You already ration care much more harshly than single payer countries, to get worse care at higher costs.
I mean seriously, millions of people do not get any healthcare beyond emergency care, a large section of the population is under-insured, and people who are insured still have to worry about costs and potential bankruptcy if they need healthcare…
**
and you are talking about rationing care further?**
Might we venture to suggest that you instead consider rationing the amount of bureaucracy, pointless middlemen and profits for actors that other nations don’t generally see the point of at all?
[COLOR=Red]Eight years? Ohhh, yes! WELL OVER eight years!
I have a coworker who quite earnestly complained the other day, “Gosh, I wish the Democrats weren’t doing this stonewalling thing. That just means the Republicans are going to turn around and do it back when a Democrat becomes Prez and nothings going to get done for decades.” He was making this complaint as if it was a new thing going on in Washington DC and the Democrats had invented it.
Try twenty! The Republicans started the we’re-not-going-to-budge game back in the late 1980’s under George H.W. Bush (Mr. 41). They haven’t stopped since! They turned up the rudeness when Bill Clinton was in office – doesn’t anyone else remember the first attempt to get nationwide healthcare passed?
Japan, forever taking the Disorganized States’ lead, learned from the example. The conservatives in the Diet (just think of it as Japan’s version of Congress) blocked everything the Prime Minister tried to do, from commemorating WWII soldiers to wiping his nose after a sneeze [yes, I’m intentionally exaggerating; deal with it], to the extent that he got disgusted and decided to just step down (let’s just say the 90’s were quite tumultuous).
I don’t recall (though I could be wrong but let’s not sidetrack this thread) Bush Jr. ever even suggesting cooperation across the aisle. But then again, that was an administration in contention to begin with and such a suggestion might have been nixed as seeming insincere.
And then when the nation legitimately elected President Barack Obama (without a need for recounting chads or debating the legitimacy of the Electoral College), the Republicans tripled-down and did everything they could to make him a one-term President, even to the extent of holding government funding hostage (while also joining demonstrations that decried the closure of war memorials). And when that failed, they doubled-down on their triple-down!
If you (in general, not Gary T in particular) don’t remember these things, you either have a very conveniently selective memory on par with Tea Party attempts to revise and white-wash history or–well, where the heck were you in the last three decades? I was in Japan for part of that stretch and still remember the constant Republican blockade.
Good heavens! Have I become one of the reminiscing old-timers around here?!
–G!
Do you remember
Yer President Nixon
Do you remember
The bills you have to pay
for even yesterday?
…–David Bowie
…Young Americans
…Young Americans (1975) [/COLOR]
Cecil had a column earlier this year addressing the issue of ridiculously expensive drugs. Basically it was 'Yeah, Canada and other countries can control prices but, here in the US of A, Capitalism reigns supreme."
And, basically, that’s the situation with health care in general (which includes pharmaceuticals). The fact of the matter is that the US of A is not a democracy and hasn’t been one for a long time. It’s a capitalist plutocracy and the politicians are doing what politicians in a plutocracy do: Cater to the people who fund their quest for power and glory; vote they way they’ve been paid (the most) to vote.
The fact that some form of nationalized health care was voted in at all (mind you it was the second Democratic attempt and was greatly patterned after a Republican model from a politician who is often more of a Democrat than a lot of politicians who run on the (D) ticket!) would suggest there are (were?) still some politicians who try to do what’s right, rather than just what Big Money tells them to do. Politicians with such integrity seem to be a dying breed.
I still think the tide of popular opinion turned in favor of the Affordable Care Act when the Big Blue Insurance Giant tripled its premium rates in the middle of the debates. They epitomized Greedy Corporate Healthcare and politicians couldn’t ignore the resultant outrage. More recent Epi-pen scandals and similar instances of publicized healthcare greed have simply reinforced negative reception of the “Hey, it’s just capitalism!” argument.
But, hey, doing what’s best for the masses would be, like socialist or something and that’s just a hair’s breadth away from communism and then Communism and…
—G!
The fundamental literature of every culture on the planet portrays greedy and power-hungry characters as antagonists; they are the evil to be vanquished by the hero. Yet, in American politics, we idolize greed and ambition!
Well, it has a hell of a lot of input from the monied interests, but that also does include groups like gun lobbyists and the AARP. It isn’t all “capitalist” money buying votes, but other kinds of special interests too.
And our individual votes, each election, still count for a hell of a lot. We aren’t totally swayed by bought-and-paid advertisements. Just hugely influenced.
It might be a slight improvement if the situation were formalized, and Congressional votes could, in fact, be bought outright. The pro- and anti- sides would have to bid in recurring auctions, especially regarding closely divided issues, providing a HUGE revenue stream for the nation.
Money wouldn’t go to advertisers; it would go right into the Treasury!
Finally!!!
The news I’ve been waiting to hear since this thread was created July 18.
Slowly but surely the Republicans are warming up to bipartisanship. It’s in the article, further down from where I quoted. Collins and Flake are echoing what McCain and Schumer said last week.
Elephants can fly.
This has made my entire week. It sounds like they’re ready to fix ACA one step at a time. Instead of some bloated overhaul of the entire program.
Let’s just hope Trump doesn’t screw things up before the Senate can act.
Well, if one side wants some form of healthcare bill, and the other absolutely does not, what compromise is possible? No, seriously, how, in your mind, does this work?
As others have pointed out: he did try to push the bill bipartisanly. Republicans had tons of influence on the final product. He dropped the far more liberal ideas of single payer and even the public option precisely in order to gain bipartisan support. But here’s the thing. Here’s the dirty little secret that none of these middle-of-the-roaders seem to want to get:
Republican politicians do not want government-run health care. They just don’t. Paul Ryan’s goal: cut the social safety net and cut taxes. Mitch McConnell’s goal: cut the social safety net and cut taxes. These people have no interest in pushing a workable vision on health care. It’s the same bait and switch they played with Hillarycare - decry the Democratic Party’s vision on health care, argue that their version is so much better, then as soon as the dem bill is dead, proceed to not unroll their own version. They may not be willing to admit it outright, but they have no interest in the government being involved in health care. Remember 2006? There was too much government in the healthcare back then.
But there can’t be a bipartisan solution here. It doesn’t work. One party wants the government to be involved with health care. One party doesn’t (but will gladly lie about it because they know it’s popular). It’s really that simple. There’s a reason the Republicans have been complaining about Obamacare for seven fucking years and still don’t have a coherent bill to push! The only “bipartisan” solution is if members of one party abandon the party line on the issue completely. Which might happen - the republican position here is both incredibly dishonest and incredibly unpopular, and the only thing propping it up is the aforementioned dishonesty, which has come to light more and more recently. But then it’s still not a “bipartisan” bill. It’s a liberal bill with RINO support. Because that’s how the party lines are drawn at the moment.
The Ds already did back in 2010. It was pretty big news.
You do realize that “rationing care” isn’t just when the government says you can’t get that extremely expensive experimental treatment that probably won’t work and won’t save you even if it does, right? It’s also when a visit to the hospital costs tens of thousands of dollars and therefore excludes a great number of the population. The US already rations care. It just does so incredibly badly. It rations not according to what would be effective and what would save lives, but rather according to who can pay more. Which is stupid. Oh, and there’s all kinds of other things that the government could and should do but doesn’t. Things like saying “you can’t up the price on a life-saving, cheap-to-produce device you bought the rights to (which has existed for 20 years) by 500% just because you feel like you’d like a larger bonus”. But of course, to stop that, you need government intervention.
This argument is just obscene. You know what death panels are in the US? It’s a woman looking at her bank account and realizing that the treatment for her stage I cancer isn’t something she could ever afford.
Perhaps the Democrats can pass a few bills to stabilize ACA?
Republican Collins suggested starting with a bill to stabilize the insurance markets.
There’s three Republicans that said No to gutting ACA. How many more would be needed to pass this first bill? Maybe four or five would stick their neck out and vote yes?
They’re more likely to pass small bills instead of a full overhaul of ACA.
Let’s hope McCain is able to return after chemo. He was the deciding vote last week.
I could imagine this theoretically being possible, except for three little problems:
No way is McConnell going to let that happen, and good luck fixing these problems with just reconciliation (and can you even call reconciliation without the senate majority leader on board?). So we’re going to face an endless filibuster and it will go nowhere.
The house passed the AHCA. They’re sure as hell not going to pass a bill “fixing” Obamacare. You don’t have as slim of a margin, and you don’t have anywhere near as many rational people.
Donald Trump has made his opinion clear on numerous occasions: “Let Obamacare Fail”. You really think he’s gonna put this past his desk without a veto? I expect him to do everything he can from the executive to hobble and harm Obamacare.
“Let’s fix the existing law so that it works better and doesn’t collapse catastrophically” is a rational, reasonable plan that might help salvage our current health-care system without having to revert to a free market where everything is broken. And because of that, you will never in a million years get the core of republican politicians (or, more importantly, their base) to go along with it.
You are being extremely naive. Trump would veto immediately. His goal as president is to destroy Obama’s legacy. He doesn’t care about ordinary people. He sees this as a game.
