We disagree, so that means you understand the issue and I don't. Got it.
If you want to, you can look at it that way. Frankly, no, I don’t think you understand the complexities of the issue judging solely by the context of your posts. Don’t take it personally; there are plenty of issues we all don’t understand well. I’ve worked with numerous government and private sector entities, and my experience has taught me that gross generalities about either are misplaced. I’ve seen enough to know that blanket statements smearing public sector entities as inherently inefficient are overstated, while blanket statements praising the efficiency of private sector entities are overstated as well.
Yep, but please remember that the idiots are the ones who thought that health care costs would go up as a result of Obamacare, and it turns out that they were right.
https://sites.middlebury.edu/presid...u-lie-assessing-claims-about-obamacares-cost/
I never hung my hat on the argument that health care costs would necessarily go down under Obamacare. To me, increased costs, within reason, are an acceptable tradeoff to a significant increase in the insurance net. So, I never said or thought that people who arguing costs would rise were idiots, it was always an empirical question to me and not one of ideology. For me, the primary issue was that it is a moral disgrace that the richest country in the world doesn’t provide health insurance for all its citizens, as does every single other developed country. Purely private provision will NEVER achieve this objective.
I would, however, urge you to consider the caveat at the end of the sited articles, as follows:
“As you can see, the CBO projections completely missed the coming housing collapse and the accompanying economic recession, not to mention spending on two wars – as did everyone else! We should be skeptical, then, when we hear pundits evaluate ACA based on its estimated budgetary impact a decade from now. Unlike Joe Wilson, I’m not accusing anyone of lying. But typically judgments about ACA say more about the pundit’s own ideological leanings than they do about any certainty about what ACA’s actual economic impact is likely to be, particularly that far ahead. This is not to say that the CBO projections are wrong – in fact, they may be the best projections available – but they are projections made with a great deal of uncertainty. The truth, I think, is that there are simply too many moving parts and too many unknowns to be confident in predicting how ACA is going to play out. But that won’t stop both sides from trying.”
Joe Bagadonuts;1208161Maybe the geniuses who believe we need to emulate the rest of the world to solve this problem are overlooking the fact that the rest of the world is effectively being subsidized by American Health Care. And maybe they are also ignoring the fact that a much larger percentage of an American's health care dollar ultimately ends up in an insurance company's pocket than anywhere else in the world (because American consumers are the ones who ultimately pay for all of those liability lawsuits against doctors said:
I’m not saying or have I ever said that we should emulate the rest of the world. My point is that we can possibly learn from what the rest of the world is doing, and that we should have a grown-up discussion about options for providing health care, as the existing approach (prior to ACA) had many severe deficiencies. So, I’m about keeping options open, because I believe there is a better approach out there than what we had before, this includes public or quasi-public provision. The fact that we're America doesn't mean we have all the best solutions for every policy issue, and our obsession with this idea of American exceptionalism hinders us from learning from what other countries are doing.
