DGS49
Diamond Member
Sorry for weighing-in late, but this may not have been brought out previously.
"Universal Healthcare" is a concept with many definitions, some of which are "socialist" and some not.
Socialist Universal Healthcare (SUV) is a system where the GOVERNMENT OWNS the hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, PT facilities, etc., and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYS the providers of healthcare, all the way from the doctors to the people who sweep the floors. "We" in the U.S. have SUH on certain military bases, and in the Veterans Administration. Many doctors are in private practice and just work "for hire" for the VA, but you get the idea. SUH is a government-owned and operated system.
The reason why we ONLY have that for our military and veterans is because to have it universally would be BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL - that is to say, totally outside the powers of Congress to create or fund with taxpayer funds.
So what we have, and what we are stuck with, is a medical infrastructure which has been created and is owned by the private sector, and medical service providers who either work independently as independent contractors, or work for that medical infrastructure as private-sector employees.
Layered on top of that is another infrastructure which interfaces between the caregivers and those who are cared for: the Medical Insurance Industry. Fortunately or unfortunately, this two-layered medical care approach is more than satisfactory for the majority of people living within our borders, largely because the interface is "arranged" by the employers of the cared-for population and its cost is largely concealed because it is a benefit of employment.
In parallel with the Medical Insurance Industry is a government-sponsored system, comprised of Medicare and Medicaid, covering the poor and the elderly, which supplements or pays for the medical care (etc), making payments directly to the aforesaid private medical infrastructure.
But this global medical infrastructure provides poorly - or not at all - to the population that works in the private sector in "crappy jobs." The are part of the gig economy, or work for employers who do not need to provide subsidized medical insurance, thus leaving the employees to fend for themselves, medically speaking. They make too much money for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance. And it is this crappy-job population that is at the heart of all of the discussion of socialized medicine, universal healthcare, etc. EVERYONE ELSE IS PROVIDED FOR ADEQUATELY OR BETTER.
So do we destroy the combination of private and public healthcare infrastructure that serves 90% of the population well or better, in order to accommodate the needs of the 10% who are figuratively left behind?
The Affordable Care Act sought to cover the unfortunate 10% ("...thirty million people without health insurance...") by making low-cost health insurance available to anyone who wanted it. But in addition to that noble goal, it (a) added bizarre mandatory coverages (e.g., birth control pills), (b) demanded that insurance companies charge the same rates for very sick people as they do for very healthy people, and (c) it sought to "punish" those who wanted to self-insure - all of which are unconstitutional and, if you will pardon my bluntness, stupid.
A scaled-back ACA is the solution, but politics/politicians are stupid, so that won't happen.
We only have "socialized medicine" in the military service and the VA. And that's not going to change unless it is authorized by a Constitutional Amendment, which is unlikely.
"Universal Healthcare" is a concept with many definitions, some of which are "socialist" and some not.
Socialist Universal Healthcare (SUV) is a system where the GOVERNMENT OWNS the hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, PT facilities, etc., and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYS the providers of healthcare, all the way from the doctors to the people who sweep the floors. "We" in the U.S. have SUH on certain military bases, and in the Veterans Administration. Many doctors are in private practice and just work "for hire" for the VA, but you get the idea. SUH is a government-owned and operated system.
The reason why we ONLY have that for our military and veterans is because to have it universally would be BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL - that is to say, totally outside the powers of Congress to create or fund with taxpayer funds.
So what we have, and what we are stuck with, is a medical infrastructure which has been created and is owned by the private sector, and medical service providers who either work independently as independent contractors, or work for that medical infrastructure as private-sector employees.
Layered on top of that is another infrastructure which interfaces between the caregivers and those who are cared for: the Medical Insurance Industry. Fortunately or unfortunately, this two-layered medical care approach is more than satisfactory for the majority of people living within our borders, largely because the interface is "arranged" by the employers of the cared-for population and its cost is largely concealed because it is a benefit of employment.
In parallel with the Medical Insurance Industry is a government-sponsored system, comprised of Medicare and Medicaid, covering the poor and the elderly, which supplements or pays for the medical care (etc), making payments directly to the aforesaid private medical infrastructure.
But this global medical infrastructure provides poorly - or not at all - to the population that works in the private sector in "crappy jobs." The are part of the gig economy, or work for employers who do not need to provide subsidized medical insurance, thus leaving the employees to fend for themselves, medically speaking. They make too much money for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance. And it is this crappy-job population that is at the heart of all of the discussion of socialized medicine, universal healthcare, etc. EVERYONE ELSE IS PROVIDED FOR ADEQUATELY OR BETTER.
So do we destroy the combination of private and public healthcare infrastructure that serves 90% of the population well or better, in order to accommodate the needs of the 10% who are figuratively left behind?
The Affordable Care Act sought to cover the unfortunate 10% ("...thirty million people without health insurance...") by making low-cost health insurance available to anyone who wanted it. But in addition to that noble goal, it (a) added bizarre mandatory coverages (e.g., birth control pills), (b) demanded that insurance companies charge the same rates for very sick people as they do for very healthy people, and (c) it sought to "punish" those who wanted to self-insure - all of which are unconstitutional and, if you will pardon my bluntness, stupid.
A scaled-back ACA is the solution, but politics/politicians are stupid, so that won't happen.
We only have "socialized medicine" in the military service and the VA. And that's not going to change unless it is authorized by a Constitutional Amendment, which is unlikely.