Why do Republcans want take away the ACA? (highway, millionaires, illegals)
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.
We use to have very affordable low cost heath insurance in the 70's untill the democrats brought in their illegals and they were uninsured. The democrats uninsured illegal aliens went to emergency rooms for normal colds. They left the hospitals with major debt. So the hospitals raised their prices 10× thanks to the Democrats, we all suffer now with high health costs.
Norway is universally considered one of the happiest places to live is why I pointed them out...Norwegians pay high taxes but they don't complain about it...they have clean cities, clean environment (even w/ the North Sea Oil), and a very strong social safety net...yet they still have a very strong economy w/ many great companies.
Ok, so move to Norway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
I've forgotten more about history than you'll ever understand. You do know that the "free market" is precisely what we have now, right? Can you name another Western democracy that would trade their healthcare system for ours?
Don't tell me about all of our latest whiz bang technology, cause if it is unaffordable, then it is worthless, because you can't use it. However, if there is an affordable alternative that works as well, I'm pretty sure most people will choose that.
Name one Western democracy that would trade their healthcare system for ours.
I don’t give a rodent’s rectum what people in other countries want, nor do I care what works in other western countries - many of which have have systems which are feasible for a country the size of one of our states but would be a train wreck in a country the size of the United States. For some reason, nobody who espouses making the United States more like a European country ever stops to consider the vast differences between us and them. The United Kingdom would be the closest European analogue to the United States, and the entirety of the UK would fit inside of Texas twice (land mass) or the United States nearly five times (population).
The NHS has been on the brink of instability for years, and - barring some extremely major modifications to structure and funding - is likely heading toward collapse in the next decade or so. That was predicted before Covid was even a rumor. Want to guess how much faster it would collapse if you enlarged it to a system which would be required to handle 500% of the population in an area 40 times larger? With a government which is utterly incapable of doing absolutely anything in a manner which remotely resembles efficiency? With a population which ranks 24 places higher on the world obesity chart? Now realize that each principality has their own version of NHS, analogous to each state in the US having their own “free” healthcare system, and think about the number of administrative layers which would need to be in place for our incompetent Federal Government - which has no constitutionally assigned power, right, or responsibility to provide for healthcare - to be in charge of such a system. There is no national healthcare system which is going to be more affordable or effective than the free market combined with a safety net for the truly destitute. Not in America, where we are currently having an argument over which presidential candidate is more corrupt than the other one because we simply accept that the government is corrupt. There isn’t a single government run agency in the United States which couldn’t be run more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector. What makes you think the government would be any better at healthcare than they are at anything else?
I've forgotten more about history than you'll ever understand. You do know that the "free market" is precisely what we have now, right? Can you name another Western democracy that would trade their healthcare system for ours?
Don't tell me about all of our latest whiz bang technology, cause if it is unaffordable, then it is worthless, because you can't use it. However, if there is an affordable alternative that works as well, I'm pretty sure most people will choose that.
Name one Western democracy that would trade their healthcare system for ours.
Nope. In fact I know of a more than a few developing nations that wouldn't trade their health care systems for ours. Especially after the ACA.
The second part absolutely describes what the ACA did to our health care. I know my insurance, in just a few short years, went from a $5 co-pay and 0 deductible to a $25 co-pay and a $1500 deductible per person. People are afraid to go to the doctor due to hidden costs. The ACA is an example of a cure that made the disease worse.
But if others can't, that's perfectly ok to you maybe, but it's not to them, and it's not to me either
With the exception of those unable to work, due to illness, injuries, age , which i have no issue helping, there are options for others to have healthcare. I spent a year unemployed and still paid for coverage, out of pocket. Was it good coverage, nope. I didn't expect to have Bezos coverage though.
His statement said ONLY the wealthiest got tax cuts. That is a flat out lie. A Lie.
Just a small quote from the WHO IS SAVING most thread
“Most of the tax cut went to businesses and higher income individuals who are less likely to spend the increases,” reads the report. Facts are everyone got a tax break.. Everyone
Here is a link that shows the tables from 2017 and beyond. Easy to read too. https://smartasset.com/taxes/trump-tax-brackets
sadly, like everything it seems, they make whatever political point they can to suit their narrative. Don't attempt to draw accurate and fact-based information out of them, because they lose on an honest presentation of all the facts.
If someone making $30K went from a $500 tax bill to $0 but someone making $300K went from $70K to $63K - well by their calculus the "rich" person got all the benefits. They "got" $7K they shouldn't have, while the "poor" person only got $500.
They would rather claim you can match people up - take that $7K savings from the "rich" and give it to the poor person. Effectively give them an extra $7K income. That would be fair! Not that more people in the bottom half saw their taxes go to $0.
We use to have very affordable low cost heath insurance in the 70's untill the democrats brought in their illegals and they were uninsured. The democrats uninsured illegal aliens went to emergency rooms for normal colds. They left the hospitals with major debt. So the hospitals raised their prices 10× thanks to the Democrats, we all suffer now with high health costs.
And another cost that many don't think about is criminal healthcare. Here in the Detroit metro area, there are at least 3 or 4 shootings a night. Many, of those shot end up in trauma/icu, for days, weeks...without healthcare...and that is just the Detroit area. This happens across the country.
Healthcare is incompatible with free markets. Free market is based on the voluntary exchange of good and service.
As such, market competition can only bring down health care costs for procedures that people can live without, such as most plastic surgeries or lasik.
Nothing voluntary about needing care for stage 4 cancer or losing out on the genetic lottery with type 1 diabetes and needing insulin on a regular basis.
Without care, these people die.
As such, without the ability for an entity to use economics of scale (aka government), hospitals and pharmaceutical companies can charge what ever they want because they know people need these things to survive.
And people are usually willing to pay what ever it costs to stay alive.
Other 1st world countries use economics of scale and a such, this is the reason why insulin costs about 25 dollars a vial in Canada vs about 400 in the US.
Economics of scale is the reason why it's much cheaper per roll to buy toilet paper from Costco than it is to buy a single roll from your local liquor store.
The US has a multi-pair and very fragmented coverage system so as such economics of scale cannot be as widely used.
Until we get over the socialist boogeyman and actually implement economics to scale, we will continue to have the highest costs for medical care in the world.
Good post, and lots of great points were made.
I guess that between you and I, the debate would be about economics vs privacy and control.
Sure, government has the capability to control costs, to an extent, and money could potentially be saved, although there’s no good example I can think of where the federal government reduced the cost of anything, ever, by taking it over.
On the economic front, my primary concerns are corruption and fraud. The estimates for Medicare are around $60b+ per year, last time I checked. Imagine what that would be if all healthcare was paid for by they government. What a nightmare.
Then there’s the issue of authorization. The general welfare clause has been abused to no end, but that would be an astronomical advancement of that abuse. Universal healthcare is a state issue, not federal. They don’t have the authority, IMO, and no SCOTUS precedent you cite will change my mind so don’t bother.
But my main issue with it is control. No matter which side of politics you’re on, everyone’s complaining about government overreach. The left says Trump is a dictator and the right says the left wants full blown communism. Why on earth would you want to give the power to decide who lives or dies to the government, at a time when it’s becoming decidedly more authoritarian by the day?
Perhaps in different times, it would be a different conversation, but right now, it’s a HELL NO from me.
Both countries would fit inside of Texas with room to rattle around. If we were talking about a single state enacting a system such as Norway or Sweden you might have an argument. Even at that, when you look at taxation in those countries you quickly realize that free isn't free.
Norway's tax burden is 45% of their GDP in order to cover the cost of "free" healthcare. Their top tax rate is 38%. Sweden has a similarly high tax vs. GDP ratio with a top tax rate of 57%. In comparison the US has a tax to gdp ratio of ~28% and a top nominal tax rate of 37%. Let me know if I have to explain why that "nominal" is important (hint: very few actually pay the top tax rate in our country).
My ancestors are from Norway. Why would I want to change the greatest nation on earth to more closely resemble a place my ancestors didn't even want to live?
like California, the bastion of "providing for all"?
California’s universal health care bill never stood a chance this year.
The authors of Senate Bill 562, Democrats Ricardo Lara and Toni Atkins, didn’t include a way to pay for the far-reaching legislation, which was estimated to cost $400 billion to start.
Leaders of both houses had no detailed conversations about it with Gov. Jerry Brown, who publicly expressed deep skepticism about how to fund a program that’s more than twice the state budget.
paying attention to details? Yeah, guilty as charged, and so it's not a personal attack. Worry not.
Why is it considered acceptable to pull information and "facts" out of thin air to attempt to support your argument?
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.
