>>‘Gains in health coverage’
>But losses in actual care.
I don’t know why more people don’t focus on this aspect. The original problem (according to the Democrats) was that a lot of Americans could not see a doctor; they weren’t getting medical care.
Did the Democrats build more medical schools? No.
Did the Democrats find a way to get more doctors? No.
Did the Democrats find a way to get more nurses? No.
The Democrats did NOTHING to create more actual care.
But they gave people “coverage”. They gave people “insurance”.
That’s redistribution of wealth and nothing but redistribution of wealth. There is no medical component in ObamaCare. It’s not about the actual care, it’s about “coverage”, meaning: money.
No one wanted that. But that’s all that was offered.
Good points, hope Trump is getting them.
Like giving the hungry plates that have pictures of food painted on them... and at the expense of a fund that could have actually procured more food, too!
This is where the liberal (in the original sense) conservative is needed. One who can couch the issue in terms of universally understood canons of caring, and yet does not fall for the image over the substance.
The Dems original claim was that the people without coverage were going to the emergency rooms for care and that’s why health care costs were so high (I WISH we could go back to the era before Obamacare, where medical care costs were soooo much lower than now). They claimed that giving ‘coverage’ to those who were using the emergency rooms (where no one can be turned away) would solve the cost problems. Lying through their teeth as usual. Now, working people who had already been paying for their coverage are paying exponentially more, to cover all those who aren’t working. There was not a case where people weren’t getting care......but the Dems rely on ‘the stupidity of the American voter’ to manipulate the support for most of their wealth redistribution schemes. And the insurance companies were cheerleaders for Obamacare as they were told they would be making boatloads more money when people were REQUIRED to have health insurance.
Medicale treatment is for the masses is of no concern to the government and the Democrats. “Coverage” is the important thing. Coverage gets way more bureaucrats hired and voting Democrat as well as more thoroughly implementing the Democrat totalitarian agenda. Subsidies for the “poor” again makes more Democrat voters by making the recipients of the subsidies zealous to vote for keeping and expanding the subsidies.