Rongone wrote:

I agree with The Man. Regardless of whether you agree with his plan or not, he at least has a plan and is not afraid of putting it out there. From my perspective, I'd rather give credit to those who have a plan/vision going forward. I'm tired of these politicians whose only plan is to dismantle, repeal, or reject any new approach and don't have any viable future plan for the benefit of all Americans.

When I hear a candidate say something like: "My first week in office, I will reverse everything done by the current president.", I pretty much turn off my ears.

Just what I want to do . . . Jump in a car with somebody that wants to jam the car into reverse and speed off down the highway. That doesn't sound like the safest, most expeditious plan to get to our destination.

It is sad how LITTLE many people care about substance. 
Politics should NOT be a sideshow. 

 

Last edited by tennyson (1/19/2016 8:51 am)

What about a public option?

I think before we jump on a new plan (either Bernie's universal coverage plan or Hillary's "enhance" the ACA plan (whatever that is) or through creating a public option, we need to take a look back and see what has worked and hasn't worked over the past 16 years. Here's just some brief thoughts of my own....

Pre-ACA

The bad - Difficult for working poor to get insurance if not covered by employer. Denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Caps on coverage. Consistently increasing premiums/co-pays/deductibles. Higher rates for women. Couldn't buy insurance across state lines. Uncovered patients end up passing on costs to the covered

The good - Wide variety of coverage choices. Easier for businesses to manage and afford. Generally affordable if you were in the middle class or rich

Post ACA

The bad: Less choices both in types of coverage and companies to choose from. increased deductibles/copays. Rates increased heavily in a short period of time, stretching the middle class particularly thin. Insane amount of regulations for businesses both large and small. Caused businesses to drop coverage due to cost and complexity. Poor government execution of the implementation. Even the working poor who can get insurance are mostly connected with high deductible "catastrophic" policies that they can't use.

The good: Working poor can afford insurance. Employees without employer covered insurance have an avenue to get covered. No more denial for pre-existing conditions. Parents can keep kids on their policy until they are 26. High risk pools offset future premium increases (maybe). Overall, more people covered than there were before.

Feel free to add to my "good" and "bad" categories for each as I am sure I have missed stuff.

So I guess what we need to figure out before we go implementing any sort of universal coverage is what's not going right about the ACA and will universal coverage fix any of it?

If I remember correctly from the other night, Sanders said there are 27 million still without coverage in the U.S. So let's say we go to universal coverage. Does that improve our overall health care system? How does it integrate with our current doctors and hospitals? Does is give people even less choices for how they're covered that the ACA, or pre-ACA? Can the government execute on the change better than it did with the ACA? How much of the health care system is nationalized? How are doctors, nurses, etc incentivized to work in this new system?

We need to look past just the financial aspect of this because it affects a lot more than just changes to the tax code, right?

It's stuff like that I need to hear from Bernie before I can sign on to his plan.

Sometimes lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.