Obamacare hijack (split from liars and hypocrites)

[waitforufo]

What a joke. Liberals create policies that can't work and then they need a boogeyman to blame their failure on. Childish.

[John Cuthber]

What a joke. Liberals create policies that can't work and then they need a boogeyman to blame their failure on. Childish.

The joke is that you consider that to be a rebuttal.

Exactly which policies do you think didn't work, and on what grounds do you think so?

[waitforufo]

The opener was about Obamacare, so I thought the policy in question was obvious. Come on, your post was only number 5. Can't you even look back four posts?

 

Grounds. Well how many Obamacare wavers and implementation postponements need to be mentioned? Are these wavers and postponments not lies? Which Republican said "if you like your insurance you can keep it" and "if you like your doctor you won't have to change"? Seems to me that was a Democrate named Obama. Was this not a lie? Zero rebublicans voted for Obamacare. So how are they hypocrites? It seems to me that the hypocrites are the ones that voted for it and can't implement it.

[John Cuthber]

Obamacare is pretty much indistinguishable form a republican idea.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

 

"Well how many Obamacare wavers and implementation postponements need to be mentioned? Are these wavers and postponments not lies? "

Interesting question.

If they are not happening because they were prevented by someone else's actions then they were not lies.

So, for example, if they are not implemented because the Republicans were buggering then up then no.

Is there any evidence for that sort of behaviour?

Why yes! there is, in the first post.

Come on, your post was only number 6. Can't you even look back five posts?

 

It seems to me that the hypocrites are those who came up with it but are now hindering it just to make the government look bad.

 

Now, would you like to actually comment on the points I made or are you going to try to distract attention from them again?

Edited July 21, 2013 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

OT/Hijack. Moved from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77662-republicans-would-probably-do-better-if-so-many-werent-liars-and-hypocrites/

[overtone]

Liberals create policies that can't work

Obamacare was created by rightwing think tanks and "conwervatives" .Liberals wanted stuff like single payer, public option, expansion of Medicare, release of Medicare from "conservative" bullhockey like Plan D, and so forth.

 

If you want to see a health care plan created by a liberal, check out Wellstone's proposal. Notice how different it is from the kind of plan Mitt Romney favored, the Heritage Foundation promoted, etc.

 

I think you are correct, rightwing authoritarian "conservative" policies like Obamacare would fail on their own But it's hard to tell when the Tea Party jackal pack is wrecking everything in sight - nothing works in that environment.

Edited July 21, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

It's also noteworthy that most of Europe has healthcare systems that look like "Obamacare Plus" and they work quite well.

[waitforufo]

It seems to me that the hypocrites are those who came up with it but are now hindering it just to make the government look bad.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that no Republicans voted for ACA? You seem to be defending a bunch of idiots who fell for some kind of bait and switch, where then left holding the bag, and are now whining that the swindlers are laughing at them for falling for the con. Well I hate to remind you that the Republicans for months said they weren't going to vote for ACA. None of them did. Democrats are willing bag holders. They knew what they were doing going in.

 

Perhaps you are one of those that believe this is all the fault of those evil blue dog Democrats. All can say to that is get your own coalition on the same page.

 

One thing I am surprised about is how little outrage there is from your side about ACA. You had the house, senate, and presidency and ACA is the best you could come up with. All the Republicans said they would vote ACA down, and did, but ACA still passed. That says the Democrats could have passed anything they wanted. That leads me to believe they did. The Democrats own ACA. The Republicans have said from the beginning that they would do all they could to repeal the law right from the start. How is acting on the promise a lie or hypocrisy? Whose fault is it that Democrats passed a bill into law that at least half of the people do not want. It's their fault. Now live with it, embrace it, and accept it.

 

 

[overtone]

 

 

Why is it so hard to understand that no Republicans voted for ACA?

It's easy to understand, and it's the topic of the original thread pre split: an example of Republican hypocrisy and dishonesty - they screw up the implementation of their own program for partisan advantage, pretending they had nothing to do with its creation.

 

 

 

One thing I am surprised about is how little outrage there is from your side about ACA

There's been outrage and anger and long essays in the papers and temper tantrums and frustration and accusations of betrayal and people marching around carrying signs and the whole shootin' match of political outrage about the gutting of socialized medicine by the rightwing ascendency for thirty years or more now. Hilary Clinton might have lost the 2008 nomination on that issue, although it was one among several similar. There have even been some - a few minutes here and there - discussions on TV about the matter, if you can find them. The outrage from my side in this matter has been one of the obvious and loudest issues in American politics for decades.

 

Do you just not follow politics at all?

 

 

 

You had the house, senate, and presidency

That did not happen. Not even if some chucklehead thinks that "the Democrats" are one side of two sides and "the Republicans" are the other, did that happen. Can I repeat that often enough to make you go back and check the numbers? Keep mind that Independents are not Democrats, Senators cannot vote until seated, and from 2007 on it took 60 votes to control the Senate.

 

You have drunk Rupert Murdoch's pissed-in koolaid, and until you get it out of your system you will be unable to make sense in a discussion of American politics.

 

The event that the "both sides" delusionaries might regard as the opposite did happen, though - the Republican Party did gain partisan control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court for a couple of years there (during the 108 and 109 Congress before the filibuster took over the Senate, W President and Cheney presiding, 5-4 minimum Republican majority on the Court). The result was the crashing of the entire US economy, the biggest increase in the public debt since WWII, the entrenchment of the imperial Presidency, the entrenchment of K Street as a fourth branch of government, the packing of the leadership of most important Federal agencies with incompetent Party loyalists, and the disastrous screwing up of two optional land wars in "Asia" still being fought. People are actually discussing whether the US can recover at all, ever, from what that compost pile of Reaganite corruption and pinhead ideology managed to accomplish.

 

 

 

All the Republicans said they would vote ACA down, and did, but ACA still passed. That says the Democrats could have passed anything they wanted

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as "the Democrats", nothing could pass the Senate without 60 votes, nothing could pass the House without the Blue Dogs, and no bill wanted by the leftwing faction (a few Dems and Inds) of either branch of Congress could even get out of committee for a vote.

 

The larger problem here is that you don't have much of clue what "my side" is. I'm a slightly leftwing moderate libertarian, a which is generally (issue by issue) a majority among the American public overall, but has little representation - hardly even a denumerable faction - in Congress, the Court, or the White House. Maybe you have a side you can identify with a Party in Congress, but other people don't.

 

 

It's also noteworthy that most of Europe has healthcare systems that look like "Obamacare Plus" and they work quite well.

The differences are substantial and significant, even in the few countries whose setups actually do somewhat resemble the ACA setup. These differences are not add on features, they are structural.

 

For example: They have cost controls, all of them, and curb profiteering. Nobody in the Western industrial world relies on consumer choice market competition between for-profit providers or insurers to reduce the cost of medical care, except the US - that's just too fucking stupid to get past anyone else's government.

[waitforufo]

It's easy to understand, and it's the topic of the original thread pre split: an example of Republican hypocrisy and dishonesty - they screw up the implementation of their own program for partisan advantage, pretending they had nothing to do with its creation.

 

 

 

There's been outrage and anger and long essays in the papers and temper tantrums and frustration and accusations of betrayal and people marching around carrying signs and the whole shootin' match of political outrage about the gutting of socialized medicine by the rightwing ascendency for thirty years or more now. Hilary Clinton might have lost the 2008 nomination on that issue, although it was one among several similar. There have even been some - a few minutes here and there - discussions on TV about the matter, if you can find them. The outrage from my side in this matter has been one of the obvious and loudest issues in American politics for decades.

 

Do you just not follow politics at all?

 

 

 

That did not happen. Not even if some chucklehead thinks that "the Democrats" are one side of two sides and "the Republicans" are the other, did that happen. Can I repeat that often enough to make you go back and check the numbers? Keep mind that Independents are not Democrats, Senators cannot vote until seated, and from 2007 on it took 60 votes to control the Senate.

 

You have drunk Rupert Murdoch's pissed-in koolaid, and until you get it out of your system you will be unable to make sense in a discussion of American politics.

 

The event that the "both sides" delusionaries might regard as the opposite did happen, though - the Republican Party did gain partisan control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court for a couple of years there (during the 108 and 109 Congress before the filibuster took over the Senate, W President and Cheney presiding, 5-4 minimum Republican majority on the Court). The result was the crashing of the entire US economy, the biggest increase in the public debt since WWII, the entrenchment of the imperial Presidency, the entrenchment of K Street as a fourth branch of government, the packing of the leadership of most important Federal agencies with incompetent Party loyalists, and the disastrous screwing up of two optional land wars in "Asia" still being fought. People are actually discussing whether the US can recover at all, ever, from what that compost pile of Reaganite corruption and pinhead ideology managed to accomplish.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as "the Democrats", nothing could pass the Senate without 60 votes, nothing could pass the House without the Blue Dogs, and no bill wanted by the leftwing faction (a few Dems and Inds) of either branch of Congress could even get out of committee for a vote.

 

The larger problem here is that you don't have much of clue what "my side" is. I'm a slightly leftwing moderate libertarian, a which is generally (issue by issue) a majority among the American public overall, but has little representation - hardly even a denumerable faction - in Congress, the Court, or the White House. Maybe you have a side you can identify with a Party in Congress, but other people don't.

 

 

The differences are substantial and significant, even in the few countries whose setups actually do somewhat resemble the ACA setup. These differences are not add on features, they are structural.

 

For example: They have cost controls, all of them, and curb profiteering. Nobody in the Western industrial world relies on consumer choice market competition between for-profit providers or insurers to reduce the cost of medical care, except the US - that's just too fucking stupid to get past anyone else's government.

 

You have to vote for a bill to make it your program. No Republicans voted for ACA so it is not their program. Cry all you want about needing 60 votes. Those that gathered those votes are responsible for them. And who did that gathering? Who celebrated once they were gathered? Do you believe in accountability in politics? Perhaps you can provide a list of house or senate members that voted against this "f*cking stupid" law for the right reasons. Obviously you think Republicans voted against it for the wrong reasons. Who stood up and said "I'm holding out for single payer?" If you can find one I say give that person a gold star. Things won't get better until you hold politicians accountable. Perhaps you should start.

 

Republicans have been very consistent with regard to ACA. They let their political opponents know that none of them would vote for it well before the votes were taken. None of them voted for it. The said if they were given the opportunity they would repeal it. The won back the house with that promise. The house has voted to repeal ACA several times since then. No lies, no hypocrisy, just consistency.

 

Edited July 22, 2013 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

 

Things won't get better until you hold politicians accountable. Perhaps you should start.

. No lies, no hypocrisy, just consistency.

 

OK, lets hold them accountable.

for a start, lets have a policy of more than x lies and you are out.

That would help a lot.

 

Now, have a look here

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/

 

for any value of x less than 533 the republicans need a new candidate.

Can we hold them to account for fruitloopery too?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=%2Bromney+%2Blies#entry697573

 

(And I'm not sure the guy who believes in dragons iss much different from the one who has magic underwear.)

 

What about apparent gerymandering?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69938-youve-got-to-be-kidding-me/?hl=%2Bromney+%2Blies#entry709600

 

And your definition of consistency seems to include proposing an idea, then voting against it when the other side say they think it's good too.

Mine doesn't, and I don't think the dictionary's does either.

[waitforufo]

Mitt Romney lost, there are always going to be people who see stalin, hitler, or the bogeyman under their bed, and I'm not rigney. There I took care of your misdirection.

So why don't you focus on the whopper lie. You know the one that suggests that Republicans are responsible for ACA. How can you possibly believe that? The best you can possibly suggest is that democrats tried to fool a few republicans into voting for that stinker ACA by basing it off the plan used by their likely future republican candidate. Well that was a stupid gambit on their part now wasn't it? Now they are holding the bag of scat saying "but we picked up only republican scat on purpose" while the whole country is asking why were picking up scat in the first place? Do you really believe you are winning over anyone with such nonsense?

Sometimes it's best to just admit your failures and move on.

Edited July 22, 2013 by waitforufo

[iNow]

I'm not sure I really care about the back and forth above, but one must acknowledge that republicans have done everything possible to stand in the way of the law that did get passed from being successful... Including 38 (thus far) failed attempts to repeal it entirely.

[overtone]

You know the one that suggests that Republicans are responsible for ACA. How can you possibly believe that?

It's not a belief, it's a memory. I wasn't born yesterday, and I don't have Alzheimer's, and I can remember what Republicans have done even way, way back before Cheney laughed at the Constitutional requirement that he not be living in Texas. The health care setup written into the ACA is a rightwing authoritarian corporate friendly setup, mostly invented by Republicans and their intellectual support (Cato, Heritage, Brookings, etc), originally proposed as a countermeasure to efforts by liberals and lefties to get some kind of single payer or other sociallized medicine established in the US before the costs went bottle rocket. That was back when health care had risen to 11% of the GDP, and people were panicked by this. I can remember when Paul Wellstone was leading the liberal and lefty efforts to get rid of employment based insurance, supported by the lefties and liberals and opposed by righties and "conservatives" and Republicans, against rightwing corporate plans like Romneycare or malign neglect of the status quo.

 

So it was employed in Massachusetts, to squelch the movement toward establishing single payer health care State by State after the Clinton's took it off the Federal stage - Mitt Romney was governor there, it was under his guidance, and the squelch worked. For some reason it is not called Romneycare - I don't know why not, exactly.

 

 

 

You have to vote for a bill to make it your program. No Republicans voted for ACA so it is not their program. Cry all you want about needing 60 votes.

Employer based market priced private corporation health insurance has been a Republican cause and program and policy and political plank since before WWII, consistently and throughout the Party for three generations now. Mandating the purchase was a fairly recent proposal of the authoritarian right, the Heritage Foundation and others of their ilk, when the business advantages of the European setups came painfully to their attention.

 

The point of mentioning the 60 votes was to remind you that your assertion of Democratic control of the Senate under Obama was ignorant.

 

 

 

Things won't get better until you hold politicians accountable.

You have to have some idea of what they've been up to, first. If you can't remember and refuse to look up what this or that politician has been doing, how are going to hold them accountable?

Edited July 23, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

I'm not sure I really care about the back and forth above, but one must acknowledge that republicans have done everything possible to stand in the way of the law that did get passed from being successful... Including 38 (thus far) failed attempts to repeal it entirely.

Thank you. Not lies and hypocrisy, but consistency. They said they didn't want it. They voted against it. They are working to eliminate it. That's standard fair for republicans. You know things like women's suffrage, anti-slavery, anti-jim crow, pro-voting rights, pro-civil rights. Things we beat the democrats on in the past show we can beat them again in the future. We stick with what's right and it pays off. Respect for life, liberty, and property and people live in happiness and prosperity.

 

It's not a belief, it's a memory. I wasn't born yesterday, and I don't have Alzheimer's, and I can remember what Republicans have done even way, way back before Cheney laughed at the Constitutional requirement that he not be living in Texas. The health care setup written into the ACA is a rightwing authoritarian corporate friendly setup, mostly invented by Republicans and their intellectual support (Cato, Heritage, Brookings, etc), originally proposed as a countermeasure to efforts by liberals and lefties to get some kind of single payer or other sociallized medicine established in the US before the costs went bottle rocket. That was back when health care had risen to 11% of the GDP, and people were panicked by this. I can remember when Paul Wellstone was leading the liberal and lefty efforts to get rid of employment based insurance, supported by the lefties and liberals and opposed by righties and "conservatives" and Republicans, against rightwing corporate plans like Romneycare or malign neglect of the status quo.

 

So it was employed in Massachusetts, to squelch the movement toward establishing single payer health care State by State after the Clinton's took it off the Federal stage - Mitt Romney was governor there, it was under his guidance, and the squelch worked. For some reason it is not called Romneycare - I don't know why not, exactly.

 

 

 

Employer based market priced private corporation health insurance has been a Republican cause and program and policy and political plank since before WWII, consistently and throughout the Party for three generations now. Mandating the purchase was a fairly recent proposal of the authoritarian right, the Heritage Foundation and others of their ilk, when the business advantages of the European setups came painfully to their attention.

 

The point of mentioning the 60 votes was to remind you that your assertion of Democratic control of the Senate under Obama was ignorant.

 

 

 

You have to have some idea of what they've been up to, first. If you can't remember and refuse to look up what this or that politician has been doing, how are going to hold them accountable?

Interesting little history lesson but what is your point? All the above is simply pointing out that republicans are better at politics than democrats. Like I said, did the democrats really think that they would back republicans into a corner by picking the plan from massachusetts? Were they really that stupid? Even after the republicans told them it wouldn't work and that none of the republicans would vote for it the democrats stuck with it? Well I guess it worked for you because you still think the republicans are somehow in the massachusetts plan corner. Amazing.

 

I suggest you get out of the liberal echo chamber and try your above story out in your local pub. Maybe a comedy club would be a better venue.

[overtone]

 

 

Interesting little history lesson but what is your point?

That your espousal of accountability is empty noise. Amnesiacs cannot hold anyone accountable for anything.

 

All the above is simply pointing out that republicans are better at politics than democrats.

And that their superiority is based in shameless lying and damaging hypocrisy, on the casual repudiation of their own actions and denial of the consequences of their own behavior, which was the topic of the thread this was split from.

 

Obamacare, which is almost entirely a codification of Republican health care policy and program of the past fifty years, gets no Republican votes - not, as one might hope, from a sudden awakening to sense and responsibility, but in denial of their own actions and desire for Partisan political advantage.

 

 

 

Like I said, did the democrats really think that they would back republicans into a corner by picking the plan from massachusetts? Were they really that stupid?

Once again: you speak nonsense when you speak of "the Democrats" in this manner. There is no such coherent group.

 

But more importantly: you call "stupid" what manifestly worked. Not only did Obamacare garner a majority vote in the Senate, but it beat the threat of filibuster. That was no small accomplishment.

 

 

 

Even after the republicans told them it wouldn't work and that none of the republicans would vote for it the democrats stuck with it?

Generally one could govern very well these days by finding out waht Republicans think won't work and what they won't vote for, and doing that. But in this case, the fact that the Republicans are saying this about policies they've been promoting for decades, that rule of thumb should be applied with wariness.

[waitforufo]

Generally one could govern very well these days by finding out waht Republicans think won't work and what they won't vote for, and doing that. But in this case, the fact that the Republicans are saying this about policies they've been promoting for decades, that rule of thumb should be applied with wariness.

 

Nice spin trying to blame the Republicans for ACA, but the above proves that deep down you can't even convince yourself. You know at least iNow is consistent in his belief that ACA is a good plan, perhaps not great, that will work. He seems to be willing to accept the consequences of failure in order to secure the accolades of success. Based on the above I would guess that you will be gushing with prase for the Republicans if ACA pans out. True? According to you it is their plan so they should get the credit.

Edited July 23, 2013 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

Thank you. Not lies and hypocrisy, but consistency. They said they didn't want it. They voted against it. They are working to eliminate it. That's standard fair for republicans. You know things like women's suffrage, anti-slavery, anti-jim crow, pro-voting rights, pro-civil rights. Things we beat the democrats on in the past show we can beat them again in the future. We stick with what's right and it pays off. Respect for life, liberty, and property and people live in happiness and prosperity.

 

Trying to work effectively in bipartisan politics is made much more difficult when the Republicans switch support just because the Democrats have found something they like about a specific bill. How else do you explain so many complete turnarounds in the last several years?

 

McCain and others practically destroyed any shot at comprehensive immigration reform with their complete reversal of stance.

 

McCain has also flip-flopped on cap-and-trade, seemingly just when the Democrats started to look at evidence that greenhouse emissions might be reduced.

 

The Republican stance on deficit spending has changed so dramatically in the last decade that they've lost the right to use that issue against the Dems forevermore, afaic.

 

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform proposed by McCain and five other Republican sponsors almost didn't come to be; all six voted against their own bill.

 

A lot of the savings that will pay for Obamacare have come from smart cuts to Medicare spending, something the Republicans have always supported until the Dems did too. Just last year Romney was against Medicare spending cuts and increasing taxes. Just this March, the GOP did a complete 180 on that stance.

 

Neither the Dems nor the Reps are doing very well on campaign finance disclosure. They seem to bluster about it and sponsor bills that get voted down, and neither side is doing much to reduce the influence money has over our legislation.

 

What bothers me most is the inefficiency of it all. There are some great ideas out there, but they often don't get the attention they deserve just because of which "side" you're on. Common ground is ignored in favor of fencing off your particular issue-base. Plans are made and legislation is passed based first on the top percentage who will benefit, and last on who's will is represented.

 

And no one is really asking why some things are done better by private market interests and some things are better funded by the public. So we'll probably end up with a healthcare plan that's inefficient because many of the people putting it into effect don't believe in it. It will be like FEMA, or any other bureaucratic function that the Republicans don't believe in. It will probably work under a Democrat administration, and it probably won't under a Republican one.

[John Cuthber]

"Consistency" a la Republican

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzEJiFpmsQ

[overtone]

 

 

Based on the above I would guess that you will be gushing with prase for the Republicans if ACA pans out. True? According to you it is their plan so they should get the credit

I will be happy to continue crediting the rightwing corporate authoritarians and their intellectual backing (Rep and Dem) for the creation and promotion of the basic framework of the ACA, of course - as I have been for many years now. I will also credit the Dems Party establishment for their key role of legislative competence in passing the legislation involved, tweaking it to gain some respectability and provide some benefit for political camoflauge - a pattern long established by now, as Reagan's program continues to work its way through the halls of Washington power (that's how we got NAFTA, GATT, etc, )

 

The process of killing off single payer and other socialized alternatives has already worked, Republican created and bipartisan (the holy of holies) implemented (thank you Hilary), and US health care is a failed system as of right now - it's twenty five years too late for last minute botch jobs like the ACA to "pan out". It will have some comforts and advantages over the current setup - some comparatively very nice and sensible features, compared with the ridiculous pain we're in now - but the richest country ever and the world center of medical science will continue to spend three or four times as much per capita as anyone else for a health care system that functions at the level of some places without plumbing and electricity.

 

 

As with NAFTA and GATT and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the revocation of Glass-Steagal and the privatization of military contracting and so forth, I will do my best to remember and "credit" the people I am blaming now for the effects of what they did, their actual role - the Reps for clubbing the media like a baby seal, dragging the entire US political world into the righthand authoritarian ditch, and caching it there for future snacking; the Dems not actively joining in for spinelessness and corruption and feckless "bipartisanship" and tripping over their shoelaces in the face of bad stuff, fawning in the face of actual predation by actually bad people with real power and enormous wealth.

 

The ACA incorporates some stuff that is working now, for example, like the non-drug aspects of Medicare and some VA organization, for which neither current Dems or Reps get credit or blame.

 

 

 

You know at least iNow is consistent in his belief that ACA is a good plan, perhaps not great, that will work

And I am consistent in my longstanding belief that any health care system based on employer provided insurance and reliant on market competition for "consumer" choice to control costs is a bad plan that can only be held to "work" by people who forgot what they wanted and ignored the alternatives.

 

We are going to have doctors, hospitals, clinics, in America - the ACA is going to "work" in some sense, much as the status quo "works" in a sense. But compared with what? We are facing mandatory buyin to Mitt Romney's idea of health care for poor people - you know, the people too hapless to think of borrowing their college tuition from their parents.

[iNow]

You know at least iNow is consistent in his belief that ACA is a good plan, perhaps not great, that will work. He seems to be willing to accept the consequences of failure in order to secure the accolades of success.

Wait, what? I think it's an improvement over where we were previously, and a step in the right direction, but still a severe compromise that is itself largely flawed. I suggest that we have FAR more to do to achieve the 21st century healthcare we know is possible, more effective, covers more people, and which is ultimately cheaper in both the short and long-term. Edited July 24, 2013 by iNow

[jduff]

The U.S is the only country that has a govt run private industry healthcare. In other countries that have govt run insurance(Like Sweden,Canada ect) it is seperate. Private Insurance is its own entity and government insurance is its own entity. You get a choice there.

 

I know those europeans are laughing or taking pity on us who have to have U.S medical coverage. Sad state for us in the U.S

[CharonY]

I am not sure what you mean with

 

 

govt run private industry healthcare

 

In the US health care is highly privatized. Do you mean to say that the US is the only one where the private aspects are under governmental oversight?

 

In Canada the health care is almsot exclusively publicly funded. There are aspects that are also privately funded, but with strict regulations. Sweden is also mostly publicly funded. Private providers also exist, but are also strictly regulated (much more so than in the US I would assume)..

I think the pity from Europeans is mostly due to the fact that there are US Americans that are not or under-insured.

[iNow]

Let's not forget Switzerland, which has a lot of commonality with what was implemented in the US.

[jduff]

I am not sure what you mean with

 

In the US health care is highly privatized. Do you mean to say that the US is the only one where the private aspects are under governmental oversight?

 

In Canada the health care is almsot exclusively publicly funded. There are aspects that are also privately funded, but with strict regulations. Sweden is also mostly publicly funded. Private providers also exist, but are also strictly regulated (much more so than in the US I would assume)..

I think the pity from Europeans is mostly due to the fact that there are US Americans that are not or under-insured.

Yes, my apologies. Unlike Switzerland , Sweden, Germany, Canada. The U.S has and will be the only system where privite insurance and government insurance are mixed together. In the U.S all insurance companies are required to adhere to the government health panels. While in the countries named above, it only applies to the government system. Private insurance is private.