Obamacare hijack (split from liars and hypocrites)

[CharonY]

As I mentioned, that is patently not true. The regulations in most European countries with mixed models the regulations for the private insurers are stricter that in the US.

And there are often also rules that inhibit switching so that people cannot game the public system. Only recently did the US have a minimum what has to be insured, for example, whereas that was always the norm in the European system (at least those that i have a passing knowledge of).

Looking at balance one could say that in most (all?) European countries the decision power on health care is under governmental oversight. In the US the industry holds a significant amount of power. Private insurance is therefore more in private hands in the US than in the other countries.

Edited September 26, 2013 by CharonY

[overtone]

 

 

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

In Switzerland making a profit on basic health insurance is a felony crime - a major structural difference from the US.

 

Switzerland's setup is among the most expensive in the Western industrialized world, though, so there is that similarity. It's more than half the US expenditure per capita, in the usual accounting. Of course everyone is covered and the norm care delivered is better than the US norm, but still the extra money spent by the Swiss indicates some likely inefficiency - half the US cost is probably too much for a well=designed setup.

[iNow]

I'm not sure what your point is, though. We all agree the US pays too much and we don't get a return on our investment. Our care is not 3x better even though we pay 3x as much as other nations per capita. Obamacare has helped to address some of this cost issue, but not yet well enough. The better approach here is to simply expand Medicare to everyone. Medicare DOES control costs and people love it. Is that the suggestion you are trying to make? That instead of Obamacare we should extend Medicare to everyone?

[Phi for All]

The better approach here is to simply expand Medicare to everyone. Medicare DOES control costs and people love it. Is that the suggestion you are trying to make? That instead of Obamacare we should extend Medicare to everyone?

 

I'd really like to see someone object to this without using the blatantly false memes about the government's inability to run successful programs and how all the good doctors will repatriate.

[jduff]

I have been watching all the pros and cons of everything going on with the Affordable Health Care Act. Really, I see this as a design. We will have this mess for the next couple of years. Then we will be left with a government run single payer healthcare system. Which was what our president wanted in the first place.

 

Interesting to watch it play out.

 

My hope is it will be a decent system when it finally plays to end game.

[Phi for All]

Really, I see this as a design.

 

If it's a design, it's likely aimed at foiling a bigger design. The one that keeps applying private business models where they're bound to either fail or be less efficient than publicly funded ones.

 

Part of this design has made you forget that, in a democracy, WE are the government. If you feel "government-run" is synonymous with "inept", then you're really blaming yourself. But the pundits know we don't like to blame ourselves for anything, so they make it easy to point fingers.

 

Another part of this design tells you that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for programs you don't benefit from, like welfare (if you're well employed) or education (if you have no children) or medical care (if you're healthier than many people you know) or public recreation (if you own your own pool or parkland). This design tells you that this tax money is needed elsewhere, and threatens to turn us into socialist/communist/anti-Americans. It makes us forget that we all benefit from being (and being around) smarter, healthier, well-adjusted and happier members of our society.

 

Please, someone show me how this is NOT the cumulative effect of allowing corporate charters and special business interests to get out of hand. Corporations, since the time of our founding fathers, have been a source of both great pride and great consternation. Like the military, they serve a vital function in our society, but they MUST be kept in check if we're to balance all the parts of that society. We've let corporations become too powerful; they're pushing harmful, short-sighted laws, they're being allowed to govern themselves and that's just stupid. Corporations are NOT people.

[jduff]

Well I do not agree or disagree with Obama Care. I just want a system that works. Regardless if its private or government run. The current system is not working. I honestly do not care if its defunded or have to wait. As long as we have a system that works. As well as those who need medical attention get it!

 

Now poltically, republicans put themselves into a bind. They are playing the waiting game with liberals. When has that ever worked? If it were the opposite spectrum. Liberals would do everything possible to kill it.

 

Pretty sad state of affairs there.

 

I am glad my wife and I have seperate health plans. I feel very bad for those who have to pay for family plans. Also to boot. You can no longer claim medical expenses on your taxes. Thats horrible. Can expect many people to not be happy about that.

 

This blob needs to be fixed or absolved. Either way im happy.

[waitforufo]

Now poltically, republicans put themselves into a bind. They are playing the waiting game with liberals. When has that ever worked?

Republicans believe that ACA will fail on its own merits. All of this brouhaha is republicans making sure everyone knows this will be a liberal failure that they never voted for and tried to stop. Remember that the house was lead by the democrats and Nancy Pelosi when ACA was enacted. Republicans gained the house because the people were upset that ACA passed. Their fight against ACA won them the house so they keep fighting it. If they keep the house they can stop any changes to ACA making it more likely to fail. Their hope is to leverage that failure to gaining the senate and the white house.

 

I doubt that the government will shut down or that ACA will be defunded. This will be touted as a great democrat and obama victory, further tying the eventual failure of ACA to them. We will soon find out if I am wrong.

 

Never forget that we are just pawns of the political class. This is all just a game to them. Neither party cares how it impacts the people. They are just playing a game.

[john5746]

The Republican party is really fractured - even you can't ignore that reality. In truth, I think there are some in the "established" wing that probably think the heart of the ACA isn't such a bad idea, it was a Heritage idea after all. Then there are those that know that any change like this will have issues. Then you have the radicals that think its better to be contrary.

 

I think politically, the establishment has it right - that's why they are the establishment. Obamacare will have issues. For the majority of people who already have insurance, they will see increase in costs and reduction of benefits(as always). Even if this is slower than in the past, it won't matter. It will be blamed on Obama. Sure, many will be able to get insurance, but only those that actually have to use it in a serious way will rejoice in the short term.

 

So it really would be smart politically to complain about it, wait for the issues to arise and either suggest replacement(if its really bad) or improvements(if smaller issues). Either way, you look OK to most people who would have any chance of supporting you. I see this at work all the time - much easier to be on the sidelines complaining then to get dirty and work.

 

Never forget that we are just pawns of the political class. This is all just a game to them. Neither party cares how it impacts the people. They are just playing a game.

That's true for many, but this would be an argument to trust the President over congress, since he is only looking at legacy now, not office.

 

If this is a game, well its the only game in town for those that can't get or afford insurance.

Edited September 29, 2013 by john5746

[Ringer]

Republicans believe that ACA will fail on its own merits. All of this brouhaha is republicans making sure everyone knows this will be a liberal failure that they never voted for and tried to stop. Remember that the house was lead by the democrats and Nancy Pelosi when ACA was enacted. Republicans gained the house because the people were upset that ACA passed. Their fight against ACA won them the house so they keep fighting it.

Due you happen to have a reliable poll saying that is the case? Since it was Obama who introduced the bill you would think all that outrage would have affected him as well.

 

If they keep the house they can stop any changes to ACA making it more likely to fail. Their hope is to leverage that failure to gaining the senate and the white house.

It's always nice when purposeful sabotage of public health is willingly accepted to prove a point.

 

I doubt that the government will shut down or that ACA will be defunded. This will be touted as a great democrat and obama victory, further tying the eventual failure of ACA to them. We will soon find out if I am wrong.

 

We can already make a prediction about how well it may do. Look at other industrialized nations with national healthcare. They don't seem to be doing quite as bad as one would think with an apparently failing healthcare system