I look at it this way.
I want to paint a wall that has some odd shaped corners.
I do my best, but the corners got messed up.
2 “friends” comes over, one says:
a) not bad, but you mucked up those hard corners, let’s fix 'em up
The other says:
b) you fucked up, let’s put up new sheet rock and repaint.
Guess which friend I’d punch in the mouth and never talk to again?
Ok, that’s bullshit and clearly you are uneducated on the subject. The Democrats did attempt to work with the Republicans, who introduced 171 amendments to the bill, and then still utterly refused to vote for it in the end.
Obama did reach out to McConnell and Boehner and was rebuffed, as they stuck to their plan of trying to make him a one-term president. I think you gravely overestimate his political capital and similarly underestimate how determined the Republicans were to see him fail.
Apropos of nothing, really, but I’d probably take the guy up on the offer to help me fix the wall instead of the one who offered to help mask the issue with more paint.
He did that. It’s on the record. It was on the news. It was even televised. (well c-spanned at least). There were tons of hearings, and Republican introduced compromises and amendments. He did exactly what you’re saying he should have done. Blame him if you want, but do it for reasons that correspond with facts.
…says 18% of Americans. Cite. More Americans think Congress is doing a good job than buy into this nonsense.
The problem is that Americans are in favor of any plan that covers everyone and costs less. Obamacare was supposed to cover almost everyone, and save the average family $2500 a year.
Cite. Deductibles have skyrocketed - the max out-of-pocket expense for a family on a bronze plan is over $12,000 a year.
No, the ACHA wouldn’t be any better. And let’s get real - if the Democrats put forth a plan that would be better, the Republicans would block it. If the Republicans put forth a plan that would be better, the Democrats would block it.
We won’t get anything bipartisan on health care until after the 2018 elections. After that, we won’t get anything bipartisan on health care until after the 2020 elections.
Regards,
Shodan
True.
Bullshit.
What’s the Republican plan to cover more people with better coverage that costs less?
The Democrats don’t actually have the power to block such a Republican plan, because as you might have heard the Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. So blaming the Democrats for blocking your hypothetical conservative health care plan is…interesting. It’s like a conditioned reflex, I suppose. The Democrats won’t allow us to offer a real conservative plan! Waaaah!
Oh, we can propose and pass anything we want? Uh…what was it we wanted, exactly?
What the Republicans want is a plan that costs less. That’s fine. But the only way they’ve figured to create a plan that costs less is to cover fewer people with worse coverage and subsidize less. Again, that would at least be something to argue for, that we can’t afford health care for poor people. Health care’s expensive, we ain’t paying for it, pay for it yourself or do without. But they haven’t argued that, have they?
Because it turns out the voters are actually in favor of getting health care. Sure, they’re also in favor of not paying for it. But they can’t have both, so which are you offering? Oh, all the tax cuts will actually go to the Koch Brothers? And we won’t actually see lower taxes? And our premiums will go up? Why are you voting for this again?
Was the point of your post really to complain about Obamacare?
Producing a new medical coverage bill is not in either sides self-interest.
Neither side feels that they will be rewarded by their supporters for moving on health care. Note that every politician is first and foremost concerned about their supporters. Since the supporters are separate groups with separate goals, doing nothing is better than any alternative. People who want a better ACA/healthcare bill are supporters to one group of politicians, they are not “the people”. Our politicians reflect the voters that put them there. As long as the public is divided into separate groups so will the politicians.
Agreed.
As long as the body politic (the voters) are divided on what they want, nothing will happen.
My only quibble with your post is that you seem to think that there may be an improvement after 2020. I don’t see any reason for that to happen. Even if one side, doesn’t matter which one, gets a supermajority, as long as the public is divided, even a supermajority party won’t come together to vote on such an issue.
The problem is not that the Ds will block the Rs and vice versa, neither party can come together enough to get an effective bill passed even without the opposition party.
The repeated use of the word “ALL” and, earlier in the thread, the use of the word bipartisan in terms of the ACA.
Neither is accurate.
It isn’t exactly that the voters are divided on what they want. It’s that what they want isn’t possible.
Americans want [ul][li]the best health care in the world[/li][li]available to everyone, and[/li][li]at a reasonable cost.[/ul]They can have, at best, any two of those three.[/li]
Obamacare was supposed to deliver the same health care (“if you like your plan, you can keep it”), available to more people, and at a reduced cost (“the average family will see their premiums go down by an average of $2500 a year”). It did make health care available to more people - the other two, not so much.
My preference would be to compromise on the first two. Americans are over-treated - we need to address that.
If we set up single-payer, we will need to ration care. That might address rising costs, but then the health care will not be the best in the world, because we will let people die or go untreated in order to save money. Nobody is going to like that.
Regards,
Shodan
We already do that. The claim that rationing of care will occur only under a single-payer system is a demonstrable lie.
The fear is not that thousands of people will die prematurely because they cannot afford the treatment to treat their condition, the absolute terror that conservatives feel is that one person will die prematurely that could afford proper treatment. That’s what all the death panels talk and rationing talk is about. That it won’t matter how rich and wealthy you are, you may not be the first in line, and someone who is not as wealthy as you are may get the last healthcare available.
That fact that insurance companies already have rationing and “death panels” doesn’t bother them, because they know that those do not apply to them. If the govt was the sole provider of healthcare, and it ran like an insurance company, then people would be treated based on their need, not their ability to pay, and that is something that conservatives just cannot stomach.
agree with this!
If we severely cut the amount of profit in our health care system, we’ll have to ration a whole lot less.
[quote=“Shodan, post:53, topic:791593”]
Americans want [ul][li]the best health care in the world[/li][li]available to everyone, and[/li][li]at a reasonable cost.[/ul]They can have, at best, any two of those three.[/li][/QUOTE]
But again, that’s a strawman.
We (the US) currently have worse health care and outcomes than many countries that provide services to a (much) larger percentage of their population, and we pay much more per capita for it. So achieving any of those goals would be a win, and in fact most of the systems we’d probably want to emulate achieve them all.
Therefore, before Obamacare American healthcare was the best in the world, and no-one died or went untreated because of money.
How interesting.
Percentage of GDP spent on Healthcare;
Britain 9.1%
Canada 10.4%
France 11.5%
United States 17.1%
Are we getting 50-90% better care than these nations? No, we’re simply paying more for our services and far more for our drugs.