Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onecaliberal

(32,489 posts)
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:28 PM Jan 2016

Is a Democrat really advocating for a healthcare system that doesn't cover everyone?

A system that rewards big Insurance companies. A system that people are forced to participate in, and pay for, but still can't access a doctor because of the cost. This boggles my mind.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is a Democrat really advocating for a healthcare system that doesn't cover everyone? (Original Post) onecaliberal Jan 2016 OP
So we are better off randys1 Jan 2016 #1
No, we're better off with single-payer with the government acting as the insurer. Vinca Jan 2016 #2
My god Dretownblues Jan 2016 #3
Did you read what I responded to? randys1 Jan 2016 #4
Yes Dretownblues Jan 2016 #5
But that isnt going to happen for a very long time, YEARS, GOP wont allow it randys1 Jan 2016 #7
Until we can replace it with single payer Dretownblues Jan 2016 #9
The ACA will collapse of its own weight if the government doesn't do a better job controlling costs tularetom Jan 2016 #8
Yes zipplewrath Jan 2016 #6
I agree with many of your points, but for many thousands it's a disaster. onecaliberal Jan 2016 #12
Bird in the hand zipplewrath Jan 2016 #13
The ACA is mostly the Republican's Heath insurance plan. With the 85% rule added by Dems ReasonableToo Jan 2016 #10
No. But are you aware that Medicare only covers 80%? And to cover the rest, pnwmom Jan 2016 #11

randys1

(16,286 posts)
1. So we are better off
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:32 PM
Jan 2016

without ACA I take it?

Is that what you are saying?

Surely you understand NO new nothing can happen with GOP, so either we keep ACA or we shit can it, which are you proposing?

Vinca

(50,172 posts)
2. No, we're better off with single-payer with the government acting as the insurer.
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:42 PM
Jan 2016

Everyone automatically covered just by being a citizen of the country. If you haven't noticed, there have been quite a few posts here about people not being able to afford the premiums despite the ACA. Big insurance got their paws on millions of people and now it's time for the profits to reflect that increase.

Dretownblues

(253 posts)
3. My god
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:43 PM
Jan 2016

Who is talking about repeling ACA? Most Democrats are in favor of single payer. So if hillary plan is to attack Sander from the left, good luck to her don't think she will get very far.

Dretownblues

(253 posts)
5. Yes
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:46 PM
Jan 2016

I did and he's not talking about repeling ACA, he's talking about replacing it with single payer hence the title of his post.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
7. But that isnt going to happen for a very long time, YEARS, GOP wont allow it
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:47 PM
Jan 2016

THEREFORE

do we stay with ACA?

Dretownblues

(253 posts)
9. Until we can replace it with single payer
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 04:17 PM
Jan 2016

Or something better then of course. Bernie has never talked about repeling it nor will he.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
8. The ACA will collapse of its own weight if the government doesn't do a better job controlling costs
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:48 PM
Jan 2016

Already, younger people are opting to pay the penalties in lieu of enrolling in a plan with 10-12% annual premium increases. If younger, healthier people drop out, the pool will consist of the older and less healthy and premiums will spiral upward until nobody can afford it.

Somebody is failing to police that 85% rule.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
6. Yes
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 03:47 PM
Jan 2016

Your question is a bit hyperbolic. But the essence is true.

There was some hope that the 15% profit margin would be limiting somehow, I don't think it worked out that way. I think there was some hope that the market place competition would help control premiums, I don't think it has worked out that way. Some might say "worked out that way YET". Of course, the original design also planned on the whole medicaid expansion, that didn't work out that way either.

Basically it was alot of good intentions that got watered down so much by Blue Dogs (that Obama seemed to really like) that some of the key features ended up not working well.

I'm a fairly big critic of the ACA, but it is worth noting that although the total number of insured really only increase by about 5% or so, that is roughly a 30 - 50% increase in covered people. Also, another set of single digit percentage have BETTER insurance than before, in some cases also cheaper for them (because of subsidies). And of course there are the pre-existing/lifetime limit thing went away.

I think it was a "weak" deal and it is questionable that it was worth all the political capital that was expended on it (especially losing control of both house of congress). I think it may have poisened the well for any further reforms for a good decade or more. And it unfortunately created a "new normal" for what democrats find acceptable. That said, those that have been helped were people that needed help and so we are stuck here and it is the new reality.

I might have asked your question this way, "In 2008 did we really think THIS is where we'd be stuck for the next decade in health care?"

onecaliberal

(32,489 posts)
12. I agree with many of your points, but for many thousands it's a disaster.
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 04:28 PM
Jan 2016

For many thousands, it is a blessing. For those who are still without health care it is a brand new tax. My point is that when the ACA was passed we were told that we settled on the watered down aspects but changes would be made. Republicans have now made that impossible.

In 2016 it is almost unbelievable to me that we pay much more for health care than any other industrialized nation, but get much less, and we still have millions left out.

Why can't people understand that it is possible to pay less than we already pay and have everyone covered if we would just take the profit away from the system. Should people be profiting off the misfortune of the ill in our society? Shouldn't we all have the right to see a health care professional when we need to? Our Democratic candidates should be advocating for all citizens to have health care, no one should be left out. Not for a system that still benefits the insurance company profit over the health of people.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
13. Bird in the hand
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 05:30 PM
Jan 2016

Yes, I agree with you but to some it is a case of a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Folks like you and me saw an opportunity to actually affect health CARE and what we got was a federalization of health INSURANCE. We have been told, and continue to be told that what we saw was unachievable and that "this" was all that could be gotten. I don't completely buy that, but more importantly, if that is true, we "spent" to much to get it. Rahm actually suggested that we get much of this "piece meal" over a couple of years and focus on larger economic issues. As much as I hate to agree with Rahm, if this was all we could get, we probably should have done exactly that. But I still don't buy that this was all we could get. Obama "sided" with the Blue Dogs way too much, and they were leveraging the GOP opposition. An LBJ would have convinced the Blue Dogs that their best deal was to work with the party to break up the GOP opposition and ultimately get what they wanted. Instead, the Blue Dogs lost their seats in large numbers. What a great deal they made.

ReasonableToo

(505 posts)
10. The ACA is mostly the Republican's Heath insurance plan. With the 85% rule added by Dems
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 04:25 PM
Jan 2016

Unaffordable healthcare was a major concern of the electorate in 2008. We were hoping for a pooled trust fund and single-payer process for affordable high quality HEALTHCARE. what we got was mandated insurance purchases with such high dedectibles that some still cannot afford CARE.

However you want to refer to it - replace of fix- we'd be better off with single payer trust fund over insurance.

This changeover should include taking the money that's collected for workman's comp, car insurance(the medical portion), homeowners insurance(medical portion), and the medical part of business owners insurance too and send it to the trust fund for payouts. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have insurance companies looking for ways to turn down claims?

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
11. No. But are you aware that Medicare only covers 80%? And to cover the rest,
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 04:26 PM
Jan 2016

Medicare recipients pay for their own private insurance policies?

Because how many Medicare recipients could afford to pay 20% of their hospital bills?

So when Bernie advocates Medicare for all -- instead of the mishmash of programs we currently have -- what is he advocating, exactly? Medicare by itself won't be enough for many people.

I looked on his website for a more detailed proposal but I couldn't find one. He doesn't even have healthcare listed on his issue page, but his supporters pointed me to sentences about healthcare he's included in discussions of other issues.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is a Democrat really advo...