U.S. Debt discussion

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

ah, ok, thanks for impressing that on me.

You're just going to be aloof and ignore it I see. Oh well.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You're just going to be aloof and ignore it I see. Oh well.

I'm not sure what it is I'm ignoring, so I must be doing a good job at it.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Admittedly, I haven't been paying proper attention to this issue but isn't the basic structure of "Obama care' taken from Mitt Romney's plan?

A brief history on the law that is now colloquially known as "Obamacare":

Back in the early 1990s, during Bill Clinton's first term, Hillary was put in charge of a task force to fix American healthcare. She was a strong proponent for a universal single-payer system like those used in every other Western democracy, but "Hillarycare" was fiercely opposed by the Republicans in Congress led by Newt Gingrich. The Republicans' compromise on healthcare reform was to propose a market-based approach where every American was mandated to either have employer-provided health insurance or to purchase insurance privately. The reason it had to be mandatory rather than opt-in is because if insurance was optional, nobody would buy it until they became sick and required coverage. Because health insurance would be mandatory for everyone, this proposed system would allow citizens with so-called "pre-existing conditions", who would otherwise be denied coverage because the insurers know they would be unprofitable customers, to have access to health insurance through market exchanges.

Ultimately, the Clintons failed to achieve healthcare reform during Bill's presidency, and the issue fell on the back burner. Several years later, Mitt Romney, then the Republican Governor of Massachusetts, passed a law in his state that basically took the Republican counter-proposal to "Hillarycare" and adopted it at the state level.

When Obama was elected president, reforming healthcare was one of his priorities. Knowing he'd need bi-partisan support from Congress, instead of trying to pass a single-payer universal system favoured by his own party, he instead opted for (what he thought) would be a proposal more acceptable to Republicans. The Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") is almost identical to the Republicans' own proposal for healthcare reform from the 90s that was successfully implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine why the GOP is so hostile to a bill that they themselves once championed as an acceptable alternative to a national universal healthcare system.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine why the GOP is so hostile to a bill that they themselves once championed as an acceptable alternative to a national universal healthcare system.

Presidenting while black.

[chemgear]

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I'm not sure what it is I'm ignoring, so I must be doing a good job at it.

You sarcastically posted a Republican "argument" out of context and are ignoring that it is actually one of the most universal paradigms of any well run organization.

[undercoverbrother]

I am confused.

Is it the idea of universal healthcare that upsets the Republicans or that the Democrats would be the ones successfully implementing it?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most nations with socialized medicine spend less per capita than the US on healthcare?

The problem in the US is the insurance industry and profit driven hospitals that drive the cost of care up. If you are paying $20 for a Tylenol and $50 for a pair of latex gloves, of course universal healthcare will be too expensive.

See chart on post #806.

There is more tax revenue devoted to the US private system per capita than socialized systems in other countries.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You sarcastically posted a Republican "argument" out of context and are ignoring that it is actually one of the most universal paradigms of any well run organization.

OK, thanks again for setting me straight.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am confused.

Is it the idea of universal healthcare that upsets the Republicans or that the Democrats would be the ones successfully implementing it?

Dogmatically (if that's a word?), they would prefer the most "free market" option, which is government mandated participation in a related free market system vs a government controlled one.

[V]

Haha, it's like having a conversation with my 9 year old.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, you certainly shouldn't be spending wastefully if you intend to raise taxes.

Do you disagree?

Of course not, but if you cut absolutely every inefficiency possible, would you support universal healthcare?

In the case of the Tea Party Republicans, I think we can safely say they wouldn't, so that part of the argument really is irrelevant.

[Street Pharmacist]

Getting into universal health care at a time where cost increases are making the current concept look unsustainable at a time where your becoming poorer is a recipe for disaster. It's like losing your job then looking for a rental in Vancouver

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Getting into universal health care at a time where cost increases are making the current concept look unsustainable at a time where your becoming poorer is a recipe for disaster. It's like losing your job then looking for a rental in Vancouver

Despite the fact that data is showing it's cheaper?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Despite the fact that data is showing it's cheaper?

Cheaper yes, but the government isn't paying for it now, so that's kind of irrelevant

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Presidenting while black.

Thats the kicker isn't it? This really isn't about the ACA; it's just an all out anti-Obama crusade.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That is correct, but look at the cheapest healthcare cost per capita in a modern nation and it still isn't even remotely feasible. Obamas compromise was to keep that cost outside the government. Even at Finland's costs (which likely aren't realistic due to burden of disease in the USA being higher) it would add $400B at least. Where do those tax dollars come from?

I believe the US spends about as much per capita on what they already have socialized as some other countries do for full socialization. It's not just the money, it's the inefficiencies of the system and infestation of the system with the lobbyists. The other issue is that Americans don't believe healthcare is a right. They believe it is a privilege

But you are correct. They'd have to cut funding to defense to some degree. But military spending is coming on the radar of the american public. They don't want any more wars and eventually it'll start to trickle down that if you aren't constantly fighting wars you don't need that spending. But that spending is again controlled by special interest groups etc.


But again, this Obamacare spending has ZERO to do with the government funding. Tea Party are basically trying to do push something into this bill that is not related to it. It's pork barelling except they are looking to cut something instead of handing money to friends. Though i imagine they are also doing that.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Cheaper yes, but the government isn't paying for it now, so that's kind of irrelevant

I don't understand your beef then. It's cheaper and will save on costs. Private health care in America is insanely over priced and costing their economy hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending, exactly when would be a good time to address it?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

I don't understand your beef then. It's cheaper and will save on costs. Private health care in America is insanely over priced and costing their economy hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending, exactly when would be a good time to address it?

I don't have a "beef" per se, and it would cost overall less money for the citizens. However, the would become the highest taxed nation in the world to do it. Do you see that happening?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't have a "beef" per se, and it would cost overall less money for the citizens. However, the would become the highest taxed nation in the world to do it. Do you see that happening?

I'm confused, it would cost less but in order to pay for it taxes would go up? Am I missing something?