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.
Welfare insurance is not wanted for all. Losers may want it because they are poor wage earners, but regular people like what we used to have. Only drug costs were an issue.
Also, we are #49 in education in the world, but #1 in paying the most for bad education, so we should focus on the teacher's unions as well.
Your argument ignores the real problem. The real problem is that the United States, the citizens of the United States, are carrying the burden of healthcare costs for the rest of the world. We pay through the nose for healthcare services and products, while the rest of the world gets those same services and products at a fraction of our cost. And the reason for this is because we have no leverage to control those costs.
The fact is that we cannot afford to continue with this system. Healthcare/insurance already consumes too much of our economic pie. And with baby boomers poised to expand that piece of pie tremendously, if we can't get a handle on prices, our economy will be broken.
Obamacare didn't do enough to control costs. It wasn't a great piece of legislation. But it was a move in the right direction. And the Republican plan moves us in the wrong direction. To the point that even "regular people" will become losers when it comes to healthcare in this country.
One acceptable way to deal with this whole mess, is to simply repeal the Obamacare mandate.
Then people who like Obamacare, can keep their Obamacare policies. (didn't I hear that someplace before?).
And those who want something else, can switch to that.
Freedom all around.
And since Obamacare is such a great program, as liberals still insist, there will be plenty enough people sticking with it to sustain it. What could go wrong?
Because your choices are right wing socialism or left wing socialism . There was hope that an outsider like Donald Trump could make a difference but..........his admin will be "going after" recreational marijauana now? War drums over Iran? Look at some of the cabinet appointments if you want to see right wing. How about this ignoramus from Alabama for starters? Ok so he's going to build a wall. Terrific, the Chinese did that thousands of years ago ( they claimed for the same reasons ) and guess what, the wall that keeps them out keeps you in!
The bottomline is the the system isn't is about to fail. It's like the social security except that there's not enough people paying into the system and many people are gaming it including the very wealthy. Big drug companies are using this as a way to force the govt and insurance companies to pay huge amounts for life savings drugs and there's no way the system could support drugs that cost thousands of $$ a day for a dose.
Insurance will try to pass the cost to companies and government that subsidizes the plans and they can't stay profitable.
It needs to be scrapped so the bleeding could stop, some people might die if they lose coverage but everyone dies just a matter of time.
With the rest of the world having healthcare for its citizens why cant the powers that be pick a healthcare plan that works and adapt it to Americas population.
This attitude of "why should my taxes pay for your healthcare" will ensure America never solves its healthcare problems.
Excellent healthcare should be easily attainable within one of the richest countries in the world. Our country is based upon the capitalistic model which automatically yields and distinguishes different classes and tiers of people. Our particular model usually places the poor and disenfranchised at the bottom. Just like our judicial and legal system distributes justice, our American citizens will be granted the amount and quality of healthcare that they can afford. The rich will continue to get the best legal defense that money can buy, just like they will continue to receive the best healthcare that money can buy.
Currently, the only people grieving about Obamacare are the rich and the healthy young Americans. Without the willing participation of young American contributors, no healthcare system will work. Tax credits only work for moderately healthy Americans who have gainful employment. The newly proposed Republican Healthcare system will fail when Medicaid loses too many of its benefactors.
Many intelligent, dedicated, and patriotic people invested much time, effort, and consideration in the crafting of Obamacare. It seems to me that tweeking it, or making adjustments in specific crucial places would be much easier than completing repealing it and replacing it with an even more questionable proposal. OMG! Obamacare has provided healthcare for over 20 million Americans who previously had none.
To both repeal and replace Obamacare smacks of either blatant racism and/or complete partisanship to me. This move is Tea Party typical!
I'm quoting this part because there's something about it that I find amusing. Freedom; it's that thing everyone says they support when something they personally disagree with is being discussed.
It is an novel concept, no doubt. But there's many aspects to it. At one point in your OP, you say healthcare is being 'imposed.' Ironically, the idea of nationally subsidized healthcare is actually fairly popular and is projected to only increase in popularity. You speak of politicians saying we 'need this' but the truth is, this isn't actually controversial for many. A congressmen's job is to represent their constituents. If their constituents want healthcare at the national level, it is the job of a the good congressman to to bring this to the attention of the United States congress. Just as it is the job of the good congressmen who's constituents do not want national healthcare to debate this issue.
Ultimately, the debate must be had. If a proper national healthcare move cannot be made, perhaps states make the move. Perhaps states regulate it but do receive federal funding so that they for sure have it. Perhaps national healthcare does in fact pan out. This is the freedom of representative government. It's a reality that not everything the government does is going to be universally supported, and by God those who disagree should always have the right to say so. But they do not have the right to be exempt. I did not support the war in Iraq but I did not feel that my taxes going to pay for it is a form of political tyranny. In the same way, I'm sure there were many in 1790 who felt that the right of catholics to freely worship was distasteful and an abomination to God. But, the systems and laws that make the most sense and benefit people in the most fair way is ultimately what gets passed. Public debate must move forward; as I said, this is the freedom of representative government. If you're upset, pick up a phone and call your senators.
Ironically, the idea of nationally subsidized healthcare is actually fairly popular and is projected to only increase in popularity. You speak of politicians saying we 'need this' but the truth is, this isn't actually controversial for many. A congressmen's job is to represent their constituents. If their constituents want healthcare at the national level, it is the job of a the good congressman to to bring this to the attention of the United States congress. Just as it is the job of the good congressmen who's constituents do not want national healthcare to debate this issue.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the leftists' most common tactics, is to impose a program on the people, get them hooked on the "good parts" while concealing the costs, an then screaming when law-aiding people try to repeal it. They scream, "See? They're taking your health care away, they don't want you to have any!" - as though government were suddenly their only source of health care.
The death of our country will come from people who believe that if 51% of them want something, their desire suddenly makes it Constitutional.
But in fact, the Constitution gives the Fed govt all its powers... and running a health plan is nowhere among them. And there's a reason for that. This means that the Fed govt is forbidden to do that... but the states and the people still can if they want.
If a national health plan were as popular as you claim it is, then you should have no problem getting 2/3 of the Congress to propose a constitutional amendment giving the Fed govt the power to run one, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Then the Fed can put together a health plan, and the people who passed the amendment will get exactly what they deserve.
The medical plan has to be replaced, because republicans can't tolerate something commonly known by the name of a former democratic president. But if they name a new version after Trump, there'll come a time when no one will be able to tolerate that name.
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.
