What made such "progress" historic? That one could not be turned down. One then has to ask: why is the uninsured rate not closer to or at ZERO?
To a LOT of people it makes no difference. If you can't afford to use your insurance, how are you better off than someone who doesn't have insurance at all? The only real difference is that the person with insurance they can't afford to use has more money coming out of their pocket making paying their bills harder to do. The whole thing has been a failure because it wasn't something that was thought out very well.
You are redefining success. If you define success as, "yes, more people are paying into a system", then your argument is valid. Again, those who have pre-existing conditions are certainly better off. No debate about that. But if your argument is that the remainder of people are getting BETTER cover, BETTER care at a BETTER rate, Obamacare has been a complete failure. The equivalence of a bronze plan would cost me $1000 a year compared to the $4000.00 a year it costs me now. Non ER and non specialty healthcare is very economical w/out insurance. The same applies to meds.
Out-of pocket costs are so high with these plans. Get sick with something other than the flu - you could be looking at 1,000's of dollars. Sprain an ankle? 1,000's of dollars when you include a specialist visit, xray, follow-up, crutches. Any kind of condition can turn into a back breaking amount of money because of these high deductible plans. And even with a $1,000 deductible, you will be expected to pay upwards of $7k in premiums. So Obamacare hasn't solved high medical costs for consumers (which by the way was a problem before Obamacare came into existence). In theory it makes sense. If everyone is covered, there is no pre-existing conditions. People should be healthier and less uninsured ER visits should mean less costs to everyone. Earlier treatment should be less cost to everyone. So why are costs still going up up up for everyone? I found this article that seems very informative - it doesn't seem to be Obamacare that is driving up costs: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...so-much-in-america-ask-harvards-david-cutler/
ACA has problems. The government can't even begin to address them because they are still fighting over whether or not it should exist. Personally -- but I think we can draw a larger point -- I am immune to any rhetorical argument that is based on "Look! It's not working! I told you it was a bad idea!" Life expectancy could drop to 30 and I wouldn't by moved by this argument. You can call that confirmation bias. But all I see is Republicans trying to undermine Americans' healthcare so they can have the policy approach of their choosing. So I won't entertain any notion of undoing the ACA unless and until the Republicans embrace it and at least make a good faith effort to make it work as best as it can.
There are hundreds of countries around the world with national healthcare working just fine, the fact that we are the ONLY westernized country not to have it, is disgraceful. DD
if single payer works so well, states are free to implement it on their own and see what happens (Vermont has already tried and failed) doing it nationally is a mistake
In the modern era of planes, cars and modern business practices where we don't rely on a horse for transportation, this type of thinking is just flat out stupid. An average American family probably lived in multiple states during their lifespan. This isn't the homestead era where a typical American family doesn't leave their local area for their entire lives. Same thing goes for concepts such as marriage laws etc. Why should a gay couple be legally married in one state but not in another? It's just stupid.
Which is effectively you saying that it couldn't work without having to actually say that it couldn't work.
Not to mention shared federal laws, government, freedom of movement and negotiating power of 1 state vs a whole nation. Even with that, it is definitely possible to try on a state level. It just would not be anywhere as effective as implementing it on a national level.
Nobody implemented anything in Vermont and that was the problem. People shirked responsibility for costs in the almighty name of avoiding taxes. It's a rampant disease. Sooner or later, the human capital costs of having an unhealthy population that refuses exposure to a healthcare system that only runs on middlemen with excessive profits is going to cost many more tax dollars than anything will ever save.
To me, it sounds like you are saying a bad idea is better than no idea at all. My biggest issue with the ACA is that it went in the complete opposite direction of what it should. We should be loosening the fangs of the insurance companies from health care, not tightening it... whether its opening up the "free market" or having more government intervention (Single payer, medicare, ect ..).
Quit being a communist. Free enterprise is always best. This is just common sense. It has been proven by economic science, Don't you even believe in science even if you are a Godless communist.? Beside national healthcare or Medicare for all is an important first step in the slippery slope leading inevitably to the Gulag. The choice is simple you can either have the Gulag an imprisonment for worse for exercising freedom of expression or religion or health care for all but nor both. Take your choice.
