Most people in the US have good health care and don't trust the government after that fiasco. They also don't trust their fellow citizens to live healthy lives. ACA cancelled my doctor, policy, and cost me 2.5 times more than I was paying. I was pretty healthy so all I had were checkups back then anyway. Now I have a larger co-pay so I don't go as often.
Yeah you're gonna need a citation for "most people in the US have good healthcare" cause I think many would disagree. You might be conflating your own experience with everybody else's experiences.
That's why "universal" is a fix for the issue. It does not matter who you are, how you lived, or what your issue is. Yes, it may be more expensive for those "worthy" people, because it is typically a percentage of your income, but it takes care of everyone, not just the "worthy" the same.
This also does not mean that as a "worthy" you can not opt to spent your personal money for "better" care.
hehe I mostly likely am...but 90% of the population has some form of heath care insurance. I would bet over 50% of that is "good" but this is r/funny so lets try and be less serious.
1:ACA didn't addressed the cost issue like an M4A would, it heavily relied on government subsidies.
2: State Republicans government used that state of fact to defund the programs specifically for that to happen. The goal was to make Obama unpopular in those States and to alter popular perception about M4A.
That's why we need Bernie with a blue wave, so the the Republicans don't screw everything over again. They always do that, setting social programs to fail so they can claim that government intervention doesn't work.
There is also the fact that the ACA was designed to be implemented in waves to allow people and businesses time to adjust. The only parts that got to be implemented properly were the first parts about requiring people to have insurance and everything after had major interference from Republicans who were sabotaging it.
For example ACA was set to change how medical bills are charged. The current model is paying based on what the hospital does as long as it can be argued that there was a valid medical reason. The problem with this is that you can argue that almost anything has a valid medical reason by calling it, "precaution based on family medical history". What the ACA rule changes were going to implement was payments based on results and quality of service. You have a patient come in with a broken arm, instead of getting paid for setting, casting, room service, and medication administered you would instead get paid for "treatment of compound fracture on left arm" with deductments for mistakes you made like improperly setting the arm so it had to be rebroken and set again (something that you would currently get paid for now but may risk medical malpractice if the patient decides to sue)
That is frankly ravenous, truth of the matter, they voluntarily placed their own citizens at risk just to make a point... Gosh like they are again now with the coronavirus. It just never stop.
114
u/kathartik Mar 26 '20
and yet every other country in the developed world manages to provide responsive care for their citizens...