Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
It will never happen. Nor should it.
If so many people are for it, it should be simple to get a constitutional amendment.
Right?
|
It's aburdely difficult to an amendment. A lot of people were against gay marriage too--and that amendment never popped up either.
Quote:
|
If so many people are for 0b0mbacare,
|
You're such a child.
Quote:
why is it mandatory? People usually do the things they want on their own.
Right?
|
I've discussed this, as have others, numerous times. The logistics of Obamacare require an individual mandate. We could as easily slip it into the tax code and run it universally, but that's just crazy-talk.
The ACA has three big premises, and several small ones. The big ones are the inability of insurance companies to reject you based on per-existing conditions. The second is a insurance exchange which promotes competition, and the third is the individual mandate to purchase insurance.
The third element is necessary in order to prevent abuse of the first. If someone broke their arm, without insurance, they could call an insurer, and that insurer
must cover that person. Before, they could write off the arm as a per-existing condition. Not forcing people to buy insurance, while forcing insurance companies to cover them, would lead to rampant abuse. It's also the massive problem with Ryancare that was proposed. They're essentially the same plan, minus the mandate.
The problem with the mandate is its transparency. You could get the same money by making it a tax instead of an individual mandate. What the mandate does is essentially show you exactly where those tax-dollars go to work. If people knew where their tax dollars were actually going, we wouldn't be paying for 90% of the **** we do. The ability for citizens to put money in a collective pot to be spent in a variety of ways, without the knowledge or work on the citizens part, is preferable. SuperPACs are the same way. Before Citizen's United, a wealthy individual could produce their own attack-ad with their own name. With SuperPACs, all they have to do now is right a check and set the SuperPAC on its way.
With the individual mandate, we have to do all the administrative work, and people hate it. With single payer, the government handles the administrative work, we have 100% coverage, lower costs, treatment is between the doctor and the patient, which leads to better care.
Quote:
I keep hearing from lefties that "most Americans want universal healthcare".
Right?
|
Right--rather, Americans used to. In the past few years, the Republican Propaganda Machine has successfully told a story of
"government takeover" to bring
"socialized medicine" via
"death panels" to Americans. Those words sound familiar? That's how Fox News and the conservative Pundits spoke about Obamacare. Oh, let's not forget about Obamacare either, because there was already resentment over Obama being president in the first place.
That, and Americans are just really stupid. Present it to them as single-payer, or universal coverage, and they're all for it. Tell them it's socialized medicine, they're against it. It isn't socialized medicine, nor is it government takeover, and there never were or can be death-panels in it. The only death-panels were pre-2009 insurance companies.
The neo-conservatives sold a very effective story by, as usual, scaring people into seeing things their way. Now, when you talk about single-payer or universal health-care, most--how do you people refer to them, 'useful idiots?'--in this country only think of death-panels and socialism, instead of what single-payer actually is.
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.
