What's new
By:

#CruzSexScandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Gameface said:
Health care costs were out of control BEFORE the ACA. So it didn't reverse them, okay. Cost were rising and they continued to rise. I don't think they've been going up as fast as they were, but I don't really have any idea. We can all bust out some anecdotal stories about our own coverage, I'm sure some people are paying a lot more, some people are paying a little more and some people now have coverage who didn't before.

I would rather, if we're moving away from our completely broken private system, just go ahead and go single payer and get rid of health insurance all together. What we have now seems like a lame compromise that benefits health insurance companies more than it helps anyone else.
Click to expand...
I can't even count the number of times I've heard this argument after a social program failed to produce the promised results. It's never the fault of the social program. The problem is always that we didn't go far enough.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I can't even count the number of times I've heard this argument after a social program failed to produce the promised results. It's never the fault of the social program. The problem is always that we didn't go far enough.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but health care service providers would still be privately owned, right?

Ok, fair enough. Keep in mind that where it comes to health care, the US is the outlier among developed nations. Health care in this country costs more, produces lower health outcomes, and lower public satisfaction rates than many or our developed nation counterparts. Why, then, would we not want to take a closer look at their models to learn from them . . . other than, perhaps, our misguided sense of American exceptionalism, which dictates that, even when we are producing sub-optimal outcomes compared to other developed countries, the way we do it is better, because . . . . America!
Click to expand...

You don't have to convince me of the benefits of healthcare reform and a move to single payer system. I'm all for it.

But just because the actual hospitals are not government owned does not mean single payer is not more similar to socialism than what we currently have.

There are a lot of different ways a single payer system can be built, but every single one of them involves more government, and is more similar to socialized medicine than what we have.


I think it's great progress, and hope he have a single payer system within the decade.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I can't even count the number of times I've heard this argument after a social program failed to produce the promised results. It's never the fault of the social program. The problem is always that we didn't go far enough.
Click to expand...

I never felt as if I was promised that the aca would do more than it has for me and people I know who use the health care exchange. And that is provide health coverage at an affordable rate that reasonably covers the ailments we come across in our lives.

What do you think it promised? Free unicorns?
 
b_line said:
I never felt as if I was promised that the aca would do more than it has for me and people I know who use the health care exchange. And that is provide health coverage at an affordable rate that reasonably covers the ailments we come across in our lives.

What do you think it promised? Free unicorns?
Click to expand...
That conversation was specifically about the fact that the real costs of Obamacare are double what Obama said they would be when he was trying to get the bill passed. I wouldn't turn down a free unicorn, though.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
That conversation was specifically about the fact that the real costs of Obamacare are double what Obama said they would be when he was trying to get the bill passed. I wouldn't turn down a free unicorn, though.
Click to expand...

Please proceed a link for Barry estimating the costs to be half of what they are.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I guess I don't understand what you meant.
Click to expand...

I'm a libertarian, but I've given up on making libertarian based arguments in general. I don't think libertarianism can work in a mixed economy. I also think my form of libertarianism is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. I don't want piecemeal libertarianism and I'm happy living in a non-libertarian world. So, despite my ideology, I'd prefer that things work well and satisfy most of the people most of the time.

The ACA did some of what it set out to do, it provided more people with more health insurance coverage than they had before. It was also supposed to save some money, but hasn't really saved all that much if it has saved anything at all.

I don't think we should go single payer because teh ACA failed because it didn't go far enough, I think single payer is worth a shot because I think fundamentally it will work better than the ACA. The ACA seems like something cooked up between bleeding heart liberals and health insurance CEOs. So, it's just not something that benefits as many people as much of the time as a single payer system would, imo. Single payer would essentially eliminate all health insurance (maybe I don't understand how it would work if that statement is not true) and eliminate the overhead that comes along with health insurance. It would be less complicated in many ways. If you walked into an ER they wouldn't have to spend any time or resources to try to figure out what kind of treatment you were entitled to. They would already know what the standard was and that as a human being you were entitled to it.

But the ACA came about because we were in an all out health care crisis with premiums jumping dramatically and healthcare related bankruptcies galore. The ACA didn't create the problem, it was put forth as a solution to the problem. The fact that it hasn't worked doesn't mean is was a dishonest effort. Many times solutions don't work as well as we hope they will. But in the case of the ACA, I think insurance CEOs had a very large say in the nitty gritty details and that is a big reason why it isn't very good.
 
Gameface said:
I'm a libertarian, but I've given up on making libertarian based arguments in general. I don't think libertarianism can work in a mixed economy. I also think my form of libertarianism is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. I don't want piecemeal libertarianism and I'm happy living in a non-libertarian world. So, despite my ideology, I'd prefer that things work well and satisfy most of the people most of the time.

The ACA did some of what it set out to do, it provided more people with more health insurance coverage than they had before. It was also supposed to save some money, but hasn't really saved all that much if it has saved anything at all.

I don't think we should go single payer because teh ACA failed because it didn't go far enough, I think single payer is worth a shot because I think fundamentally it will work better than the ACA. The ACA seems like something cooked up between bleeding heart liberals and health insurance CEOs. So, it's just not something that benefits as many people as much of the time as a single payer system would, imo. Single payer would essentially eliminate all health insurance (maybe I don't understand how it would work if that statement is not true) and eliminate the overhead that comes along with health insurance. It would be less complicated in many ways. If you walked into an ER they wouldn't have to spend any time or resources to try to figure out what kind of treatment you were entitled to. They would already know what the standard was and that as a human being you were entitled to it.

But the ACA came about because we were in an all out health care crisis with premiums jumping dramatically and healthcare related bankruptcies galore. The ACA didn't create the problem, it was put forth as a solution to the problem. The fact that it hasn't worked doesn't mean is was a dishonest effort. Many times solutions don't work as well as we hope they will. But in the case of the ACA, I think insurance CEOs had a very large say in the nitty gritty details and that is a big reason why it isn't very good.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for that well thought out post. Sorry that I misunderstood you before. You've given me some things to think about. Also, I must spread rep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top