Not what I see, as usual you are using the talking points of the ones that want to rob the whole public.
What I can see is once again what I pointed before, the latest actions of some insurers are mostly based on their greed, not the problems with Obamacare. A public option should be also more economical than what some companies are offering, and even more if we could get many congress critters to vote for the needs of the people instead of the needs of the for profit medical companies.
It’s as simple as issuing a grandfather rule that applies to all plans. Instead, the grandfather rule was made restrictive when it didn’t have to be. That’s what made him a liar.
The new plans being lost by consumers aren’t a lie, that’s just incompetence and failure to foresee that it’s hard to make a profit when young people are staying out of the exchanges.
The cost is lower than expected because fewer people are signing up. Few insurers are making any profits at all, much less being greedy. The non profit insurers are in the same boat as the for profit insurers. And you think a government-run plan would do a better job? only by deceiving taxpayers by plugging their money into it to prop it up.
Vox, as always, explains things well:
Medicaid expansion is part of the ACA bill. The Supreme Court ruled it optional on the part of the states, and many states with Republican governors declined it because, apparently, fuck 'em. The states that have accepted it have better health and lower costs as well as fewer uninsured.
*That *is the purpose of ACA, *not *protecting the rent-seeking parasites in Hartford.
The uninsured rate has dropped to a new low. By this measure, the ACA has been an incredible success. I understand this isn’t the only measure, but one of the act’s explicit goals was to reduce the rate of uninsured, and it has done that for millions of Americans.
Holy shit; is that like 20million plus people?
I think of those points are positive goals to be achieved, and the sooner the better. I want all insurance companies to be non-profit, intentionally or unintentionally. Profiting off of healthcare by adding no more value than a middleman sucking in resources is unconscionable. Government should fund health insurance from taxes, a goal far better than withholding healthcare from all but the rich, which is where we are heading in very short order.
If that’s what the voters want, that’s fine, as long as their decision is based on honest numbers not non profit plans that cost consumers $400/month up front but with another $400 in taxpayer subsidies that they don’t see. The subsidy formula as it exists now is fine because it’s transparent. Letting non-profit public options set rates artificially low and then bailing them out when they get in trouble is dishonest and could trick voters into buying into something they can’t easily back out of. So any public option would have to be 100% premium financed from the beginning and if it failed, it would have to be no bailout.
If you want a ballpark target, the NHS currently costs $2,750 per head, per year, and at GDP of 9.78%. Obv. these are austerity years for the NHS. It is for 100% population coverage.
USA seem to have not quite topped out at 16.91% GDP, for a population coverage of … unsure now.
But sure, the NHS isn’t the model you’d aim at.
In the real world we’d be more like the Swiss or German models, so you’ll want to use their costs as benchmarks.
Or just use Vermont’s estimates, since they appeared to be honest(which is why they had to scrap it) and extrapolate that to the rest of the country.
Why?
In practice I find that extrapolating from any Swiss model is problematic, since the size and cultural differences are profound.
Because those are multi payer systems, plus US voters demand more health care than the cheaper systems provide. We’d never tolerate waiting lists. Even a single payer system would have to be funded generously enough so that waiting more than a couple of weeks to see a doctor was rare.
We have waiting lists now. I’m lucky to get in in under two months. Anything more urgent than that, they tell me to go to the ER.
Get another doctor. In Canada, many Canadians can’t see a doctor at all:
http://factscan.ca/tom-mulcair-five-million-canadians-dont-have-a-family-doctor/
Bullshit. God, why can’t you read your own goddamn cites?
You could do a proper rebuttal you know. Last i checked, “bullshit” isn’t a rebuttal.
Apparently he’s a Jeopardy fan, because he put his rebuttal in the form of a question. Let me make it declarative, to help you: your cite doesn’t say anything about not being able to see a doctor; it says many Canadians don’t have a designated family doctor, and the main reason is because they never sought one.
THe cite doesn’t say that either, it says that 47% aren’t looking, although much as with jobs, it doesn’t address how many stopped looking because none were taking new patients.
According to the ironclad Statistics Canada, the primary alternative to having a family doctor is to go to a clinic, with some relying on ER care. In the US, that’s what people with no insurance do.
Bullshit.
To continue my rebuttal, 47.6% said they hadn’t looked, not that they had stopped looking, and that was the largest reason cited, by double digits, which makes it the main reason. The study cited says “Among those who had looked for a doctor, 37.6% said that doctors in their area were not taking new patients,” but it also says that only 0.1% of people without a regular doctor didn’t know where to go — 80.6% said they had a regular place to go, taking whatever doctor was available, and 19.3% used ad hoc resources, “such as appointment clinics, doctors’ offices, hospital out-patient clinics and telephone health lines.”
If we can assume that Canadians are not idiots, and use the less comprehensive services for the less serious problems, then it seems that over 99.9% are getting the level of health care they need. This is especially likely since the largest group of people (again by double digits, see chart 2 of my cite) without a regular doctor are males aged 20-30, who typically don’t need to see a doctor unless they’re in some kind of accident.