I'm all aboard the Medicare-for-all train. But don't pretend like you won't start screaming "too much gubmint!!!" the second it gets proposed.
That's a hilarious rewriting of history. The president didn't work with the GOP on Obamacare at all, he had to work with moderate Democrats (against his wishes) to try and secure their support after they rejected his initial plan, but that's not the same thing as working with the GOP. There was no way of working with the GOP on something that was a non-starter with them. It would be like suggesting a Republican worked with Democrats on a bill that banned abortion or that cut spending to responsible levels.
I thought you said you wanted Congress to try and fix Obamacare? You can't fix Obamacare and have single payer pal. One or the other. And why is it that you think Democrats should get to push single payer when they clearly got Obamacare wrong, yet Republicans (who clearly got it right regarding Obamacare) should fall in line and try to fix Obamacare and not suggest alternatives? Why do republicans have to fall in line behind Obamacare and not Single Payer supporters?
No, only the people who are in the market place for themselves are in trouble. My employer subsidizes almost 20k a year for health insurance per employee, no wonder individuals plan doesn't work.
I suggested it as a "realistic" solution since Medicare for all has no way of happening anytime in the near future. (It's not a realistic solution either though for obvious reasons) Where did I say Republicans can't offer up solutions? It's been asked to conservative posters multiple times in this thread what their solution would be and I haven't seen a single suggestion yet.
One plan I've heard from my bigwig friend is that Hospital systems will offer their own plans so they can control costs within their system. Say like, you are with Memorial-Herman insurance, all your doctors would be Memorial-Herman doctors and all your procedures would be done at a Memorial-Herman facility. Their "board" would decide on the cost/benefit of more expensive items and issue their own 'guidelines'.
You realize that your own quote shows that they didn't actually work with Republicans right? He's saying that he thought the President was working with him in good faith, but he realized that he actually wasn't and that the legislation was "pre-ordained" and that no changes to the bill would be made no matter what anyone said. Basically they wanted a token Republican that they could point to and call it cooperation without giving him any say whatsoever over the final product.....that's not working together, that's political theater. In the end the bill passed with no Republican support and that's because there was no Republican input into the bill.
Wasn't this the GOP version of healthcare proposed by Bob Dole in the 90s? Isn't that a conservative approach towards healthcare that's failing? Maybe if we had a single payer system like what was originally proposed it'd actually be a working model. Instead it's a "compromised" model that's been negotiated and done half assed. My solution would be to change social security into a single payer system. Most charges late in life are towards medical treatment. Taxes paid via SS could then be allocated towards that. Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid which also makes up a significant chunk of our budget and allocate that towards a single payer system. Mandate all businesses to require a 401K pension for their employees to make up for the loss in Social Security or make it a law that all working employees must have an individual retirement plan with their own bank and credit union. You wouldn't eliminate the national budget from SS, Medicare and Medicaid. You'd instead be combining all those funds towards a single payer system instead. EDIT: Before getting called a moron or idiot from an "expert", I'm not claiming to be one. It's a BBS poster's solution using funds that are already there in our budget that already serves a similar function albeit to a more exclusive population instead of everyone.
So let's get this straight, when what was hailed as the President's sole accomplishment in 2 terms is shown to be a failure, the spin is that it failed due to compromise with those who had no part in the crafting of the bill whatsoever and were 100% against it? That's what we're going with? A bill is proposed, 100% of the GOP says no and even some Democrats say no to where changes have to be made to pass it, they buy off enough Democrats with pork in order to get it passed and that's "compromise" according to some? Yikes.
I applaud you for the effort, but this wouldn't work. While medical costs are high clearly for elderly people, it is not the only expense and many who rely on social security need it for a great deal more than just their medical costs. Edit: Also, they could fix medicare and SS with very simple solutions that are likely to happen when we get closer to doomsday.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/29/texas-pays-a-big-price-for-saying-no-to-medicaid-expansion.html Seems like all GOP solutions are to reject MedicAid, Medicare and remove SS while offering an insignificant amount of credits to purchase these funds yourselves. I mean you have one party that is so partisan it rejected $100 billion over 10 years towards Medicaid to help people all because of a cited fear of more federal government intervention in the future. One party's decision to fight for state's rights has cost lives and suffering in untreated patients. That's not a party I'd support personally that cares more about it's own self interest than that of its people.
What is your solution for the health care cost? Other than single payer, nothing will work. This is one step closer to that goal.
Saw this on the NPR website. It appears that Aetna is engaging in a little bit of economic blackmail: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/17/490202346/aetna-ceo-to-justice-department-block-our-deal-and-well-drop-out-of-exchanges Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare August 17, 20161:08 PM ET SCOTT HENSLEY Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, told the Justice Department in July that the insurer would walk away from many health exchanges if the government opposed the company's proposed deal for Humana. On Tuesday, Aetna followed through. It's not often during the midst of an antitrust fight that the public gets a look at the gamesmanship that's happening behind the scenes. But thanks to the Huffington Post's Jonathan Cohn and Jeff Young, we got a glimpse at how health insurer Aetna is making its case to acquire rival Humana — and new insight into Aetna's decision announced Tuesday to pull out of Obamcare exchanges in 11 states. The reporters obtained a copy of a letter from Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini to the Justice Department on July 5. The letter was written while the government was still deciding whether to oppose the insurance companies' merger on the grounds that it (and another proposed deal between Anthem and Cigna) would hurt consumers and reduce competition. The Bertolini letter was in answer to a Department of Justice request for information about how a decision on the Humana deal would affect Aetna's participation in the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. The letter is pretty direct. If the government moved to block the merger, then Aetna would begin to pull out of the health insurance exchanges. Here's the key paragraph (emphasis added): "Our analysis to date makes clear that if the deal were challenged and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint. We currently plan, as part of our strategy following the acquisition, to expand from 15 states in 2016 to 20 states in 2017. However, if we are in the midst of litigation over the Humana transaction, given the risks described above, we will not be able to expand to the five additional states. In addition, we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction. In other words, instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states. We also would not be in a position to provide assistance to failing cooperative exchanges as we did in Iowa recently." The Huffington Post reporters calls the letter "a clear threat." A little more than two weeks later, on July 21, the Justice Department said it would sue to block the Aetna-Humana deal and the other proposed megamerger between Anthem and Cigna. On Tuesday, Aetna said it would dramatically scale back its participation on the insurance exchanges in 2017. The company move would take it out of 546 counties in 11 states, leaving it active in 242 counties in four states: Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia. Aetna said the pullback was a business decision stemming from a loss in the second quarter on individual plans and uncertainty about the policy outlook for the exchanges. In the company's statement, Bertolini said, "As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision." The statement made no mention of the company's pending offer for Humana nor its recent correspondence with the government about how Aetna would likely respond if the feds moved to block the deal. Aetna didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on how to reconcile Tuesday's announcement with the July 5 letter made public by Huffington Post on Wednesday. The change in tack for Aetna is also noteworthy because Bertolini was talking up the business potential of the exchanges as recently as April, when he said during a call with analysts and investors that the exchanges were "a good investment," despite the losses incurred. At the time, Bertolini said, Aetna was "committed to working constructively with the administration and lawmakers to find solutions that can improve this program, stabilize the risk pool, and expand product flexibility, all with the goal of creating a sustainable program that makes health care more affordable and accessible for all consumers." Now, the company appears to be taking its ball and going home.
Single payer won't control costs though, it would just be doubling down on a failed idea. Remember when you were sold a bunch of BS that said that Obamacare would lower healthcare cost? Well, it was a lie. Now you believe them when they say that going further in that direction would make things better? C'mon. I do agree that full on VA style government healthcare for everyone is the "goal" of some, but it's not an intelligent goal. Government intervention is what allowed the costs to get out of control in the first place.
