Your argument is irrelevant now. You are regurgitating 7 year old rhetoric in place of any true understanding of what the ACA entails. We know exactly what is in the bill today and we know that for the most part it is working just fine. Oh, and that's not piss your feeling.....it's your own party shitting all over you because they refuse to do anything about health care at all. The Dems were preaching that we needed a single payer system or medicare for all, a completely socialization of our medical system. Go back and take a look at the 2008 debates between McCain and Obama when they were asked what their respective plans were for fixing the broken health care system. McCain's answer is a whole lot closer to the ACA than Obama's. Evidently the CBO never got your memo amigo. In fact, the CBO scored the ACA favorably and in an attempt to change the game the Republican congress even fired the head of the CBO last year in an attempt to force ther CBO to use the Republicans fuzzy math and guess what? Yep, even their new guy who was supposed to score the ACA exactly the way they wanted also said that repealing the ACA would immediately add to the deficit. Don't believe me? Take a look for yourself.... http://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252
Winston, there is a lot here that makes sense. My frustration comes when the Republicans don't put forward any alternatives like you've done here. Inaction is the same as Anti-action in my book when we have a problem that everyone recognizes but refuses to do anything about. I should have said that healthcare shouldn't be political, but you are correct that it is and there is no way around that. I suppose that I mean that I believe basic healthcare is a fundamental human right.
I think the fact that it didn't get a single republican vote speaks more of repupublican obstructionism than it being a piece of garbage bill, and I agree it's a piece of garbage bill, but it's better than what we had and by that I mean it's better for everyone as a whole not just those of us who are seeing our premiums go up. If we could just get everyone buying in costs would go down. I bet if there was a significant fine for not having healthcare, that was automatically taken out of tax refunds, that would help. You ever have coworkers that seem to get huge tax returns? And you look at them and they are already on food stamps, already on government assistance for housing and other things, and you have to pay? I still think we should adopt a single payer system.
NC what do you mean by basic health care being a fundamental human right? I ask this not as an attack but to learn what you really mean. Are you talking about access only? What about the level of service? Is everyone have the right to the same level? If you have different levels of coverage how does that square with the fundamental right? Without addressing what the definition of 'is' is you can't have a serious resolution.
You know, in all honesty, I have been asking myself that very same question and here is what I've come up with: It's pretty cut and dry until you get into chronic illnesses. It's common sense to say that if you get the flu, you go to the doctor and get treated for it. Same thing for just about any common illness. The sticky ground comes when you get into how do you handle cancer? or ALS? or Alzheimers? What level of treatment are we willing to give the chronically ill? This is where I get caught in a moral dilemma and I honestly don't know the answer to that question, in spite of my conviction that this is the essence of the issue.
Theoretically at least, a premium could be arrived at that would cover all expenses related to maintaining ones life and good health. Some people would never utilize that because of long term good health and some would need it badly because of bad health. But everybody would pay the same in the best interests of society. I have always thought that health coverage should be tiered. The basic coverage, the one we have a right to, would cover only those necessary things, but in the most efficient way possible. You might have to wait longer for an appointment and have more limited options (no experimental treatments, no artificial prolonging of brain dead people, etc.) The standard coverage that working people are willing to pay extra for would cover more optional things like shorter waits for non-emergencies, fertility treatments, more lab work, physical therapy, etc. And Cadillac plans for the wealthy that offer more expensive alternatives, like in-vitro fertilization, cosmetic surgery, concierge doctors and such.
This is loosely my thinking on it as well. Lines have to be drawn somewhere and there simply are no ways around it. The Death Panel discussion took an accusatory turn during the pre-ACA days and was used as a scare tactic but in all seriousness, some lines have to be drawn when you are talking about health care. Death Panels are obviously a crass title for it but we had de facto death panels prior to the ACA that were decided based upon when one's benefits ran out. This is why we need a more serious political debate about the subject. It's too serious an issue for us not to have a more thoughtful conversation about it.
I get what you are suggesting but I'm not sure about an entire plan....maybe more of an a la carte for certain procedures. An argument could be made that people who pursue cosmetic surgery take overall better care of themselves, so should their basic plan cost more or just the nose job? In-vitro costing more would likely end up in lawsuits where people will claim that having a baby is a "right", and it shouldn't be denied based on cost alone. What about transsexual operations? Is that really a choice or would it be denying someone their basic right to "be themselves?" Not disagreeing, just thinking out loud.
Things like in-vitro fertilization and cosmetic surgery are choices, not necessities. They should not be covered by any insurance plan except for cosmetic surgery in the case of horrible accidents or birth defects. If a rich woman wants a face lift or a boob job let her pay for it.
Obviously. Only basic coverage would be mandated for all and eligible for subsidies for the indigent. Better coverage would be paid for by people willing to pay for them.
