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.
(note: article is by Noam Scheiber, not Michael Moore--I don't know why the link title comes out that way).
Conservative pundit Byron York recommended this article, so I looked it up and read it. It's an interesting theory of Obamacare that basically says that it is intentionally and cleverly designed to fail. The writer (Noam Scheiber) compares it to another legislative tale from 20 years ago.
In 1991 Congress create a program to fund screenings for detection of Breast and Cervical Cancer, but not for treatment. But the program essentially planted the seed to ensure that funding for treatment would happen:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR
“Almost from the moment it was implemented, there was pressure to take the next step,” says Harold Pollack, a professor of social policy at the University of Chicago. “They constructed a sympathetic and organized constituency … with an actionable grievance.” Congress approved the money for treatment in 2000.
.
The writer argues that Obamacare will do the same thing. It will construct an organized constituency with an actionable grievance. And I further think that this will be the central issue of the 2016 election--do we take the next big step? Obama, like W. Bush, chose a VP who would not likely be able to succeed him and continue his legacy. Is it possible that he found another way to skin that cat???
This idea is nothing new. There has been speculation since 2010 that Obamacare was intended to fail, in order to set the stage for single payer. But I think a lot of people have forgotten it amid the shouting and scuffling over the rollout.
I don't think Obamacare was designed to fail, I just think it was the best law that was able to be enacted at the time because of people like Joe Lieberman. That said, no liberal will deny that single payer is our ultimate goal. This is a conservative conspiracy theory that is actually true and not something I even think liberals have been trying to hide.
Before the ACA, we had a system set up where people could walk into an ER with the flu, and get treated, at obscene cost for no good reason. All because they had no insurance to see a family doctor, that runs 25% the cost of the ER visit.
We had medicaid, but it has holes. We have medicare, but thats for the elderly.
So you either
a) continue the ER visits, which costs tax payers more money through tax write offs
or
b) pay for them someway.
We went with B. We now mandated that everyone buy some form of insurance for themselves, so they can visit the family doctor.
I don't like a government mandate on buying anything, so I have long said that we need a limited single payer system. Meaning we define what is "essential" medical care. That single payer system takes care of that essential care. Even throw in a waiting list. IF you don't like waiting lists, or only receiving essential care, then you can buy supplemental insurance for whatever you want, and that will speed up your waits.
The other option is to let people go without care, at all. Deal with your broken arm, your flu, your cancer by yourself.
I don't think Obamacare was designed to fail, I just think it was the best law that was able to be enacted at the time because of people like Joe Lieberman. That said, no liberal will deny that single payer is our ultimate goal. This is a conservative conspiracy theory that is actually true and not something I even think liberals have been trying to hide.
How could that be? Doing nothing was a far better option, in all ways.
a) continue the ER visits, which costs tax payers more money through tax write offs
or
b) pay for them someway.
We went with B. We now mandated that everyone buy some form of insurance for themselves, so they can visit the family doctor.
But it doesn't pay for the family doctor.
It costs less to pay for the family doctor than it costs to buy insurance. Ergo, your statement is provably false.
Quote:
I don't like a government mandate on buying anything, so I have long said that we need a limited single payer system. Meaning we define what is "essential" medical care. That single payer system takes care of that essential care. Even throw in a waiting list. IF you don't like waiting lists, or only receiving essential care, then you can buy supplemental insurance for whatever you want, and that will speed up your waits.
Why do you keep confusing buying insurance with health care services? Insurance is a financial service, it has nothing to do with health care, other than government put a financial service in charge of making your medical decisions.
Quote:
The other option is to let people go without care, at all. Deal with your broken arm, your flu, your cancer by yourself.
With most Obamacare plans, you will pay for the insurance AND you will pay for your flu and broken arm yourself - it will do nothing for you.
It costs less to pay for the family doctor than it costs to buy insurance. Ergo, your statement is provably false.
Why do you keep confusing buying insurance with health care services? Insurance is a financial service, it has nothing to do with health care, other than government put a financial service in charge of making your medical decisions.
With most Obamacare plans, you will pay for the insurance AND you will pay for your flu and broken arm yourself - it will do nothing for you.
1, just saying its not, doesn't mean it isn't simple. Prove it
2. No, the insurance is quite cheap as compared to a visit to the family doctor when you have an illness. Well checks are cheap. Ask any parent of a 2 year old how expensive the freaking flu is nowadays.
Insurance pays for healthcare services, because the rates of the service are to high for most individuals to shoulder the burden.
And I don't have an obamacare plan, mine is employer based. And it pays, after the copay is reached, quite nicely for doctors visits.
Except for those who had pre-existing conditions, but it's not as if US health insurance was designed around the needs of sick people.
I'm sorry, insurance is not a charity. It's a financial service YOU PAY FOR.
Why should financial services be designed to lose money for those providing the service?
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.
