IGX

Why there is such a strong resistance to Obamacare? I would think that universal healthcare cover for the whole population is a good idea, yet it doesn't seem to be accepted by large part of the USA. Not being a US resident I probably don't know something, so I'm just curious: why?

Because lack of access to healthcare is a function of the high cost of healthcare, not the fact that people don't have insurance. The "plan" never addressed the root problem, and only sought to spread the high cost of healthcare over a larger pool of consumers via insurance payments.

Anyone with sense knows that governments are pretty good at building and maintaining roads, and fighting wars. After that, it falls off pretty quick. The idea of the government stepping in and managing and improving this gigantic healthcare system that was built by market forces...LULZ, yeah right.

We all want people to have access to affordable healthcare, but we can't support ignorant solutions that will cause more harm than good.

Smet wrote:Why there is such a strong resistance to Obamacare? I would think that universal healthcare cover for the whole population is a good idea, yet it doesn't seem to be accepted by large part of the USA. Not being a US resident I probably don't know something, so I'm just curious: why?

Many people in the US believe that government tends not to administer large complex programs efficiently. Obamacare has not proven them wrong, and there's no evidence that Obamacare has actually given a net expansion of coverage.

Universal health care could have been done right. Instead we spend 100s of billions yearly on military adventurism and it's corporate sponsors.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Universal health care could have been done right. Instead we spend 100s of billions yearly on military adventurism and it's corporate sponsors.

One has nothing to do with the other. Military 'adventurism' is a short term expense, universal health care is a long term one.

And Obamacare doesn't deliver universal coverage.

Kazuya Mishima wrote: Anyone with sense knows that governments are pretty good at building and maintaining roads, and fighting wars....

I think you are giving to much credit here....

I think it's a massive tax on the middle class and an even more massive job destroyer for low wage workers. It's also bad for doctors. Cost, access, and quality of care for tens of millions have gotten worse. The number of people hurt by this law dwarfs the number of people helped and it will only get worse.

It's astoundingly bad in almost every regard.

Fuck off Turd. If short term you mean since 9/11 and indefinitely into the future

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Fuck off Turd. If short term you mean since 9/11 and indefinitely into the future

Health care spending doesn't follow this pattern (and you should ignore the figures in purple).

Turdacious wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Universal health care could have been done right. Instead we spend 100s of billions yearly on military adventurism and it's corporate sponsors.

One has nothing to do with the other. Military 'adventurism' is a short term expense, universal health care is a long term one.

And Obamacare doesn't deliver universal coverage.

He didn't say Obamacare. He said universal health care done right. One has nothing to do with the other.

Terry B. wrote:He didn't say Obamacare. He said universal health care done right. One has nothing to do with the other.

Fair enough.

Given our persistent episodic bouts with military adventurism, I wouldn't call these "short term" costs. Given that chart, they are considerably more predictable than the market forces which drive them.

Turdacious, down or not, according to your graph military budget is around $500 billion a year for 2.5 million serving troops. This amount of money could cover a lot of healthcare.

Smet wrote:Turdacious, down or not, according to your graph military budget is around $500 billion a year for 2.5 million serving troops. This amount of money could cover a lot of healthcare.

Very true, although whether or not it's worth the tradeoff is a separate question-- keep in mind the US Navy protect your nation's trade security at no cost to you. Hell of a subsidy when you think about it.

Re healthcare:

Obamacare has done nothing substantive to drive down the cost of health care (which is required for effective universal health care), or to deal with the supply problem (too few doctors, and an aging doctor population).

Normal national healthcare is relatively simple on the fiscal side-- Obamacare is much more complicated and difficult to implement effectively.

Obamacare has done nothing substantive to drive down the cost of health care (which is required for effective universal health care)

Let's not pretend this is entirely Obama or Obamacare's fault - "effective universal health care" isn't possible in a country where Fox News is going to terrify old white people with "s-s-s-s-s-s-socialism!!!!" 24/7.

milosz wrote:

Obamacare has done nothing substantive to drive down the cost of health care (which is required for effective universal health care)

Let's not pretend this is entirely Obama or Obamacare's fault - "effective universal health care" isn't possible in a country where Fox News is going to terrify old white people with "s-s-s-s-s-s-socialism!!!!" 24/7.

Retirees don't need Fox News to understand basic health care economics. Decreasing reimbursements for doctors accepting Medicare has consequences.

They'd be out on the streets dying like the seniors of Western Europe?

milosz wrote:They'd be out on the streets dying like the seniors of Western Europe?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Exactly.

Drs in the us need to accept that medicine isn't a license to make money hand over fist. It's a profession.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Exactly.

Drs in the us need to accept that medicine isn't a license to make money hand over fist. It's a profession.

and they're rational professionals. 20% pay cut when you're expenses stay the same is no joke.

Yet Europe has more primary care physicians than we do.

Smet wrote:Why there is such a strong resistance to Obamacare? I would think that universal healthcare cover for the whole population is a good idea, yet it doesn't seem to be accepted by large part of the USA. Not being a US resident I probably don't know something, so I'm just curious: why?

Obamacare, as it was passed, is deeply flawed.

However, the resistance to universal health care is something that is a lot more complicated.

Americans don't like change. The system that is currently in place is terrible but it's the terrible that people know. Very few Americans have spent time outside the US long enough to have experience with real universal health care so they have no reason not to believe that people in Asia are waiting months to see their doctors or that old people in Europe aren't being tossed out in the street when their working days are over. Thus, you have people who would benefit from such a system actually arguing against it.

Perhaps more importantly, the country is also deeply politically divided and there is nothing that the administration could have put out that wouldn't have been attacked. Remember, there wasn't exactly debate on this bill beyond "death panels" and "socialism".

Smet wrote:Why there is such a strong resistance to Obamacare? I would think that universal healthcare cover for the whole population is a good idea, yet it doesn't seem to be accepted by large part of the USA. Not being a US resident I probably don't know something, so I'm just curious: why?

I didn't read the above, but for me this is it.

It's an appealing idea, but funding it will involve answering some difficult questions, especially concering how we're going to pay for it.

The US federal government has a bad track record with this going in - similar programs have been economically disastrous. We have universal coverage for people over 65 (called Medicare) and it's underfunded and a ticking time bomb. Even worse is our government pension program (Social Security) in which case the time bomb has been ticking for years.

The ineptitude and financial un-sound-ness of Obamacare, from what I can gather, dwarfs that of these existing problems.

With health care at about one sixth of our economy, it is not something we can afford to make mistakes with. In our banking crisis a few years ago, we talked about some banks being "too big to fail," meaning if they are allowed to fail the consequences would be disastrous. Well, health care is too big to fuck up.

In short, it's a nice idea, but really it's more likely to end badly.

The problem with that argument is that the pre-Obamacare status quo was even more fucked up in every way. Universal healthcare was off the table, the right has never offered up a potential policy that controlled costs or ensured ready access to healthcare for more people and the status quo was doing a terrible job with costs and care.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:The idea of the government stepping in and managing and improving this gigantic healthcare system that was built by market forces...LULZ, yeah right.

We all want people to have access to affordable healthcare, but we can't support ignorant solutions that will cause more harm than good.

There's a couple of key words in there. First, the market forces have no interest in universal or even affordable healthcare. So depending on them to provide it is risky at best.

Second, do we want everyone to have access to health care? Or affordable health care?

Kind of crossed that bridge when we required hospitals to accept patients pro bono if they can't pay.