Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

No argument here and we as a people and states decided we do not want the Fed govt to compel us to pay for other people's healthcare.

---

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I'm also not sure when the people and the states supposedly made that decision. We have -- and have had for years -- any number of federal government programs that pay or help pay for other people's food, housing, and yes healthcare. The ACA/Obamacare wasn't a new phenomenon in that regard. It just sought improve on the systems already in place -- and I would argue that it succeeded somewhat, albeit in a flawed manner.

Furthermore, to the extent states have their own public healthcare programs, they are largely federally-funded. So saying that under our federalist system they have been left to the states isn't particularly accurate. The largest state-operated public healthcare system -- Medicaid -- receives 57-75% of its funding (depending on the state) from the federal government. Hell, on average 30% of all state income is sourced from federal funds. I would have a lot more intellectual respect for the federalist movement if states weren't so reliant on the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Are you saying the bureaucracy is not subject to the same level of human greed and dishonesty?

---

No, I am not saying that at all. As Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Actually Progressive intellectuals have found ways to value LIFE. Google The Complete Lives System.

---

It's difficult to have an rational, intellectual discussion about healthcare when someone posts something like this. I'm not spewing bullshit talking points from the pro-ACA camp. If you're just going to resuscitate "death panel" fake news then we'll just have to move on.

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmcrawfo

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

---

It's not a constitutional right, but it's like a right...not that type of right...but a right.

So progressive

http://freebeacon.com/issues/gay-nev...s-free-speech/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

So progressive

http://freebeacon.com/issues/gay-nev...s-free-speech/

---

That one's nothing. This Rebecca Tuvel situation is fucking nuts.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ntroversy.html

Starting to warm up here in the Caymans, heading back to Ireland to quaff a few brews for the summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmcrawfo

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

---

bump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Muskie

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I'm also not sure when the people and the states supposedly made that decision. We have -- and have had for years -- any number of federal government programs that pay or help pay for other people's food, housing, and yes healthcare. The ACA/Obamacare wasn't a new phenomenon in that regard. It just sought improve on the systems already in place -- and I would argue that it succeeded somewhat, albeit in a flawed manner.

Furthermore, to the extent states have their own public healthcare programs, they are largely federally-funded. So saying that under our federalist system they have been left to the states isn't particularly accurate. The largest state-operated public healthcare system -- Medicaid -- receives 57-75% of its funding (depending on the state) from the federal government. Hell, on average 30% of all state income is sourced from federal funds. I would have a lot more intellectual respect for the federalist movement if states weren't so reliant on the federal government.

---

Which is why I'm for an amendment if we, as a people, truly want a gov't run healthcare system instead of a bs bill that no one read or understood but passed anyway in the dead of night along party lines (ACA and the AHCA isn't better. Hope Trump vetoes it). I'm excited to see if CA can pass a single payer system and make it work. I'm also glad I don't live there b/c based on history and human nature I know it's going to suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

This is probably my biggest concern with single-payer. I don't want to lose our innovation, but I believe we can structure a system that allows us to keep our edge. I also think the alternative is healthcare becoming almost inaccessible over the next 30-ish years if we don't do something material to reform the system.

Consider the following though:

1 - You don't have to completely remove the profit motive to have a single payer system. You can create a 'Medicare for all' type of approach above which Doctors can charge rates above what single-payer covers. People can pay the difference out of pocket, or even purchase supplemental insurance to cover it if they so choose. This is how many retiree health care programs work in the United States today. Once you are Medicare eligible Medicare becomes your primary insurance and your company's retiree benefits become secondary.

2 - The United states has shown the ability to do some pretty cool things without a direct profit motive. Hell, we got a man on the moon in the 1960's.

---

2. Boeing (along with MDD and one other private company) did quite well developing the Saturn rocket.