(11-04-2017 01:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I wish the fact we spent more than others who have universal insurance was pushed more, because it seems like most people arguing against it don't realize that fact. That being said, I would be hesitant to support a Bismark system simply because of the influence those insurance companies could exert in the market and/or legislation. If we took a serious stance on lobbying and political involvement by interests like theirs, or held them accountable when they harmed the general good, I think you'd find those attitudes would change. The Democrats position isn't that "the amazing government who can do everything!", it's more "We have no faith in businesses not trying to screw us over in anyway possible". At least, democratic voters, who knows what either party leadership is truly beholden to.

Well, the way single-payer and single-provider systems spend less is that they don't really provide quality care. They work on a macro basis because they provide decent preventive and maintenance care, and over an entire population that is very cost-beneficial. But they are not with a crap if you are really sick or badly injured. The stats work because that doesn't happen to many people, but that doesn't do you any good if you get sick.

Quote:It sounds like for the Bismark system to work, ultimately #2 will have to be hardcoded into tax law or required, yes? Upping the penalty for not having insurance could help with this problem theoretically though, and wouldn't require too much change I'd think. Just spitballing.

No, not at all about #2. Not sure why you think that. Could you explain?

Upping the penalty might help, but you are really hammering the people who are just above the line for getting a subsidy. That's one reason why I really reject this "help the middle class" democrat argument. It's the middle class that's getting hammered.

Quote:I don't know of anyone, Democrat or Republican, who has put any real effort into learning about the ACA who is thrilled with the legislation in it's entirety. It's deeply flawed, but I am concerned with the way the GOP has beaten this drum about it being the worst thing ever, because I think it makes meaningful changes almost impossible as any positive changes will ultimately result in a more 'socialist' system in that more people will be required to pay into a general insurance fund of some sort. At least, that's my reading.

I don't see providing a baseline of care as socialist. Where it crosses into socialism is when it becomes a system for wealth redistribution. Obamacare is more about wealth redistribution and centralizing control of health care than it is about providing quality, available, and affordable care.

As for Obamacare, I don't really think worst thing ever is much of an overstatement, if any.