General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA simple health care policy.
We should focus on this simple mission: get people health care, get them as much as they can have, and as soon as they can have it.Too often we focus on party this, and messaging that, and next election stuff, and so on and on. Screw all that s***, people are dying and need health care.
The ACA is a very good first step in that direction, and we can not: we must not; we will not; move a single inch backwards.
Wounded Bear
(58,799 posts)That's the cheapest way.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Right now, the ACA is a net positive for the people, but it's not enough.
Except that any for-profit insurance plan is not a step in the right direction if the goal is to get people as much health care as they can have, as soon as they can have it.
Any steps down the for-profit road are going the wrong way.
riqster
(13,986 posts)That's why they are spending millions upon millions to bribe Congress to kill it.
The ACA cuts their profits and requires them to drastically increase transparency.
Anything that pisses off corporate America is a good thing in my eyes.
No, it's not enough. But without it, we'd be much worse off.
we might be fighting for actual health care for people, instead of pretending that they can afford for-profit insurance, and that the insurance will provide actual care.
Corporate America is going to fight any kind of effort to cut into their profit to provide care, even when they are actually benefiting. It's what they do.
Just like Republicans will fight anything and everything Obama does, even when he's implementing policies that are Republican goals. It's what they do.
It's part of their identity.
As long as there is going to be a fight, I think we ought to be fighting for a universal non-profit national health plan that provides health care free at point of service, paid for by taxes. Fight for the best, not for a corporate compromise.
THAT would make actual health care accessible and affordable for all.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The we would still be at status quo ante, and that was not a good place at all.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Look at how well it works for Republicans. THEY know how to fight. If only they would fight for something worth having.
Giving up on the goal before the fight begins, though, means you are guaranteed to never reach it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Which was far, far worse than the ACA.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)leads to so many limits.
I disagree. I don't think mandating private, for-profit insurance is a step forward when it comes to getting everyone the care they need.
But then, I've had private, for-profit insurance for 3 decades now, and have never been able to afford all the care I needed.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I call it "solving problems in the here and now".
Insisting on doing nothing at all if it isn't 100% of what we want means dead people. I cannot support such a course of action.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)It's not healthCARE, it's healthINSURANCE
riqster
(13,986 posts)But insurance is a first step towards health care access. Without access, people do without health care. And that is bad.
The end game is single-payer. And until we get more people into the insurance market, we can't get them into the debate.