federalist presidents combined. We must give this party an identity of its own once more.

As one of the few people alive who has authored multiple Constitution, I will, in conjunction with my staff, author a NEW CONSTITUTION and present it for debate by the Senate. Constitutional Conventions are an idiotic and tedious waste of time. My new Constitution will return power to the regions, the game’s only hope for long-term activity.

I will slash the bloated and wasteful government by abolishing the absurd position of National Archivist. While I recognise that the People must have the final say on such matters, so I will move for an immediate referendum on the future of the House of Representatives, and will, barring some overnight miracle, campaign for the abolition of this junkyard for backbench political hacks and brainless zombies.

I will abolish once and for all the dull and dreary necessity of “Game Moderation”. We will control our own destinies.

I will fight to legalise the death penalty, giving our Courts a wider arsenal to crack down on the criminal chaos in the streets.

I will repeal our moronic election laws, written by the brain-damaged, and replace them with laws that are actually fit for the purpose.

I will only ever appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices, and those who vow to protect gun rights, in the spirit of my Scaliaesque tenure on that fine body.

And I will order my Attorney General to begin an immediate investigation into Crooked Harry Truman’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution.

Friends, no one else can solve our problems. They are part of the system. Profit from it, partake in it. They care only about careerism. My political career is over. I have no future ambitions to sacrifice, no electoral concerns to weigh. I am free of all outside influence. I am dedicated only to making Atlasia great again.

So, this is a call to action!

Pick up anew the Great Broom of History and sweep aside the cretins and cronies who have brought us low!

Restore dignity!

Uncuck a party!

Slash the state!

Unchain a country!

Make Atlasia Great Again!

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

The incompetent Peebs has never shown any sense that she takes her job seriously so I suggest we treat her presidential campaign in the same way.

Finally, somebody gets it!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've been trying to restore the death penalty before, but the people are stubborn.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I've missed your attacks, Oakvale. "Bargain bucket Nixon" may be the best so far.

edit: Though "Crooked" is frankly a little played out. "Tricky Truman" would have been much better — it's alliterative and fits with the Nixon line.

[Mr. Reactionary]

What is your opinion on the crippled Southern Chamber?

[Oakvale]

What is your opinion on the crippled Southern Chamber?

Disgraceful, but sadly far from atypical.

It's a continuation of a problem that's plagued Atlasia for decades because of a power-hungry central government - regional government only matter insofar as they're pathetic jumping off points for federal careers, so they gradually sink into decline and decay.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I agree on re-legalizing the death penalty, although that's a constitutional amendment at the moment.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I agree on re-legalizing the death penalty.

---

My endorsement is for Fthagn. If you (Oakvale) are the Federalist nominee, though...I will have some serious thinking to do. You literally enjoy giving me temp bans on IRC, and your ideas are very radical - but do I really want President Peebs or Truman?

[Oakvale]

You literally enjoy giving me temp bans on IRC

I was always a hanging judge, Wulfric!

[Poirot]

It is inspiring to see a strong leader emerge, someone who sees problems and wants to address them and try to turnaround the decline of the game.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have had our share of inexperienced officeholders quickly pushed to the highest offices and we see where it has lead the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not a fan of your use of adjective to describe people but you are being too kind here. You call someone treacherous for switching party and the party switch of your primary opponent was done in a situation much worse than for what you use treacherous. She turned her back in office on people who elected her, in a divided political situation, giving control to another side.

She was probably dishonest in the VP confirmation hearing. When directly asked about the rumour of the VP replacing the President she gave the impression she knew nothing. Good actress because I believed then than it was unfounded rumour but a week later it happened. I Imagine there was some real talk about this at the time. Difficult to trust someone like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe there are too many legilsative offices in Nyman. It hurts the regions because it empties the regional legislatures since there are not enough people interested in filling actively the offices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The loophole interpretation for dual office holding started immediately with the new constitution under a Federalist President. The If it doesn't say explicitely I can't do something I can doctrine. The Federalists have liked to cut corners following the law since the reboot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was under a Federalist president and House majority (don't remember about the Senate) that the death penalty was made illegal. The Federalists could have let the regions decide on this issue or allow it for certain crimes but they did not.

When I see a Federalist thread with For the constitution For the regions, I find it ironic since they have cut corners with the constitution and let the regions weaken.

Do I have to join the Federalists to support you and change for Atlasia?   

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Poriot do you literally not pay attention, the death penalty was illegalized through constitutional amendment, the regions voted on it, that means the regions DID decide..lol

[Leinad]

Poriot do you literally not pay attention

I get the feeling he doesn't...

I'm not a fan of your use of adjective to describe people but you are being too kind here. You call someone treacherous for switching party and the party switch of your primary opponent was done in a situation much worse than for what you use treacherous. She turned her back in office on people who elected her, in a divided political situation, giving control to another side.

You have no idea what was going on behind the scenes, so to act like Labor was just as engaged in then-fairly new fhtagn's enjoyment of the game as the Federalists were, and that the only reason she switched was just a random impulse to BETRAY THE PEOPLE, is absurdly disingenuous, and really appears like a petty attack.

I feel like you just decided you wanted to hate fhtagn, and fit the facts to the narrative she's evil (along with, apparently, the entire Federalist Party).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The loophole interpretation for dual office holding started immediately with the new constitution under a Federalist President. The If it doesn't say explicitely I can't do something I can doctrine. The Federalists have liked to cut corners following the law since the reboot.[/quote]

Haha, I remember the incident in question. When I appointed Peebs, then a Southern Delegate, to be RG. Federal legislators were already allowed to be in the cabinet, so by logical extension regional legislators should also. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's no more than what was explicitly legal. Federal legislator + regional executive is more than both of those things, since they're both elected offices, is it not? Of course it is (especially when you consider that the non-elected office I appointed Peebs to was one that has no role in regional or federal policy outside of an occasional advisor). Now, I'm not saying it's illegal what Labor did, and I'm definitely not saying it's wrong (because it seems like it was the only option), but it is definitely a different discussion, in that it's two elected offices (regardless of if one was appointed or not).

The incumbent President is by all accounts a well-regarded person, but she will do nothing, change nothing. Can do nothing, can change nothing. She is an empty vessel, a puppet of the shadowy party hacks and cosy cronies that have stabbed us in the back.

I feel like saying "this is incorrect" doesn't do it's inaccuracy justice, and saying "this is wrong" doesn't put into perspective the wide chasm between your statement and the truth. But do I really need to? Obviously you are just as out-of-touch to the inner-workings of the party as Poirot is, so obviously these claims are, as they were with Poirot, clearly nothing more than political cliches to fit a narrative (the narrative that fhtagn can't think for herself, which is obviously wrong, and if you think about it kind of offensive).

And how come you are sure fhtagn can't do anything to fix anything, but you can? Why would we believe you? Fhtagn has clearly been far more involved in the game over the last several months than you (or for that matter almost anyone), so why would we expect you would be more involved as President?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...do you mean everyone gets to make up stories? Or we just make laws willy-nilly with no consequences? I agree that that part of the game could be much better, but imo it's much better with some form of game moderation than without it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are at least the 5th person to use this...and I feel like I'm missing some...Cris, Adam, Clarence, Maxwell...hmm...

Anyway, I feel like this is all another short-term Trump impression by a mostly inactive veteran (see: "Make Atlasia Great Again," "I alone can fix it," "free of all outside influence," all the name-calling, etc.). Which is fine, makes the game slightly more compelling I guess, but since people might vote for you I decided to rebuff some of your crazier claims nonetheless.


Also:

The incompetent Peebs has never shown any sense that she takes her job seriously so I suggest we treat her presidential campaign in the same way.

Finally, somebody gets it!

Peebs is awesome.

[Oakvale]

Well folks, I think it's clear - we've got 'em running scared. The odds are still daunting, but we've shown this movement doesn't shy from a challenge.

As the MAGA Express gains momentum, I'm excited to announce I'll be revealing my selection for the next Vice-President of Atlasia later today!

[Oakvale]

Friends, when I began this journey I knew that I'd need a partner to work alongside me. Someone of unimpeachable integrity, of rock-solid principle, someone with the vision and the ideas to Make Atlasia Great Again.

There was a lot of great candidates. But I've found that person.

My running mate and I don't agree on everything, of course. He's probably more conservative than I on some things, sure. But we share a common goal - the only goal that counts. We're both fiercely committed to restoring this nation to greatness and reversing our long months of decline and decay.

The next Vice-President is a fellow old hand who's watched in despair as brandy-swillers chuckle while the country goes down the drain. He's someone of immense experience at all levels of government, policy genius and tremendous foresight. A longtime champion of conservative values and a clear thinker on the need for radical change. A believer in the power of the market, a man of faith, a skeptic of government, a crusader for what is right.

I'm proud to announce my choice for the next Vice-President of Atlasia, Potus!



There's no one I'd rather have by my side when I take that great Oath of Office on the Capitol steps and get on with the people's business of restoring our country to health and prosperity. And if you share these goals, and share that vision, you must join our movement today. We have great challenges, yes, but also great things to do, together, as one people.

Let's get to work.

[Potus]

My friends and fellow Federalists,

I've given a lot in the fight for conservatism in this game over the years. I've run hard and won on a platform of cutting taxes, strengthening the military, a strong but responsible foreign policy, and standing up for our shared values. I believe, just like you, in more than the "progressive" and "moderate" promise of unbearable tax burdens and the sacking of the national defense to finance a still partially debt-financed scheme of entitlements and political favors.

The Left is intent on repealing our idea of our country and replacing it with division along racial, gender, political, and economic lines. The moderates are too afraid to defend the fundamental idea of our country:

Our nation is made up of dignified, valuable individuals living in a culture with vibrant family, civic, religious, and national life. Anyone willing to make good, virtuous decisions and work hard should enjoy their success. Government does not exist to infringe upon or replace any of these fundamental values.

This is why I'm running with Oakvale. I love many of them and consider them friends, but the Federalist Party as it exists has failed to deliver victories in the fight against the Labor Left. There is a great fear among my friends that speaking our mind and being true to our values is not going to go over well. I, respectfully, disagree with them and would appreciate their support in proving our agenda not just right, but popular and electorally strong.

I've never known Oakvale to govern in this or any game as anything but a strong, conservative leader who can deliver for all of us.

If you support the Oakvale-Potus ticket, we will win. And when we win, we will win for you.

Vote your values. Vote your future. Make Atlasia Great Again.

Potus
Vice Presidential Nominee For Oakvale-Potus

[rpryor03]

I am proud to offer my endorsement to the Oakvale/Potus ticket.

[Oakvale]

Tremendous! Thank you RPryor! Our momentum just keeps on growing!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I've never known Oakvale to govern in this or any game as anything but a strong, conservative leader who can deliver for all of us.

Then why did he support Maxwell against Rfayette? Tyrion against Superique? Adam fing Griffin over Lumine? Remember Tyrion's election was the decisive factor in enabling Labor to push for Nationalization of energy in the first place. Oakvale not only voted for him, but got Cincy and others too as well. If Adam had won that 1 vote margin special, Labor would have blocked every Conservative measure Duke passed in his second term, including repealing Single Payer. Yes he has supported you, but it has long been clear that Oakvale doesn't support people based on ideology or party, but based on who his friends are.

He can cite Duke all he wants, but time and again when Duke of all people tried to help me elect the more Conservative candidate including Rfayette (whose conservatism is undisputed I would trust), Oakvale was thwarting us. Why didn't he help elect you to the House in August? He didn't even for you.

Just like always, his game proposals get in the way of Conservatives winning. He wants to abolish the House so he doesn't care about Labor getting a majority. But guess what, the House will not be abolished before Labor can pass a Carbon tax. He says there are no ideological differences between us, well I can tell you I most certainly don't support a carbon tax and would have been able to prevent it from passing it, had the right won a majority.

Nobody on the right realizes just how close we came to having single payer, and instead we got a market based healthcare system that is focused at the regional level. When Sjoyce was trying to push for Single Payer, we fought back and outmaneuvered him.  I am hesitant to say this (because they might try to reverse it ), but we basically got Labor to vote to repeal almost every ACA regulation at the Federal level. If Oakvale can claim a heterodox exception, to excuse all his past support for socialists and attempts to destroy the Federalist Party, then I think we deserve at least some kind of credit for pulling that rabbit out of our hats, even if the final product isn't something the Freedom Caucus would role out the beer to celebrate.

He can attack me as some kind of evil manipulative bastard all he wants, but at the end of the day I have always done everything I could to help Federalist candidates win, to help ACP candidates and solid conservatives like CMB222 and Rfayette get elected to house and pulled my hair out trying to get Conservatives to vote for you Potus in August. I contacted almost 10 people for you, and only 3 of them voted, many didn't even know who you were or asked that you contact them. Where was he?

Oakvale is your friend Potus, and I respect that. But he is no friend of Conservatism and has at every chance he could strove to undermine conservative majorities, leading to Laborites being in a position to pass horrible stuff. It was the same way in 2014 where his actions and supported candidates led to very power nationalization crisis he always cites to prove he is conservative. And it is the same way now where his failure to support, well anybody, will lead to labor passing a carbon tax.

Oakvale may have become a conservative over the last four years, but it doesn't matter because his position on game structure will always come first. And the next time a conservative is running against a socialist, who just so happens to support abolishing the House, the GM, or the Cabinet, don't be surprised when he screws Conservatives and you, over again.

Look this is nothing new, Conservatives always want everything and I understand that. Some troll comes around tells them what they want to hear, they get all pissed off, the party ends up being divided and Labor laughs all the way to bank with the next item on the socialist agenda, and once again it is my fault that "Conservatives never win". No it isn't!

[Potus]

Yankee, I've been in the trenches with Oakvale on governing. We worked together in Mock Parliament, I was Prime Minister and he was my deputy. He was in the trenches, really working to accomplish conservative victories in the voting booth and legislature alike.

I'm farther right than you. I have high standards for candidates, I always have. I trust Oakvale. That's the bottom line.

[Classic Conservative]

Endorsed! Sorry Fhtagn

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nobody on the right realizes just how close we came to having single payer, and instead we got a market based healthcare system that is focused at the regional level. When Sjoyce was trying to push for Single Payer, we fought back and outmaneuvered him.  I am hesitant to say this (because they might try to reverse it ), but we basically got Labor to vote to repeal almost every ACA regulation at the Federal level.

Let's not rewrite history too much, shall we?

Yankee, at no point was single-payer seriously considered because:

1. I have always preferred the multi-payer German system over single-payer, and the original bill (which became the RRPHA) I introduced would not have established a single-payer system.
2. I am the longest-serving Labor member of the Senate; I essentially lead the Labor "caucus" (small as it might be because it's a 6-member body), and I made clear to wavering Laborites, including SJoyce, that multi-payer was what we were pushing for.  And we got it done.  With a Labor-controlled Senate.

So no, we never came close to having single-payer.  Yet the bill we passed was the largest expansion of public healthcare since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.  The ACA was "repealed" because its provisions were no longer necessary, since the RRPHA made access to healthcare truly universal.  We did not "repeal" the ACA because the Federalists pushed us to.  So let's put that myth to rest.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nobody on the right realizes just how close we came to having single payer, and instead we got a market based healthcare system that is focused at the regional level. When Sjoyce was trying to push for Single Payer, we fought back and outmaneuvered him.  I am hesitant to say this (because they might try to reverse it ), but we basically got Labor to vote to repeal almost every ACA regulation at the Federal level.

Let's not rewrite history too much, shall we?

Yankee, at no point was single-payer seriously considered because:

1. I have always preferred the multi-payer German system over single-payer, and the original bill (which became the RRPHA) I introduced would not have established a single-payer system.
2. I am the longest-serving Labor member of the Senate; I essentially lead the Labor "caucus" (small as it might be because it's a 6-member body), and I made clear to wavering Laborites, including SJoyce, that multi-payer was what we were pushing for.  And we got it done.  With a Labor-controlled Senate.

So no, we never came close to having single-payer.  Yet the bill we passed was the largest expansion of public healthcare since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.  The ACA was "repealed" because its provisions were no longer necessary, since the RRPHA made access to healthcare truly universal.  We did not "repeal" the ACA because the Federalists pushed us to.  So let's put that myth to rest.

I disagree. Were it not for our bill we would have eventually had Single payer. You won't be there forever.


I also disagree with that last bit. The RRPHA regionalized healthcare regulation and gave the regions the ability to opt out of the public option for the individual healthcare market.

It also consolidated the gov't programs into one and allows the regions to determine the nature of their exchange.

The only expansion was the subsidy being  more generous, other than that it merely consolidated existing structures and programs and reduced the bureaucracy as a result.

Also it is very possible for a regional outcome that is not "universal". Regions can opt for a monopoly, but they don't have to. The main goal to remove the barrier to access caused by financial limits, via a subsidy, but only to the poor and middle class. So while access is made "universal" it is only done so by gov't intervention for those who need it most, since access for the rest is already present. Assuming rising costs don't bury them, which we need to address with the subsequent actions on drugs, tuition, torts etc.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nobody on the right realizes just how close we came to having single payer, and instead we got a market based healthcare system that is focused at the regional level. When Sjoyce was trying to push for Single Payer, we fought back and outmaneuvered him.  I am hesitant to say this (because they might try to reverse it ), but we basically got Labor to vote to repeal almost every ACA regulation at the Federal level.

Let's not rewrite history too much, shall we?

Yankee, at no point was single-payer seriously considered because:

1. I have always preferred the multi-payer German system over single-payer, and the original bill (which became the RRPHA) I introduced would not have established a single-payer system.
2. I am the longest-serving Labor member of the Senate; I essentially lead the Labor "caucus" (small as it might be because it's a 6-member body), and I made clear to wavering Laborites, including SJoyce, that multi-payer was what we were pushing for.  And we got it done.  With a Labor-controlled Senate.

So no, we never came close to having single-payer.  Yet the bill we passed was the largest expansion of public healthcare since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.  The ACA was "repealed" because its provisions were no longer necessary, since the RRPHA made access to healthcare truly universal.  We did not "repeal" the ACA because the Federalists pushed us to.  So let's put that myth to rest.

I disagree. Were it not for our bill we would have eventually had Single payer. You won't be there forever.

"Our bill," as in a bill that was constructed by members of, uh, both parties.  My point is I wasn't pushed to support ACA repeal by the conservatives here.  In fact, I questioned whether ACA repeal was necessary or not because the alternative I had in mind would have been better, because it would have expanded public healthcare more than the ACA did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AtlasCare is still available to all populations, and regions can easily make AtlasCare the single provider without running into the same problems that, say, Vermont did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, it consolidated programs to cut red tape and simplify the public system.  It's still going to result in more people being on public care and guarantee coverage to those who opt for private care.

Would we have ended up with a single-payer at some point?  Maybe.  But since, I believe, last summer, the Federalists have been in control of either the White House or one house of Congress.

But yes, it is possible single-payer will be back on the table eventually.  Maybe next time I'll support it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nobody on the right realizes just how close we came to having single payer, and instead we got a market based healthcare system that is focused at the regional level. When Sjoyce was trying to push for Single Payer, we fought back and outmaneuvered him.  I am hesitant to say this (because they might try to reverse it ), but we basically got Labor to vote to repeal almost every ACA regulation at the Federal level.

Let's not rewrite history too much, shall we?

Yankee, at no point was single-payer seriously considered because:

1. I have always preferred the multi-payer German system over single-payer, and the original bill (which became the RRPHA) I introduced would not have established a single-payer system.
2. I am the longest-serving Labor member of the Senate; I essentially lead the Labor "caucus" (small as it might be because it's a 6-member body), and I made clear to wavering Laborites, including SJoyce, that multi-payer was what we were pushing for.  And we got it done.  With a Labor-controlled Senate.

So no, we never came close to having single-payer.  Yet the bill we passed was the largest expansion of public healthcare since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.  The ACA was "repealed" because its provisions were no longer necessary, since the RRPHA made access to healthcare truly universal.  We did not "repeal" the ACA because the Federalists pushed us to.  So let's put that myth to rest.

I disagree. Were it not for our bill we would have eventually had Single payer. You won't be there forever.

"Our bill," as in a bill that was constructed by members of, uh, both parties.  My point is I wasn't pushed to support ACA repeal by the conservatives here.  In fact, I questioned whether ACA repeal was necessary or not because the alternative I had in mind would have been better, because it would have expanded public healthcare more than the ACA did.

I never said you did Scott. ACA really became irrelevant to the discussion, once we settled on the framework that we did. We kept the notion of subsidies and yes expanded them, but regionalized the regulations. We also got rid of Medicaid in the process. We can spend hours arguing over who is up and who is down and leave people scratching their heads, but the simple fact is I think we both achieved what we were looking for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AtlasCare is still available to all populations, and regions can easily make AtlasCare the single provider without running into the same problems that, say, Vermont did.

 

The unfortunate aspect of regional rights is the right to make mistakes, yes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, it consolidated programs to cut red tape and simplify the public system.  It's still going to result in more people being on public care and guarantee coverage to those who opt for private care.

Would we have ended up with a single-payer at some point?  Maybe.  But since, I believe, last summer, the Federalists have been in control of either the White House or one house of Congress.

Yes, because there are people who cannot have access to care, there was the necessity of providing support to those people who were being left behind to die in the streets yes.

But there is ignoring a problem in the name of conservative dogma and telling them if they want healthcare they can just get a job like so many in RL want to do, which ignores reality of the healthcare system. Or you can acknowledge a problem exists and work towards addressing that with conservative solutions (Regions, markets and competing options), which is what "we" did. Germany as you said, with a more decentralized structure.

But yes, it is possible single-payer will be back on the table eventually.  Maybe next time I'll support it.

One thing is for sure, if you don't address a problem your way, the other wide will eventually address it their way. And so many on the left see everything as a path to single payer, thus I can hardly understand you balking at me stating the obvious.

I would trust you would not toss a superior system that you yourself helped to enact, in name of omg omg Single Payer, bandwagon.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As I told Yankee via PM, I apologize for the misunderstanding and overreaction and I'm sorry I called Yankee a revisionist.  Let's just move on.