The couldn't get cloture because they didn't have the 60 votes needed, in a super-majority, to bring the bill forward. They also had to deal with some of the DINO Blue Dogs in the party. The Dems are not as monolithic as the Repubs.
That's the reality
Republicans never had a supermajority in the Senate yet they got everything they wanted during the Bush years when Republicans controlled Congress as well.
Democrats had a supermajority (60 votes) for only some 4-6 months during Obama's tenure but no surprise accomplished nothing. Surely they could see the writings on the wall that they had a mandate to do their bidding.. and did nothing with it but mainly re-emphasize Bush policies of lower taxes, excessive spending, and a continuation of laughable foreign policy, laughable drug policy, and doing their best to negate individual rights by reiterating how necessary Bush's warrantless wiretaps are.
I don't think you've thought out the 'libertarian' part of his platform all the way through just yet.
'Liberty' sounds great though, eh?
Can you elaborate? I've seen nothing but general statements about Paul that reflect mainly typical two-party talk I expect from Americans.
I signed into my account to specifically reply to this post. I was busy reading the apparent 'opinions' of kids living in Canada or otherwise much to my amusement .
Then I run into this post where this guy seems to know exactly what he is talking about and in fact, this is what I see as someone who has lived in both countries and lived under both sets of medical conditions for decades at a time.
I can assure you that the Presidents plan does nothing but force people to buy a private product for profit. This was done due to political will unable to garner a 'public option.
Ahd the last gasp was the medicaid angle but SCOTUS threw it out stating the feds cant force the states to expand their medicaid.
I am a huge proponent of single payer , but the only way to beat the insurance lobby is to do this. Have each state have its own single payer system and those who travel outside their state must purchase private insurance to cover them while in another state.
Well put. No surprise some of us who have experienced both countries' healthcare system over long periods of time better understand their drawbacks or benefits. For the better of the populace is not one person's sibling or family member, it's a state where the costs of healthcare can be tabulated. Right now the US healthcare system is one run amok where the actual costs can only be estimated, it's well known it's outrageously high.. and because the large number of hospitals in the US that are publicly funded have to take patients who are not insured, the taxpayer foots an even larger burden of high cost to cover for a lack of insurance when uninsured hospital patient, in most cases, cannot pay their egregious bill. This is why Obamacare is a fail, because rather than reducing costs or coming up with a single payer system where one can take taxes and offset the cost, it tosses a pile of debt first to fund the system which is around a trillion dollars, and automatically assumes revenue later. It's really only the CBO that assumes Obamacare can bring revenue but the CBO has been off by large margins (~10-35% in the few years I've looked) when using their fiscal budget projections versus when expenses are paid for the year they projected. All-in-all, this is an ugly mess that isn't in the slightest sense being fixed, but typical of the US government, tossing a nice dressing over a problem and doing their best to put off for the next generation to solve.