--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > You are aware that isn't one of the issues on the > > table, right? So what would be the point? > > My personal choice; what I would like to see.
OK, but you said: > > > Enough already with the nuances, compromises, and all > > > the crap that is happening. Let the people decide > > > once and for all. Enough with this on-going debate. The only way the outcome of your referendum could have any effect whatsoever on the ongoing debate would be if a resounding majority voted *for* single-payer; and we know that isn't going to happen. If a strong majority of voters favored single-payer, we'd have had entirely different proposals from the start than we have now. Nothing that's currently being discussed involves single-payer, so a no vote would have zero effect on the ongoing debate. In other words, the people have decided long since. There has never been more than a small minority who were in favor of single-payer (and most of them--like me--realize it's a nonstarter, however much they'd like to see it). A referendum would help end the debate only if it were on some issue *that was currently being debated*. Single- payer isn't such an issue. I only wish enough people wanted it to make it an issue. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > I believe in representative democracy. That is, we elect people to > > > represent us. Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust our > > > elected representatives to make the important decisions for us. > > > > > > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably > > > represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and > > > thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at. > > > > > > The healthcare debate is one such example. > > > > > > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes" or > > > "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level. And > > > the question should be something to the effect: > > > > > > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United > > > States?" > > > > > > And then let the games begin. > > > > > > What do you folks think?
