In a 2011 CNN/Tea Party Express Republican Debate moderator Wolf Blitzer famously asked prominent libertarian Representative Ron Paul a “hypothetical question” about the soon-to-be-operational Obamacare: What should be done when a 30-year old man decides not to buy health insurance and then requires significant medical intervention that he cannot afford? Paul predictably responded.
The problem with Obamacare being a first step is that the parasitic insurance companies (which contribute nothing to the quality or cost control of health care) and their political enablers, including the Obama administration, have no intention of taking another. Until a single payer system is instituted, many Americans will continue to suffer under the burden of inferior and unaffordable health care.
Of course government provided universal coverage is the way to go, however, as a stop gap ACA is better than what the country had prior to its passage--nothing. Medicaid expansion in Illinois enabled a friend of mine to have his cataracts removed, a good.
I am for universal coverage. I did not defend the present system. I said Medicaid expansion helped. It's a story alright, he lives down the hall, I helped him when he was stumbling around able to see only blurs.
The medicaid expansion is no doubt a good thing for the states that have agreed to do so. Millions in the states that haven't are left to fend for themselves. The ACA's emphasis on keeping private insurance companies in control of our health care system is to blame for this "unforeseen" result.
Also, the individual mandate is cruel. There are many people forced to by private insurance policies that are so restrictive as per deductible amounts and limitations on doctor visits, that they end up with monthly premiums they can't really afford in the first place without actually being able to afford using the insurance they are paying for i.e., expensive procedures that require the deductible be paid first that is not affordable to them.
The ACA was designed by people tied directly to the big insurers, and the individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation. The ACA was designed to kill ANY chance of a national single payer healthcare system ever being instituted. The personal mandate will NEVER be repealed by Congress no matter which side of the duopoly holds the gavel. That you can hang your hat on.
Medicaid was expanded in Illinois, enough said. My friend can see. I am quite aware other states did not expand it and that is too bad.
Sad statement about the stupidity of man and the ability to be short sighted.
The elites must rejoice at hearing such talk as their wealth grows on the backs of the little people like those in the tea party who been have conned into believing the idea of the self made man.
The ones that they don’t need help"till" they do.
The compassionate communist in me says help him. The radical communist in me says let him suffer the ills of neo-liberal capitalism.
We know that if this had not happened to him he would have no sympathy.
But I praise those that reached out to him from the other side, to help someone in need.
"…however, as a stop gap ACA is better than what the country had prior to its passage--nothing."
ACA is NOT a stop gap for millions who are suffering without any access to health care. So, no enough wasn't said, thus my response.
I am not going to argue with you. Several people I know have been helped. Your aggressive tone I find offensive. I have always supported universal coverage. Period. And to imply that I am unaware and uncaring of those not covered is an insult, call me, and you can tell my friend he was better off without Medicaid expansion
I think the Chicken's point might be: should the measure of "better" be "someone I know got what they needed"? If so, should that apply regardless of whether anyone else did? Or the amount of predation involved?
This isn't an attempt to argue with you or put you in the wrong. I'm just trying to understand the metric you're using. Everyone has different metrics -- I'm sure your friend also thinks it's "better", though those who get nothing for the money they pay probably don't.
Are you saying because others didn't get it he shouldn't either? Of course all should get it, that isn't the point.
I find your characterizing my posts in a dishonest way offensive and of an aggressive tone. I've stated quite clearly my thoughts on this and it has not been a personal attack.
The fact remains that millions remain not covered and as such ACA is NOT a stop gap. You can project onto yourself an insult that I wasn't making if you wish.
Your closing line is intellectually dishonest. What have I written that remotely suggests that I would tell your friend that he would be better off without Medicaid expansion?
End of discussion.
Violins play mournfully.
No, I'm not saying anything - I'm just asking you what your personal metric is. Do you have one?
EDIT: I'll tell you what my personal metric is, so that you know I'm not trying to sandbag you: it's better IFF most people can get care who couldn't get it before. About your friend's case, I'd say "I'm happy that it worked out for him". In his case, it's better. But that it's "better for him" (or the other people you mentioned) doesn't make it "better" in general. It's also "better for" the insurance company predators who can buy bigger yachts, but I'm sure you'll agree that "better for them" isn't the same as "better".
The ACA allowed for state expansion of Medicaid, on a state by state basis, Illinois, where I live expanded Medicaid. A friend of mine was able to have his cataracts removed because it was expanded. That is good. I thought throughout this entire discussion that I made it crystal clear that I support universal coverage but it appears that anyone who mentions anything positive about the ACA is attacked as a supporter of it and only it.
You're misunderstanding the objections. I hope my edit, added while you were responding, clarifies that.
Surely you are not saying that because some states did not expand Medicaid the people in Illinois and other states that did are not better off. That is all I am saying.
You have no general metric? It's all based on personal factors?
No, it is based on Medicaid coverage in Illinois. Forget my friend, people who were not covered before the expansion are covered now. About 342,000 more people were covered after the expansion.