Every other developed country has managed to figure out health insurance. And so far as I know, in none of these countries is the principle controversial — though of course no plan is perfect. Only the US seems to lack the collective intelligence to figure this out.
"Why the Tea types are against the ACA, a windfall for the executives at private insurance companies, seems to be because all the baksheesh is going to Dimmycrats. If only Bush, jr or Romney had put the ACA in place, so the baksheesh was going to people Fox likes, the Tea types would be saying exactly what the Obamabots are saying about the ACA now. :
I’d say that covers it nicely. But anyone who thinks that the insurers won’t aggressively seek out any loopholes which will let them deny coverage hasn’t been paying attention to the way the insurers operate. Medicare policies are up for grabs, for anyone who thinks otherwise, and no, they are not free. You are absolutely right that who supports what is driven by who is getting the backsheesh.
The health care system, and the health insurance system, were failing, bit by bit. Why does some folks refuse to acknowledge that fact? Before the new law was enacted, 49% of Americans had health insurance through their employers (a number that was shrinking every year). 29% got it through the government: medicare, medicaid, the VA, etc. 16% had no health insurance at all. 5% got it on the individual market. (These figure are rounded off, which is why the total is 99% rather than 100%) The ACA has little direct effect on the 78% that make up the first two groups. Though some employers who want to stop providing health insurance to their employees have used it as a excuse. What of the 21% who at least now (when the website is working as well as it does in the best-organized states) will be able to obtain health insurance, can no longer be refused or penalized, and may actually qualify for some help in buying it? Some of them are mad as hell right now because they haven’t been able to buy what is available and on the market because of technical problems. Some are mad as hell because they can no longer keep the coverage they were used to, or find that the nearest equivalent is more expensive. Now the country, and the congress, are faced with an interesting dilemma: no matter what they do, millions of people are going to be unhappy. If they actually dismantle the ACA, that 16% will be back where they started, their hope of protection snatched away from them, or again priced beyond their reach. If they fix the ACA, there are still going to be losers who will find that their health insurance will be more expensive with no added personal benefit (unless they get really sick, perhaps). The real solution is to rethink the entire problem, and come up with something new that will neither shove us back to the failing status quo ante, nor leave us in the apparently unsatisfactory present. No one much is offering any such thing. It is so much easier to throw hissy fits and accusations around. Insurance, any kind of insurance, is at its heart, socialistic. It is always a system whereby the fortunate pay premiums and make no claims, and the unfortunate make claims and reap the benefit. At least when it is at its best. At its worst, it is more like gambling in a casino. You may or may not win, but the house always wins. If people really think it wrong for the fortunate to support the unfortunate, that justice dictates that every man pay his own way, then those people should object to the existence of any kind of insurance as undermining “personal responsibility.” I know some people who actually do think this way. But most are only too happy to play the slots, or join the risk pool, so long as they think they will do better than the next guy. Most of the carping I hear about the ACA (as opposed to complaint about a faulty website) remind me of the old jokes, “The problem with that restaurant is that the food is inedible, and the portions are too small. Nobody wants to go there anymore anyway: the place has gotten too crowded.”
I remember talk back in the 70s about a guaranteed minimum income, through a reverse tax — everyone would file a tax return, and depending on the figures, either you would send in money or else you would receive money. The idea was that the amount would be small, just enough to live on. Personally, I would prefer a different system, one in which the government would be the employer of last resort.
Don Winchester Premium Member over 10 years ago
Wow….even Tom is turning on Obama…it’s worse than we thought!
jnik23260 over 10 years ago
Racist!
CPOChuckG over 10 years ago
tl;dr. (just like congress did before passing ACA)
Enoki over 10 years ago
How’s that hopeless change going now Progressives?
hippogriff over 10 years ago
Enoki: About like its twin, Romneycare, did in its first month in Massachusetts.
lonecat over 10 years ago
Every other developed country has managed to figure out health insurance. And so far as I know, in none of these countries is the principle controversial — though of course no plan is perfect. Only the US seems to lack the collective intelligence to figure this out.
woodwork over 10 years ago
good, martens
Hawthorne over 10 years ago
"Why the Tea types are against the ACA, a windfall for the executives at private insurance companies, seems to be because all the baksheesh is going to Dimmycrats. If only Bush, jr or Romney had put the ACA in place, so the baksheesh was going to people Fox likes, the Tea types would be saying exactly what the Obamabots are saying about the ACA now. :
I’d say that covers it nicely. But anyone who thinks that the insurers won’t aggressively seek out any loopholes which will let them deny coverage hasn’t been paying attention to the way the insurers operate. Medicare policies are up for grabs, for anyone who thinks otherwise, and no, they are not free. You are absolutely right that who supports what is driven by who is getting the backsheesh.
Doughfoot over 10 years ago
The health care system, and the health insurance system, were failing, bit by bit. Why does some folks refuse to acknowledge that fact? Before the new law was enacted, 49% of Americans had health insurance through their employers (a number that was shrinking every year). 29% got it through the government: medicare, medicaid, the VA, etc. 16% had no health insurance at all. 5% got it on the individual market. (These figure are rounded off, which is why the total is 99% rather than 100%) The ACA has little direct effect on the 78% that make up the first two groups. Though some employers who want to stop providing health insurance to their employees have used it as a excuse. What of the 21% who at least now (when the website is working as well as it does in the best-organized states) will be able to obtain health insurance, can no longer be refused or penalized, and may actually qualify for some help in buying it? Some of them are mad as hell right now because they haven’t been able to buy what is available and on the market because of technical problems. Some are mad as hell because they can no longer keep the coverage they were used to, or find that the nearest equivalent is more expensive. Now the country, and the congress, are faced with an interesting dilemma: no matter what they do, millions of people are going to be unhappy. If they actually dismantle the ACA, that 16% will be back where they started, their hope of protection snatched away from them, or again priced beyond their reach. If they fix the ACA, there are still going to be losers who will find that their health insurance will be more expensive with no added personal benefit (unless they get really sick, perhaps). The real solution is to rethink the entire problem, and come up with something new that will neither shove us back to the failing status quo ante, nor leave us in the apparently unsatisfactory present. No one much is offering any such thing. It is so much easier to throw hissy fits and accusations around. Insurance, any kind of insurance, is at its heart, socialistic. It is always a system whereby the fortunate pay premiums and make no claims, and the unfortunate make claims and reap the benefit. At least when it is at its best. At its worst, it is more like gambling in a casino. You may or may not win, but the house always wins. If people really think it wrong for the fortunate to support the unfortunate, that justice dictates that every man pay his own way, then those people should object to the existence of any kind of insurance as undermining “personal responsibility.” I know some people who actually do think this way. But most are only too happy to play the slots, or join the risk pool, so long as they think they will do better than the next guy. Most of the carping I hear about the ACA (as opposed to complaint about a faulty website) remind me of the old jokes, “The problem with that restaurant is that the food is inedible, and the portions are too small. Nobody wants to go there anymore anyway: the place has gotten too crowded.”
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Hmm, I’m reminded, thinking down the road a few years, of all the TEA party folks screaming “Keep the Government out of my Medicare!”
hippogriff over 10 years ago
Ionizer: OK, fraternal twins – one was state, the other national.
lonecat over 10 years ago
I remember talk back in the 70s about a guaranteed minimum income, through a reverse tax — everyone would file a tax return, and depending on the figures, either you would send in money or else you would receive money. The idea was that the amount would be small, just enough to live on. Personally, I would prefer a different system, one in which the government would be the employer of last resort.