Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may be worth working towards, but one very important thing needs to happen first. It's something that should have been addressed and solved before even attempting to pass anything similar to the Affordable Care Act. The escalating cost of heath care must be solved first.
The ACA saddled our federal government with paying for something with a price tag that is increasing exponentially. The federal debt it going to shoot upwards out of control because of it. Single-payer systems in Europe and Canada were established when costs were low and they've refused to be bullied into paying the over-the-top high prices for medical supplies and pharmaceuticals like the USA has. We all know quite well that if you can figure out a way to get your prescriptions filled in a foreign county (just about any foreign country) you'll pay a fraction of what you pay in the USA. We all know that the same heart surgery, the same cancer treatment and pretty much everything else are cheaper outside the United States. Solve the escalating costs, reverse the trend and push them down to European and Canadian levels. Only then will a single payer system make sense.
It will make a lot more sense if you let the States do it. The USA isn't France, Germany or Canada. The USA is massive in territory and population. Fraud is guaranteed to run rampant when you run something like socialized medicine on a massive scale. You can see massive levels of fraud in the social programs our federal government runs now and socialized medicine will be no different. You want to run such things closer to home and you want to empower local authorities to be able to curb fraud as often as possible. The federal government can keep oversight to make sure everyone plays nice, but that's all.
I'm quite puzzled by this statement: "The ACA is basically the GOP-designed approach for working through insurance companies, and it seems pretty inefficient." The ACA has nothing to do with the GOP. No Republican voted for it. The ACA is 100% the responsibility of the Democrats. You might want to ask Democratic leaders why they didn't forcibly slam through a single payer system instead. The ACA was a huge slap in the face to the GOP. The Dems effectively threw down the gauntlet of "we don't have to listen to anything you say" when they passed it into law. That was the kick in the nuts cheap-shot that started the big two parties on their current state of absolutely refusing to work together. What has the GOP got to do with the Affordable Care Act??
the reason they connect the GOP is that a few globalist liberal GOPers suggested something similar during the Hillarycare fiasco.....wasn't a good choice back then still isn't a good choice with obozocare
It bears repeating--the ACA is the GOP's idea of healthcare reform. It is a great illustration of how stupid Republicans are that they were so easily convinced their great plan of the 1990's, created as an alternative to Clinton's attempt to move to universal healthcare, was a Democratic idea.
Idiots, all.
Repeating a outright lie doesn't make it true. The aca is 100% liberal democrat with absolutely no input from republicans. Only in liberal fantasy land do you get to write and pass a bill all on your own and then blame someone else for it. Liberal are such poster children for lack of responsibility. The idiots are the lefties who actuallactually believe that and keep repeatIng it.
Medicare had half a trillion embezzled from it to fund Obamacare and always needs extra money funneled through the back door to keep the doctors from refusing to take Medicare patients.
If that's a success, what's a failure look like?
And why is it allowed for doctors to refuse patients? Why is that not called the WORST form of rationing? Oh wait......silly me.
What % of GDP do other countries spend on health care and what % does the US? Why is that and how can the US drive down the cost?
To a smaller degree it's because we have a less healthy population and consume more care.
To a larger degree it's because we let the rest of the world free-ride off us on drug costs* and because medical providers and suppliers here are paid a lot more than in other countries (which is difficult to tackle and not black-and-white on what action to take and even whether to because you're talking about the salaries and paychecks of a very large number of ordinary middle-class Americans).
People talk about our tort system and administrative costs, and those do add a little expense, but compared to unit cost and utilization it's like looking at someone who tries to rent a $2,000 apartment on a $35,000 salary and saying they are blowing their budgets because they eat out a couple times a month.
*Which is absolutely idiotic and we should stop, and it wouldn't even be that difficult to draft effective legislation that would do it if we had the political will to anger both the pharmaceutical industry and the other countries which will be upset when the gravy-train ends -- all you need to do is allow reimportantion and make patent retention contingent on not charging too large of a differential in the US versus elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom1944
In retrospect they should have forced Mediicare expansion.
Do you understand the differences between the two? Medicare has much higher cost sharing than Medicaid but generally means higher payments to providers. Replacing the Medicaid expansion with a Medicare expansion to the same people would be worse for the beneficiaries (20% coinsurance) but better for the providers that care for them.
I don't necessarily agree, but I don't disagree either, haven't given enough thought or research on that potential alternative to have a worthwhile opinion either way. Anyway, you should give some real thought to what you are suggesting rather than just say stuff like that without an expressed reason, there are very significant practical differences between the programs.
Because the democrats couldn't possibly expect their constituents to pay for single payer so it will never happen.
Yep. That's exactly why it'll never happen. In European countries, everyone pays, with low- and middle-income earners paying the most, percentage-wise. Their tax systems are regressive, relying the most heavily on consumption taxes such as sales taxes and VAT taxes.
The freeloaders here in the U.S. would never go for that.
In the rest of the world, even with their regressive tax structure universal care has almost universal support. Why do you think citizens of the US would be different?
Because too many in the U.S. don't want to pay for what they get. Look at all the whining and complaining from the liberals about how the rich "supposedly" don't pay their fair share , when the actual fact is that they pay the most of all.
I did not say that. A private sector solution is not going to lead to a just and compassionate health care system. We all know that, and besides, employer provided health insurance puts our companies at a disadvantage. It should not be their job. It is society's job.
No, "we" don't know that.
We have government run agencies totally devoid of compassion. The PPACA rollout was a disaster, costs floated to justify its approval were absolute lies. How on earth do think you will get compassion from such an unethical self serving political machine?
Private sector can work. There are different strategies that have not yet been tried.
Sit back a bit and wait for Vermont to start it in 2017. Then look at the costs (8% additional payroll tax employee, 11% additional payroll tax employer, new state tax and continued use of Fed medicaid/medicare dollars) and wait to see if Vermont can pull it off.
I haven't read that employers in Vermont are all on board with this new tax that they haven't passed yet. That 19% is what was estimated by their consultants but elected officials are hesitant to bring it forward. There is no other way though.
I'm not so sure how well this will work outside of the few cities in Vermont (e.g Burlington, Rutland) and especially the eastern part of Vermont with the small towns. In the eastern half of Vermont medical care is quite desolate and people go to NH for their healthcare. As far as I am aware, NH healthcare workers haven't confirmed whether they will even accept VT state plans.
To a smaller degree it's because we have a less healthy population and consume more care.
You are coming to conclusions you are unable to make based off this. Yes we consume a lot of care but in part that is because a doctor is going to call for every test under the sun to cover his butt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
