Democrats, Long Blamed for Heath-Care Costs, Seek to Shift Ownership to GOP.
24 replies, posted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-long-blamed-for-heath-care-costs-seek-to-shift-ownership-to-gop-1527512400
Now, as many health insurers are seeking to impose double-digit rate increases on those marketplaces, a number of recent surveys suggest Republicans may take the lion’s share of the blame, with Democrats viewed more favorably on the issue ahead of November’s midterm elections.
For example, 61% of voters said President Donald Trump and Republicans would be responsible for problems with the ACA going forward, according to a late 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation poll.
Democrats have also noted that many insurers have blamed GOP policies, at least in part, saying that in letting healthier customers opt out of pricier insurance plans, the companies have had to increase premiums for older, less-healthy Americans.
Republicans dont give a fuck about you, vote D all the way down in november
Most democrats don't support single payer so they're not one to be throwing stones. Yes, everyone knows the republicans have terrible policies, so what are you proposing to fix it, Chuck?
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#universal-health
Democratic platform lists Universal Healthcare and a universal public option as a goal, saying that Healthcare should be a right
Securing Universal Health Care
Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and our health care system
should put people before profits. Thanks to the hard work of President Obama and
Democrats in Congress, we took a critically important step toward the goal of universal
health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, which has covered 20 million more
Americans and ensured millions more will never be denied coverage because of a
pre-existing condition. Democrats will never falter in our generations-long fight to
guarantee health care as a fundamental right for every American. As part of that
guarantee, Americans should be able to access public coverage through a public option,
and those over 55 should be able to opt in to Medicare. Democrats will empower the states,
which are the true laboratories of democracy, to use innovation waivers under the ACA to
develop unique locally tailored approaches to health coverage. This will include removing
barriers to states which seek to experiment with plans to ensure universal health care to
every person in their state. By contrast, Donald Trump wants to repeal the ACA, leaving
tens of millions of Americans without coverage.
Hasn't single-payer healthcare been part of the Democratic platform since before 2012?
Honestly, yes, the Republicans should take the lion share of the blame because they originally gutted the protections and blocks from overpricing rates as well as removing the Government's ability to negotiate with companies by creating a single payer system people could pay taxes into.
Read the fine print. Nothing in there says "we want to guarantee healthcare to every citizen through a single payer Medicare for all system." They're for a public option and for allowing 55 and overs to opt in to Medicare. Not good enough. They just put "universal health care" at the top to try and pull the wool over people's eyes without actually being in favor of the correct policy. Very slimy.
Wouldn't a public option give patients the option to use government subsidized healthcare via medicaid?
Yes, but that isn't the same as universal healthcare, ala Bernie's Medicare for all plan, which covers everybody no questions asked.
Which doesn't work at all like how Canada or the UK's healthcare systems work btw
When it comes to actual plans we've been shown, Bernie's is either a litmus test, or he gives zero shits.
Also that is, by definition, universal healthcare? Universal healthcare means everyone has access to healthcare along with financial protection.
One of the most cancerous things the GOP has done in many states is intentionally sabotage medicaid. In some states e.g. Utah, they literally refused free federal government money in order to STICK IT TO OBUMMER.
Clearly no, But unironically Obamacare was a sort of center-right version of Universal Healthcare that covers 3/4 of American population.
They literally used the word Universal Healthcare?
I remember this promise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQFItVBKlAU
Remember all the hot takes about how this showed that Trump was gonna bring America to the left ?
So what? I don't give a fuck what they call it, I care what their policy actually does. Public option and single payer are two different things.
It's still universal though.
Are you going to claim that the likes of Germany, UK, Straya, etc. are not universal ?
Like I get it if you would prefer a full single-payer system, but I don't see the reason in being so derisive against things that empirically achieve great results too.
It's not single payer. Which, again, was my whole point that I made explicit in my first post.
All of those countries have single payer systems. The reason I am so derisive is because 80% of Democratic voters want Medicare for all but the party leadership refuses to propose those bills. That seems like a problem to me. Why should we settle for a half measure when the full thing has widespread support?
Not at all.
I'll go over each briefly, probably fuck up a few details too. If you want a better look than me double checking what's in my head against wikipedia, here's a nice playlist
My tl;dr:
In Germany you have mandatory sickness funds and optional private funds fulfilling insurance. You're forced onto insurance, ran by non-profit companies, and payments are based off of employee & employer contributions. If you earn more than 50k euro a year, you're allowed to switch to private insurance. This is pretty decisively not single-payer, and a few countries are similar to this (they call it the Bismarck model.) I like to compare it to what a proper Obamacare would have been like, because that's what the "mandatory insurance" reminds me of. But meh.
I think people know the UK system. But to be quick, every "country" in the UK runs its own public system, with certain differences between each. This goes together with a private sector too, and not everything is free at use. Though, generally it is. I've seen people argue back and forth that it is single-payer, if you want to do that then fine, but I usually leave that for things like Canada
Straya isn't too complicated, it's public option, with copays and private insurance. That ain't single payer.
Public option universal healthcare actually gets about 75% approval in some general polling, across all parties, even with that though, iirc there's quite a lot of variance between polls (e.g. you get "no" in polls like AP-GFK,) so I'm not comfortable in really claiming Americans are widely for or against single payer. Especially because most Americans aren't democrats. Also we have pretty consistently seen things change once legislation is actually proposed. It failed in vermont, california, and colorado.
Also, a half-measure? Metrics-wise non-single player places like Germany, Switzerland, etc. do just fine compared to places like Canada, Taiwan. Reasons for supporting single payer in particular are mostly philosophical and not empirical, and I'd get behind pretty much any universal plan as long as it's well-thought out.
literally saying anything to get elected.
Only if they are promised of making new policies into effect unlike current version. Than sure.
If they not, they DON'T deserve my vote and rather voted left leaning Independent politicians or third party candidates.
To chip in with another example, Singapore's public healthcare is not single-payer but instead relies on need-based subsidies, enforced contributions to a personal medical savings account, and provision of public health insurance. It's decidedly not single-payer yet consistently outperforms even countries like Germany, Switzerland, and Norway in terms of efficiency. There's really no reason to insist on single-payer healthcare and reject anything short of it in the belief that it won't be good enough.
I seem to remember reading that an equivalent to Obamacare was originally either dreamed up by the Nixon or Reagan administration. This sort of thing just shows how much America has moved to the right. I watched some Reagan speeches the other day, and whilst I disagree with him on a large number of topics, he at least created an atmosphere of stability and was a good polemicist and speaker in general. Reagan's style contrasts with Trump massively and it's extremely sad.
Obamacare was originally Romney's idea, and Obama basically borrowed it and developed a national plan around it. The only reason Republicans opposed it was because it was the nig I mean they're not letting Democrats score any points, even if that means ruining the country in the process, and so they took advantage of Obama trying to compromise and make a bipartisan bill to hollow it out as much as they could, and they've been trying to repeal it ever since.
60+ votes to repeal the ACA, six Benghazi investigations because they were determined to find something to blame on Hillary if they kept trying enough times, but one investigation into the President is completely unjustifiable and is offensive government overreach. ok
The Affordable Healthcare Act was actually based, almost verbatim, on 'Romneycare' or the Massachusetts health care that was passed under a Republican governor. The hope was by essentially adopting a republican-approved healthcare system they (the Democrats) could get bi-partisan support. But as soon as the new bill was revealed as a Democrat healthcare bill, immediately people started saying all of these things about how it was socialist and conspiracy theories began about how it was going to kill the elderly and so on.
Purely because it was a democrat bill, it was evil and communist and so on, even when republicans did the same thing previously.
Okay, the meme about Obamacare wasn't republicans gutted it. A Dem senator from masachusetts died, Masachusetts went full retard and elected a republican. They needed one more vote to get it past the filibuster because we pretended to care about thhat shit back then. Then the last senator they needed to override the filibuster said "no public option" so they got rid of that just so they could pass SOMETHING. Obamacare was a net positive overall but it still had a lot of issues that could've been prevented if it weren't for some idiot senator with shitty ideals.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.