Which 2028 Presidential Candidate Would You Vote For?

[scotchtiger]

I don't want to get in the middle of an argument over taxes or derail this thread but you're making suppositions about what might happen, though you may have forgotten that in another thread, I posted a breakdown on the costs vs what you're paying now and it would actually come out cheaper for you. That's all I have to say about it.

I can’t recall if I replied at the time, but I’m not buying that. Estimates are that the government would need an additional $2-3 TRILLION in annual tax revenue to fund universal healthcare. That’s nearly a 50% increase in its total tax revenue today.

That has to come from somewhere, and the source will be heavily concentrated in high earners. Taxing the middle class wouldn’t be popular. As you see in this thread, the prevailing attitude is to tax higher earners because “there aren’t that many of them, who cares” and “they can afford it.” Horrible justification, but not surprising either.

I'm happy to review any materials and reconsider, but it's not like what I pay toward Medicaid, Medicare, etc will go down. And the broader health insurance cost will be shifted from a premium structure largely independent of income to a tax structure highly correlated to income. Insurance isn't meant to be tied to income. I don't pay more for car insurance because I make more than my neighbor. That would be dumb.

I pay well under $1K month in health insurance premiums today. If you can somehow explain how we will generate an additional $2+ trillion without charging people like me >$10K per year, I would love to see the math.

BTW, even with some sort of universal basic coverage, there will still be additional out of pocket costs. Those who want richer coverage will still be purchasing supplemental plans, for example. So it's not like all current healthcare costs go to zero.

The math doesn't math, as they say. Despite the propaganda trying to convince people otherwise.

 

[scotchtiger]

You're assuming the only cost that matters is taxes. The reality is that we already help pay for each other's healthcare. Those with private insurance often pay higher premiums because hospitals have to recover the cost of treating uninsured patients somewhere, and taxpayers already fund Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, and other public programs. The comparison isn't "paying for others" versus "not paying for others." It's whether it's better to do it through today's patchwork of premiums, deductibles, copays, taxes, and cost-shifting—or through a different system that may be more efficient.

Without spending too much time, the general concept will be shifting the cost from that patchwork to taxes, right? Well, taxes are completely based on a % of income and will be progressive, meaning an even higher burden on high earners. This shift will undoubtedly add substantial cost to higher earners. And my health insurance premiums - even inflated to offset uninsured people - are a drop in the bucket compared to taxes. There's just no other way for the math to work.

 

[Aardvark86]

Interesting piece on cnn today suggesting significant numbers favor replacing congress. While I didn’t look at the specifics and that kind of survey can be notoriously inaccurate (people hate congress but love their congressman), the numbers struck me has high.

and in the big picture, I might not have a conceptual problem with that given that for the first time in my life I’ve seen a Congress that doesn’t jealously guard its own prerogatives and doesn’t take the lead on policy. (Though I don’t know that a new one would come with more of a representation rather than party mindset).

 

[Torbee]

Interesting piece on cnn today suggesting significant numbers favor replacing congress. While I didn’t look at the specifics and that kind of survey can be notoriously inaccurate (people hate congress but love their congressman), the numbers struck me has high.

and in the big picture, I might not have a conceptual problem with that given that for the first time in my life I’ve seen a Congress that doesn’t jealously guard its own prerogatives and doesn’t take the lead on policy. (Though I don’t know that a new one would come with more of a representation rather than party mindset).

Replace every current member and put actual real working Americans in their place who view it as a part-time job and not a birthright position with which to enrich themselves? SIGN ME UP.

But we need 3 branches and all 3 need to be a check on each other.

 

[scotchtiger]

COMMUNISTS!!!

According to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation Survey of Employee Health Benefits (2025), the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2025 were $9325 for single coverage and $26,993 for family coverage.

That's money straight out of the employees' pockets. And that's the folks who have employer-sponsored health insurance. What about the family that doesn't? Do you think you're not paying for them now?

Quick question... you're in a car accident and your brand-new Maserati Levante is totaled. You haven't even made the first insurance payment! The other driver has no insurance and no assets worth going after. Who's paying for your car?


Everyone. Because having mentally and socially well-adjusted children... and parents... is good for everyone.


Well, they're in the top 20% and lifting the SS cap wouldn't be a tax hike by percentage. They'd pay the same percentage as the person making half their income. Why should they get a tax cut just because they reached an arbitrary salary level?


You love the "free stuff" you get. It's the "free stuff" that others get that bothers you.

1. Those coverage figures include the employer-paid portion. The employee premium is substantially less (approx. 16-26% per ChatGPT). There will be questions on what happens to that employer-paid portion. Will the employer have to pay a fee to the federal government as an offset? Will everyone get a raise? Will more of the cost be shifted to individual taxpayers? The last one is almost guaranteed.

So the commonly cited $26,993 family premium is not what the employee personally pays. It is the full cost of the insurance plan. On average, employees paid about 26% of the family premium, with employers covering about 74%. For single coverage, employees paid about 16%.

2. I don't understand your car accident question. I have always had car insurance with no lapse period, even for new vehicles. And car insurance isn't based on income, unlike the inevitable tax hike coming to pay for UHC. I'm also not a douchebag, so I don't drive a Maserati Levante.

3. Everyone will pay for family leave? How so? A ton of people barely contribute to the tax base today. If this cost is shifted to taxes, now we're asking a small percentage of people to pay the lion's share of the cost (as we do with everything else financed by taxes). "Everyone" won't be contributing, and certainly not contributing evenly.

4. People exceeding the SS cap then face steep federal income tax rate increases. Their total contributions (SS + federal income tax rate) are still higher than people below the cap. If you want to remove the cap, how about reduce the income tax %s by an equivalent amount?

 

[gohawks50]

Without spending too much time, the general concept will be shifting the cost from that patchwork to taxes, right? Well, taxes are completely based on a % of income and will be progressive, meaning an even higher burden on high earners. This shift will undoubtedly add substantial cost to higher earners. And my health insurance premiums - even inflated to offset uninsured people - are a drop in the bucket compared to taxes. There's just no other way for the math to work.

That may be true for some high earners, depending on how the system is set up. But comparing your insurance premium to your taxes doesn't tell the whole story. We already pay for healthcare in a lot of ways—through premiums, deductibles, copays, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, and even the higher costs that get passed on when uninsured people need treatment. Also, not all taxes are based on income. We all pay things like sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes (directly or through rent), and other taxes regardless of our income. Countries with universal healthcare use different combinations of taxes, not just progressive income taxes. The real question isn't just whether taxes would go up. It's whether we'd spend less overall on healthcare while covering everyone.

 

[scotchtiger]

Not all taxes are based on percentage of income.

That may be true for some high earners, depending on how the system is set up. But comparing your insurance premium to your taxes doesn't tell the whole story. We already pay for healthcare in a lot of ways—through premiums, deductibles, copays, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, and even the higher costs that get passed on when uninsured people need treatment. Also, not all taxes are based on income. We all pay things like sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes (directly or through rent), and other taxes regardless of our income. Countries with universal healthcare use different combinations of taxes, not just progressive income taxes. The real question isn't just whether taxes would go up. It's whether we'd spend less overall on healthcare while covering everyone.

We’re still going to be paying for the people on Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care, etc. And now we’ll just formalize paying for the uninsured. So I don’t see what we’re saving for any of those categories.

Then you are taking employer and employee premiums, which are completely independent of income, and shifting that revenue structure to either income tax (100% based on income) or VAT (as you referenced in EU, and correlated to income).

Anyway you slice it, there will be a dramatic shift in who pays for healthcare. And the already over-taxed group carrying the load for federal tax receipts will bear the brunt of it.

Our focus should be elsewhere. We should be looking for efficiencies in healthcare delivery to drive down costs. Looking for ways to remove administrative costs from hospitals and providers. Shifting premiums from general risk pools to more individually rated based on controllable conditions. Tort and regulatory reform. Better regulation of our ****** food supply. Better nutrition and lifestyle education.

So many ways to improve healthcare and lower costs without trying to institute a massive overhaul like universal healthcare. And this doesn’t even get into wait times, quality and the actual patient experience within this new system.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

The United States government already spends more per capita than other countries that cover all of their citizens. And gets worse outcomes nearly across the board. No politician in ANY of those countries would run on converting their country to a US-style system.​

Government (public) health spending per capita measures the average amount of money a country’s government allocates to health care for each person, including both compulsory and voluntary health financing. Below are the latest available figures (2024 estimates in USD, PPP-adjusted) for selected countries Statista:​

Country	Public Health Spending per Capita (USD)
United States	12,402
Germany	8,079.8
Norway	8,078.8
Netherlands	7,016.8
Luxembourg	6,937.4
Switzerland	6,771
Sweden	6,741.5
Austria	6,408.2
France	6,219.3
Ireland	6,067.8
Denmark	5,899.5
Belgium	5,722
Iceland	5,650.6
United Kingdom	5,345.7
Australia	5,013.5
Canada	5,300.6
Japan	5,526.6
New Zealand	6,096.6
Italy	4,284
Spain	4,020.7
Poland	3,133
Greece	3,607.1
Brazil	2,309.4
Mexico	1,587.7
Costa Rica	1,935.4
Colombia	1,877.3

 

[gohawks50]

We’re still going to be paying for the people on Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care, etc. And now we’ll just formalize paying for the uninsured. So I don’t see what we’re saving for any of those categories.

Then you are taking employer and employee premiums, which are completely independent of income, and shifting that revenue structure to either income tax (100% based on income) or VAT (as you referenced in EU, and correlated to income).

Anyway you slice it, there will be a dramatic shift in who pays for healthcare. And the already over-taxed group carrying the load for federal tax receipts will bear the brunt of it.

Our focus should be elsewhere. We should be looking for efficiencies in healthcare delivery to drive down costs. Looking for ways to remove administrative costs from hospitals and providers. Shifting premiums from general risk pools to more individually rated based on controllable conditions. Tort and regulatory reform. Better regulation of our ****** food supply. Better nutrition and lifestyle education.

So many ways to improve healthcare and lower costs without trying to institute a massive overhaul like universal healthcare. And this doesn’t even get into wait times, quality and the actual patient experience within this new system.

Explain to me how why other countries can provide Universal Healthcare for their entire population at much lower costs than the US currently spends, but it's just not feasible for our country to make a change.

 

[gohawks50]

So many ways to improve healthcare and lower costs without trying to institute a massive overhaul like universal healthcare. And this doesn’t even get into wait times, quality and the actual patient experience within this new system.

Country	Universal?	Spending​	Wait Times	Overall Health Outcomes
United States	No	Highest​	Mixed (often faster for specialists/elective care, but access depends on insurance)	Below most peers
Canada	Yes	Much lower​	Longer	Better overall
United Kingdom	Yes	Much lower​	Longer	Better overall
Germany	Yes	Lower​	Generally shorter than Canada/UK	Better overall
Netherlands	Yes	Lower​	Generally good	Better overall
France	Yes	Lower​	Generally good	Better overall

Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System

Mirror, Mirror 2024 compares the health systems of 10 countries on five domains: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and outcomes.

www.commonwealthfund.org

 

[Rifler]

Explain to me how why other countries can provide Universal Healthcare for their entire population at much lower costs than the US currently spends, but it's just not feasible for our country to make a change.

For starters, the level of care available in the US exceeds that provided by most of these "other countries"....

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

For starters, the level of care available in the US exceeds that provided by most of these "other countries"....

Not when they have secondary insurance available. Germany and other markets have a public insurance that covers the basics and anything catastrophic. But many buy up into private supplemental plans that provide faster access, support for elective procedures, etc.

I used to be against public health insurance, then I traveled the world and realized we are being fed a load of BS from vested interests that profit from the status quo and who use their leverage to make sure the free market dynamic isn’t realistic.

There are better models than ours. The outcome data is very clear on this point.

 

[fskillet]

For starters, the level of care available in the US exceeds that provided by most of these "other countries"....

Cite?

 

[baltimorened]

I can’t recall if I replied at the time, but I’m not buying that. Estimates are that the government would need an additional $2-3 TRILLION in annual tax revenue to fund universal healthcare. That’s nearly a 50% increase in its total tax revenue today.

That has to come from somewhere, and the source will be heavily concentrated in high earners. Taxing the middle class wouldn’t be popular. As you see in this thread, the prevailing attitude is to tax higher earners because “there aren’t that many of them, who cares” and “they can afford it.” Horrible justification, but not surprising either.

I'm happy to review any materials and reconsider, but it's not like what I pay toward Medicaid, Medicare, etc will go down. And the broader health insurance cost will be shifted from a premium structure largely independent of income to a tax structure highly correlated to income. Insurance isn't meant to be tied to income. I don't pay more for car insurance because I make more than my neighbor. That would be dumb.

I pay well under $1K month in health insurance premiums today. If you can somehow explain how we will generate an additional $2+ trillion without charging people like me >$10K per year, I would love to see the math.

BTW, even with some sort of universal basic coverage, there will still be additional out of pocket costs. Those who want richer coverage will still be purchasing supplemental plans, for example. So it's not like all current healthcare costs go to zero.

The math doesn't math, as they say. Despite the propaganda trying to convince people otherwise.

here's a back of the envelope analysis...we currently take in about $5.3 trillion in annual tax revenue. We currently spend about $5.3 trillion on healthcare in the US. If anyone thinks they're not going to pay more in taxes, I honestly don't know how.

 

[gohawks50]

For starters, the level of care available in the US exceeds that provided by most of these "other countries"....

Not true. Our outcomes are worse than our peers. Check out the charts in this article:

Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System

Mirror, Mirror 2024 compares the health systems of 10 countries on five domains: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and outcomes.

www.commonwealthfund.org

 

[baltimorened]

Not true. Our outcomes are worse than our peers. Check out the charts in this article:

Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System

Mirror, Mirror 2024 compares the health systems of 10 countries on five domains: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and outcomes.

www.commonwealthfund.org

everyone agrees (or should) that our health system is not perfect. And, my opinion might be in the minority, but looking at the factors the ones most important seem to me to be access to care, care process, and health outcomes. I have to admit when I have a health problem, the system"s administrative efficiency and equity play little if any role.

I seldom talk to an administrator other than to check in or out, and it's against the law to discriminate.

I just have this thing in my mind that one of the main purposes of the ACA was to make access to care available to everyone who didn't have insurance. That was passed 16 years ago. Today we still have an estimated 28 million uninsured. So access is universal here, but you have to pay for it. Folks in other countries have access and they pay for in ways not as direct as here. I know there are multiple reasons why people chose not to buy healthcare, so no need to call me unchristian, heartless, selfish or whatever.

 

[gohawks50]

everyone agrees (or should) that our health system is not perfect. And, my opinion might be in the minority, but looking at the factors the ones most important seem to me to be access to care, care process, and health outcomes. I have to admit when I have a health problem, the system"s administrative efficiency and equity play little if any role.

I seldom talk to an administrator other than to check in or out, and it's against the law to discriminate.

I just have this thing in my mind that one of the main purposes of the ACA was to make access to care available to everyone who didn't have insurance. That was passed 16 years ago. Today we still have an estimated 28 million uninsured. So access is universal here, but you have to pay for it. Folks in other countries have access and they pay for in ways not as direct as here. I know there are multiple reasons why people chose not to buy healthcare, so no need to call me unchristian, heartless, selfish or whatever.

I agree the ACA didn't achieve universal coverage, and there are lots of reasons people remain uninsured. But I also don't think it's fair to judge it as if it had been left alone for the past 16 years. Instead of working together to improve it, many Republicans spent years trying to repeal and replace it. When repeal failed, they eliminated the individual mandate penalty, cut enrollment outreach, and made other changes that many experts say weakened the law. And after all those years of promising a replacement, we were still hearing about "concepts of a plan" rather than a fully developed alternative. It's hard to know what the ACA might look like today if the focus had been on fixing its weaknesses instead of trying to get rid of it.

 

[Rifler]

Not when they have secondary insurance available. Germany and other markets have a public insurance that covers the basics and anything catastrophic. But many buy up into private supplemental plans that provide faster access, support for elective procedures, etc.

I used to be against public health insurance, then I traveled the world and realized we are being fed a load of BS from vested interests that profit from the status quo and who use their leverage to make sure the free market dynamic isn’t realistic.

There are better models than ours. The outcome data is very clear on this point.

And I've long been in favor of that type of two tiered system that you are referencing with Germany,... But straight out 100% total government provided healthcare is not the answer.

 

[Rifler]

Not true. Our outcomes are worse than our peers. Check out the charts in this article:

Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System

Mirror, Mirror 2024 compares the health systems of 10 countries on five domains: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and outcomes.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Outcomes are not services,.. Two different measurements.

 

[baltimorened]

And I've long been in favor of that type of two tiered system that you are referencing with Germany,... But straight out 100% total government provided healthcare is not the answer.

if I recall correctly, some insurance companies wanted to offer a catastrophic only insurance plan, but the ACA prevented that. For younger people that type plan might be beneficiail

 

[gohawks50]

Outcomes are not services,.. Two different measurements.

True, but what good do more services do if we still have worse outcomes?

 

[Rifler]

if I recall correctly, some insurance companies wanted to offer a catastrophic only insurance plan, but the ACA prevented that. For younger people that type plan might be beneficiail

One of the bigger problems with the ACA was the way it attempted to dictate and predefine acceptable levels of coverage,.. People were being herded towards plans that contained coverage that they didn't want or need...

 

[Rifler]

True, but what good do more services do if we still have worse outcomes?

Depends on how you measure outcomes,.. Do end of life services costing millions of dollars but ultimately resulting in a deceased patient represent a bad outcome?,... In another system that patient likely gets channeled into hospice care, minimal dollars are spent, and the medical outcome isn't even measured, because it's understood to simply be part of the cycle of life...

 

[gohawks50]

if I recall correctly, some insurance companies wanted to offer a catastrophic only insurance plan, but the ACA prevented that. For younger people that type plan might be beneficiail

One of the bigger problems with the ACA was the way it attempted to dictate and predefine acceptable levels of coverage,.. People were being herded towards plans that contained coverage that they didn't want or need...

That's true the ACA limited catastrophic-only plans for most adults. The reason was that insurance works better when both healthy and less healthy people are in the same insurance pool.

I saw this firsthand when I was teaching. Our school had an older staff with a lot of health problems, and we didn't have enough younger, healthier employees in our insurance plan. Our premiums went up faster than those at nearby school districts that were about the same size but had younger staffs. That's what happens when the insurance pool gets too unhealthy.

The ACA was trying to prevent that on a national level. If a lot of younger, healthier people buy bare-bones plans while older or sicker people stay in the full coverage plans, the cost of those plans keeps going up because they're covering a less healthy group of people. The idea was to spread the risk over as many people as possible to help keep premiums from rising so quickly.

 

[gohawks50]

Depends on how you measure outcomes,.. Do end of life services costing millions of dollars but ultimately resulting in a deceased patient represent a bad outcome?,... In another system that patient likely gets channeled into hospice care, minimal dollars are spent, and the medical outcome isn't even measured, because it's understood to simply be part of the cycle of life...

That's a fair point, and I agree that end-of-life care is part of why healthcare costs so much in the U.S. But that's not what the report I shared is measuring. It looks at things like how long people live, how many deaths could have been prevented, and how often people die from conditions that should have been treatable with good medical care. In other words, it's looking at overall health, not just what happens in the last few months of someone's life. End-of-life care may help explain why we spend more, but it doesn't explain why we still have worse overall health outcomes than many other countries that spend much less.

 

[Rifler]

That's a fair point, and I agree that end-of-life care is part of why healthcare costs so much in the U.S. But that's not what the report I shared is measuring. It looks at things like how long people live, how many deaths could have been prevented, and how often people die from conditions that should have been treatable with good medical care. In other words, it's looking at overall health, not just what happens in the last few months of someone's life. End-of-life care may help explain why we spend more, but it doesn't explain why we still have worse overall health outcomes than many other countries that spend much less.

Just based on personal experience I've always questioned the accuracy of that "worse outcomes" tag,... Neither I nor anyone I personally know of has ever experienced what I would classify as a "bad healthcare outcome",.. I have long suspected that stat to be tainted by the very large number of unhealthy people scattered throughout our population.

 

[gohawks50]

Just based on personal experience I've always questioned the accuracy of that "worse outcomes" tag,... Neither I nor anyone I personally know of has ever experienced what I would classify as a "bad healthcare outcome",.. I have long suspected that stat to be tainted by the very large number of unhealthy people scattered throughout our population.

While I don't doubt your personal experience, and mine has been mostly positive as well, we both—as well as our friends and family—have probably been fortunate to have good health insurance. That's not true for everyone. None of us can judge a healthcare system based only on the people we know. That's why researchers look at millions of people instead of individual experiences.

You're also right that America's overall health is affected by things like obesity, drug overdoses, and other lifestyle factors. But our healthcare system plays a role too. A lot of people put off seeing a doctor because they're worried about what it's going to cost. They wait until the pain gets worse or the symptoms become impossible to ignore. If cost wasn't such a barrier, more people could go when they first noticed something was wrong, when many conditions are easier and less expensive to treat. That's one reason the reports don't rely on just life expectancy. They also look at things like deaths that could have been prevented and deaths from conditions that should have been treatable with timely medical care. Even on many of those measures, the U.S. spends more than similar countries but doesn't get better results.

 

[Rifler]

While I don't doubt your personal experience, and mine has been mostly positive as well, we both—as well as our friends and family—have probably been fortunate to have good health insurance. That's not true for everyone. None of us can judge a healthcare system based only on the people we know. That's why researchers look at millions of people instead of individual experiences.

You're also right that America's overall health is affected by things like obesity, drug overdoses, and other lifestyle factors. But our healthcare system plays a role too. A lot of people put off seeing a doctor because they're worried about what it's going to cost. They wait until the pain gets worse or the symptoms become impossible to ignore. If cost wasn't such a barrier, more people could go when they first noticed something was wrong, when many conditions are easier and less expensive to treat. That's one reason the reports don't rely on just life expectancy. They also look at things like deaths that could have been prevented and deaths from conditions that should have been treatable with timely medical care. Even on many of those measures, the U.S. spends more than similar countries but doesn't get better results.

Implementation of the ACA hasn't made better patients,... People who don't want to take care of themselves continue to to be the norm in this country, and I don't think that's going to change,.. Part of why we spend more is because we have a lot of disinterested patients, who think that anything can be resolved with a 15 minute ER visit.

 

[fatpiggy]

If my life depends on it, I want care in the United States.

 

[gohawks50]

Implementation of the ACA hasn't made better patients,... People who don't want to take care of themselves continue to to be the norm in this country, and I don't think that's going to change,.. Part of why we spend more is because we have a lot of disinterested patients, who think that anything can be resolved with a 15 minute ER visit.

The ACA isn't universal healthcare. It was an attempt to expand coverage using a system Democrats hoped Republicans could support because it was based in part on RomneyCare. It was a big improvement over what we had before, especially because people could no longer be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. But it still relies on premiums, deductibles, copays, provider networks, and other out-of-pocket costs.

I agree that some people don't take good care of themselves, and no healthcare system is going to change that. And I agree that some people use the ER for problems that could have been handled in a doctor's office. But that's part of the problem. If people have trouble affording or accessing routine care, they often wait until they feel they have no choice but to go to the ER. Even people with insurance may put off seeing a doctor because they know they'll have to pay a large deductible. By the time they finally get treatment, the problem is often worse and more expensive to treat. That's one reason I think universal coverage could lead to better health outcomes. It removes one of the biggest reasons people wait to get care.

 

[FLaw47]

everyone agrees (or should) that our health system is not perfect. And, my opinion might be in the minority, but looking at the factors the ones most important seem to me to be access to care, care process, and health outcomes. I have to admit when I have a health problem, the system"s administrative efficiency and equity play little if any role.

I seldom talk to an administrator other than to check in or out, and it's against the law to discriminate.

I just have this thing in my mind that one of the main purposes of the ACA was to make access to care available to everyone who didn't have insurance. That was passed 16 years ago. Today we still have an estimated 28 million uninsured. So access is universal here, but you have to pay for it. Folks in other countries have access and they pay for in ways not as direct as here. I know there are multiple reasons why people chose not to buy healthcare, so no need to call me unchristian, heartless, selfish or whatever.

How would you feel about having a public option? That's the next thing I'd do, probably.

 

[FLaw47]

Implementation of the ACA hasn't made better patients,... People who don't want to take care of themselves continue to to be the norm in this country, and I don't think that's going to change,.. Part of why we spend more is because we have a lot of disinterested patients, who think that anything can be resolved with a 15 minute ER visit.

Well there's also the fact that the ER has see everyone so people will go to the ER and then just not pay whatever bill is generated.

 

[Rifler]

Well there's also the fact that the ER has see everyone so people will go to the ER and then just not pay whatever bill is generated.

Very familiar with the goings on in our ERs,... What you say is true, but what also fills up the ER schedule is people who simply won't be bothered with finding a doctor, making an appointment, going to a pharmacy, taking off work or disrupting their schedule in any fashion,... They just show up at the ER when they want and expect to be cared for.

 

[FLaw47]

Very familiar with the goings on in our ERs,... What you say is true, but what also fills up the ER schedule is people who simply won't be bothered with finding a doctor, making an appointment, going to a pharmacy, taking off work or disrupting their schedule in any fashion,... They just show up at the ER when they want and expect to be cared for.

Well two things;

• If there's there's two things that poor people famously have a lot of, it's extra time and money.
• Are you sure you aren't talking about Urgent Care? I have no idea where you can be seen in an ER in 15 minutes unless you've got some dying in your very near future. I've never been there for less than 4 hours.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Well two things;

• If there's there's two things that poor people famously have a lot of, it's extra time and money.
• Are you sure you aren't talking about Urgent Care? I have no idea where you can be seen in an ER in 15 minutes unless you've got some dying in your very near future. I've never been there for less than 4 hours.

Was thinking the second one in particular.

 

[baltimorened]

One of the bigger problems with the ACA was the way it attempted to dictate and predefine acceptable levels of coverage,.. People were being herded towards plans that contained coverage that they didn't want or need...

and higher costs go with that. The ACA requires coverage for pregnacy something not everybody needs but has to have for example

 

[baltimorened]

How would you feel about having a public option? That's the next thing I'd do, probably.

depends on your definition of public option. The term means different things to different people

 

[FLaw47]

depends on your definition of public option. The term means different things to different people

I thought the definition for all people was "a government offered insurance option that would still leave private insurance in place".

That was my definition, here's what wikipedia says:

The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, is a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency that would compete with other private health insurance companies within the United States.

 

[FLaw47]

and higher costs go with that. The ACA requires coverage for pregnacy something not everybody needs but has to have for example

I think this is one of the dumbest things to take exception to, especially as conservatives tend to be the more pro-natalist crowd. Everyone, and I mean everyone, depends on women having more children. Charging women more for healthcare because they might have kids only discourages women from having kids and we're way better off when those kids have mothers who were able to get maternal care during their pregnancies.

 

[baltimorened]

I think this is one of the dumbest things to take exception to, especially as conservatives tend to be the more pro-natalist crowd. Everyone, and I mean everyone, depends on women having more children. Charging women more for healthcare because they might have kids only discourages women from having kids and we're way better off when those kids have mothers who were able to get maternal care during their pregnancies.

You have a great point, but forcing someone past menopause to take out pregnancy insurance doesn't appear to make sense. I understand the logic, but all it does is raise the cost, when what we really want to do is the opposite.