General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs 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.
randys1
(16,286 posts)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)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.
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.
randys1
(16,286 posts)did you read the other person attacking ACA?
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)THEREFORE
do we stay with ACA?
Dretownblues
(253 posts)Or something better then of course. Bernie has never talked about repeling it nor will he.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.