Why don't we simply cut to the chase? It is my considered view that most defenders of ObamaCare really want a singer-payer system (i.e. UHC--as in Canada, and throughout just about all of Europe). That is an intellectually reasonable position. I disagree with it. But it is intellectually reasonable, nonetheless. The enthusiasm for ObamaCare, however--on the part of those who would really prefer UHC--is not really intellectually sustainable. To use ObamaCare as merely a stalking horse for UHC simply does not work. Do those supporters of UHC--and doubtless, there are tens of millions of these throughout the US--not see that it would be much more intellectually honest to simply argue the case for what they really desire, rather than hanging, by their fingernails, onto a failure? So, then, please let the real debate begin...
In a world full of horrible choices Obamacare is the third best to single payer and nationalized healthcare.
There is much we need to do besides switch to national healthcare ("Medicare for All"). Our fee-for-service system is very wasteful and costly. Example: I had surgery 10 years ago and the surgery was "lightweight". By that I mean it was not as complete and thorough as is typical of this surgery. The surgeon told me then that "most people who get this will need it done again in about 10 years, -it's just the way it is." Now it's looking like he did it that way so he could do another surgery to make more money off me. There are other examples of the waste of fee-for-service, like unnecessary testing. This happens when you make income or profit dependent on how many procedures are done and how many tests are made. Doctors should be paid salaries. Drug pricing is another area needing total revamping. And don't ask me how to do this. I am not a medical expert. I just know, like so many other people, that these things are creating problems and need to be changed. We pay more per capita for healthcare than any other country, and many of them have significantly better outcomes. Medical treatment in the US is not as good as we are led to believe.
Unnecessary testing has more to do with defensive medicine than any other cause. There are a lot of things wrong with our health insurance and health care industries. Fixing one doesn't necessarily fix the other though. IMO, the more we do to diminish the strength of insurers, the better off we will be as consumers.
You mean "preventative care"? Then it isn't "unnecessary". Broad and common use of preventative measures is one of the main ways other countries keep down the cost of healthcare. I was referring to truly unnecessary procedures. Canada's healthcare is a little better than ours, and it costs slightly more than half what ours costs per capita.
I have Medicaid so I have everything for free including vision and dental. I wish everyone had it You can't get vision and dental from Obamacare exchange plans, but you can get it if you shop around on the private market. Of course with health insurance and Medicare you DON'T get everything for free. By that I mean you can't check in at the front desk of the doctor's office without paying a fee separate from your insurance payment. Even if you get a Platinum plan you still have to pay on top of your insurance.
COSTS there is no political will to control costs so healthcare will still be highest in America regardless of what system we run. What that means is $10K/year cost per person on insurance or single payer tax.
I was referring to defensive medicine. This includes testing and treatments that are done or ordered by the doctor only as a defense against malpractice. I don't agree with the conclusions in this article, but it gives a good idea of the cost of defensive medicine. https://www.americanprogress.org/is...5941/reducing-the-cost-of-defensive-medicine/
Medicare requires private insurance to pay what they don't, and to provide the networks and administration of the plans. Without the private insurers picking up those costs, the cost of Medicare would sky rocket.
I'm a bit concerned about the proposed strategy for introducing Medicare For All. Some in congress want to drop the eligibility age to 55, then later to 45, then later to 35, etc. But that will begin with the most expensive people due to increasing medical needs with aging. And it would require a formula for phase-in and lots of involvement by employers in removing first one age group from their plans, then another age group, etc. So I think phase-in should start with infants to age 30 or 35, and then later an older group, etc.
Let's see, socialist revolution in Venezuela leads to lack of food and toilet paper, the people complain it leads to despotism. Yup, sounds about right!
Sure it does. But it's wrong. That view is the product of long, intense U.S. propaganda designed to make you think that. You fell for it.
Well, with the average Venezuelan walking around like a stick figure, they sure solved their obesity problem.
I see. You have no interest in breaking through the propaganda web to learn the truth. Got it. Stay comfortable.
What is your metric here, to support this belief? (Note: If it is simply comparative life expectancies, that is a very flawed metric, as many different factors can go into that.)
And you are being intellectually honest here. My opposition to it is twofold: (1) From a purely philosophical perspective, I would much prefer to see the unwinding of socialism in this "mixed" economy, rather than the expansion of it. (2) From a purely practical perspective, I simply cannot see how we would pay for it (without greatly increasing taxes).
Are you saying the govt talking over control of the means and distribution of the economy just coincidentally took hold at the same time shortages started? And that it's just another coincidence that every socialist state the world has ever seen has been controlled by a dictator?
