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.
I don't see how a voucher system for Medicare gets the US closer to UHC. So the entire argument fails from the very first assertion.
"Instead, they created ACA, which in a way is similar to a voucher system, but its income based, but has absolutely no chance of spreading to the rest of the nation because it relies upon punishing individuals to collect tax revenues to pay for everyone else. "
If you're claiming the ACA is funded by fines, the actual revenue from fines is estimated at 2 billion dollars this year, vs. a cost of 81 billion dollars for the program. That would mean the 2.5% is covered by the fines - which I wouldn't consider as relying. If you're claiming any taxation that pays for the program is punishment via taxes, then UHC would also fail that same test.
The whole argument made by Democrats was that ACA was supposed to actually decrease the deficit. Yeah, it doesn't come close, but that doesnt change how it was sold. They were only off by $1.5 TRILLION over a decade..
First of all, the "left" was never in favor of the Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare reforms in the first place. The left wanted single payer.
Then WHY did they vote for it? No a single repub voted for it?
The damn failure of the left is clearly noted..hell lefties hate lefties...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
So let's cross that off on your to-do list.
Even on a good day that makes no sense.
Here's the problem as I see it through my left-wing rose colored glasses, if the GOP/conservatives/reactionaries don't want a healthcare system channeled through private capitalist insurance companies, the possibility of actually crafting a universal healthcare system that works is about as likely as the survival of snowball in California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
But if the GOP has a plan to replace the ACA - and after 56 attempts to repeal but not replace - they've had plenty of time to propose an actual replacement.
Why should the GOP provide a replacement? The ACA is here now, there is nothing that can be done to get rid of it, that's why it was passed on DEC 24th....
Anyway, suck it up lefties...you have failed Americans......congrats...
The whole argument made by Democrats was that ACA was supposed to actually decrease the deficit. Yeah, it doesn't come close, but that doesnt change how it was sold. They were only off by $1.5 TRILLION over a decade..
But if the GOP has a plan to replace the ACA - and after 56 attempts to repeal but not replace - they've had plenty of time to propose an actual replacement.
It's been 5 years since Congress passed the ACA.
Progress has been made in that most in Congress concur that the U.S. Healthcare System has been and remains broken.
There have been a handful of conceptual proposals out of Congress that have not, gained traction.
Most began with the premise of taxing employees the value of premiums subsidized by the employer.
In 1948, the World Health Organization ( (WHO) declared healthcare a human right. Most of the developed world's rewrote or amended their constitutions to reflect heathcare as a human right. The U.S. was not one of those countries.
WHO defines Universial Healthcare as:
Equal access to healthcare, regardless of who can pay
The quality of healthcare is good enough to improve the health of the people it serves
Ensuring the cost of care does not create a financial hardship on people
No two countries do Universial Healthcare the same.
Why are vouchers a necessary step to get from Medicare to UHC? Why not Medicare for everybody?
ACA is expected to run $1.5 trillion dollar deficits and benefit just a small segment of the nation, we cant afford to insure everyone in the same manner.
Of course it does. There isnt a dam bit of difference between a voucher for Seniors, and a subsidy, from ACA, other than the segment of society it focuses on.
ACA was passed by LYING to the public about the benefits and costs, very shortly after they ran around crying about a voucher system that was very very similar, claiming people would die.
I dont need to explain to you that it didnt do what was promised if it didnt do anything close to what was promised, including the cost of the program.
ACA is expected to run $1.5 trillion dollar deficits and benefit just a small segment of the nation, we cant afford to insure everyone in the same manner.
Why do you insist on replying to things I haven't said?
If the end goal is UHC, it makes more sense to go from Medicare for some to Medicare for all than it does to break what works about Medicare and then roll that out to everybody.
So the thing is that nobody was opposed to vouchers for Medicare because of the idea of vouchers - they were opposed to it because Medicare worked fine the way it was. Introducing vouchers to a working system doesn't provide any benefit. However in the case of the ACA, they are using vouchers to supplement a painfully broken system. It's not sufficient, but it does provide benefit.
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.
