Posted on 12/10/2015 6:58:51 PM PST by MtnClimber
Democrats gained the political muscle to push the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through Congress on three basic arguments.
First, they argued that the United States had too many uninsured people, with estimates ranging from 30 million to 45 million.
Second, the rise in costs for health care outstripped inflation, and the market required an intervention that would bend the cost curve downward.
Third, Democrats claimed that insurance companies made too much profit and shorted most consumers on care, while those with generous health plans - so-called "Cadillac plans" - drove up utilization rates and costs for everyone else.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefiscaltimes.com ...
“We didn’t have everyone covered, so Obamacare came along.”
We don’t pay everyone’s food bill either, and that is more critical than health insurance.
We don’t have everyone covered for their clothing, housing, furnishings, education, or entertainment either.
By your logic, if we don’t have socialism, we will just have to get socialism.
Of course, we will need a oppressive government to enact that, because you will need to constantly take the earnings of those who create wealth to pay for all that - you can’t steal enough up front to foot such bills. Without the incentive of benefiting from the fruits of their efforts, people will just have to be compelled to meet production requirements. Socialist paradise.
It fails to raise the common good every time it is tried. But it does empower and enrich the Party elite. They can get away with murder. And then they can toss away the the no longer useful fools who enabled the concentration of power into the State, for them to hijack.
libertyhealthshare.org
our family is on it. it has been good to us.
No medical care is a highly government controlled segment. Big time government controlled.
If medical care was free like food, that would not be an issue, but the government is big-time involved in medicine. Big time.
Yet we let it become a highly manipulated market. That is why Obamacare took roots - because we let it run out of control.
Government is highly involved in medicine. Big time. It is not an issue to me, that they are now involved in it, to eliminate some of the worst abuses.
Granted Obamacare is not the answer, but a free-for all which leaves Americans to be exploited is what we had, and that is even worse.
You mentioned clothing, housing, furnishings, education and entertainment.
None of those are the same. The only one which is similar is education, because of the regulations involved. Clothing, housing, furnishings and entertainment are all free.
Education is another area we need to reign in prices. But that is another subject. :D
I don’t think they’d like me much. Too many medical issues.
$1300/mo in meds, over $150k in services last year.
The government involvement is the problem. Big time.
Medical care and medical insurance did not used to be government controlled, and it does not have to be. But because it is, prices are no longer controlled by supply and demand. Government has distorted the natural market. That involvement created the worst abuses - prices far higher than could have existed naturally, industrial scale fraud, and bureaucratic overhead that impedes good treatment.
Government is the problem, not the solution.
Just because the socialists have managed to get the government involved in controlling a sector, like medical care or education, does not mean that it must forever be their domain.
When we need to fix the distortions that come from political control over markets, the effective solution is to remove the government control from it - not to give over complete control.
More government = bigger problem.
Cringing Negativism Network wrote:
<<
Just saying.
We didn’t have everyone covered, so Obamacare came along.
If we had everyone covered, it wouldn’t have.
>>
************************************************************
And just how exactly could we have ever accomplished that? Are you insinuating that we should’ve been a single payer system all along?
Well I won’t argue the point that government has a way of ruining things.
Medicine however, is completely 100% something which every American needs.
Everyone.
Having the government involved already, there is nothing wrong with the government saying everyone needs coverage.
If you want to remove government from medicine, you will have a system like most Asian countries for example. I wouldn’t mind that at all.
In America however, the government has become far too involved.
It is corrupting the system, so people can take advantage of Americans to get rich.
That is wrong.
fhayek wrote:
<<
Why isn’t there a political price to be paid by those who foisted this abomination onto the American public? Anyone involved with this monstrosity should be relegated to the outer regions of hell with sharp sticks rammed into their nether regions. Instead, they will be given every opportunity to ‘fix’ the situation.
>>
************************************************************
The truth is, a sizable majority of Dems who forced this monstrosity into law in 2010 have either since retired or been voted out of office. Like good little army ants, they sacrificed their political careers for the “good” of the ultimate goal, which is to force a single payer system down the throat of every American.
“government has a way of ruining things.
Medicine however, is completely 100% something which every American needs.
Everyone.”
I sounds like you are saying that it is OK for government to intervene (and therefor screw things up), if it is something that everyone needs.
Don’t fall for that socialist manipulation - it is an emotional, rhetorical argument, that does not hold up to logical analysis, and leads to disastrous results if implemented.
The opposite is true - the more essential something is, the more we should protect it from political interference.
Government control is LESS effective in meeting the common needs of individuals.
Food is something that everyone needs more than medicine, so is housing and clothing. If you fall for socialist calls for individual needs becoming the primary responsibility of government (rather than individuals themselves), then agriculture and real estate should be nationalized first (or be brought under fascist-style government control through regulation, which is what the American left is really doing).
I disagree.
Food, housing and clothing are all things which can be freely competed for by suppliers.
Medicine is (highly) regulated in America. Big time.
Government has a place here. If medicine were ever to be removed from government regulation I would completely agree with you, but that is so far from even a remote possibility that simply isn’t even pertinent to the discussion.
People need medical care. Everyone needs medical care.
Everyone.
Government is a complete role in this. They just do.
Didn’t the government take over a chicken ranch in Nevada and it went belly up?
The government can’t even manage a brothel, much less a nation.
So your logic seems to be based on three premises:
1. Because people need medical care, government should control it.
2. Because medical care is currently highly regulated by government here, it must be.
3. There is no possibility of freeing up the health care market.
Those are all dangerous assumptions, which ultimately support complete government control over the economy, and the loss of individual freedom, if applied industry by industry (as the power-hungry have always tried to do).
You seem wedded to the idea that medical care is inherently unique somehow, but can identify no logical reason for this.
Everyone needs it, is not unique to medical care.
Government regulation is not inherently unique, it is just the temporary, current state of affairs. It could happen to other industries, it was not always the case for medical care here, and is not inherently the case with medical care in other countries.
There is nothing inherently unique in the health care industry to require government control, except that you are already accustomed to having a heavy government role in it.
Surrendering any industry to permanent state control, once they have succeeded in an encroachment, and denying the possibility of any roll back, will inevitably lead to complete loss of freedom, and dependency on whoever can gain control of the levers of government - because there will always be a profit motive for individuals in government to try to extend their control.
“A promise of compensation for specific potential future losses in exchange for a periodic payment. Insurance is designed to protect the financial well-being of an individual, company or other entity in the case of unexpected loss.”
Periodic payment is monetary or other effort to prepare for the future. Insurance can be in the form of education, savings, investment, car insurance, health insurance, or life insurance. In each case the individual is taking responsibility for his or her future (this also includes the future offspring).
We now find ourselves in a system that is not unlike Rome. Bread and Circuses kept the Roman population engaged. The Intellectual Elite ruled.
Our current entertainment industry is like the Circuses of old, whether daytime television, movies, games or streaming video. They control the message. Remember the Lefts exclamation in the 60’s, “The Media is the Message.”
Our social support system, just like the hand out of bread in ancient Rome, keeps the masses dependent. The Intellectual Elite (graduates of the “best” universities and colleges) rule, and determine what our laws mean, and which ones are enforced. They ignore the original intent of laws and spin them to suit their desire. Anything to reach the ultimate goal of a worldwide socialist government.
On the individual level, when those who do not prepare for the future with an investment in education, effort or insurance,find themselves in need, they turn to government to force those who have prepared to pay for their negligence,(socialism at its basic root).
Hence we have individuals with an equal opportunity to education (K-12 and in some cases two years of free community college), investment opportunities, savings opportunities, and access to insurance. Choice become paramount. Yet by an individual choosing to spend their income on pleasure (cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, gambling, a boat, the newest car, the lottery, the latest fads etc.), the money is not available for the investments, and their future is not insured.
You end up with families and coworkers with the same opportunities, living totally different lifestyles. Past choices make that difference. One is up to their ears in debt, and the other is comfortable and prepared for the future.
The one who is prepared for the future (insurance) did without to prepare for themselves and their prosperity. The others indulged themselves and now need. They look to the government for a hand out. No one should refuse helping someone up, but beware of the hand out. That hand keeps reaching for more.
The Bible is very clear about Christian charity. Those who will not work, will not eat. but at the same time we should take care of the orphans and widows. Notice these are the helpless with no outside support from family. The rest have family. for charity begins at home.
Instant gratification is not an excuse for demanding that those who have prepared for the future, pay for the lack of preparation by those who ignored opportunities. The poorest among us in the USA is rich compared to over 80 percent of the world's population.
Opportunities in the US are tremendous. The problem is that those who would destroy our Republic are intent upon dividing us and making large segments of our population dependent upon the government. They then pit these groups against each other. Big government takes from those who are successful and does so, at the point of a gun.
The future problem is evident to those who study history. Not necessarily ancient, but recent history. As the old Soviet state discovered, all suffered mediocrity under its rule, except for the ruling intelligentsia, who were more equal than others. It limped along until it ran out of money. They turned a nation with vast resources into a limping, suffering, drag on their citizens.
We used to teach children individual responsibility in school. We had and educational system that taught self dependence, rather than dependence on the state.
Those intent upon the destruction of our Republic gravitated to high and higher positions in our institutions, giving preference to with the same goals. The large Ivy league schools were the first to be targeted. Each individual graduate, once indoctrinated, view themselves as part of the future intelligentsia that will rule a socialist state or world government.
They view those outside of their politically correct crowd as ignorant, radical, and as groups to be subdued or used to accomplish their ultimate goal. They break Americans into groups and then pit these groups against each other. They lionize the violent elements in our society and hold them up as victims or heroes.
We must restore our American Republic. Equal treatment under the law, and laws enforced. The public safety must be paramount, but not by making us vulnerable, by removing our Constitutional right to defend ourselves, or speak our minds. Why do you think they spend so much time trying to limit the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution. These are bedrock of our Republic.
R.O.A.R.
Restore our American Republic!
Obamacare Is Now on Life Support
Damn turn it off. Free the country of this evil anti-American.
I am saying medical care is already greatly controlled by government.
As such, the government is obliged to make sure everyone has access to it.
If the government was to get out of controlling healthcare and let the market go to work, then they would have no obligation to control access.
But the government is not ready to get out of controlling healthcare.
So the government, as long as they are greatly controlling who can provide healthcare, is obliged to make sure everyone has access to the same thing.
“I am saying medical care is already greatly controlled by government.
As such, the government is obliged to make sure everyone has access to it.”
That does not follow logically (non sequitur).
It just expresses a desire for government to make the problem disappear (magic). We can wish that the government could make gravity go away, as well as wishing that the cost of illness would disappear.
You are accepting greater government control, and seeking to grant government responsibility for an individual need. You say that government is obliged. Well, government would require great new authority to fulfill that huge responsibility.
It is a great surrender of independence.
It is not in our constitution. It is not the kind of government envisioned in our founding.
It would require a government with overwhelming power over the individual - life and death, when it comes to medical care.
In return for that great cost in liberty, we would get a less effective health care solution - government does not do a good job in providing goods and services in the real world - only in the persuasive speeches that slick politicians give to convince people to give them power.
More government is not going to fix the problem that government itself caused - exploding costs and bureaucratic restrictions bogging down doctors from providing care.
There is no problem with access - walk into a doctor’s office or hospital. The problem is paying for it, just like anything else that individuals need or want.
Get the government out of the business of regulating who can provide what medical care, to whom, and I would agree with you completely.
They will not, however. The government controls American healthcare in a very big way.
So they have an obligation to be sure it is available to all, and frankly they need to bring down the cost.
Too many people are getting rich off of healthcare.
It is not this way in other countries. I believe our system has been badly corrupted by those who should be fixing it.
Since they haven’t, Obamacare came along.
You may not agree with Obamacare, but we did nothing to fix the system before it arrived.
Our healtcare system is badly broken.
Fix it. But do not simply go back to what we had before. It was an incredibly expensive mess.
Fix it. Yes. But I mean fix it.
For everyone.
“You may not agree with Obamacare, but we did nothing to fix the system before it arrived.
Our healtcare system is badly broken.”
What specifically, do you think must be fixed?
I think people who have had ongoing healthcare insurance uninterrupted, either by their employer or otherwise having insurance uninterrupted, should be covered. Ongoing. Regardless of whether their employment means they change healthcare providers.
That is not the way it is now. At least it wasn’t until Obamacare.
If you had insurance with a provider you could encounter an issue which would be covered by the current insurer, but which would not be covered by any future insurer. Which is what I object to.
Once you have insurance, it should be yours. And you should not be dropped from it, if you maintain coverage.
Ever. For any reason. If you get laid off, if your company fires you, if you change to another employer, you should keep your insurance regardless. Forever.
If you maintain coverage. Your insurance should maintain coverage.
That is my big beef, and it was not the case prior to Obamacare.
That is now the case, with Obamacare, and it is the reason I am strongly defending it.
If you’re suggesting we need to “fix” Obamacare I don’t have any reason to oppose that, unless you’re suggesting we return to the previous mess.
I don’t at all support that.
Not at all. If you maintain insurance, you should maintain coverage.
Period.
It should not be dependent upon keeping the same company. Jobs are too uncertain for that.
Especially now, with more jobs being ever sent overseas.
We need to protect ourselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.