- Jun 1, 2003
one of the most idiotic parts of the ACA was a single person with an income below IIRC of $12,000 a year or a couple with less than $24,000 got NO help. so it looks like just another thing the government screwed up.
Hmmm... Seems like you're making the case for Universal Healthcare, I'm on board Bill.
Follow the money, who does anyone think is making all the money off health care? It's the CEO's and shareholders, certainly not the doctors and hospitals that are going under or bought out by corporate interests. Pharma is right in there too. It's about as bad as payday lenders.
Anyone making <12k a year has already been fucked by the "free" market, now you want that same "free" market to dictate their healthcare cost? Get real.with the way the so called ACA was screwed up it sure makes one not wanting the government involved in universal health care. but in another vain with every end of our system as screwed up with huge adimistraion costs dealing with all the insurances and gov regs it is an expensive mess.
What did folks in that situation have before ACA? How does aca make it worse for them? Yes it should address such needs, but with all the fighting and resistence it had getting passed, compromises and limits had to be made. Ive looked at it as a good first step towards more universal coverage.one of the most idiotic parts of the ACA was a single person with an income below IIRC of $12,000 a year or a couple with less than $24,000 got NO help. so it looks like just another thing the government screwed up.
it was Nixon of all peopleIt was actually a GOP proposal from years before Obama appeared.
Taxpayers pay for it one way or another. So lets get universal coverage and be done with it.How are folks getting weeks/months of ICU treatment for COVID-19 if they dont have sufficient/any health insurance?
One of the reasons Obama looked so closely at Canada's model is because it can be more easily mapped onto the existing regulatory & statutory landscape in the USA. Contrary to popular perception our healthcare system is not "publicly provisioned" (hospitals, doctors are not owned/employed by the government), but a publicly regulated fee model. With few exceptions, most all doctors, hospitals, clinics etc.. are privateers (sound familiar?). The fed simply applies the Healthcare Act which provides the statutory protection for access to healthcare, but individual provinces each set out the billable rates for services themselves. Privateers are compensated by the provinces. In effect, our healthcare system is "market based", it's just that the market is publicly rather than privately regulated. This model isn't perfect, of course, but it serves the interests of all but the wealthiest households. So arguments against the model usually take form of "we'd have higher quality services like they do in the USA" made by people who have the means to simply travel to the USA and pay for those services anyway.But the doctors charging $17K for an operation in my situation (FEHB) is only getting maybe $3K. The $17K is charged to cover their and the hospital's butt. That's what happens when things get negotiated. But it's my thinking there needs to be some standard, not what the market will bear. I consider health care a basic right, not for someone to make money from, like it is in the US now. The 'free market' will break us all in that case and the CEO's will go home rich on the backs of the rest of us, just like it's doing now, but I happen to be in a good place (negotiated health care) for the moment. I think everyone should have that benefit.