General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: My experience with Universal health Care [View all]LWolf
(46,179 posts)is not the same as a national health care plan. They have 2 different purposes/goals.
The purpose of private health insurance is to make money for insurance companies and their share holders.
The purpose of a national public service is to provide service to the public, paid for through taxes. It's not about profit, it's about people getting service.
I disagree that a health plan couldn't be passed without insurance companies. It wouldn't be easy and it wouldn't be fast, but it WOULD happen eventually if it were:
1. Allowed on the table to begin with.
2. Kept on the table.
3. Made a focus, and brought up repeatedly; kept on the front page of the national consciousness and at the top of the national conversation.
The ACA? I think it's the wrong kind of reform. I think any reform that is founded on privatization and profit will not lead to the right kind of reform, focused on public service. I think it actually holds back the kind of reform the nation actually needs.
If some people get more care under the ACA, I'm glad. The fact is, though, that many people will not be better off at all. Just because the ACA has the word "affordable" in its title, that doesn't mean that the insurance costs through the new exchanges are actually affordable in people's budgets, or that having insurance will lead to actual care.
Neither of my adult sons can afford the premiums through the exchange, let alone the deductibles and co-pays after that. They remain uninsured.