Seems it would defeat the purpose, as marriage to Lindsey Graham would make the typical person violently I'll.
It really shows how bad things have become that members of congress, who don't even get coverage under the federal employee's FEHB system, but must instead buy at full cost, a plan from the DC ACA exchange, are regarded as having enviously good coverage.
and even the FEHB coverage is not so good. The paycheck deduction for self plus one is about $480 a month. In the old days, any union local would have immediately called for a strike over such a lousy deal.
Uhhh, excuse me, but didn't Congress already exempt themselves from the ACA when it first passed?
Oh yeah, that's right, they did.
And another thing, how is that new plan will cause 22,000,000 people to lose their healthcare when most of the providers have already baled out and the whole system is collapsing?
Oh wait, I forgot. The plan was for it to fail and usher in Single Payer.
Could that be why Trump won? Wait, I forgot, those pesky Russians.
OK, before someone has me blacklisted for trolling, just refute what I posted
Ok, explain to me the difference between universal heath care and single payer and maybe a few thoughts on why single payer would be better than the ACA.
The ACA is not crashing here is what is working and what is not:
The plan we need is Medicare For All. Universal health care isn't a plan, just a statement that everyone should have healthcare. Single payer can mean many things. Medicare for All would be, Medicare extended to everyone. Medicare is a government NOT FOR PROFIT program. Anything else which continues to involve insurance companies is a FOR PROFIT system. For Profit systems are more expensive because the insurance company is the middle man that must be paid from your premiums. Medicare For All would be funded by tax dollars, as it is now. But no middle man, and no premiums, and no deductibles, translate into a lower cost for each of us overall.
The ACA is a for-profit system, that leaves millions of people out. The insurance companies are able to increase premiums and decrease coverage. And as recently shown, it is subject to constant attempts to eliminate it or whittle it away.
Medicare For All is the government guaranteeing to all Americans that they have access to health CARE not access, maybe, to some form of health INSURANCE.
Ok, Universal health IS a health care plan, these countries use it:
"Countries with universal health care include Austria, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom".
Canada uses Single payer. Have you ever compared the three. Use one illness and see how it is treated under all three systems? Ok that is a little more than you might want to know but there are pros and cons you should be aware of before you decide.
If you want a closer look at single payer check out the proposed bill for California.
Funny video. What would be more appropriate here, though, is a video filming a Uniparty Gathering emceed by Insurance CEOs and Big Pharma. Where, to the hymn That Old Rugged Cross 40--50% of the people on Medicaid/Medicare are literally nailed to 3rd Tier medical plans for the rest of their lives. So that the larger issues of progressive tax reform, corporate subsidies, cost containment ( price inflation ) placed on the medical industrial complex, uniform policies which contain medical, dental, vision and wellness provisions that can never be taken away by the political winds and whims, ARE NEVER HONESTLY ADDRESSED.
" The poor, the lame and the sick will be with us, always " is now the social contract too, too many Americans have their signature forged onto at birth. And, will be as long as community wellness, healthcare and elite politicians ( read bought ) are in the same conference room. Unless, of course, the day-to-day conversation is always centered around the folks living in gated mansions and resort-like communities. Who have, at the ready intersting enough, the kind of private security forces and roving patrols more commonly associated with the ones found in Banana Republics or an authoritarian regime like Saudi Arabia. for instance.
With privitize everything freaks, and cold-blooded profiteers ( read lobbyists ) lurking in the shadows, having the only real access to those " deciders " seated at the table. To kind of quote an old national security saying, " if you aren't doing anything wrong , what exactly is it you're trying to hide? " That is exactly the ???s we need answers to regarding this latest healthcare overhaul.
If you look at all those countries you listed as ones with "universal health care" you will see that there are numerous variations in terms of how it is delivered. So, I am correct, in that universal healthcare means all their citizens are covered, but not in exactly the same way.
Canada's system is known as Medicare. This is from the Wikipedia description:
"Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, informally called Medicare, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities. It is guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act of 1984."
So you are playing with words. The important issue is if it is a government NOT FOR PROFIT system, or an insurance company FOR PROFIT system. That is the key to health care as a right, or a paid-for privilege of those who can afford it.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
And it should be noted that all the countries you mention DO provide healthcare as a government service in a NOT FOR PROFIT manner.
The ACA maintains the FOR PROFIT motive of the insurance companies. It was originally a Republican plan, Romneycare, passed in Massachusetts. The insurance companies were A-OK with it.
I did know the history of the ACA and the pros and cons some I'm sure we don't even know about or are mentioned in the article I posted. I agree getting rid of the for profit side of health care would be a great idea but I am concerned about how single payer is being put together here.
What are your objections to the proposed bill?
From what I see, the insurance industry funded Democrats (Rendon, Brown) have put a stop to it's forward momentum.
Ironic, isn't it, that when a Republican governor- Schwartenager- was in power, it twice came to his desk, knowing he would veto it. Now, with a Democratic governor, it will not make it to Jerry Brown's desk because he doesn't want it to be known that the Democrats don't really want to eliminate the insurance companies and guarantee everyone healthcare paid for by their government.
First let me say I have no confidence or trust in government, Republican or Democrat.
The jury is still out on Trump but he's done good on his first SCOTUS pick.
You refer to Medicare for all but it will probably be run like the VA.
I think most Progressives think that all things will remain static but many doctors are baling on Medicare because of the massive regulations and paperwork.
In an ideal world, Single Payer would be a great idea but the problem with it is that it is, again, run by bureaucrats.
Healthcare needs to be between your doctor and patient and concierge medicine in the free market makes that possible. Below is as article of one that is already working. It's a lengthy interview but worth the read.
I'm not sure how Universal Healthcare got into the conversation but here is an article on another co-op that is failing. The ACA and the AHCA both provide insurance and not healthcare. The article above is how medical care can be provided at a reasonable cost.
I'm not concerned about the politics here, it is the bill that I take issue with and if it were up to me I wouldn't sign it either. I don't think you fully realize how it would effect healthcare or how it would be funded. It is incomplete in its current form.
I didn't read the entire interview but I would find this type of care objectionable. Thanks anyway.
The article you site is a bit dated since it's from February of 2016.
Here's one from this week:
The ACA is failing fast and has to be replaced but I'm personally not wild with what the Repubs are offering.
Healthcare needs to be between doctor and patient and not filtered through layers of bureaurocracy
Here's interview with a concierge doctor who is making it work;
I truly don't understand why Progressives have such confidence in the government.
As Lord Acton said: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Why would you find that type of care objectionable? You are dealing directly with the doctor, paying a reasonable rate for your care and you nor he has to deal with the government.
Sorry about posting it twice. I didn't realize it had posted. I thought I deleted it by mistake.