Slavery was outlawed in this country eventually. It took a fucking long time to get to it. I don't expect this will be any different.
Just because something has never worked in the past doesn't mean progress will never be made. There is a difference between working toward something and pure optimism. I'm cynical, but I also recognize that there will never be any change if we give up on changing things because we haven't yet succeeded.
I'm not saying nothing will ever change, I'm just not sure the mechanisms you're proposing are going to function the way you think.
I think the most likely pressure is going to come from millions of new insureds who can't afford their premiums because costs aren't being properly contained as they would be under single payor.
I think the most likely pressure is going to come from millions of new insureds who can't afford their premiums because costs aren't being properly contained as they would be under single payor.
Yup. And then those people will vote.
It would also be great if we could stop this whole "insurance' nonsense for the routine preventative and maintenance care. That's not what insurance is for. That's what health care coverage is for.
The problem, sadly, is going to be managing the blame when people get those bills and get pissed.
While many people who haven't seen a doctor in a decade or more can suddenly get their ingrown toenail fixed, I dunno if they're going to outnumber the millions of young-and-fits who are screaming bloody murder about the new expense without any regard for the social benefit.
Depends on your definition of Winning and losing. In the end, the Too much spending side of the argument lost, and the legislation was passed.
However, you could also view it in the sense that everybody lost, because we fired basically the entire fucking government. Extreme, surely, but we haven't had a shutdown since.
This is why having a queen is useful! If in doubt she can settle all matters.
Jokes a side am I right in reading it, in a very simple form, that the Republicans do not want Obamacare, whish is the ACA? , to pass as it will change how insurcace works making it more afforable and open to everyone. A bit like how the UK NHS works though not the same. Now the bit that I'm having trouble with is this; Firstly how do they justify to their voters that they are doing the right thing by denying people health care?, Secondly how do the poorer repbulican voters who would dirctly beinfit from ACA justify voting against it?
From the persective of someone that has grown up with a national health service, that although not briliant is at least there and has helped me out quite a few times, is that it blows my mind that people would vote against this or even think to oppose it. I can not get my head round the idea that one group of people want to stop another group from living purely so that they can score brownie points.
Also, as im half working and can't get to the news to much, which way has the wind blown are people fore or against it? and how has this affected the way that the dems/reps are viewed?
First: because their brand of economics says that leaving health insurance up to private companies will provide the best and cheapest health insurance, and that people should be allowed to fuck themselves over by choosing to not have health insurance. Even the famed Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek (who they use to justify a lot of things) thought this was stupid, but that's besides the point. Also, most health insurance in the US is provided by employers, so it actually won't affect people THAT much.
Second: Because "Rah Rah American individualism!" It's purely an ideology-driven response that's exacerbated by media entities and PR campaigns: the idea being that if they shout it loud and often enough people will believe it.
As for public response, public opinion of literally everybody in government is dropping, but far-right support is dropping the fastest due to moderate Republicans who see this deadlock as their fault.
But its been shown that its not working and is hurting peoples lives, why then carry on with this? I know Im being a bit niave but surely if this is stairing you in the face you have to face facts and change.
That is really dumb I can not understand that level of stupidity.
The right-leaning media engine has convinced a significant portion of the public and a number of their representatives that the ACA will be worse than the current situation by intentionally misinterpreting the law and throwing out misleading statistics (which say that a few very specific groups of people will probably see their insurance costs increase).
Keep in mind that they're coming from the general rhetorical standpoint that private industry and "rugged individualism" is successful (a standby of American political rhetoric for two centuries at least), while intervention by the government into people's "freedom" is always bad (except when fighting terrorists/helping oppress minorities/etc). From their standpoint, the government doing literally anything is bad, and so by definition the ACA is a "fundamental intrusion into American's lives."
Their opposition is based in ideology, not in the practical benefits/costs of the law itself.
It comes down to the thought that some people seem to have, that they are the only ones working hard, and everybody else is living off them. It gets especially bad when you mix in lingering racism and it can get really nasty.
They focus on perceived leeches that they "support" instead of the fact that these programs can end up helping them, or people they care about.
Because even though most people use insurance to pay for their health care it can be paid for in other ways.
Also because the ACA lowers rates by making people who do not feel they need it buy it. The idea is that if you add millions of people who will pay more in than take out of the system the system will become cheaper for all. No, it becomes cheaper for those who need it but more expensive for those who do not need it because their cost was zero.
Also because the ACA lowers rates by making people who do not feel they need it buy it. The idea is that if you add millions of people who will pay more in than take out of the system the system will become cheaper for all. No, it becomes cheaper for those who need it but more expensive for those who do not need it because their cost was zero.
Except saying somebody doesn't need health insurance is like saying somebody doesn't need to be able to buy food because they're not hungry RIGHT NOW. Everybody needs health insurance, and making it so everybody has health insurance makes costs more predictable and therefore makes costs go down.
But its been shown that its not working and is hurting peoples lives, why then carry on with this? I know Im being a bit niave but surely if this is stairing you in the face you have to face facts and change.
That is really dumb I can not understand that level of stupidity.
It comes down to the thought that some people seem to have, that they are the only ones working hard, and everybody else is living off them. It gets especially bad when you mix in lingering racism and it can get really nasty.
They focus on perceived leeches that they "support" instead of the fact that these programs can end up helping them, or people they care about.
The Koch Brothers and other ultra wealthy have been deliberately nurturing this ideology in the GOP base for decades. They should be tried for treason.
That just seems painfully stupid. I mean how do you spin that to Joe butfuck "hey guy we aren't going to give you and your hoarde of kids affoardable health care so good luck with that, but don't worry 'murica is still strong". Its more worrying that people who do not benifit from this, ie pooer republicans/tea party/mad people, would vote for this with out realising the consiquences of their actions.
The Koch Brothers and other ultra wealthy have been deliberately nurturing this ideology in the GOP base for decades. They should be tried for treason.
Yeppppppppppp + all politicians who allow themselves to be bought out.
That just seems painfully stupid. I mean how do you spin that to Joe butfuck "hey guy we aren't going to give you and your hoarde of kids affoardable health care so good luck with that, but don't worry 'murica is still strong". Its more worrying that people who do not benifit from this, ie pooer republicans/tea party/mad people, would vote for this with out realising the consiquences of their actions.
As it turns out, it can be spun as "The government is forcing you to get health insurance that you weren't paying for before!" and "Now that the government makes businesses give full-time employees health insurance, your job is going to cut your hours and fire you!" and "The ACA is making you subsidize health insurance for the poors! Don't pay for other people's health insurance!" and "Don't let the gubmint tell you what to do!"
Edit: Also "The government is going to set up 'death panels' that are going to deny you medical treatment because it's too expensive and they're going to advise old people to use assisted suicide!"
If someone does not need ANYTHING right now why would they buy it? All insurance is a gamble, you pay $X to someone else and they agree to pay if something happens. All the while you hope that the something never happens.
Everybody does not need health 'insurance' what everyone needs is health care. Health insurance is just a way to pay for it. Should everyone be forced to buy life insurance because one day they will die? What about the person who pays for health insurance bit never uses it because they die healthy? Well healthy until they suddenly die in an accident with a quick end.
If we didn't use insurance companies would the costs be as high? Does the existence of insurance allow costs to increase?
I have been thinking about Roberts opinion on the ACA. Didn't he essentially say that because Congress passed it that made it Constitutional?
Anyway, the ACA was likely the best we were going to get. Hopefully the people pleased that their sick and poor relatives are covered now will outnumber the people pissed off at the unaffordable, compulsory premiums, and we can work on that problem next instead of the country shifting to a majority of people clamoring to undo the whole thing.
Almost forgot, due to the two crappy 'escape' clauses people at the lower economic end (the ones ACA is intended to help) are having their hours capped at 29 so their employer can avoid the fine.
This is where Obama blew it, really. They compromised with people who never voted for the thing anyway. More pressure should have been put on Lieberman somehow. He pretty much singlehandedly destroyed the bill by being a blue dog, as usual. Lieberman is about as close to actual human evil as you can get. He's not mentally ill or deranged or any other of a number of reasons that humans often do terrible things. He's just an evil pile of shit.
True, everybody really just needs health care. But, because health care costs can't be predicted, everybody should always save for health care. Because costs are unpredictable and effectively random, you might wind up in an untenable situation saving on your own - in the case of health care, buying health insurance is basically paying the company to save for you, with the extra benefits that you effectively have enough saved for health care immediately once you start paying, and by distributing the costs the overall price drops significantly.
So no, people don't need health insurance, but from an economic perspective everybody should have health insurance.
So why not make it a tax that everyone pays? It does away with having to pay for insurance and everyone is taxed the same. You are no longer having to pay stonkingly large amounts for stuff and it is equall across the country. It works in the UK and other countries with a national health service, or does this run up against the whole "one man by himself against the world!" ideas. If so that is just dumb and doesn't take the rest of society into account.
So why not make it a tax that everyone pays? It does away with having to pay for insurance and everyone is taxed the same. You are no longer having to pay stonkingly large amounts for stuff and it is equall across the country. It works in the UK and other countries with a national health service, or does this run up against the whole "one man by himself against the world!" ideas. If so that is just dumb and doesn't take the rest of society into account.
We don't do that because our politicians are idiot assholes and because health insurance companies will pay fantastic amounts of money for counter-advertising so that they can continue to exist.
Everyone knows that single payor is the correct solution except for the drooling, slavering GOP base, who have been propagandized to death by the Koch brothers and their ilk to a likely irreparable degree. The debate has been so deliberately and maliciously twisted and tainted that I think it's likely to take generations to untangle.
The ACA is sort of a backdoor attempt at untangling it early. It remains to be seen if it's gonna work.
Comments
Just because something has never worked in the past doesn't mean progress will never be made. There is a difference between working toward something and pure optimism. I'm cynical, but I also recognize that there will never be any change if we give up on changing things because we haven't yet succeeded.
I think the most likely pressure is going to come from millions of new insureds who can't afford their premiums because costs aren't being properly contained as they would be under single payor.
It would also be great if we could stop this whole "insurance' nonsense for the routine preventative and maintenance care. That's not what insurance is for. That's what health care coverage is for.
While many people who haven't seen a doctor in a decade or more can suddenly get their ingrown toenail fixed, I dunno if they're going to outnumber the millions of young-and-fits who are screaming bloody murder about the new expense without any regard for the social benefit.
In the end did the "too much spending" side win or lose?
However, you could also view it in the sense that everybody lost, because we fired basically the entire fucking government. Extreme, surely, but we haven't had a shutdown since.
Jokes a side am I right in reading it, in a very simple form, that the Republicans do not want Obamacare, whish is the ACA? , to pass as it will change how insurcace works making it more afforable and open to everyone. A bit like how the UK NHS works though not the same. Now the bit that I'm having trouble with is this;
Firstly how do they justify to their voters that they are doing the right thing by denying people health care?,
Secondly how do the poorer repbulican voters who would dirctly beinfit from ACA justify voting against it?
From the persective of someone that has grown up with a national health service, that although not briliant is at least there and has helped me out quite a few times, is that it blows my mind that people would vote against this or even think to oppose it. I can not get my head round the idea that one group of people want to stop another group from living purely so that they can score brownie points.
Also, as im half working and can't get to the news to much, which way has the wind blown are people fore or against it? and how has this affected the way that the dems/reps are viewed?
Second: Because "Rah Rah American individualism!" It's purely an ideology-driven response that's exacerbated by media entities and PR campaigns: the idea being that if they shout it loud and often enough people will believe it.
As for public response, public opinion of literally everybody in government is dropping, but far-right support is dropping the fastest due to moderate Republicans who see this deadlock as their fault.
That is really dumb I can not understand that level of stupidity.
Keep in mind that they're coming from the general rhetorical standpoint that private industry and "rugged individualism" is successful (a standby of American political rhetoric for two centuries at least), while intervention by the government into people's "freedom" is always bad (except when fighting terrorists/helping oppress minorities/etc). From their standpoint, the government doing literally anything is bad, and so by definition the ACA is a "fundamental intrusion into American's lives."
Their opposition is based in ideology, not in the practical benefits/costs of the law itself.
They focus on perceived leeches that they "support" instead of the fact that these programs can end up helping them, or people they care about.
Also because the ACA lowers rates by making people who do not feel they need it buy it. The idea is that if you add millions of people who will pay more in than take out of the system the system will become cheaper for all. No, it becomes cheaper for those who need it but more expensive for those who do not need it because their cost was zero.
Besides, are people under the impression that they won't age and need more healthcare when they get older?
Edit: Also "The government is going to set up 'death panels' that are going to deny you medical treatment because it's too expensive and they're going to advise old people to use assisted suicide!"
Everybody does not need health 'insurance' what everyone needs is health care. Health insurance is just a way to pay for it. Should everyone be forced to buy life insurance because one day they will die? What about the person who pays for health insurance bit never uses it because they die healthy? Well healthy until they suddenly die in an accident with a quick end.
If we didn't use insurance companies would the costs be as high? Does the existence of insurance allow costs to increase?
I have been thinking about Roberts opinion on the ACA. Didn't he essentially say that because Congress passed it that made it Constitutional?
Anyway, the ACA was likely the best we were going to get. Hopefully the people pleased that their sick and poor relatives are covered now will outnumber the people pissed off at the unaffordable, compulsory premiums, and we can work on that problem next instead of the country shifting to a majority of people clamoring to undo the whole thing.
So no, people don't need health insurance, but from an economic perspective everybody should have health insurance.
The ACA is sort of a backdoor attempt at untangling it early. It remains to be seen if it's gonna work.