ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Kinser79]

(03-11-2017, 10:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 08:28 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.

As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states.  Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how.  This shouldn't be a federal matter.  That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.

Federalism...it works...mostly

The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves.  If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.

Another case of freedom being inversely proportional to equality. Strangely I've recently read a book over a century old about their mindset, of course back then, they called them the Radicals.  Honestly I think that term is far more accurate than Progressive.

clicky

I too would like to see health care in the hands of the states.

I don't see the Progressives as alone in trying to force one size fits all solutions.  They are willing to pay more for an inclusive system.  The Conservatives don't want to share this particular burden.  They have a health care plan that seems to optimize the situation for the healthy and wealthy.  <snip> meaningless babble intended to make one sound intelligent </snip>

Here's the thing.  Having universal access to health care (but not necessarily health care insurance--which is quite different) is good.  Some would even call it moral.  However, we have to take into account that the US is a very large (indeed to the point of being ungovernable, Canada manages despite being larger by being mostly empty, Russia is larger still but manages through autocracy, and China while close in size is also autocratic) and very diverse.  And not only on racial/ethnic lines either.

California, New York Florida and Texas are all fundamentally different from each other despite being the 4 most populous states.  Their racial make up is also different.  And the residents of those four states all have different expectations from their government.  And this doesn't get into the issue of the small states and their various needs.

As such, it seems most prudent to me to turn this matter over to the states. They are best able to determine what their people need, and what the government can afford (assuming that it spends anything at all). On the federal level we need a law that says that going to the doctor when you're sick is considered a right (and I don't mean using the ER for a GP either--that is highly inefficient and places victims of traumas at risk) and it is the duty of the states to ensure that this right is protected.

They can choose how that right is protected.  California for example could have a single payer system (Vermont wants to implement that but is prevented from doing so by Obamacare no less).  Texas may want to try something like Obamacare (it wouldn't work there either, but they could try it), and Florida could do a hybrid system of clinics for the destitute (a fully state run system) and personal insurance for everyone else.

The key here is that the biggest obstacle to addressing the problem of health care in the US is the notion of employer based health care.  If it is agreed that it is health care insurance (and not health care provision--I.E. going to the doctor) that is the choke point then the solution is obvious.  For those who can afford to pay some, they should buy on the private market personal insurance.  This insurance is in no way connected to their employer (which itself is a hold over from WW2 war-time regulations) but is instead tied directly to the patient.

What this means is if you quit your job, or get fired, or laid off or whatever, you don't lose your insurance.  (A problem I'm told occurred regularly with my BF's father--layoffs at the plant.)

But simply the fact of the matter is that none of these potential solutions can even be tried so long as we have a federalized system in place.