Members banned from this thread: Pragmatist
| || |
"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits – two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received – by the George H.W. Bush administration.
Republicans Were For Obama's Health Insurance Rule Before They Were Against It
Make no mistake: this health care bill will eventually move us towards a single-payer system. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted as much. And President Obamafavors such a system.
Yet here are the specific reasons why single-payer health care does not and will not work:
Problem 1: It inevitably must ration care.
A single-payer system is a “free-for-all system,” where costs are driven up. Patients over-consume health services because they don’t have to pay for them, and, thus, providers must oversupply those services. The only way a government can deal with overconsumption and oversupply is to ration those services through waiting lists.
Republicans & Conservatives: Single-Payer Health Care Does Not Work
MehAnd guess which party the insurance industry funds?
Yep, the Democrats.
Looks like pure speculation on your part. Provide some links to prove it. I've already given you a "Republican" site that says you're wrong.Pretty equally to the Republicans, the dollar amounts match pretty closely.
In other words, the insurance industry is following the same strategy as the rest of corporate America, they donate to both parties, that way they get favors no matter who wins.
Follow the dollars, the numbers don't lie.
Here's a typical entry:
18. Prudential Financial $374,895 R - 50% D - 50%
Trying to blame the 'Pubbies for this is pure partisan drivel.
This is an insurance company issue, and Obama was the one who screwed up by inviting them to the table.
And now you're stuck with the ACA, and so am I.
Republicans love the fetus (Heritage plan with individual mandate; RomneyCare) but hate the baby (ObamaCare based on the Heritage plan with individual mandate).
The topic was the healthcare bill and historical opposition to similar large government programs.
They mentioned Social Security, and this guy basically says (I'll have to paraphrase from memory here) "oh ya, there was a lot of fierce opposition to it but when more people started receiving benefits from it, they liked it more. Then their children were born into it so they just kind of accept it as "normal" and the opposition fades".
That's so disgusting that one would suggest that the government should just ram a program down the people's throats that 50% of them don't want, they'll quit bitching so much when we buy them off, and the kids will fight for it because something is being "taken away" from them. The initial payout seems nice. Like with Social Security it was nice for a couple of generations. It's not going to be for mine and those earlier. As it should be.
Anyway, @Mertex sorry I went off on a tangent a bit, but that pissed me off when I heard it and I hadn't had a chance to bitch about it yet
Last edited by sparsely; 13th July 2012 at 03:04 PM.
Social Security was enacted by the Representatives that were elected and voted on, knowing they'd keep or lose their jobs if they pissed off their constituents. That's what the founders of this nation thought was wise.