Will Obamacare succeed where term limits failed?

[Ironside]

Single-payer, socialized medicine would not be my favored choice. I think it would almost certainly, however, lower the astronomical growth of medical costs. Would it lower them enough to make them sustainable? I doubt it- not without rationing. Regardless, Obamacare != single-payer healthcare. It is increasing costs. And it makes most of our problems worse.

I'll point out that the US are beaten by a lot of countries in life length, child mortality, etc, etc, running around with 50-70% of the costs. To be fair the americans might be sicker than the rest, but that rationing does seem to work better than yours.

And Obamacare looks this way because the Republicans decided to think like you. The earlier versions were quite a bit stronger towards single-payer socialized medicine.

[Ironside]

Sometimes I like to put on my tin foil hat and consider the possibility that Obama and the entire democratic party are incompetent on purpose, in order to further the Republican agenda of discrediting government in every way possible, to further their own master plan of making us all corporate slave-bitches.

Then I take the tin-foil hat off, cuz those things give you a headache.

That would require the politicians to give up power, for money or something. Now power without purpose and getting payed extra for (ab)using that power, that fits your gloomy view.

[Ironside]

But the money is the power. After serving in Congress, many politicians go work for lobbyists. The entire system is self-perpetuating. Also, insider-trading laws don't apply to Congressmen, so conflicts of interest are just a-okay. I wouldn't put any level of corruption past our most venerable institution. It takes suspension of disbelief just to take it seriously.

You suggested that it was general party policy, ergo even the ancient ones. Yes the springboard politicians could very well be playing that game, but for the veterans, the pull would rather be to be flattered into appearing very important by changing laws. Bribery is a part of that, but not the main driving force. They would not intentionally outsource their own power though.

[Fisherking]

I have not followed this, as I live outside the country and hope I am not effected by it.

But I do have a question or two.

If it is so good, why is there a tax penalty for individuals who don’t want to use it?
And, what happens to Doctors who are not employees of a large health care provider?

Most of the rest, I assume is a degree of scare mongering by the Republicans.

The only other thing I have heard that could be alarming is the supposed doubling or tripling of individual plans. This could be more of the scare tactics, I hope, but maybe not.

Also, as everyone is to be insured and everyone must be excepted but smokers pay a higher premium, I find that somewhat disingenuous.

After all, doesn’t someone obese or with another lifestyle related condition, not an equally high risk nonsmoker or not as the smokers who have to pay higher premiums? Just a little social engineering to go along with the program, huh?

[Lemur]

If it is so good, why is there a tax penalty for individuals who don’t want to use it?

Because if we are to prop up and nurse along our broken system of private insurance, we have to expand the pool and convince the majority of citizens to buy some sort of coverage. In other words, force the reckless, the healthy, and the young to buy coverage they otherwise might not, thus spreading the pool and market to cover the sick, the lame, and the old.

I believe it's superficially similar to what's implemented in Switzerland.

Of course, I would argue that there is zero evidence that private insurance is the appropriate way to fund healthcare, but that's because I don't see evidence that market forces work properly in healthcare. Market capitalism is great at many, many things. But when there's no evidence that it works in a certain context, it's time to re-think.

For example, I become a screaming socialist state-lover when it comes to the military. I think PMCs are a horrible idea. I don't much like mercenaries or their side-effects. I think the military should be paid for straight outta taxes. I hear that makes me a pinko commie.

Likewise, I simply do not see evidence that national healthcare is best run by market principles—and those who advocate complete privatization and deregulation have nothing but theory and ideology on their side (which should tell you a great deal). But if we need to broaden the market to force our jackalope system to limp along for a bit ... eh, okay.

At least Obamacare sets up state exchanges, out of which something useful may grow.

[HoreTore]

I support government services where that is efficient(healthcare, military).
I support private services where that is efficient(groceries and tv's).
I support a combination of the two above where that is efficient(kindergartens).

The distance from a conservative US republican(Lemur) and a Norwegian socialist(myself) isn't always so huge...

[drone]

The distance from a conservative US republican(Lemur) and a Norwegian socialist(myself) isn't always so huge...

Lemur comes across more as a 90's moderate, which in this day and age means he's a freedon hating pinko to most of the Republican base.

I'm a bit further to the right, but even I knew this scheme would be a disaster. If true healthcare reform is to happen, we need to go to a single-payer system. As it stands (both pre- and post-Obamacare) the system's main goal is to siphon as much money out of your pockets before your die. As long as healthcare is not non-profit, this will always be the case.

[The Lurker Below]

I agree with Drone that a single payer system is the best solution, and is long overdue. I wonder though, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It's been implied in posts here that our bureaucratic red tape creators would make our single payer system a dysfunctional system, getting nothing done. People with money would still find the healthcare they want, only at additional expense than the taxes they already pay. Long term, no difference.

At least Obamacare sets up state exchanges, out of which something useful may grow.

Currently over half the states have refused to set up the exchanges, and due to laws within their state, might never do so. This means that in those states the federal gov't will set up the exchange, which Obamacare legislation itself declares cannot be done.

[Lemur]

I would prefer to be optimistic and say it is only a small problem

It's a huge problem. Costs in the USA healthcare system are completely out of control.

Just in the last few years, healthcare as a percentage of our national gross domestic product went from 16.6% (2008) to 17.9% (2011).

Note that healthcare growth as a percentage of the economy slowed during this period. And still managed to leave inflation, and every other national economic sector, in the dust.

Like I said, trends that can't continue, don't. My hope is that we have a soft rather than hard landing.

People with money would still find the healthcare they want, only at additional expense than the taxes they already pay

That's how most single-payer systems work. A national baseline of healthcare, and then more or faster or better service if you have the means to pony up. Seems to work pretty well.

My mother and step-father are obsessive Fox News viewers, and they insist that private healthcare is illegal in Great Britain. Because, you know, socialism and stuff. No matter how many times I explained that this was false, to this day they will tell anyone who will listen how private doctors are illegal in Merry Olde Englande.

Fact-free. So much of this debate is blissfully devoid of data and empiricism. Makes me crazy.