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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Message auto-removed [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)59. History. It is important.
You mention Canada. In Canada it costs nothing to goto the doctor
Today.
This was not always the case. One province started single-payer. It worked so well that the other provinces followed suit. Even today, Canada doesn't have a national single-payer plan - the plan is administered by the provinces.
The ACA gives us the framework to repeat that. Some blue states are already doing "government options" in their exchanges. Other blue states will be pressured by voters like you to do so. With no need to profit, those options will be cheaper, causing people to switch.
Those people won't die, destroying the FUD about "government healthcare". Causing more to switch due to price. That shrinks the pool for private insurers, driving up their costs, causing more to switch until the only thing left is the "government option".
Purple states will see people paying less and not dying, and voters will demand their own government options. The "not dying" part will greatly weaken the Republican arguments, leaving them with "we should pay more because capitalism is good!" - which isn't terribly convincing.
With blue and purple states already having more-or-less single-payer, Federal action becomes much, much easier. And likely.
Poor will still have, by law, an acceptable level of health care that is mediocre in comparison to what the rich will afford.
This is true everywhere in the world. Including in the UK, where every doctor works for the government. The wealthy have options that the poor do not - such as flying to another country and paying out of pocket for treatment.
That problem will not be solved as long as we have "wealthy" and "poor"....which means barring a "Star Trek"-style utopian society we won't be solving it. Some doctor will always be "better". He will be able to operate in such a way that the poor can not see him.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
185 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
CA's silver plan is considerably better than my corporate insurance and less expensive.
Warren Stupidity
Oct 2013
#3
Gonna cost a lot more than that for us here in Maine. :^( I am dreading losing my medicaid.
GreenPartyVoter
Oct 2013
#5
You have a Teabag governor who refuses to expand Medicaid or institute the exchanges.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Oct 2013
#16
Working on that now. Still wish they weren't taking away MaineCare, though. *blah*
GreenPartyVoter
Oct 2013
#24
Part of that pool are the Teabagger eedjits who won't be "forced into" getting health insurance.
riqster
Oct 2013
#154
Exactly. The ACA relies on Medicaid expansion by the states to cover the most vulnerable, and
jtuck004
Oct 2013
#138
This is great news, as this continues to roll out and more are insured the games being played out in
Thinkingabout
Oct 2013
#7
When I moved to Las Vegas from Anaheim I was shocked to find my auto insurance doubled.
Spitfire of ATJ
Oct 2013
#70
That's the other part of the reason for the shutdown. The GOP must have seen reports that said
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#9
Actually I am "miffed" because the RI healthcare website isn't working correctly at the moment
Marrah_G
Oct 2013
#179
You've just codified non-egalitarian, tiered healthcare that hinges upon self-rationing
NoOneMan
Oct 2013
#27
No, they noted that you are making assumptions about details of a plan that are not in evidence. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#44
There are certain preventive services that aren't subject to coinsurance and deductibles.
Hoyt
Oct 2013
#124
Back up to the part where you commented on the plan when the plan details are not in evidence. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#42
Oh I make sense. I only comment on facts in evidence. I dont imagine things to be upset about. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#67
And for this particular life, I can finally afford health care coverage when previously I couldn't..
LanternWaste
Oct 2013
#69
My argument is facts....your argument is that my argument is a "strawman argument" that
cbdo2007
Oct 2013
#96
You're fucking kidding?!??! That's great! I live in Maryland and I expect similar!
Liberal_Stalwart71
Oct 2013
#15
Because they need to soak us as much as possible for another year to pad their reserves ...
Myrina
Oct 2013
#149
"Why did Obama delay the cap on out of pocket expenses until 2015?" The deal...all part of the deal.
Safetykitten
Oct 2013
#165
Interesting that 4 people making double the money would pay a fraction of what one
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#29
I think it is more reasonable to assume the OP is speaking about a policy with high
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#64
part of it is health insurance companies are limited in non-direct-medical expenses
tomm2thumbs
Oct 2013
#54
I may be wrong it could be that Missouri's governor rejected Obamacare provisions to expand Medicare
tomm2thumbs
Oct 2013
#71
And wait until doctors and hospitals discover that they are going to get paid for ALL their work.
JDPriestly
Oct 2013
#131