Monday, January 17, 2011

A Healthy Debate

Last night, in a comment on a story about attitudes softening toward the Affordable Care Act, I invited conservative commenters to propose an alternative. Read on...

There's no shortage of nay-saying here. So, those of you who favor repeal, what do you replace it with? Repeal, and we'll return to this situation:
* 45,000,000 uninsured. Number increasing as businesses withdraw health insurance because of medical inflation and because of high unemployment. As many as 60,000,000 at any one time lack insurance.
* 15,000,000 underinsured. Number increasing as businesses reduce benefits because of medical inflation.
* Future Medicare financing in question because of increased number of retirees and because real wages have not kept pace with medical inflation since 1980
* People with pre-existing conditions cannot buy health insurance
* Insurance companies can withdraw individual or family coverage when claims get too high for their liking
* Benefit caps, impeding the care available to anyone with co-morbidities
* Shortage of primary care physicians (somewhat alleviated by the ACA)
Question #1: Is this a problem?
Question #2: How do you address it?
Since Republicans spent over a year complaining that the ACA had been crammed down their throats, your solution must be credibly bipartisan.
Hint: The CBO estimates that selling insurance across state lines will allow 3,000,000 more people to have access to insurance.
Have at it.
  • Vote for this comment.
  • !
Reply#512 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:08 PM PST
Easy enough to fix. Rid us of all the ileagle Mexicans,then drop all of the wellfare leaches. If you want to give to the mexicans and leaches then do it at state level. The lib states can have them all.
  • Vote for this comment.
  • !
#512.1 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:12 PM PST
Seems much better than ObamaCare. It's been working great so far.
  • Vote for this comment.
  • !
#512.2 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:20 PM PST

7 comments:

Steven said...

Those comments; simply amazing. No...that's not true. I've read these kinds of comment's before and far too often. The ill informed and ignorant are quick to comment but never to come up with a better answer. Much like the Republican Party...

K. said...

I figured that this would be the case, but I was surprised -- impressed even -- that it was summed up so completely in two responses: One of lathered hate and the other of pure self-interest.

Incidentally, we have the same M-B profile.

Darlene said...

Say what? These dolts don't know the definition of the word debate.

Paul Krugman has an excellent Op-Ed piece in this morning's NYT edition. I urge everyone to read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17krugman.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

paula said...

These two responses show us how little people read, even when the stakes are high and the decisions are difficult. It's much easier to fall back on lingo or deep-seated prejudice supplied or stoked by talk radio. Heaven help us when even more newspapers and news magazines go under.

Foxessa said...

You saw Paul Krugman's piece in today's NY Times on this same topic, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ref=opinion

I could not help but notice these comments say the same thing as older retired military fellow I encountered who wants to emmigrate out to New Zealand so he can get More! Better! Cheaper! health care, while blaming the 'illegals' for everything that's wrong in this country.

Love, C.

tnlib said...

It's not just about their ignorant thinking, it's about their lack of knowledge of their native language. But I guess this goes hand in hand. Ouch.

Rastamick61 said...

Surely Curdtz meant Welfare annelids comprising the subclass Hirundea when he called them "leache"s or was he going for the removal of soluble or other constituents from the action of a percolating liquid ? That's the bedevilment of these teabagging big ass cerebellums, they are so complex in their syntax and surgeon-like precision with les motes justes. that we laypeople are often unable to keep up with their dizzying intellectualism.