Not only that, it’s insurance not care. You have to find a hospital or doctor that will accept it. Then too, there’s a $6,500 deductible.
The Right hates Obamacare because it is governmental interference in things that the government should not be involved with. Universal or not.
Obamacare only needs to remain in force long enough for the next Democrat president and congressional majority to be replaced by top down socialized medicine.
I would not trust anything on Salon, and if you read anything there, certainly take it with a shaker full of salt.
He’s mad as he should be because he was sold a pig in a poke. He’s mad at us for not going along with it, even though it isn’t what he thought it would be.
Has he not noticed that poor people have gotten medical care long before he or Obama came along? How did that happen when the Kenyan Messiah had not yet come?
Most on the Right are not against ZeroCare because of some esoteric "universality". It's because it isn't about healthcare at all, it's about control over people's lives and control over the economy. End of story.
Either this writer is lying or doesn't understand the first thing about insurance.
Insurance is the antithesis of "preexisting condition".
A few things that the Salon article got wrong. The policies on the Obamacare exchanges are not cheaper in most cases, even with the subsidies and there are huge deductibles that young healthy insureds will never reach unless they suffer some type of catastrophic event.
Then is states that have agreed to expand medicaid coverage to people up to $60,000/year, the insurance companies offering policies on the exchange are very few because all those young healthy potential insurers will be not be buying policies because they will be on medicaid. I read that in one of the most populous counties in AZ, there was only one company offering coverage and it was very expensive.
Third, the most egregious problem with Obamacare is the rationing board that dictates what services you will receive, not what services will be covered, but what services your doctors will offer. This means that it is the doctors who will ration the care, not the insurance companies. You can have the best insurance coverage in the country, but if your doctors sign on the Obamacare guidelines, you won’t receive any better treatment or more thorough testing than people on medicaid, no matter how much you pay.
Oh, the fallout will hit us all, even those of us relatively insulated from the disaster.
I can telll right away, this guy’s too bright to be a mere human.
We know it's "not universal health care" it just wants to be when it grows up and runs every effing aspect of everybody effing life.
It's the first crank of the vise.
Obama is to healthcare what Stalin was to Ukrainian agriculture. The idea is that the system is perfect but the people are flawed. While millions starved in the Ukraine, Stalin believed it was because they were resisting change or were just counter-revolutionary. Regardless of how much damage and pain Obamacare inflicts in terms of job loss, increased costs and degradation of services, fault in the fundamental plan will never be considered.
The US currently spends 17.9% of its total GDP on health services
This figure is projected to rise in the near future by about another 1% due to the populations aging and a further 3% due to the growing incidence of chronic illnesses. Anticipated increases would raise the nations healthcare costs to an unsustainable 22% of GDP, crowding out spending for other goods and services.
By contrast, the Netherlands spends 12% of its GDP on healthcare; Switzerland, Germany, France, and Canada about 11%; New Zealand 10%; Sweden 9.4%; and the United Kingdom 9.3%. As we travel through these countries, there is frequently a clear, if anecdotal, perception that people are healthier than in the US.
And the data backs up that perception. The US spends more money on healthcare because we are in fact far less healthy on average than the rest of the developed world. This difference is in large part due to poor lifestyle choices, but the good news is there are programs that have clearly and conclusively demonstrated that this difference is reversible. Changing behavior, while it will be difficult, can result in significant cost savings. In fact, changing behavior may allow us to spend more on education, social programs, and even defense. http://www.mauldineconomics.com/editorial/thoughts-from-the-frontline-the-road-to-a-new-medical-order
A target would be around 10 %.