Healthcare: Turning Red to Blue?

[frozentundra123456]

You tried what? I don't think Obama claimed he would instigate medicare for all, just health care reform (which he did and the ACA was). And considering that Republicans won back Congress by screaming that Obama was a communist/socialist that was going to raise your taxes and institute death squads for his socialized health care, not sure how you can claim the rest with a straight face. The ACA doomed them because Americans chose to believe lies and bullshit, and medicare for all likely would have lost Obama a second term, and would have gotten Republican dominance and they would have likely torn it to pieces immediately.

What happened is Democrats sought a compromise on health care to get Republicans on board. Republicans decided to just go ahead go completely insane, just started spouting lies and getting extremist, which worked because Americans are often idiots that will listen to crazy people spouting bullshit instead of trying to be rational. But given time, they will see through the lies.

Its only after all the evidence that, while flawed, the ACA was helping tens of millions of Americans, and Republicans showing that they were just lying about everything they were saying with regards to health care (all the lies about the ACA, that they had a plan and weren't just trying to destroy the ACA because they hated Obama and Democrats, that they aren't despicable assholes who would gladly tell you to fuck off and die so that you don't cost them a penny more, how out of touch they were saying people were buying iPhones instead of health care while ignoring that health care for a single month costs many families more than iPhones so even if they didn't buy iPhones they still would struggle to afford health care; I'm sure I'm leaving out a hell of a lot too) and trying to run and hide while they worked to fuck millions of Americans over, that Americans got good and mad.

The problem is that simple "reform", without controlling cost, is always going to help one group and hurt another. Forcing coverage for those without it will increase costs for other groups, either through higher premiums, increased taxes, or adding to the deficit. The only real answer is a single payer system with a limit on costs. But I dont think that will ever happen.

 

[theeedude]

We need single payer with price controls.

 

[ivwshane]

The problem is that simple "reform", without controlling cost, is always going to help one group and hurt another. Forcing coverage for those without it will increase costs for other groups, either through higher premiums, increased taxes, or adding to the deficit. The only real answer is a single payer system with a limit on costs. But I dont think that will ever happen.

That doesn't make any sense. Health insurance is pooled. More people in the pool means more money in the pool. If those least likely to need health insurance (ie the young and healthy) then costs are distributed between more people and costs are actually lowered and not raised.

 

[frozentundra123456]

That doesn't make any sense. Health insurance is pooled. More people in the pool means more money in the pool. If those least likely to need health insurance (ie the young and healthy) then costs are distributed between more people and costs are actually lowered and not raised.

That is not what I meant, probably didnt word it clearly. I meant when the government pays for or partially subsidizes people that have no insurance, without introducing an integrated system for everyone that also limits costs, then those costs will eventually be passed on.

 

[ecogen]

That is not what I meant, probably didnt word it clearly. I meant when the government pays for or partially subsidizes people that have no insurance, without introducing an integrated system for everyone that also limits costs, then those costs will eventually be passed on.

This is the important part, price controls. I've seen horror stories of multiple thousands of dollars charged for a fucking ambulance ride, it's insane.

 

[ivwshane]

That is not what I meant, probably didnt word it clearly. I meant when the government pays for or partially subsidizes people that have no insurance, without introducing an integrated system for everyone that also limits costs, then those costs will eventually be passed on.

This is the important part, price controls. I've seen horror stories of multiple thousands of dollars charged for a fucking ambulance ride, it's insane.

I agree that cost controls are necessary for any health care system to be successful and that includes our current system.

 

[gorcorps]

I don't care which side they're on, but the first person to actually have a plan to address the outrageous costs the hospitals/doctors/pharm companies are allowed to charge for care will have my vote. Quit trying to fuck with the insurance, that's ignoring the source of the issue. Insurance costs wouldn't be so high if what they had to cover wasn't so absurd to begin with.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't care which side they're on, but the first person to actually have a plan to address the outrageous costs the hospitals/doctors/pharm companies are allowed to charge for care will have my vote. Quit trying to fuck with the insurance, that's ignoring the source of the issue. Insurance costs wouldn't be so high if what they had to cover wasn't so absurd to begin with.

Interesting. So insurance costs that were rising at a faster rate before the ACA was passed and was the number one cause for bankruptcy, was caused by what exactly? Too little coverage? The ability to deny coverage because of pre existing conditions? Because lifetime caps were in place?

You don't sound very informed on the subject and I'm guessing you have voted against your own interests.