|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I am completely stunned that it was upheld, and even more stunned that Roberts joined the majority. I will be very interested in how this plays out in political circles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I guess one question to ask is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. What are the repercussions? The fallout? Where will this decision take us as a country?
In theory, this should reduce the cost of health insurance by getting healthier people (e.g. young adults) into the system. Of course, health insurance companies could take this decrease in cost as profit which is why a non-profit system would be better for the consumer. As a country? I think everyone understood the political reality that we were never going to go to a government run universal health coverage system in one fell swoop. Hopefully this program is a success and will be a baby step towards universal coverage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I don't understand how you think baby steps toward a mandated corporatist/fascist health care system will eventually take us to a socialist/governmental universal coverage. They seem to be on entirely separate paths. The first step is the idea that we all need to be part of the system since it affects everyone. That is what ACA does, IMO. The next step is to offer a government run health insurance option that is available to everyone (not just the poor and old). Of course, I might be a bit idealistic and overly optimistic . . . but that is how I see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Would it really matter whether everyone was covered by a government-operated pool, or by a single non-profit health insurer, or even a single for-profit health insurer that operated under heavy government supervision? I think it does matter because of who each entity is accountable to. A government run system is ultimately accountable to the people. There is every reason that they would fight for cheaper and accessible health care because they are focused on serving the people. Compare this to a for-profit system where the insurer is accountable to the stockholders and investors. They have no interest in making health care affordable or accessible. What they are interested in is profit. There is no incentive for private insurers to make health insurance affordable to everyone since they can profit more from richer and healthier clients. As an analogy, Mercedes-Benz does not make a profit by making their cars affordable for absolutely everyone. In fact, no car company does. I remember seeing signs at Tea Party rallies where they were equating ACA to socialism while telling their senators to keep their hands off of Medicare. Once people get used to ACA and even test out a public option they may grow more comfortable with it, especially if the public option is able to offer cheaper but equivalent benefits. Who knows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
First: Obama introduces a mandated corporatist policy to enrich health care insurance companies (which contribute no actual health care to our system. Way to go Obama!) Second: Then Obama will offer government run health care which would then eliminate health care insurance companies.
I was thinking more of public perception and how many americans are averse to change. First, you need to conquer the aversion of being forced to participate in the health care system. That is what ACA will do. It doesn't matter at this point if it is government run or private. The main fear is being forced into a system. Once that fear is overcome then the next hurdle is selling government run insurance over private insurance. From my own experience, I really don't think you could do both steps at once. Just look at the backlash against ACA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Yes, you are are correct, an aversion to change is normally true. But in this particular case, I believe a majority of Americans wanted the public option. A majority WANTED CHANGE. Apparently Americans were no longer satisfied with paying high premiums and then getting their medical needs turned down by the insurance companies (death panels). From the polls I remember the public option was not favored by the public, and Democrats lost seats because of their yes votes on ACA. No Republicans I am aware of lost seats because of their opposition to the bill. I see no way that a socilist system could have been put in place because it is not popular. If it was popular then Democrats would have pushed it. That is the political landscape that I see, but I could be wrong.
Well, it seems to matter to Obama's masters, the insurance companies. It surely does. Frankly, I think this is going to come down to the states to start their own public option. If these programs are successful then people in other states may consider the idea of a federal program.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The problem is that once forced to participate in this system, people might find all their fears validated.
Good point. Perhaps this is where a government run system, be it state or federal, can really make headway. They can show people that it is possible to make health care affordable and accessible. This will also take major concessions from the health care industry. Costs have to be cut. We can not continue to pay twice what other first world nations spend on health care (and only increasing from what I have seen). Private health insurance is only half of the equation. ACA did put measures in that will hopefully cut back on administrative costs, but more needs to be done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
What does it mean when the doctors are against it? Almost 90% of them think medicine is on the wrong track. Over 80% are thinking about quitting. Over 60% say its getting harder to adhere to the Hippocratic oath. From a recent survey of doctors Looks bad to me. When I look at doctors as a group I don't see them working on a solution for affordable health care for all americans. They whinge, but refuse to engage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
So? Does that make their complaints unfounded?
It makes their complaints irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I think they're still interesting. We kinda need the doctors in order to have healthcare... It is interesting, but not in the way you might think. Doctors want to protect their pay and are resistant to change. I can't say as I really blame them, but I really don't care either. We kinda need affordable healthcare. What good is a doctor if you can't see one outside of an emergency room? The whole point is to make healthcare affordable. Afterall, it is called the "Affordable Care Act". It isn't called "Let's Make Doctors Happy Act", or "Let's Make Doctors Rich Act". What we need are doctors who are interested in healing people, not doctors who are interested in buying boats. Other first world countries spend HALF as much as we do on healthcare, and they seem to have enough doctors to go around. What we need to do is make changes to the healthcare system that are beneficial to patients, not doctors. That is why their whining is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024