No, it is the work of common sense. Once again, there is not one country that has reverted to the "pay or suffer" system. What is there about that statement you don't understand?
Socialism has not worked anywhere its been tryed...what about that fact is so difficult for you...??
Considering universal medical plans have been in existence for over half a century and not one country has reverted to the old system you're left with two choices. Pick one.
1. Universal medical is not socialism.
2. Universal medical is socialism and socialism works.
Universal medical plans have been proven in dozens of countries, some for over half a century. Various combinations of politics and population and land mass have been tested and proven viable. There is no credible opposition. Dissension has become a farce.
Instead of 80+% getting superior healthcare, now 100% of us will get less than the very best care....and as the tax money dries up,(as it surly will) the care will only get worse...
Again, that's contrary to facts. Universal plans cost, on average, half of what the US currently spends, per capita, on medical services. Consider the impact on the average universal plan if the budget was increased 100% to the level currently spent on medical in the US.
Not every last Democrat is an honorable individual. One would have hoped a few Republicans would have taken their place and voted for the legislation but such is life.
If Republicans vote for socialist and marxist programs, they will no longer be Reupblicans, they will have become Democrats
They will have become logical assuming they know the difference.
Regardless, they are out of the starting gate. The march towards medical coverage has begun.
I'll reserve judgment at the end of four years..