Do we all agree yet that obamacare was always a single payer trojan horse?

[usmbguest5318]

No. O-care, for all it's ills is not a single-payer insurance system. "Single-payer" insurance systems discard and drive out of business for-profit health insurance policies and replaces them with a public, universal plan.

Medicare is the closest thing we have to that; however, it works in concert with insurance coverage offered by for-profit companies. Indeed, it's not at all driven such companies out of business, not even close seeing as the health insurance industry continues to see capital growth year after year; thus one cannot credibly assert even that Medicare poses a threat in the guise of an O-care "Trojan horse" that portends the demise of the health insurance industry in the U.S.

And this is the problem. ObamaCare works just fine in the big cities. Its' the rural areas where there aren't enough young people signing up that the insurance companies don't want to be bothered with if the government doesn't subsidize them.

This is why when they realized that the rural areas would be hurt the worst by an ACA repeal, the Republicans did this...

Well, that seems plausible.

The thing is that if circumstances are such that one must choose between living in whatever rural locale one lives and having health insurance (affordable), one confronts several choices:

• Move
• Obtain for a individual-mandate hardship waiver
• Quit crying and choose an O-care health insurance offering
• Change jobs

I'm not going to tell someone what course of action to pursue, but those are the main options available.

I realize that politically, one might advocate and lobby for a different set of options; however, before doing so, one must ask oneself whether a new paradigm that improves one's situation but worsens that of millions of other is in fact any better for the nation. Thinking rationally about that quandary, it's hard to conclude that one set of millions of uninsured citizens is inherently better than having any other set of uninsured citizens. Whichever model yields the smaller quantity of uninsured people is probably the better of two suboptimal alternatives. That may change if and when elected officials enact a solution that produces a lower quantity of uninsured and inadequately insured people overall -- and we see the GOP's inability to devise and pass such a thing -- but until that time arrives, little other than a utilitarian approach makes sense.

 

[danielpalos]

Been saying it since it happened. The one thing that you cannot do politically is take away something from millions of people that have been GIVEN something. We know obama counted on this. They knew it would be next to impossible to take the insurance away from millions of people who have it. We also know that it is impossible to be sustained. Both things counted on and Grubber admitted this.

I agree to disagree. We can always end our War on Drugs.

We never had a war on drugs.

Nixon gave us a, War on Drugs; not any form of Mission to Mars.

A real war on drugs would be war, house to house searches and shoot them in the streets. House captives in warehouses. Aircraft dropping bombs on crack houses. That's war.

What we did wasn't war. We made drug use comfortable. Rehab clinics, doctors, counseling, group homes. We had World War II. Would you have put captured Nazis in rehab and petted their confused brows? We have never had a war on drugs.

We have a Constitution. Only alleged times of war is the reason for our elected representatives expanding the scope of their authority, without Constitutional delegation by the People.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right wing going to come up with a market friendly solution at lower cost?

 

[Johann]

Obamacare is definitely a flawed bill. it was designed in such a way to give certain industries and interests exceptions and so on. filled to the brim with things designed to appease certain groups to get it passed.

But many of the things in Obamacare did not give the people something they should not have had.

It's common sense that pre-existing conditions were a stupid thing since it's inception. Yes, it lowered risks and costs for insurance companies. But it also put people in the position where any medical condition would end up bankrupt. That's all fine and good as long as you're healthy and you or your loved ones are not part of that broad 'pre-existing' conditions list. It was a pretty long list.

What's the point of having insurance if it can be denied to the people who needed it most?

Another problem was that because people who were healthy could simply not buy insurance at all. The thing is that having insurance and getting early treatment and preventive care ends up costing less for insurance companies and society. People were(and still are) waiting until things get critical instead of going to the doctor and treating a minor condition that eventually progressed.

For example, diabetes. If someone has diabetes, he needs continuing, ongoing care. If he doesn't have insurance, he might wait until he gets really, really sick and needs to go to the hospital. He doesn't have insurance, so can't afford the absurd costs and it goes to the taxpayer.

I'm a pretty socially conservative guy. But healthcare is not a fucking choice. You either have care or you die. In the richest country on earth, that's a fucking travesty. I can't imagine what conspiracy theory overcomes the fact that capitalism doesn't work with healthcare in the same way it does for mocha coffee or Ford automobiles.

 

[JoeNormal]

No. O-care, for all it's ills is not a single-payer insurance system. "Single-payer" insurance systems discard and drive out of business for-profit health insurance policies and replaces them with a public, universal plan.

Medicare is the closest thing we have to that; however, it works in concert with insurance coverage offered by for-profit companies. Indeed, it's not at all driven such companies out of business, not even close seeing as the health insurance industry continues to see capital growth year after year; thus one cannot credibly assert even that Medicare poses a threat in the guise of an O-care "Trojan horse" that portends the demise of the health insurance industry in the U.S.

And this is the problem. ObamaCare works just fine in the big cities. Its' the rural areas where there aren't enough young people signing up that the insurance companies don't want to be bothered with if the government doesn't subsidize them.

This is why when they realized that the rural areas would be hurt the worst by an ACA repeal, the Republicans did this...

Yet the rubes want so desperately to believe they're self sufficient and don't need no stinkin' government that they gladly support them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It Just gets worse!
Republican's New Health Care Proposal Would Specifically Hurt the Sickest Americans

No Donald, Tax Cuts and Great Health Care Do Not Go Hand in Hand