CODE RED for US Entrepreneurs: Senate Healthcare Bill Will Destroy Us
stackingthebricks.com
stackingthebricks.com
This post prompted me to the 5Calls.org website and I called both of my Senators. Both are Democrats and were already strongly opposed to the BCRA but it took less than 5 minutes to vocalize my support. They asked for my zipcode to ensure I was one of their constituents, which was nice.
5Calls has an impact section [1], but man, would it be nice to snag the raw data to see more info on those 1.5 million phone calls (by date, by geography, by call status, etc.)
Alas the lack of references and simplified message is likely highly effective at dissemination/virality/call-to-action.
That said, healthcare is a demographic and economic issue - period. If there's enough money to cover all American's healthcare needs it is pure political gold to do so and no need for debate. There isn't enough money. If the United States were a cruise ship, it would be sinking in debt (eg. 100% of US GDP) and feature 50 swimming pools in which most states are simultaneously sinking in debt - Illinois being the standard bearer of US fiscal catastrophe.
This is the reality a half century of fiscal irresponsibility and irrational optimism has brought. Cold, hard realism is the only remedy.
I think you are completely missing the debate. The arguments against universal healthcare are 1) If I am healthy, why should I be paying (through taxes) for sick people to go to the hospital, 2) standard of care would become worse if it were government run (wait hours to see a doctor that you can't pick), and 3) less innovation would occur due to lower profits being seen by drug companies, hospitals, etc.
I disagree with nearly all these points, but those are the arguments, not "we don't have the money".
Every other developed country has enough money, and most of them have far less than the US.
http://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficits-com...
Worst of all is the fact that I can tell that being alarmist/sensational and simplifying information so that it is easily digestibale and/or partisan and unbalanced [1] is the most effective way for any cause or any party to mobilize its allies.
[1] In the absence of references to primary sources, it's only natural for me to assume that there are counter-benefits for some subset of the population for many of these effects that will negatively impact potential self employed professionals.
I appreciate both sides of the argument around Obamacare (I would prefer single payer, since the US already spends more on socialized medicine than any other country except Norway[1] and I think Obamacare is deeply flawed) but this is neither a rational headline nor article.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/212252/seventeen-point-drop-satis...
I've been reading it when I get time but won't be able to fine-toothed-comb it until end of work day. At a glance, while TFA seems to take a more alarmist tone, it may be merited. Many of the core points I cared about (axing planned parenthood funding, limiting female reproductive choice, preexisting condition prevention, cutting benefits/making benefits obtainable to the lowest economic demographics, among other things) are in fact being torpedoed, so from my standpoint, the alarmist tone is apt; This is the time to get angry.
Disclaimer: The summary and bill itself are extremely dense and not really "plain english"; I don't claim to be versed in reading the docs as someone with proper legal/healthcare background would, my statements above are that to my ears I note a lot of red flags.
The ACA ("Obamacare") Marketplace was the right model, but it failed. It failed largely because insurance consumers were largely put into two "buckets" those with employer provided insurance (more wealthy; more healthy; more profitable) and those without employer provided health insurance (less wealthy/startups/unemployed/sicker/less profitable/etc).
To use an analogy, imagine for a second what would happen if everyone got their car insurance through their employer. You'd expect car insurance for the employed to get a little cheaper, and the car insurance for those buying it independently to shoot through the roof.
If everyone purchased their insurance privately, and employers could only provide money for that via the pre-existing HSA accounts (tax free), then everyone would get to pay the same rates. In that scenario the unemployed would pay the same as federal employees.
Why is scrapping employer provided health insurance never discussed in the US healthcare debate? We already have the mechanism for employers to pay for employee's health insurance tax free (HSAs), all we need to do is ban employers from picking an employee's insurance company for them.
Everyone always talks about competition in the US. But how can there be competition when an employer can dictate just one or two different insurance companies their employees are forced to take? And only one or two tiers of care?