ObamaCare ruined primary care medicine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was already going that way. the ACA simply provided a safety net particularly for people with pre-existing conditions who were rejected or exempted coverage in the prior version of health insurance

what we need is single payer/universal- our healthcare system has been horrible since the deregulation of the Reagan era

+1. The ACA is significant but it is not enough. Single payer already like every other modern developed nation.

What is the downside to this, which should be a basic right? That poor people might get healthcare and not suffer because they are poor? Is that it?

Take a look at tax rates in all these modern developed countries and ask if you are willing to pay that.

And in return for those higher taxes:

Medical care is free.
Education (including university and trade school) is free. In fact students get stipends.
6-8 weeks of vacation a year
People can support themselves on one job

There is less income inequality though, so fewer very rich people.

Add childcare to that list as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was already going that way. the ACA simply provided a safety net particularly for people with pre-existing conditions who were rejected or exempted coverage in the prior version of health insurance

what we need is single payer/universal- our healthcare system has been horrible since the deregulation of the Reagan era

+1. The ACA is significant but it is not enough. Single payer already like every other modern developed nation.

What is the downside to this, which should be a basic right? That poor people might get healthcare and not suffer because they are poor? Is that it?

Take a look at tax rates in all these modern developed countries and ask if you are willing to pay that.

And in return for those higher taxes:

Medical care is free.
Education (including university and trade school) is free. In fact students get stipends.
6-8 weeks of vacation a year
People can support themselves on one job

There is less income inequality though, so fewer very rich people.

DP.. the problem with trying to implement this is in the US is that it's too much too quickly. Americans aren't used to the very high tax rates today. They did pay them pre 1960s. But, most people today would balk at such high tax rates. Europeans are used to high tax rates, so it doesn't bother them as much.

IMO, we should start raising taxes bit by bit, and at the same time, expand medicare bit by bit. That is more palatable to most Americans than a quick "rip the band aid" off approach.

Gosh, why won't this stupid dem taking point that "BuT But BUt wE PaID >90% TaX oN tHe uPpER BraCkEt iN tHe 50s!" just die already. What they never tell you when they bring up this stupid talking point is that the tax code was radically different back then too. There were way, wayyyyyy more tax breaks and loopholes back then too that you could drive a truck through. Hardly anyone at that time was paying 90% tax. Reagan got rid of all of the tax breaks and made sure more was taxed while simultaneously reducing tax rates. In the end we got a greatly simplified tax code, which was way better than the 1950s and 60s, but it had no real impacts on total tax revenue as a percent of GDP. In fact, total taxation revenues relative to GDP has remained remarkably consistent in the US for almost 100 years.

The point being, it's such a dumb talking point when the tax rates in the 50s and 60s are brought up. The tax code was wildly different back then too. We still do pay nearly the same level of taxes now as we did back then.

Kennedy lowered rates first. From 90 to 70.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was already going that way. the ACA simply provided a safety net particularly for people with pre-existing conditions who were rejected or exempted coverage in the prior version of health insurance

what we need is single payer/universal- our healthcare system has been horrible since the deregulation of the Reagan era

+1. The ACA is significant but it is not enough. Single payer already like every other modern developed nation.

What is the downside to this, which should be a basic right? That poor people might get healthcare and not suffer because they are poor? Is that it?

Take a look at tax rates in all these modern developed countries and ask if you are willing to pay that.

And in return for those higher taxes:

Medical care is free.
Education (including university and trade school) is free. In fact students get stipends.
6-8 weeks of vacation a year
People can support themselves on one job

There is less income inequality though, so fewer very rich people.

Yeah, and it's also why their economies are trash as well as their salaries and their GDPs are anemic while the US continues to outshine them all in terms of GDP and innovation.

Go lookup the median household incomes in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. where you all think they're a socialist wonderland.

They have absolutely trash wages. And you wonder why France had their Yellow vest riots a little while back? It's because their salaries are absolute garbage and the govt reams them over the coals for 50% taxes. It is crushing families and their abilities to live and raise kids even with all of the perceived benefits. Go lookup the wages in the UK. Absolutely putrid. That's why so many Brits come to the US to work, because they can make double to triple their salary that they get in the UK.

It's hilarious Americans who propose all of this socialist stuff think they'll still be getting the same level of income as they do now. How about you cut your salary in half, then tell me you still like all of this free stuff. Only then are you more comparable to all of the other countries you hold on such a high pedestal.

I guess we have to accept that there just isn't enough of everything to go around. Do you want to live in a place with extreme inequality as long as you have everything you want, or a place with more equality, and everyone has to lower their standard of living? Honestly it's a tough question.

Strangely the people who say they support the latter are also against tariffs, and want open borders to bring in cheap labor. The only exception was Bernie Sanders about 10 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was already going that way. the ACA simply provided a safety net particularly for people with pre-existing conditions who were rejected or exempted coverage in the prior version of health insurance

what we need is single payer/universal- our healthcare system has been horrible since the deregulation of the Reagan era

+1. The ACA is significant but it is not enough. Single payer already like every other modern developed nation.

What is the downside to this, which should be a basic right? That poor people might get healthcare and not suffer because they are poor? Is that it?

Take a look at tax rates in all these modern developed countries and ask if you are willing to pay that.

And in return for those higher taxes:

Medical care is free.
Education (including university and trade school) is free. In fact students get stipends.
6-8 weeks of vacation a year
People can support themselves on one job

There is less income inequality though, so fewer very rich people.

Add childcare to that list as well.

Denmark does this. And country is doing very well. But few obscenely rich people and less immigration to keep wages low for rich people to abuse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was already going that way. the ACA simply provided a safety net particularly for people with pre-existing conditions who were rejected or exempted coverage in the prior version of health insurance

what we need is single payer/universal- our healthcare system has been horrible since the deregulation of the Reagan era

+1. The ACA is significant but it is not enough. Single payer already like every other modern developed nation.

What is the downside to this, which should be a basic right? That poor people might get healthcare and not suffer because they are poor? Is that it?

Take a look at tax rates in all these modern developed countries and ask if you are willing to pay that.

And in return for those higher taxes:

Medical care is free.
Education (including university and trade school) is free. In fact students get stipends.
6-8 weeks of vacation a year
People can support themselves on one job

There is less income inequality though, so fewer very rich people.

Yeah, and it's also why their economies are trash as well as their salaries and their GDPs are anemic while the US continues to outshine them all in terms of GDP and innovation.

Go lookup the median household incomes in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. where you all think they're a socialist wonderland.

They have absolutely trash wages. And you wonder why France had their Yellow vest riots a little while back? It's because their salaries are absolute garbage and the govt reams them over the coals for 50% taxes. It is crushing families and their abilities to live and raise kids even with all of the perceived benefits. Go lookup the wages in the UK. Absolutely putrid. That's why so many Brits come to the US to work, because they can make double to triple their salary that they get in the UK.

It's hilarious Americans who propose all of this socialist stuff think they'll still be getting the same level of income as they do now. How about you cut your salary in half, then tell me you still like all of this free stuff. Only then are you more comparable to all of the other countries you hold on such a high pedestal.

I guess we have to accept that there just isn't enough of everything to go around. Do you want to live in a place with extreme inequality as long as you have everything you want, or a place with more equality, and everyone has to lower their standard of living? Honestly it's a tough question.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine living in an unequal society, because people, no matter how hard you try, will never be equal. People will always be smarter than others. Other people will always work harder than others. Other people accept more risks in life than others like starting a business and get rewarded for more risk appetite.

I sure as hell don't want to live in a society where I bust my ass off in school, bust my ass off in my career l, and bust my ass off improving myself only to have the government mug you for all of it so that they can give it to the lazy bum down the steeet who smokes weed all day and who failed out of high school. Equality will mean when no one is allowed to be exceptional and we are all bottom feeding toilet bowl swimmers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was already going that way. the ACA simply provided a safety net particularly for people with pre-existing conditions who were rejected or exempted coverage in the prior version of health insurance

what we need is single payer/universal- our healthcare system has been horrible since the deregulation of the Reagan era

+1. The ACA is significant but it is not enough. Single payer already like every other modern developed nation.

What is the downside to this, which should be a basic right? That poor people might get healthcare and not suffer because they are poor? Is that it?

Take a look at tax rates in all these modern developed countries and ask if you are willing to pay that.

And in return for those higher taxes:

Medical care is free.
Education (including university and trade school) is free. In fact students get stipends.
6-8 weeks of vacation a year
People can support themselves on one job

There is less income inequality though, so fewer very rich people.

Yeah, and it's also why their economies are trash as well as their salaries and their GDPs are anemic while the US continues to outshine them all in terms of GDP and innovation.

Go lookup the median household incomes in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. where you all think they're a socialist wonderland.

They have absolutely trash wages. And you wonder why France had their Yellow vest riots a little while back? It's because their salaries are absolute garbage and the govt reams them over the coals for 50% taxes. It is crushing families and their abilities to live and raise kids even with all of the perceived benefits. Go lookup the wages in the UK. Absolutely putrid. That's why so many Brits come to the US to work, because they can make double to triple their salary that they get in the UK.

It's hilarious Americans who propose all of this socialist stuff think they'll still be getting the same level of income as they do now. How about you cut your salary in half, then tell me you still like all of this free stuff. Only then are you more comparable to all of the other countries you hold on such a high pedestal.

I guess we have to accept that there just isn't enough of everything to go around. Do you want to live in a place with extreme inequality as long as you have everything you want, or a place with more equality, and everyone has to lower their standard of living? Honestly it's a tough question.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine living in an unequal society, because people, no matter how hard you try, will never be equal. People will always be smarter than others. Other people will always work harder than others. Other people accept more risks in life than others like starting a business and get rewarded for more risk appetite.

I sure as hell don't want to live in a society where I bust my ass off in school, bust my ass off in my career l, and bust my ass off improving myself only to have the government mug you for all of it so that they can give it to the lazy bum down the steeet who smokes weed all day and who failed out of high school. Equality will mean when no one is allowed to be exceptional and we are all bottom feeding toilet bowl swimmers.

While I agree with all that the range of income inequality in the US right now is way too high and beyond our historical normal. Like it or not high rates of income inequality have historically led to instability and lower growth outcomes. It's in everybody's interest to lower the range but that doesn't mean absolute equality where everyone earns the same regardless of skill, training or effort.