This ACA repeal debate is frustrating for me. We are often told of some Republican Senators or Congressman who are principled and just want to the right thing...when it comes to blocking healthcare reform.
However, I must ask, where are the Democrat equivalent of these people?
Are all Democrats equally dense and in lock step to see ACA continue and fail?
That is where it is headed by all indicators. This legislation is unsustainable.
Any attempt by the GOP to repeal and replace it with something better is rejected right away.
Are they just too stubborn to realize that a repeal will save our healthcare system.
The alternative is a single payer system down the road.
One does have to wonder why we aren't hearing of a new plan from Dem's. Surely even the party doesn't think the ACA is sustainable - is it only party politics, an effort to make GOP look bad while the country sinks?
Medicare for ALL!
It's been well known for years that for-profit companies make more money the less they care.
‘Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/%E2% … -new-study
Part of the appeal of Medicare for all is that single-payer systems reduce financial incentives that generate waste and abuse.
" compare the prices charged by competing insurance companies. This asymmetry induces companies to compete by highlighting the lower prices they’re able to offer if they cut costs by degrading the quality of their offerings. For example, it’s common for insurance companies to deny payment for procedures that their policies seem to cover. If policy holders complain loudly enough, they may eventually get reimbursed, but the money companies save by not paying others confers a decisive competitive advantage over rivals that don’t employ this tactic" -
In France, for example, a magnetic resonance imaging exam costs $363, on average, compared with $1,121 in the United States; an appendectomy is $4,463 in France, versus $13,851 in America. These differences stem largely from the fact that single payers — which is to say, governments — are typically able to negotiate more favorable terms with service providers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/upsh … e-act.html
There is some truth to what you say however, where will the breakthrough drugs and technology come from in the single payer model? The reason we have most of them now is the profit incentive. Drug companies spend billions to develop a new drug so that they can make more money... the same goes with these expensive machines that save lives... when the profit motive is reduced, they will most likely not be invented or developed...
Competition in some areas are good for all. The reason we can fly from NY to Beijing for $700 is because of competition. It drive efficiency and better service. The post office on the other hand is a single payer of sort. They run at a deficit year after year and the service stinks.
"where will the breakthrough drugs and technology come from in the single payer model?"
Are you saying that Europe does not have breakthrough drugs?
Are you saying that Europe does not have life saving machines?
Are you saying that healthcare is a choice like flying on a plane?
What you are implying is the height of idiocy if that is what you are saying.
As a society, emotionally we have to pitch in to rebuild wrecked homes. Likewise, when a pregnant woman turns up at a hospital in labor, or a 60-year-old man develops crushing chest pain, we can’t turn away.
The U.S. spends more on healthcare than other countries with similar economic status.
In comparison to adults in the other 10 countries, adults in the United States are sicker and more economically disadvantaged. The 10 countries are Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.
I am not saying it, you are. The notion that people are turned away from emergency help is false and you know it. We have the best healthcare system in the world overall. If some people don't want to buy insurance, it is their choice. If they can't afford it, that is a different story.
This is the second time today I've seen someone say that America is the best in the world at something with absolutely nothing to back it up and suddenly everything is starting to make a lot more sense to me.
Anyway, what evidence do you have to suggest that America has the best overall healthcare system and what factors were analyzed to reach that conclusion?
We have the best healthcare because we have the infrastructure, the hospitals, the advanced machines...MRI and all kinds of instruments, the medicine and prescription drugs that save lives and most importantly, accessibility. We have access to these treatments where in many other countries that have single payer, the treatments are restricted and the wait time is long. That is why, many travel to the US for needed operations...
What we don't have is a forced single payer system. This will kill innovation and investment to develop new drugs which by the way, the rest of the world benefit. When the patents run out, the generics are cheaper and the whole world benefits form our "investments" brought on by free enterprise and risk and rewards...
I wrote an article on American Exceptionalism you might want to check out.
Another data point. We have the highest patents (innovation) per capita...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_I … Indicators
Why is that?
Who invented the iPhone, the PC, the telephone, the search engines, the database, lasers, and a million other technological advancements...?
How about Nobel prizes -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of … by_country
Oh yeah, us Canadians have been waiting for those magical MRI machines for years! We've only heard stories, but they sure do look neat. For now we just wave some fridge magnets over each other and if nothing internally explodes we assume everything is alright. It seems to have been working okay so far but we've been struggling since the great fridge magnet shortage of 2015.
In all seriousness, it might be accessible from a time perspective but not so much from a financial perspective. Walking into a clinic and being able to get an MRI upon request is great... but paying $2,000 for it doesn't really scream "accessible" to me.
Speaking of MRIs, my daughter's specialist wanted to send her for one when she was a baby. She had to wait a few months. Why? Because it was strictly precautionary. Kids who needed the MRI urgently were put at the top of the waiting list and were given one much sooner. It's the same system when you walk into the ER. Sure, ERs here are probably busier because people show up for less when they don't have to pay for it. But you're assessed by a nurse and triaged according to your condition as soon as you walk in. You might have to wait a couple of hours but that means yay, a nurse didn't think you're going to die or get significantly worse in the next couple of hours. And that means yay, someone who does need to be seen immediately gets to be seen immediately. And yay, no one has to worry about taking up a second job to pay for it. People aren't crawling over the border to have their lives saved, people are deciding to head over because they'd rather pay out of pocket than wait. That's their choice. But it's not a crisis and it's not, in my opinion, a major flaw with our system.
I think that the US definitely has things to offer when it comes to healthcare but that does not make the best overall system as you've suggested. It's clear that millions of Americans themselves would strongly disagree with that. It's more than just "look at these innovations we excel at" because that doesn't address affordability and accessibility for normal people day-to-day. Are the innovations and publications great? For sure. Yay, you guys! I won't take that away from you. But a reliable healthcare system relies on so much more than that.
Part of the problem, seems to me, is that Americans demand what Canadians are willing to forego in their chase for lower prices. Things like quick service for non-emergency events, from tests to surgeries.
Couple of years ago my wife went in for a colonoscopy. This test requires a really obnoxious preparation, which she performed. Unfortunately the test could not be performed (there was a blockage they couldn't get past) and they determined she needed a specialized CAT scan - a CAT scan that required the same preparation as the colonoscopy. There was no emergency - she'd been having trouble for several years - but within 30 minutes she was in a hospital having the scan done in the special scanner. 30 minutes later we were in a surgeons office that had the radiologists report on the scan and was offering us a surgical spot less than 48 hours away for major abdominal surgery. For a problem that had been there for years and was certainly no emergency.
This is the service Americans demand, and I don't see it anywhere else in the world. But it's expensive - in our case it wasn't luck that got her into that specialized machine. It was that there were enough of them one could be expected to be free, enough radiologists that one could be expected and enough surgical rooms to expect one free in a short time. That all costs money.
I am not against a single payers system if implemented propoerly. I cite the Taiwan example. They have the best healthcare system by far and it is a single payer system. It was adopted some 30 years ago and now it is mondern, and cheap and everyone is covered...if it could be replicated here in the US without these political influences, I would support it.
The Affordable Care Act is a great first step but it was modeled as a partnership between Federal and State. Currently there is no partnership and it is being undermined by politicians who don't care about their constituents. I would like to see it go further attacking the for profit model. Repealing it would only hurt the most vulnerable and rattle markets.
"Repealing it would only hurt the most vulnerable and rattle markets."
Only hurt the most vulnerable? Would it help those young people required to subsidize the elderly? Would it help those required to pay more in taxes to pay for the useless insurance given the most vulnerable? Seems to me that repealing it would help as many as it would hurt.
Somehow we forget that someone is paying for the ACA, is picking up the tab, and is often (as in the case of young healthy people just starting their life) a real burden to them.
What it will hurt is everyone in America when the system collapses in 2 years. Then, the only solution will be a single payer system that government provides, such as VA, and Medicare, Medicaid...
The post office, HUD, IRS, NSA, FBI, and a host of other federal agencies bureaucrats...
by JAKE Earthshine 3 years ago
Donald and republicans have already done great damage to our HealthCARE System and I actually watched this repugnant bizarre 72 year old orange circus clown on television the other day once again do what he seems to do best and that is LIE through his fake looking teeth again about John McCain...
by TimTurner 13 years ago
Ok so I'm watching CNN this morning and they have 3 Democrats talking about the healthcare plan and how it's going to be great for Americans.They talked about ways they were going to pay for the plan and two of the ways contradict everything about the plan.They want to raise taxes by 40% for...
by scoop 9 years ago
What is the difference between Obamacare and a single-taxpayer healthcare system?What is the difference between Obamacare and a single-taxpayer healthcare system? Are there any similarities between the two?
by pgrundy 14 years ago
...your health insurance?Right now I have enough regular work to leave my day job, and the work I have pays more and is more fun, but I don't know where to get health insurance that won't eat up every cent.Has anyone here solved that problem?
by ahorseback 4 years ago
Italy will care for baby Alfie , And the U.K. will let Alfie die today why ?
by SparklingJewel 10 years ago
This legislation was covertly run through the system over the objections of at least half of the American people. The president justified it by saying that it didn’t raise our taxes. Now the Supreme Court has confirmed that’s exactly what the law does. The entire justification for the law is that...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|