Is this a viable bipartisan healthcare plan compromise?
Posts
Total:
15
The problem with bipartisan solutions are that they give Trump a win, which is bad for winning future elections
-->
@n8nrgim
Is this a viable bipartisan healthcare plan compromise?
No.
Now let's read the plan.
-->
@n8nrgim
So in order for democracy to work, a bunch of people who disagree with each other must agree on something?
-->
@Savant
Now let's read the plan.
Hopefully it is not the 10,000+ pages of lobbyist contributions to Obamacare....
-->
@Greyparrot
Obamacare made America a poor third world country.
Americans were apparently stupid enough to believe that they are going to have free healthcare and that no one will pay for it.
-->
@Best.Korea
It made the people who wrote the 10 thousand pages richer.
-->
@Best.Korea
Obamacare made America a poor third world country.Americans were apparently stupid enough to believe that they are going to have free healthcare and that no one will pay for it.
Based on 2023 and early 2024 enrollment data, more than 45 millionpeople are currently enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid expansion coverage under provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the highest total on record.
-->
@Shila
Based on 2023 and early 2024 enrollment data, more than 45 millionpeople are currently enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid expansion coverage under provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the highest total on record.
Thats like saying "I will force people to buy carrots" and then bragging about how people buy more carrots.
-->
@Best.Korea
Based on 2023 and early 2024 enrollment data, more than 45 millionpeople are currently enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid expansion coverage under provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the highest total on record.Thats like saying "I will force people to buy carrots" and then bragging about how people buy more carrots.
Read what it’s says: more than 45 millionpeople are currently enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid expansion coverage under provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the highest total on record.
-->
@Shila
Thats like saying "I will force people to buy carrots" and then bragging about how people buy more carrots.
-->
@Best.Korea
Thats like saying "I will force people to buy carrots" and then bragging about how people buy more carrots.
Buying carrots is not healthcare unless you are a rabbit.
-->
@Shila
Buying carrots is not healthcare unless you are a rabbit.
Forcing people to buy healthcare from government works the same way as forcing people to buy carrots. The result is always that people have less money for other things, and due to no profit mode of work, government healthcare spends more money as costs are not as regulated.
-->
@Best.Korea
Buying carrots is not healthcare unless you are a rabbit.Forcing people to buy healthcare from government works the same way as forcing people to buy carrots. The result is always that people have less money for other things, and due to no profit mode of work, government healthcare spends more money as costs are not as regulated
Obamacare has been functions since Obama left office.
The plan explained from one of the embedded links:
"Most Americans believe that insuring people who cannot afford health-care coverage — assuming it can be done cost effectively without reducing the quality of care — is a proper goal of public policy. Such a goal can indeed be responsibly pursued, if we conceive of it in terms of real insurance. We should aim, in other words, to make catastrophic coverage available to everyone.
Outside of health care, there are almost no forms of insurance that cover small and routine expenses. Auto insurance does not pay for oil changes. Home owner's insurance does not pay for house painting. Rather, both of these forms of insurance protect their beneficiaries from only serious or catastrophic financial losses — from costs involved in, say, a serious car accident or a devastating house fire. If otherwise unaffordable health expenses were covered by insurance, and routine health expenses were treated like normal household expenditures, the entire population would be shielded from devastating losses while an efficient consumer market in health care could emerge.
A sensible and affordable health-insurance system would thus be based on universal catastrophic coverage. The federal government could actually provide it to every one of the 209 million Americans who are not already covered by public insurance, and at a cost far lower than that of the Affordable Care Act.
Catastrophic insurance involves nothing more than a high-deductible policy that covers all, or nearly all, health-care expenses in excess of the deductible amount. For today's uninsured Americans, such coverage would offer vital protections they do not now have. For those who are now insured, it would displace the catastrophic portion of their existing insurance policies — whether employer-provided or individually purchased — thereby reducing the costs of those plans.
To be sure, a high-deductible plan could leave some people with higher out-of-pocket costs than they would like or think they can afford. But nothing in this proposal would preclude employers from providing insurance to supplement the catastrophic-coverage plan supplied by the government. Nor would any individual be prohibited from purchasing supplemental insurance in the private market. The key, however, is that the premiums for such supplemental coverage would no longer receive the tax subsidies provided in our current system. Everyone in the private market, regardless of his circumstances, would receive the same benefit and the same catastrophic coverage. Beyond that, the market would be left to work.
It is impossible to lay out every detail of such a proposal here, but a basic outline is not difficult to sketch. It would involve a publicly funded universal catastrophic-coverage benefit, largely funded by a dedicated per-capita tax. Since the new benefit would reduce each beneficiary's current insurance costs by a like amount, the vast majority of beneficiaries could pay the full amount of the tax out of these savings. Those who are needy would receive subsidies (from a series of revenue sources and savings described below)."