Obamacare was passed by the U.S. Congress and became the Law of the Land. How would you have felt if politicians who voted against the Iraq War worked to sabotage it?(*)
… And, BTW, news that they who “control the White House” “have total power to implement” in the U.S. will come as a surprise to anyone who who has even a tiny clue about U.S. realities.
(* I realize that you denied GOP sobatage of Obamare, despite e.g. Wyoming’s efforts. Again this calls your sense of reality into question.)
That is also not sabotage. The state legislature of Wyoming did not pass the ACA, nor are they under any obligation whatsoever to enforce it or even assist in any way.
Sabotage would involve at the legislative level, making changes to the program to make it function worse, or defunding it. Sabotage at the executive level would involve not implementing it well on purpose. There can be no sabotage at the state level due to the structure of our republic. States can no more sabotage Obamacare than they can sabotage marijuana enforcement.
Interesting, the Catholic Church’s social teaching is that employers have an obligation to pay their workers a living that a business is not just about profits and employees are not just disposable goods. Businesses have a responsibility to the greater community as well.
And unless their primary means of support is the amoral government, they tend to fulfill their community obligations. If you look at the worst corporate criminals, you’ll find billions in government support behind them, thus making it unnecessary for them to build up good will in their communities.
Or nationally. People are generous to those they see. The government tries to impose an unnatural generosity on people, to care for those they cannot see. What ends up happening in such places is that not only does national generosity not happen, but personal generosity tends to dry up to. “It’s not my problem, the government will take care of it!”
Under Obamacare, virtually all payers are private. With the exception of Medicaid, which is only available to the poorest of the poor, there is no government health insurance at all. Please keep up.
The problem is your transparently deceptive claim that private health insurance is superior to Obamacare, when the vast majority of healthcare provided under Obamacare is private health insurance.
My claim was that private insurance was superior to public. I recognize that most people will get private insurance under Obamacare. Or to be more accurate, most people are supposed to retain their private insurance under Obamacare.
The problem is that you’re believing soundbites that are incorrect and outdated.
The states are free to expand or not expand Medicaid within their state. As of a month ago, 24 states are still planning to not expand Medicaid. And in those 26 that do plan to expand Medicaid, almost half of the uninsured still won’t qualify. The new and improved cutoff is 138% of the federal poverty level, or $24,344 for a family of three. I don’t know about where you live, but where I live, a family of three living on $25,000 a year cannot realistically afford private insurance; the $900 a month family of three policy I was just offered through work eats up nearly half that net income. (We don’t yet know what insurance through our exchanges will cost.)
And I’ve seen no sign that Medicare or Medicaid are inferior in terms of patient coverage. Medicaid covers more in eye care and dental than most private policies, and while waiting times tend to be longer for doctors that accept Medicaid, the care once you’re finally in the exam room is excellent and current to best practices. My seniors on Medicare get overly *generous *coverage, IMHO. They see their primary physicians at least once a month, whether they need it or not. They can see any specialist they want whether or not it’s actually needed, they get virtually unlimited home care not covered by many private insurance plans, they get overprescribed tests and labs drawn more often than actually indicated by best practices. The only thing I see that might be described as “inferior” is that the medications doctors tend to prescribe them are older and therefore cheaper - but that also tends to mean they’re safer, as they’ve been through their Phase 4 post marketing trials and not needed to be withdrawn.
Medicare/aid are certainly inferior in terms of timely reimbursement to their providers, but still the majority of physicians favor a true single payer system. What they’d potentially lose in timeliness they’d likely make up in not having to pay so many employees to figure out the convoluted billing of multiple payers.
Plus, I expect that a majority of doctors will support it simply because it provides superior health care. Even in hypercapitalist America I doubt that the majority of doctors are amoral profit machines.
No, I answered the question. You didn’t ask if I would have supported it in a vacuum.
No, I don’t think I have ever expressed that view on this MB in any thread. Certainly not in this one.
You seem to have some weird definition of “support”. Do you “support” the president? Did you vote for him, or did you just “prefer” him to the alternative? IOW, was he your perfect candidate, and if not, then you didn’t “support” him.
I don’t have a team, but if I did, it would be the Democrats. I have rarely voted for Republicans in over a decade.
The difference is you were serious, and mine was supposed to be a hyperbolic comic book version…I was talking about DT after all and associating you with him. Perhaps you see the point now, though to me it was pretty obvious.
Do you know what the word “you” means? Hint: I does not mean “I”.
I am telling that person that if they want UHC, they should legislate for it. I don’t think I’ve expressed the opinion of preferring a European style UHC program over Obamacare on this MB, and if you think that little snippet says that, then we don’t have any reason to continue our discussion.
No, their prices have quite a lot to do with costs, as anyone who knows the first thing about the company can attest. If they ignored the issue of cost they’d bleed money so fast it’d be catastrophic.
Walmart is, to a very large extent, as much a logistics operation as they are a retailer; their objective is to purchase, move and clear inventory at small margins but in enormous quantities. Errors in figuring those margins are hits to the bottom line.
Emphasis added. I don’t think people realize that is the key to WalMart’s enormous success. They revolutionized inventory management in a way that FedEx revolutionized package delivery. People seem to take such creativity in the business world for granted, or they hold it in disdain for some reason.