Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

Universal healthcare is literally the only thing that would make me consider switching sides from Democrat to Republican.

Please explain why this is a deal-breaker for you?

 

[legacyzero]

Universal healthcare is literally the only thing that would make me consider switching sides from Democrat to Republican.

Wait--- I feel like your post is missing some info. Are you saying you'd switch camps if Dems pushed for Single Payer? Or you'd switch if the GOP supports it??

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Health Care is 1/6th of the modern economy, and trying to tear down private infrastructure and establish public infrastructure all at once would be devastating to it.

Private sector dominance over health care in the US is killing business growth, people, and is a net cost. It's having a devastating impact on the US. They'll have no one to blame but themselves if a sudden transition to heavy regulation or complete destruction via a government-run system occurs.

When the top priority is to exploit millions rather than serve them, then that's what happens. The share of the economy too high and will be brought down to make the US more efficient and competitive. The party is over.

 

[Saganator]

Please explain why this is a deal-breaker for you?

He probably directly benefits from insane health care costs. Sales for big pharma or something

 

[CrunchyFrog]

If Obama had nuked the fillibuster it would have been a very different bill that eventually passed.

The uninsured rate was about halved ( https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-obamacare/ ) and the big issues standing in the way of UHC are two things:

a) the reliance on state medicaid expansion as a delivery mechanism, allowing states to fuck over their own populations

b) the unpopularity of a mandate requiring everyone to buy in (alongside with not having all 50 states on board the expansion to avoid screwing people caught in the middle)

I've begun to less and less understand how people could think health insurance is a choice. Either you pay for it upfront or the taxpayer, still you, ends up paying for it anyway but at an exponentially higher late-stage cost.

 

[TheCochese]

Single payer I think is a good idea. I don't however, want anything to happen that would negatively impact the number of providers, particularly hospitals and primary care doctors.

My wife and I are employed by hospitals, and that's where our healthcare comes from as well. Hospitals start to fail, we're double fucked. Not saying this is a likely scenario, I just don't want it to happen. And yes, unfortunately, more than I want everyone to have healthcare.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Excuses excuses.

I don't live in the US. My knowledge about the system there is basically just from hearing stories and reading articles.
But I know the german system very well and if I compare the two systems I just don't see the necessary foundation in the US for such a system to work.

For example, there is strong governmental oversight necessary in several are of the system. There needs to be consistent political will and know how behind the systems, or the system falls apart. This isn't just a system that can work on a simple majority.
Its a community effort and it starts at the small grassroots (every individual) and goes up to the highest levels of politics, there has to be full support from everybody.

But currently the idea is rather rare in the political establishment in the US.
There aren't experts who could come up with a comprehensive law. European nations look back on decades of experience with universal healthcare system, there are many experts who know exactly how they work, but the US doesn't have people like that.
The know-how has to come from somewhere. No big money interest will do this for us this time, because they don't want it, they'll even fight it every step of the way.

 

[BUNTING1243]

fuck yeah let's do this

run on this and you'll actually win in 2018, dems

 

[MrGerbils]

fuck yeah let's do this

run on this and you'll actually win in 2018, dems

Yes please!

Also this:

a centrist, incrementalist approach to Democratic politics is not the answer as the party seeks to rebuild.

 

[Gallbaro]

Taking this from another I've of my posts. More appropriate here. I would love a NHS system, but we need to transition to it very slowly, 18% of GDP is not something is place price controls on overnight. It's a generational transition.


Unfortunately much of the drivers of costs in the health Care system are the reasons Republicans list (at least 2 presidents ago). Doctors do make too much money, pharma does charge too much, malpractice does award too much, insurance should go across state lines.

But Democrats do not like going after costs, especially in those groups. See Obamacare's failures.

But healthcare does need to be regulated at the federal level and it should not be linked to employment (remove the damn tax break), insurance needs to be hugely simplified through that regulation and wealth should be redistributed to help the poor.

But sane republicans do not like expanding the federal government, which is required in a health Care marketplace where people can traverse state lines.

Now the insane turd monkeys we have now, all populist gas but stock in neutral (thank God), solution is to lunch poor brown people.

The easiest transition for the country would be the Dutch system. Everyone had to buy a single plan (gold equivalent) from a choice of insurance companies. You can buy whatever supplemental you want after that.

 

[aceface]

Unrelated but a former student of mine wrote this article. That's really cool.

 

[Barzul]

Taking this from another I've of my posts. More appropriate here. I would love a NHS system, but we need to transition to it very slowly, 18% of GDP is not something is place price controls on overnight. It's a generational transition.


Unfortunately much of the drivers of costs in the health Care system are the reasons Republicans list (at least 2 presidents ago). Doctors do make too much money, pharma does charge too much, malpractice does award too much, insurance should go across state lines.

But Democrats do not like going after costs, especially in those groups. See Obamacare's failures.

But healthcare does need to be regulated at the federal level and it should not be linked to employment (remove the damn tax break), insurance needs to be hugely simplified through that regulation and wealth should be redistributed to help the poor.

But sane republicans do not like expanding the federal government, which is required in a health Care marketplace where people can traverse state lines.

Now the insane turd monkeys we have now, all populist gas but stock in neutral (thank God), solution is to lunch poor brown people.



The easiest transition for the country would be the Dutch system. Everyone had to buy a single plan (gold equivalent) from a choice of insurance companies. You can buy whatever supplemental you want after that.

You can already sell insurance across state lines. It's an Obamacare provision, insurance companies just choose not to do it because it's more cost effective to specialize in a specific market/state.

http://jamiedupree.blog.palmbeachpo...tate-lines-its-already-legal-under-obamacare/

 

[Gallbaro]

You can already sell insurance across state lines. It's an Obamacare provision, insurance companies just choose not to do it because it's more cost effective to specialize in a specific market/state.

http://jamiedupree.blog.palmbeachpo...tate-lines-its-already-legal-under-obamacare/

Yeah not really, state regs and authority needs to be dropped and a single regulation or on place. After reading that article it is not nearly as simple as you alluded to, requiring regulations that were never written in to coexist with individual state regulations. State regs should disappear.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I feel like the silver lining of the GOP's Obamacare obsession, and all the discussion around it, is that it's bringing healthcare policy to the forefront. Now is a good time for American politicians to embrace universal healthcare