Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ACA, just like other socialized HC systems never lowers costs. It just does a better job of concealing the true costs. ACA is driven by ideology, with terrible real-life consequences. Think about -- if Obamacare was really lowering costs, and a better solution than before -- why is Obama delaying its application until next elections?
If it is such a great thing why are delay it? After all, website is almost fixed isn't it?
Unlike Europe, Obama has to live with comparisons with the system pre-ACA.
My solution -- just like US Constitution established such an innovative political system, still un-matched, we, as a country, should have innovated on our healthcare system, and not try to put lipstick on a pig (a.k.a. Universal HC).
It seems the CBO has continually stated that the ACA will lower costs and the deficit over time. It has also stated that repealing the ACA will increase the deficit. It has been met with unmitigated obstructionism even though it originally was the brain storm of conservatives and promoted by the Heritage Foundation. I'm inundated with Koch Bros commercials daily that state with absolute certainty that the ACA will not work even though it has not been fully implemented. You're watching, and may be a part of the Madison Ave. style politics practiced today. Substance means nothing to either side. If you have any conscience or humanity your choices are driven by ideals and empathy,not statistics. As for the terrible real life consequences, are you saying that this bill is exacerbating existing problems with health care? That it's not offering ANY benefits? The Constitution is, or should be, a living document. It was drafted with the most noble intentions but has begged modification almost from the beginning. You're right that we should have a model healthcare system, but I've seen precious little other than profit motivated business models.
It seems the CBO has continually stated that the ACA will lower costs and the deficit over time. It has also stated that repealing the ACA will increase the deficit.
You are correct -- CBO still projects ACA will reduce deficits. But that is half the story. The other half is that ACA raises taxes. That is what explains the sticker shock when people go to sign up. It re-distrubutes income from higher earners to subsideze lower earners.
It socializes healthcare spend, to equally distribute healthcare.
ACA and UHC are different only in the delivery side of healthcare equation, while socialization of contributions is the same. That is why ACA is no less socialistic than UHC.
The problem with ACA: it's only a part of a socio-political economic system that is modeled after European models, post WWII models that remain experimental, in the grand scheme of history, and that math does not seem to be on their side.
You are correct -- CBO still projects ACA will reduce deficits. But that is half the story. The other half is that ACA raises taxes. That is what explains the sticker shock when people go to sign up. It re-distrubutes income from higher earners to subsideze lower earners.
It socializes healthcare spend, to equally distribute healthcare.
ACA and UHC are different only in the delivery side of healthcare equation, while socialization of contributions is the same. That is why ACA is no less socialistic than UHC.
The problem with ACA: it's only a part of a socio-political economic system that is modeled after European models, post WWII models that remain experimental, in the grand scheme of history, and that math does not seem to be on their side.
So it comes down to redistribution of wealth. Figures. All insurance basically has the same scheme, they just have different levels of relevance. Healthcare is obviously a must have. When prices leave a group behind the choices are subsidize or ignore. As it reaches higher levels of the population, it's harder to ignore. Everyone will be affected. I have been and will be. I see inaction as an even less desirable path. Math isn't on the side of life in general.
That's not a very good argument. For example, a non-taxpaying citizen gets (equal) police protection under the law, which is paid for by a taxpayer.
One would argue, "yeah, but you can't force a private entity to provide a service to another private person." Actually doctors, clinics, hospitals do that, and based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, cannot refuse service to anyone in public accommodations (any establishment that sells goods and services to the general public.)
Another example is public education. Our taxes pay for it, and we have made it a right for anyone to use it "for free."
SCOTUS pushed the envelope to a Federal level. By considering Obamacare a tax, SCOTUS has paved the way for Universal HC, on a Federal level.
If I can collect a tax to pay for a service, performed by one individual for another individual, I can easily do it for another service. Moving to Universal HC is a very small step.
Ah but you see, as our collective choices turn into "rights" our taxes increase and society becomes more demanding of services as their right. That is all fine if EVERYONE were paying their fair share - but they don't. None of what you mentioned is a right - it is a choice.
Just because the left seems tired of the term "re-distribution" and tries to ashame opponents into submission -- it is still does not make redistribution less of a re-distrubution.
Our life is full of re-distribution, so in itself re-distribution is a fact of life. When I send 3 kids to public school, and you send 1, yet we pay the same City Income tax, you subsidize me. That's re-distribution too.
Private Insurance is also re-distribution.
We come back to square one -- what is the role of the Federal Govt? By taking on ACA, is it in the spirit of Constitutional principles of Limited Federal Govt? Does ACA maintain or protect the self-determination, the sovereignty of the individual? Or does it submit the individual to the needs of the state?
None of what you mentioned is a right - it is a choice.
A choice by whom? Having equal police protection, having equal rights to the legal process -- these are not choices. These are constitutionally fundamental rights of the individuals, and constitutional mandates for the Govt to carry out. No choice whatsoever.
Just because the left seems tired of the term "re-distribution" and tries to ashame opponents into submission -- it is still does not make redistribution less of a re-distrubution.
Our life is full of re-distribution, so in itself re-distribution is a fact of life. When I send 3 kids to public school, and you send 1, yet we pay the same City Income tax, you subsidize me. That's re-distribution too.
Private Insurance is also re-distribution.
We come back to square one -- what is the role of the Federal Govt? By taking on ACA, is it in the spirit of Constitutional principles of Limited Federal Govt? Does ACA maintain or protect the self-determination, the sovereignty of the individual? Or does it submit the individual to the needs of the state?
That goes for almost any endeavor taken on by state, federal , or local authorities. An individual has a right to his opinion,but is bound by the collective.Sovereignty of the individual? When has that ever happened?
ACA, just like other socialized HC systems never lowers costs. It just does a better job of concealing the true costs. ACA is driven by ideology, with terrible real-life consequences. Think about -- if Obamacare was really lowering costs, and a better solution than before -- why is Obama delaying its application until next elections?
If it is such a great thing why are delay it? After all, website is almost fixed isn't it?
Unlike Europe, Obama has to live with comparisons with the system pre-ACA.
My solution -- just like US Constitution established such an innovative political system, still un-matched, we, as a country, should have innovated on our healthcare system, and not try to put lipstick on a pig (a.k.a. Universal HC).
The problem with our HC system is cost and the ACA is misnamed as it doesn't provide affordable care and doesn't lower the cost, which is what we needed and still need. My daughter, a Hairdresser, is seeing her health insurance cost and deductible triple between 2013 and 2014. Any system that does that is not affordable.
As for you question... unless those of us here are practicing physicians or medical researchers I think establishing what degree of health care a person is entitled to is a fools errand. Should 93 year old Lyle Ruterbories or 92 year old Betty Reid Soskin have a right to hip replacement surgery, damn right the two Rangers for the U.S. Park Service do, does a 93 year old stroke victim whose inability to ambulate could lead to increase susceptibility to pulmonary complications need one, despite being a paramedic in the military, I don't feel in the least bit competent to answer that question and I doubt that anyone here is as well.
What if Lyle Ruterbories never worked a day in his life, mooched off people, shoplifted whenever he could get by with it, never paid a tax, but Betty Reid Soskin started working when she was 12, never missed a day of work, put herself through college, faithfully paid into a health insurance plan and the Medicare tax as well as all the many other taxes, even saved money for her retirement which didn't start until she was 85?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
