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.
This Washington Post article is a great and straightforward explanation of why the Republic stance on healthcare is flawed and unworkable. 20 million Americans would be estimated to lose health insurance if the law were to be repealed.
Full repeal is not even palatable to Trump, which is why he's indicated that he's considering keeping parts of the law. But you CAN'T simply gut parts of the law without ruining the entire system. The mandate is essential, as are the subsidies.
Of course, Obamacare is far from a perfect system. But it's much better than what preceded it.
What would be even better would be a single-payer system. Unfortunately, the health insurance lobby controls politics too much for that to be possible.
If Trump really were true to his promise that he isn't beholden to special interests, then he'd do everything in his power (which may not be enough) to implement universal healthcare. That's my hope. He's made statements in the past praising universal healthcare. Maybe he still feels that way, but has refrained from expressing this out of political expediency.
Last edited by snj90; 11-12-2016 at 09:56 AM..
Reason: typo
This Washington Post article is a great and straightforward explanation of why the Republic stance on healthcare is flawed and unworkable. 20 million Americans would be estimated to lose health insurance if the law were to be repealed.
Full repeal is not even palatable to Trump, which is why he's indicated that he's considering keeping parts of the law. But you CAN'T simply gut parts of the law without ruining the entire system. The mandate is essential, as are the subsidies.
Of course, Obamacare is far from a perfect system. But it's much better than what preceded it.
What would be even better would be a single-payer system. Unfortunately, the health insurance lobby controls politics too much for that to be possible.
If Trump really were true to his promise that he isn't beholden to special interests, then he'd do everything in his power (which may not be enough) to implement universal healthcare. That's my hope. He's made statements in the past praising universal healthcare. Maybe he still feels that way, but has refrained from expressing this out of to political expediency.
Anyone with half a brain can figure out, the GOP's platform for healthcare has a fundamental flaw they set out so viciously to defend.
I don't care how many regulations or no regulations there are to change the healthcare system, it won't work until it addresses the true fundamental enemy of affordability. The Free Market. Until then, nothing will keep costs under control as people who see the doctor and hospital for any type of medical care don't act like they're going to the grocery store and pick and choose which product is better. Healthcare is a need and when it's between a life and death situation, there's no price that can be put on the care needed. The market is there to profit as much as it can off of this, drive up prices because there will always be demand for it regardless of what the end user will pay.
It's up to Trump to hold back the most aggressive tendencies of the GOP.
Beyond the fixes to the system, the main question is what type of protection
will be in place, if any, for the 20 million additions to Medicaid under Obamacare.
Trump can continue a level of funding to the states that keeps them insured,
or he can sign off on aggressive cuts.
Anyone with half a brain can figure out, the GOP's platform for healthcare has a fundamental flaw they set out so viciously to defend.
I don't care how many regulations or no regulations there are to change the healthcare system, it won't work until it addresses the true fundamental enemy of affordability. The Free Market. Until then, nothing will keep costs under control as people who see the doctor and hospital for any type of medical care don't act like they're going to the grocery store and pick and choose which product is better. Healthcare is a need and when it's between a life and death situation, there's no price that can be put on the care needed. The market is there to profit as much as it can off of this, drive up prices because there will always be demand for it regardless of what the end user will pay.
Quite true. The so-called "free market" just exists in this case to profit off healthcare. That's fundamentally why it should be government-run.
Quite true. The so-called "free market" just exists in this case to profit off healthcare. That's fundamentally why it should be government-run.
It doesn't have to be "government-run", but only government MANDATED
to be NON-PROFIT with government subsidy. There is a big difference.
Government doesn't have to staff 1/5th of the economy, just pass laws
so that 1/5th doesn't exploit the public's needs.
France's health care system is not staffed by salaried government workers.
Others, like Spain and Portugal are. There are many systems around the world
to consider, and mostly all of them work better than the American system.
It doesn't have to be "government-run", but only government MANDATED
to be NON-PROFIT with government subsidy. There is a big difference.
Government doesn't have to staff 1/5th of the economy, just pass laws
so that 1/5th doesn't exploit the public's needs.
France's health care system is not staffed by salaried government workers.
Others, like Spain and Portugal are. There are many systems around the world
to consider, and mostly all of them work better than the American system.
That alone would go a LONG way to correct our woes. For profit hospitals and the like are killing us on cost.
It doesn't have to be "government-run", but only government MANDATED
to be NON-PROFIT with government subsidy. There is a big difference.
Government doesn't have to staff 1/5th of the economy, just pass laws
so that 1/5th doesn't exploit the public's needs.
France's health care system is not staffed by salaried government workers.
Others, like Spain and Portugal are. There are many systems around the world
to consider, and mostly all of them work better than the American system.
The management/operations can be contracted out instead of hiring government workers.
I don't think Trump has a plan in mind. He doesn't have a clue. The GOP's plan has always been tax gimmicks
Or gimmicks that benefit insurance companies.
They need to detach healthCARE from employment. I think employers will be grateful for it-one less headache for employers to deal with.
It doesn't have to be "government-run", but only government MANDATED
to be NON-PROFIT with government subsidy. There is a big difference.
Government doesn't have to staff 1/5th of the economy, just pass laws
so that 1/5th doesn't exploit the public's needs.
France's health care system is not staffed by salaried government workers.
Others, like Spain and Portugal are. There are many systems around the world
to consider, and mostly all of them work better than the American system.
Government mandated = Obamacare.
Companies will not be non-profit. The government is non-profit by nature.
I'm not sure what's so different than what we have now if you do the above things?
The management/operations can be contracted out instead of hiring government workers.
I don't think Trump has a plan in mind. He doesn't have a clue. The GOP's plan has always been tax gimmicks
Or gimmicks that benefit insurance companies.
They need to detach healthCARE from employment. I think employers will be grateful for it-one less headache for employers to deal with.
Well, why would you have private contractors instead of the government running it? Private contractors are also for-profit and makes no difference than if you had a company running things.
Keep the management under the federal government and allow the President to select the executive just like a cabinet position so it at least has some sort of control.
Quite true. The so-called "free market" just exists in this case to profit off healthcare. That's fundamentally why it should be government-run.
+1
Just like every other country in the world. It's kind of about time we join the rest and not have our own citizens going bankrupt cause of medical bills. The "GIMME MY FREEDOM" argument I keep reading about is so BS, like if anyone wants to really go without medical care.
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.
