Update - Charles Krauthammer - WP Article - Country is headed to Single Payer

[Reaganfan]

I still cannot understand why healthcare is so difficult.

You need renters insurance? Easy. Go online and buy a plan. One click and it's done. You're covered, they mail you the stuff. Instant insurance.

You need health insurance? You can only get it at certain times during "enrollment periods". You can't get certain plans if your employer doesn't provide it. What if you lose your job? What if you want a plan other than what your employer provides.

There are no options and anything over $100 a month is ridiculous, and I saw a study where most millennials agreed.

And yet you have Paul Ryan getting in front of cameras and wanking off about how "American's don't want a handout, they want the freedom to buy insurance". Asshole, I'm free to buy whatever I want. I just can't afford it.

My question is why can't health insurance be like regular car or renters insurance? What if I want to buy a healthcare plan on July 4th? Or June 1st? Or May 15? Why must I wait for "open enrollment". What the hell is that?

[Virginiá]

My question is why can't health insurance be like regular car or renters insurance? What if I want to buy a healthcare plan on July 4th? Or June 1st? Or May 15? Why must I wait for "open enrollment". What the hell is that?

It is to prevent abuse of the system, so people don't just buy insurance when a problem comes up and they want it paid for. When you include the preexisting condition stuff, that can become a problem.

[Santander]

Tyranny's warm embrace is always tempting.

Weren't you a "wet" on health care the last time we discussed this, like, four days ago?

?

I opposed Ryan's plan because it was just plain bad - the tax credits were a joke and it did not repeal the worst parts of Obamacare (sex-neutral premiums, kids staying on their parents' plan until 26, pre-existing conditions), arbitrarily transferred the penalty from a government fine to a penalty paid to private businesses, and it repealed what is probably the only acceptable part of Obamacare, the Medicaid funding. I would've preferred repealing every single word and replacing it with nothing.

Also, even if the tax credits in the AHCA were designed better, I have reservations about administering the social safety net through the tax system, despite its administrative efficiency. We need to be more open about what are and what are not social redistribution programs (which are sometimes necessary) and not obfuscate and destigmatize them to the point that we can never take them away, like what's basically happened with virtually every entitlement program in every developed country.

[EnglishPete]

What happened to NSV's posts? has he been banned?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Because it is an entitlement, you sociopathic, capitalist creature of the night.

[publicunofficial]

Tyranny's warm embrace is always tempting.

Weren't you a "wet" on health care the last time we discussed this, like, four days ago?

?

I opposed Ryan's plan because it was just plain bad - the tax credits were a joke and it did not repeal the worst parts of Obamacare (sex-neutral premiums, kids staying on their parents' plan until 26, pre-existing conditions) arbitrarily transferred the penalty from a government fine to a penalty paid to private businesses, and it repealed what is probably the only acceptable part of Obamacare, the Medicaid funding. I would've preferred repealing every single word and replacing it with nothing.

Also, even if the tax credits in the AHCA were designed better, I have reservations about administering the social safety net through the tax system, despite its administrative efficiency. We need to be more open about what are and what are not social redistribution programs (which are sometimes necessary) and not obfuscate and destigmatize them to the point that we can never take them away, like what's basically happened with virtually every entitlement program in every developed country.

[EnglishPete]

Tyranny's warm embrace is always tempting.

Weren't you a "wet" on health care the last time we discussed this, like, four days ago?

?

I opposed Ryan's plan because it was just plain bad - the tax credits were a joke and it did not repeal the worst parts of Obamacare (sex-neutral premiums, kids staying on their parents' plan until 26, pre-existing conditions), arbitrarily transferred the penalty from a government fine to a penalty paid to private businesses, and it repealed what is probably the only acceptable part of Obamacare, the Medicaid funding. I would've preferred repealing every single word and replacing it with nothing.

Also, even if the tax credits in the AHCA were designed better, I have reservations about administering the social safety net through the tax system, despite its administrative efficiency. We need to be more open about what are and what are not social redistribution programs (which are sometimes necessary) and not obfuscate and destigmatize them to the point that we can never take them away, like what's basically happened with virtually every entitlement program in every developed country.

On the pre-existing conditions what would be your suggestion. A minority of those with serious pre existing conditions will be able to afford to pay for appropriate treatment. However anyone on the left hand two thirds of the potential earning ability bell curve will be incapable of earning enough to cover this. Some form of public relief for the poor has been around for centuries. Are you suggesting that in the age of modern medicine that this shouldn't cover medicine those in society who've drawn a genetic short straw.

[publicunofficial]

Tyranny's warm embrace is always tempting.

Weren't you a "wet" on health care the last time we discussed this, like, four days ago?

?

I opposed Ryan's plan because it was just plain bad - the tax credits were a joke and it did not repeal the worst parts of Obamacare (sex-neutral premiums, kids staying on their parents' plan until 26, pre-existing conditions), arbitrarily transferred the penalty from a government fine to a penalty paid to private businesses, and it repealed what is probably the only acceptable part of Obamacare, the Medicaid funding. I would've preferred repealing every single word and replacing it with nothing.

Also, even if the tax credits in the AHCA were designed better, I have reservations about administering the social safety net through the tax system, despite its administrative efficiency. We need to be more open about what are and what are not social redistribution programs (which are sometimes necessary) and not obfuscate and destigmatize them to the point that we can never take them away, like what's basically happened with virtually every entitlement program in every developed country.

On the pre-existing conditions what would be your suggestion. A minority of those with serious pre existing conditions will be able to afford to pay for appropriate treatment. However anyone on the left hand two thirds of the potential earning ability bell curve will be incapable of earning enough to cover this. Some form of public relief for the poor has been around for centuries. Are you suggesting that in the age of modern medicine that this shouldn't cover medicine those in society who've drawn a genetic short straw.

Never mind that a lot of American health insurance policies included language that allowed insurance companies to revoke coverage if they decided you had a pre-existing condition that they didn't notice when you first signed up. And that "pre-existing condition" often means "Well, you had an infection three years ago, so no insurance for you".

[EnglishPete]

Tyranny's warm embrace is always tempting.

Weren't you a "wet" on health care the last time we discussed this, like, four days ago?

?

I opposed Ryan's plan because it was just plain bad - the tax credits were a joke and it did not repeal the worst parts of Obamacare (sex-neutral premiums, kids staying on their parents' plan until 26, pre-existing conditions), arbitrarily transferred the penalty from a government fine to a penalty paid to private businesses, and it repealed what is probably the only acceptable part of Obamacare, the Medicaid funding. I would've preferred repealing every single word and replacing it with nothing.

Also, even if the tax credits in the AHCA were designed better, I have reservations about administering the social safety net through the tax system, despite its administrative efficiency. We need to be more open about what are and what are not social redistribution programs (which are sometimes necessary) and not obfuscate and destigmatize them to the point that we can never take them away, like what's basically happened with virtually every entitlement program in every developed country.

On the pre-existing conditions what would be your suggestion. A minority of those with serious pre existing conditions will be able to afford to pay for appropriate treatment. However anyone on the left hand two thirds of the potential earning ability bell curve will be incapable of earning enough to cover this. Some form of public relief for the poor has been around for centuries. Are you suggesting that in the age of modern medicine that this shouldn't cover medicine those in society who've drawn a genetic short straw.

Never mind that a lot of American health insurance policies included language that allowed insurance companies to revoke coverage if they decided you had a pre-existing condition that they didn't notice when you first signed up. And that "pre-existing condition" often means "Well, you had an infection three years ago, so no insurance for you".

Well quite, I'd heard about that. The trouble is having an insurance based system for people for whom such a system just isn't suitable. Libertarian type conservative often seem to think that not being able to afford healthcare is the result of choices, failing to realise how much differences in earning ability are the result not only of luck but also of innate genetic differences in cognitive potentials. The US needs some form of universal healthcare that is more cost effective that the present system.

[EnglishPete]

Tyranny's warm embrace is always tempting.

Weren't you a "wet" on health care the last time we discussed this, like, four days ago?

?

I opposed Ryan's plan because it was just plain bad - the tax credits were a joke and it did not repeal the worst parts of Obamacare (sex-neutral premiums, kids staying on their parents' plan until 26, pre-existing conditions), arbitrarily transferred the penalty from a government fine to a penalty paid to private businesses, and it repealed what is probably the only acceptable part of Obamacare, the Medicaid funding. I would've preferred repealing every single word and replacing it with nothing.

Also, even if the tax credits in the AHCA were designed better, I have reservations about administering the social safety net through the tax system, despite its administrative efficiency. We need to be more open about what are and what are not social redistribution programs (which are sometimes necessary) and not obfuscate and destigmatize them to the point that we can never take them away, like what's basically happened with virtually every entitlement program in every developed country.

As for not destigmatising the idea of universal healthcare being an entitlement so that it can't be taken away what recent events in the House has demonstrated is that



All the polling indicates a large majority of the US public favour government guaranteed universal healthcare. No bill for any healthcare system less universal than the ACA will ever be passed. You can argue against Universal healthcare but you may as well argue against child labour laws or against government funding of grade school education. The only meaningful policy debates being had now on healthcare that might impact future legislation are on how to achieve and run and pay for universal health care.

[publicunofficial]

Libertarian minded conservatives are trying to find a solution that's cost-effective, covers as many people a state possible, AND makes sure the health insurance industry can still turn a profit. I think the best they can hope for is 2/3.

America spends more on it's healthcare system, and Americans pay more privately for healthcare, than almost any other developed nation on earth. Even if the German or Brtish or Canadian systems have their flaws, I don't know how anyone's can argue our system is better.

[EnglishPete]

Libertarian minded conservatives are trying to find a solution that's cost-effective, covers as many people a state possible, AND makes sure the health insurance industry can still turn a profit. I think the best they can hope for is 2/3.

America spends more on it's healthcare system, and Americans pay more privately for healthcare, than almost any other developed nation on earth. Even if the German or Brtish or Canadian systems have their flaws, I don't know how anyone's can argue our system is better.

In the UK  any politician arguing in favour of the US healthcare system would be regarded in the same way as one arguing in favour of having four year olds work sweeping chimneys again. That the US healthcare system, certainly the pre ACA system, is a perfect example of what not to do is totally uncontroversial in the UK.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the worst parts of Obamacare (sex-neutral premiums, kids staying on their parents' plan until 26, pre-existing conditions)

lol, love it.

[Shadows]

Charles Krauthammer has a new article in the WP - (Some key paras) -

Acceptance of its major premise — that no one be denied health care — is more widespread than ever. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan avers that “our goal is to give every American access to quality, affordable health care,” making universality an essential premise of his own reform. A broad national consensus is developing that health care is indeed a right. This is historically new.

And it carries immense implications for the future. It suggests that we may be heading inexorably to a government-run, single-payer system. It’s what Barack Obama once admitted he would have preferred but didn’t think the country was ready for. It may be ready now. As Obamacare continues to unravel, it won’t take much for Democrats to abandon that Rube Goldberg wreckage and go for the simplicity and the universality of Medicare-for-all. Republicans will have one last chance to try to persuade the country to remain with a market-based system.

Don’t be surprised, however, if, in the end, single-payer wins out. Indeed, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Donald Trump, reading the zeitgeist, pulls the greatest 180 since Disraeli “dished the Whigs” in 1867 (by radically expanding the franchise) and joins the single-payer side.

Source - Washington Post

[SoLongAtlas]

I saw this coming before ACA was even passed. It was an incremental step to single payer. It's not a bad thing but in a country like the US, with a huge population and landmass, it's going to be hard to implement short of something like NY's idea of a 4.5% deduction or Medicare for all or something along those lines. The military would also have to be cut to spend for this. Medicaid and Medicare could be combined or eliminated in favor of the new single payer program.