by Sandy » Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:27 pm
Is it really all that complicated?
What's the priority, the needs of people, or the use of pain, and access to medical treatment that saves lives as economic commodities to generate profits? It can't be both. Once the priorities are in place, then developing a workable, and relatively simple plan shouldn't be a problem. The Canadians have one. So do most of the European countries.
The current Republican administration doesn't have a realistic perspective of the ACA, all they seem to want to do is make false statements that pander to their base, and that's probably why they are finding this so complicated. What they promised was to deliver a program that would provide a higher level of health care to everyone, at a much lower cost. And they're going to have to conclude that people aren't as stupid as they think they are, and that most people will be able to tell whether they got better health care, better benefits, and paid less than they do now. If that doesn't happen, and soon, then the Democrats will have another shot at health care reform after the 2018 elections.
Personally, I'm an advocate for a nationalized health care system. The improvements in access to quality care, and from research and development that would result from the increased investment of resources directly into health care would be worth the trouble of making the shift. And I'd certainly be OK accessing the same quality health care that Canadians get, and keeping the 50% more that we currently pay which goes to "administrative costs" and "dividends and profits."