So....you think because everyone was already getting healthcare the way things were, it means that we should spend several trillions more per year on a universal plan where it would decrease the quality of healthcare? Interesting.
#1 - Everyone wasn't and isn't getting adequate healthcare in this country. #2 - We'd actually spend less #3 - What on earth makes you think the quality of care would decrease?
I think the quality of care for a lot of people will have to decrease. There is no solution, other than totally bankrupting ourselves and our government, that includes maintaining or increasing the average level of care. Ask someone from Canada or someone who lives in Scandanavia what they get. They get very basic coverage with long waits for appointments. And if you want healthcare where you can see a doctor within a week or so? You buy a supplemental plan. I was really surprised when friends in Canada and friends in Norway broke it down for me and lamented their current systems. We have it good, but it's just not sustainable. You either 1. have the system we have now but turn away uninsured people at the emergency room doors. Just coldly tell them to go die in the parking lot. Meanwhile, those of us with coverage will pay more and more and more. 2. have a new system that gives everyone very basic coverage for emergencies and bare bones coverage and let an open market provide supplemental plans for a real expense. I've read a lot about this and there aren't really any other solutions that make any economic sense. I actually pity the GOP with what they have on their plates now. "Repeal it all!" crazies, with just a bunch of crap for options.
Everyone didn't have healthcare there were millions of people who were without healthcare the ACA or Obamacare just made sure those with preexisting health issue could be covered. The fact that there are over 10million people who now depend on ACA to just be cared for is head shaking. http://fusion.net/story/386035/georgia-town-hall-affordable-care-act/
#1 That won't change #2 That's inaccurate just like when they said the ACA would lead to spending less #3 Have you ever been to the VA?
Yet again you don't know the difference between health care and health insurance....a common problem among Democrats. It's like saying that a sports car and sports apparel are the same because they share one word in common.
#1 - It wouldn't change? #2 - I'm sorry but getting people out ERs and cutting out the middle man of insurance can't add costs #3 - No, I'm not a US veteran so that would be an incredible waste of my time.
Yes it has changed for most whom couldn't get coverage before ACA Your right on number 2 cost didn't go down The VA issues have very little to do with ACA the problems that have been going on at the VA have been there since 41 was in office.
You're right. We spend a lot of resources on a small group of people. We need that basic catastrophic care for everyone with a public (for low income/preventative diseases) and private supplement.
#1 No it wouldn't, the poor would use the crappy government healthcare which would be pretty terrible and anyone with money would get better health care. Pretty much the way it always was only this way the government has to spend trillions of dollars to make it happen #2 It really, really can. The government doesn't do anything efficiently because there's no incentive for them to. It also wouldn't get people out of ER's. #3 Well I am, and it's an incredible waste of time for Vets too a good deal of the time. The VA system was pretty awful with Vets literally dying from neglect while in their care due to years of having people that know nothing about healthcare on the Veteran's Affairs committee like Bernie Sanders.
#1 - The poor would get better treatment than they do today, and those that can't afford insurance won't be limited to the ER, but yes the rich will always have an advantage. #2 - There seems to be this myth that the private sector actually does everything efficiently. There is no question it would remove many of the patients my wife sees in the ER. #3 - So, sort of like the current American health system as a whole then?
Suggesting that the government does absolutely nothing efficiently isn't saying that the private sector ALWAYS does everything efficiently. The major difference is that there is an incentive for the private sector to do things efficiently, so it happens more often than in the government where there is no incentive whatsoever to do things efficiently. The garbage quality doctors that a government system would send people to would lead to them in the ER anyway to seek real care. It's how it works in the VA already. As to the VA, it's much, much, much, much worse than the American health system is/was. It's free, but the quality is 3rd world for the most part.
We are actually suffering from long waits in the US as well. Getting my son into see the Psychologist takes 2 months notice. I called my doctor (I no longer have a doctor) when I was sick once and they told me they could fit me in next week. Urgent Care opening in my area has helped, it just costs more of course. Of course we need more doctors, less need to see actual doctors, and to live healthier lifestyles.
The government isn't always inefficient. The VA doesn't have to reflect what our system has to be. You don't get real care at the ER.
The VA is an example of what the US government looks like when they are in the health care business, suggesting that it wouldn't look like that is.....well, optimistic. In the VA, as well as in the military, if you want to see real specialists the best way of expediting (or just getting it to happen at all) that is by going to the ER. Oftentimes, it's the only way you'll get real care. I'm just saying that I've experienced the US in the healthcare industry first hand and it's no good. Vets know that if they want something done cheap and they are broke, you go to the VA, if you want it done properly and quickly, you get it in the private sector.
Can you name a single-payer system that has high quality healthcare? Canada has horrible wait times and healthcare healthcare delayed is healthcare denied. Canada's system is almost exactly like the shitty VA.
"Heathcare delayed is healthcare denied". Catchy rightwing bumper sticker, and oh so ironic since your approach is to go back to a system where many millions were without health care insurance, and millions with pre-existing conditions were actually denied coverage.
its common sense....... and why would that be right wing? are lefties of the opinion that long wait times are good? were they without healthcare? was the healthcare they got before better or worse? did it cost more or less before? these are the questions you should care about but you only care if people have health insurance for some reason.
Yes they were without healthcare. They weren't without emergency healthcare. They were without healthcare for chronic ongoing conditions, they were without preventative care, they were without maintenance healthcare for serious ongoing conditions. Yes, their quality of life was harmed and possible long term damage done to them while they waited for things to turn into an emergency. So yes they were without healthcare. They just weren't without emergency healthcare. I understand why you need to pretend that they did have healthcare to ease your troubled conscience, but facts are facts.
