It seems evident that the Democrats (and liberals in general) consider just how many people are covered by a healthcare plan to be the principal measure of its merit. That, for instance, is the chorus against TrumpCare: Why, it just is not as all-inclusive as ObamaCare. Given that this is the measurement used by Democrats (and other liberals) to determine the merit of any healthcare plan, one wonders just why these people do not do a full-court press for UHC. This would, after all, cover every American. Are the Democrats just devoted to incrementalism?
How can you really judge "Trumpcare" when it is really just a nebulas idea, not an actual law. And the main metric is coverage of pre-existing conditions I think for most people - conservative or liberal. We all know just how tenuous health care coverage can be. We all have friends and relatives who have issues with their health. So I'm going to call possible BS on your supposition.
I think your reply misses the point. The central point is this: Since Democrats (and liberals in general) tend to judge the merits of a healthcare plan by the number of people covered, why would they not push for UHC, instead of ObamaCare? (The former would certainly cover more people than the latter.)
pjohns makes a silly baseline of "Democrats (and liberals in general) tend to judge the merits of a healthcare plan by the number of people covered" with no other commentary or requirements. That is an opinion of no merit.
That is a quite disingenuous remark, on your part. Democrats often boast (as if it were the deciding matter) that ObamaCare will cover far more people--around 24 million more, according to the CBO--than TrumpCare would. Just how you can claim, then, that they do not judge the merits of any healthcare plan, according to the number of people covered, I have no idea...
JakeStarkey said: ↑ pjohns makes a silly baseline of "Democrats (and liberals in general) tend to judge the merits of a healthcare plan by the number of people covered" with no other commentary or requirements. That is an opinion of no merit. You shutting up instead of revealing your lack of anything is in your best interest. You have no proof other than your mouth, and that just flaps.
Well, at least I gave a fact to back up my claim. You have given nothing at all--except, of course, your ad hominem attack upon me...
What fact? You opinion of "number of people covered" means nothing. However, I was not polite in my rebuttal, and I apologize for that.
For starters, I certainly appreciate your apology; and I accept it. As for what "the number of people covered" means, I cannot quite understand just why you would say that it means "nothing," since the Democrats frequently use this as the major basis for dismissing any plan set forth by the GOP...
Well, if it is "unsupported"--which may be true (at least partially), since it is mere conjecture--then we have herewith destroyed the Democrats' chief rationale for ObamaCare, as being superior to TrumpCare.
False assumption. The measure of merit of a healthcare plan is does it reduce the percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare. It doesn't matter if a plan pretends to cover more people as the Democrats claim or if if reduces the cost of coverage as the Republicans claim the only measure of effectiveness is the percentage of the GDP spent by the nation on healthcare. Both the Republicans and the Democrats plans just shift the costs around without making any changes to make the system more efficient at delivering results.
From a purely pragmatic position, I suppose that this could be argued. From a principled position, however, it could be argued, instead, that each person is responsible for his (or her) own healthcare; and that the government should not subsidize healthcare, even for the poorest of the poor.
Really? Then explain to me, please, just what you believe the Democrats' chief rationale for ObamaCare to be.
That is a vaid point of view but of course can be extrapolated to any program that aids American citizens. Healthcare, housing, food stamps, public education, pension guarantees, the FDIC, Roth IRA's, unemployment insurance, all income tax deductions, etc, etc. The list is endless and not all benefit only the less successful.
I don't know about other Democrats; I've been calling for Medicare for all for years. My belief is that Dems didn't think this was attainable in 2009.
I agree with your general point (although I do not agree that Roth IRAs are a good example of this; it seems to suggest that the government actually owns the money--that it is just altruistically allowing its citizens to use that money--and that it is therefore being gracious by doing so).
At least you are honest. But I am still trying to guess just why anyone--anyone!--might imagine that most Americans are more deeply opposed to "Medicare for all" than they are to ObamaCare. (I strongly oppose both; but I more strongly oppose the latter. And it is not even close.)
Say again??? I stated just what I believe the Democrats' chief rationale for ObamaCare to be. (And it is based upon their own statements.) You (rather angrily, it seems) disagreed. Now I have asked you to do just exactly what I did: i.e. set forth your own view, in this regard. You have refused (with a little sarcasm thrown in, for good measure). Do you really wish to debate--or just exchange barbs? (Note: I really have no use for the latter.)
Yes, AND misrepresentation of the problem in order to minimize it, thereby discrediting any opposition to Trumpcarekill.
Medicare for All doesn't deal with enough of the problem. It's a good beginning maybe, but how about V.A. for All? What I'm getting at is that Medicare does not address fee-for-service which is a big problem, and so it doesn't address control of doctor's salaries and other costs via their clinics and personal business. My understanding is that, like the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic, the VA doctors work for the VA for a fixed salary with no fee-for-service issues involved. And there are other issues than must be addressed to do a good job of fixing our system.
