Why do Republcans want take away the ACA? (millionaire, economic, federal government)

[HJ99]

Originally Posted by jwest09

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.

We used to have blue collar manufacturing jobs in 70s too that paid living wage until republicans went all out chasing cheap labor around the world. You could buy a house for $25k. A new car for $3000. Ah the good ole days, huh?

[swagger]

Originally Posted by HJ99

We used to have blue collar manufacturing jobs in 70s too that paid living wage until republicans went all out chasing cheap labor around the world. You could buy a house for $25k. A new car for $3000. Ah the good ole days, huh?

What year did we get off the gold standard?

Do you think that fundamentally changing our economic system might have had more of an effect on it than where a small percentage of labor came from?

Just sayin’.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by jwest09

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.

Oh yeah, that's the reason #sarcasm

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by JimRom

Ok, so move to Norway.



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?

Population differences don't mean squat, unless you're trying to imply that all our extra population is poor, which is false. Fact: we have more millionaires and more billionaires than any country in the world in terms of raw numbers

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by swagger

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.

Medicare costs as much as it does because everyone on it is old, and therefore a "high user". The cost wouldn't go up proportionally if everyone was included, because most people under the age of 40 don't require much treatment especially compared to those over 65

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by BoBromhal

like California, the bastion of "providing for all"?

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...158363674.html

You know the reason a single state can't do it unless you're purposely being disingenuous. If just one state did it, every person needing treatment from the rest of the country would flood into that state. That's why it has to be nationwide or not at all

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by swagger

What year did we get off the gold standard?

Do you think that fundamentally changing our economic system might have had more of an effect on it than where a small percentage of labor came from?

Just sayin’.

Might I mention that it was a Republican president, Nixon that took us off the gold standard.....

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

You know the reason a single state can't do it unless you're purposely being disingenuous. If just one state did it, every person needing treatment from the rest of the country would flood into that state. That's why it has to be nationwide or not at all

we've been led to believe that very few people have the ability to uproot and move across state lines. Be that for COL reasons, being unemployed and seeking employment, or certain medical procedures for women.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by BoBromhal

we've been led to believe that very few people have the ability to uproot and move across state lines. Be that for COL reasons, being unemployed and seeking employment, or certain medical procedures for women.

So you're being disingenuous, as I know you're "smart"

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by swagger

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.

So you have some good point that you bring up as well. Keep in mind though that there is a difference between economics of scale and government price control.

An example would be as follows: a State Highway Patrol has aging patrol cars that need replacement. Do they go to the dealership and but each car at retail price? Lol, no they don't. Because they will purchase hundreds if not thousand of patrol cars from a manufacturer, they will get a much better price per vehicle purchased than your everyday Jon Doe ever could buying just one car.

So on this scenario, is this considered price control or is it bargaining (which economics of scale empowers the buyer in the negotiating table)?

As far as your other points, I think that's why the best route that we as a country can go to provide universal health care is a hybrid system like Germany.

In the German system, all healthcare services, healthcare facilities and healthcare coverage systems are done by private entities.

However, all these private entities have strong oversight and support systems in place that is done by their government.

as far as the constitutional argument against universal health care, I guess my question is is by somehow if a constitutional amendment was ever passed that said universal health Care was a right, with all of a sudden, constitutional conservatives then embrace universal health care?