bbauska
If it is provided for already under the law, then why the need for the ACA?
Because providing care for the indigent through emergency wards is stupid. Its inefficient delivery in the most expensive way possible and stops the indigent from seeking care for their problems when they are more easily treatable.
bbauska
You said I want it to be fair for the "rich", and that is not what I said. I want it to be fair and equal for all. If a "rich person wanted to go into the Farm workers Clinic and get a flu shot for free, should he/she be allowed to? Should a minimum wage worker be allowed to get a free flu shot? Are your answers the same? Should they be
?
Everyone should have equal access to a free flu shot.
1) Its most easily administered this way, and most cost effective.
2) Vaccinations are meant to produce a herd effect that eradicates a virus or disease. To have this work most people, and ideally all that can should be vaccinated. In order to encourage everyone, they should be free. Its called Public Health for a reason.
Concerning your thoughts...
First thought - whose fault is that where a person takes the tax break, but does not buy the insurance?
The person who doesn't insure IS at fault. If they now can't afford the care at the hospital should they be turned away to die?
Second thought - Are the industrialist getting their money's worth out of the public school system with it ranking near the bottom in so many categories compared to the industrialized world?
Well, in Finland the public system is great. So maybe look at how they educate their young...
Be that as it may, the reason public education exists is for the good of society, not just the students.
Bbauska
My problem with the change and push toward more and more government assistance and "equality" is that it takes away more and more of the personal responsibility away. The more things are pushed toward that end, the more I push the other way. Hence my beliefs about tax breaks for all. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.
Its not so much making government bigger. Its about doing things more efficiently and effectively. and sometimes its easier to make something available to all .... without convoluting the delivery of the service with all kinds of rules, restrictions, qualifiers and classifications. Or false "markets" that don't act like markets but only serve to generate costs. (Like insurance company administration and profit)
And by doing so actually making the provision of the service smaller.....
Health Care takes up 17 to 18% of the GDP in the US. Only 12% in Canada. 10% in the UK.
And yet both the UK (especially) and Canada have better systems in terms of coverage and health outcomes .
Again, this makes the health care sector
smaller, but better meets the actual needs of society.
The reason this exists in the US is that the industry serves to fatten the pocket books of certain stake holders in the sector. And changes to the system threaten their interests.
The ACA met a few goals, such as moving closer to universal coverage. (With republican governors cooperating rather than fighting this it could be close to 100%, so its not the law but the opposition to the law that is stopping this achievement,)
But it doesn't appear to be as effective at fighting medical cost inflation as hoped. That's too bad.
Did you know that over 50 percent of Americans (including one-quarter of Republicans and nearly 80 percent of Democrats) say they support a single-payer "Medicare for All" approach to health insurance, something Sanders has long advocated. Only 36 percent oppose the idea. 12 percent are neutral.
Seventy-one percent Americans support a public option, which would give individuals the choice of buying healthcare through Medicare or private insurers. This was part of Obama's original health care plan but the insurance industry lobby killed it, thanks to every Senate Republican and a handful of Senate Democrats, led by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. I think you are pretty much in the group that would support this idea no?