ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-27-2017, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-27-2017, 07:19 PM)Snowflake Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:EtGSnowflake, this is a blizzard!

Obamacare covered those who aren't covered by their employer. The CBO said 24 million. That's just about everyone Obamacare covered!

Quote:<snipped>
OK.  Even if that number is correct(which I highly doubt), we're up to 7.5%.
Sorry, not worth it.

I don't know what 7.5% referred to. What DID happen under Obamacare is that many more people got coverage. The CBO says 24 million would have lost coverage under Trump/Ryancare.

Now we have Obamacare as administered by Trump's alligators. It may amount to pretty much the same thing as the Obamacare lite bill that failed. Insurance companies will be let off the hook from requirements to cover people, and there will be less funding to help people buy insurance.

Quote:

EtG Wrote:Health insurance is too expensive unless "people that don't even want it" are required to buy it. That's how social insurance works. That's how social security and medicare work.

Healthcare(as well as Insurance) is a 'product'.  Not the same as Social Security.
I don't want my government forcing me or anyone else to buy a product.  Period.

No, health insurance is not a product; it's the same as social security. Social insurance. I take it you are also opposed to medicare, which is also a "product" you are forced to buy, according to your definition.

Quote:

EtG Wrote:<snip>

No, that's not 'what the people said'.  The Democrats pushed through the PPACA;
It should be their responsibility to fix it.  But where are they?  #IrrelevantParty

Democrats are not allowed to fix it. They have not had control of congress for over 7 years now. The Republicans have not been interested in anything except repealing Obamacare for 7 years. When given full control of the government, they give us this Obamacare lite baloney that nobody wants. I don't have much optimism that they can be the "relevant" party now and work with Democrats to create another makeshift, make-do compromise.

The product as passed in 2010 did not have a public option, and was not single payer medicare for all. So OF COURSE it was flawed. It was a compromise with the insurance industry, whose only goal is to make money by denying people coverage. As long as we aren't putting that industry out of business, our health care will be compromised, and whatever compromise is passed or proposed will be flawed.

1. Health insurance and some health care is a market providing private/public goods.  The argument, I think should be "do you think health care be a purely private good or a public good?" The phrasing of the question makes a difference. That question provides openings for how I'd prefer health care as a public good as far as payment.

2. Providers(doctors, nurses, pharmacists) can opt in or not, just Like Medicare.  That's where I'm going.

3. Patent reform and tort reform are needed to reduce cost drivers.

4. Folks can still buy some sort of health insurance if they want to. What's covered needs to be spelled out in plain English and not pages of lawyer words we have now.

5. Congress or Pres. need to enforce the anti trust laws. They're not at present. I have full faith and confidence that our current crop of Repugs will get to that... after legalizing robbery through forged mortgages. I think the cabinet has an expert, man.

PS:

Today marks a special time, Eric. I've joined the sub set of people who use the ignore function. I did it to reduce the clutter that appears from person of my personal banning.