Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by shinji, Jun 1, 2016.
The article stayed clear of addressing the failures of Obamacare and the lies that helped prop it up to help make it palatable.
What do you propose?
Obama/Romneycare is a half a$$ed solution. There are some things we should protect for the common good without a profit motive, the access to medical care according to need (not wallet) being among them.
I've read several articles claiming that Obamacare was deliberately so bad that it would allow the idea of single-payer to become acceptable.
Can you imagine the USVA on steroids?
Memorial Day: Also a day of remembrance for those veterans who no longer have to wait in line for a VA appointment.
Health care providers != health insurance companies.
I'm not sure if you have had serious contact with the private medical system in the US. I have. You wait in line, just like everywhere. For instance, my father developed a stroke, and being a neuroscientist I recognised it as such, so we got him to the emergency room of a modern US hospital. Regrettably, the hospital was also a major trauma center, and there was a multi-vehicle pileup in the hospital's catchment area. Ambulances and helicopters started arriving. The victims of the pileup had first priority because their lives were at risk. However, it was more than three hours before physicians started treating my father, who was put in the waiting room under a sign that read 'Stroke: every minute counts!'. He did not get the anti-stroke medicine in time and did not recover well. This occurred in the second richest county in the United States, at one of its finest hospitals, and in spite of the fact my father had high option Blue Cross/Blue Shield (the same as members of Congress).
My point is that any medical system must use triage. The private sector doesn't magically relieve us of this requirement. I live in the UK, and it is true that I often have to wait for an appointment in the UK NHS. So what? It means that the system is prioritising care for those that need it most (rather than for those who can pay most), I am still alive, and I do not have catastrophic debt from the major illnesses I have suffered.
Can you imagine how much scrutiny it would receive if all Americans used it?
There's no way the greater American public would let it become dysfunctional.
There is one thing that virtually all – if not, in fact, all – healthcare systems better than the U.S. have in common: Universal Healthcare. The U.S. consistently ranks nearly last or is dead last amongst the world’s top developed nations, and even when the list includes lesser developed nations, as well.
In a 2013 piece in the Times of Israel, on Israel’s Universal Healthcare system being ranked 4th best in the world, Bloomberg ranked the U.S. 46th – worse than Iran. Seriously, just take a minute and think about that. Iran has a better healthcare system than the supposedly greatest country in the world.
Israel ranks 4th globally in health care efficiency
Asian countries claim top three spots; US places 46th; Israelis have longest life span in Middle East and Africa
The data was compiled by Bloomberg, and countries were ranked based on three criteria: life expectancy; relative per capita cost of health care (percentage of GDP per capita); and the absolute per capita cost of health care (expenditures covering preventive and curative services, family planning, nutrition and emergency aid).
The countries included had populations of at least five million, life expectancy of at least 70 years and GDP per capita of at least $5,000.
Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan took the top three spots in the rankings. Israel came next.
The UK came in 14th, Canada 17th, Iran 45th, and the US 46th.
Tons of other articles I could post that make a mockery of the U.S. healthcare system compared to the rest of the developed world, but I think this one is good because it can be used to show those on the right, who get hysterical with thinking and claiming falsely that Universal Healthcare somehow equates with communism or something, and who generally are pro-Israel and view Israel as this beacon of “what’s right in the world,” that Israel has Universal Healthcare and it is ranked as one of the best healthcare systems in the world.
I have though this all along. And those who were ramming this in Congress got enough votes from Reps and Senators to make it happen. And now many of those were voted out of office.
At this point, a SP might be the only way out. But when the ACA was being debated, the GOP (and yes they dropped the ball on this big time) just wanted to block anything. Had they been willing to try and make it better, they could have done the following:
1) Implement the controls on the insurance companies regarding pre-existing conditions, enrollment and some of the other popular ACA mandates.
2) Open Medicare to anyone below the 400% Poverty Line (these are those who are getting subsidies now) and allow them to buy coverage. Everyone else can buy on the open market. This would include allowing cross-state sales of policies.
3) Don't force anyone to buy, but if they get sick and need health care, they lose all future tax refunds until their debt is paid.
Just a couple of ideas. But I think the USA will have a SP system before the 2020 elections. But if so, there is one thing that absolutely must happen: Congress and the President must be participants in the same insurance as everyone else.
I'm on board with making changes, just not at the hands of Republicans because I do not trust them to not scrap healthcare plans altogether and leave us with the old way again (i.e. Nothing). In my lifetime, Republicans have never been too keen on changing the status quo healthcare too much. It's always been Democrats trying to advance the ball further down the road more than anyone else.
And who was at the forefront of that? Hillary and Bernie. Romneycare/Obamacare was the response and counter idea by Republicans to Hillary pushing the issue. Funny how they would go on to hate their own idea years later.
Politics is really weird sometimes.
I'm all in with single-payer.
That was the whole point behind the ACA. The ACA was designed as a stepping stone to single-payer, geared mainly toward highlighting the economic inefficiency and expense of for-profit health care, but still providing care for most people in most situations. The ACA was never intended to be permanent.
Meanwhile, while US death rates are up, European death rates largely continue to decline (see link, source: NYT). Given the information in this article, no doubt much of this increase is due to inadequate mental health care plus poor life prospects, which admittedly the socialised UK system struggles with as well, but it is not as though the US health care system is streaking ahead of all others because of the magic of the private sector. It simply t'aint so.
ACA is the kludgy result of Obama's failure as a leader and his desperate grasping for some sort of legacy.
It's a fine legacy as compared to any previous president. No one has done anything meaningful to change our system of health care delivery in my life time. We saved a bunch when our son was born. The ACA allowed me to have an operation for a condition that was considered pre-existing. I have few complaints. Many people are helped by it.
Obviously, we can do much better. We were doing much worse before.
Yes, and my premiums have doubled since it was passed.
And look to go even higher next year.
It does seem odd that liberals have seen premium reductions and republicans have seen premium increases.
45% of Americans pay no income taxes. Free ride for thee, overtime for me.
Well, boo-hoo for you (if this statistic is true - I'd like to see the source). I marvel that people in the US, with their high quality of life, begrudge doing things for the communal good at minimal cost.
It's easy to want the government to give you freebies when you don't pay in:
Income taxes are not a primary source of funding for ACA programs, if any is used at all. It is unlikely that a single-payer system would be funded primarily through income taxes, either.
That is based on income federal income tax, not state and local taxes. Nor does this statistic capture sales tax, which is not means tested. In any case it looks like the lower 40% of tax households don't pay income tax. So you are basically complaining about poor people. The people with the lowest 40% of net worth in the US have 0.2% of the nations wealth. Yeah, the poor people are surely living high on their free-loading...