4 ms·

Isn't universal healthcare that all people and communities have the same access to healthcare? India's population is 1.3 billion and this says it will cover 500

Isn't universal healthcare that all people and communities have the same access to healthcare? India's population is 1.3 billion and this says it will cover 500 million people. So, it doesn't cover all people and communities. It covers some part of the population. Let's say Obamacare covered only a specific section of US what would have happened then? To clarify my stand here, I am in favor of Universal Healthcare but not this. Edit: I saw your edit on agriculture later. So, let me count that out too. We should do everything to support agriculture but the whole policy is skewed towards grains and every bump happens helps to ingrain the fact that grains good but vegetables bad. Do we really want that? So, I am in favor of a policy which works for all and not for specific sections which at least Indian laws tend to do.

digikata 9y ago
The ACA did only cover a section of the US. 27 million were (are?) uninsured under the ACA. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/ https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the... I don't know the right answer on specifics of agricultural policy. I wish grains were less emphasized in US agricultural supports - but I also acknowledge that there is a built up knowledge base, and capital momentum around grains and the efficiency of food systems (as a total system around citizen health), isn't trivial. You have to trade off energy->food, caloric efficiency, and total health just to name a few factors.
dv_dt 9y ago
I think this is a much better level of discussion than populist or not-populist.
vidarh 9y ago
In a lot of countries with universal healthcare it is provided by the government insuring the poorest and the unemployed, and requiring everyone else to insure themselves. The idea being that it gives those with the means who might want to pick and choose higher levels of coverage can do so, but nobody gets left behind.
- thisisit 9y ago
  Thank you for highlighting that. Food Security bill provided coverage to 2/3rd of population which was estimated to be 850 million people. This bill says it will cover up to 500 million people. So there are 320 million people who are poor that they can't eat but not poor for health care. That is the question on inclusive-ness. Though we have to see the full bill to actually find out what exactly is going on.

digikata 9y ago

The ACA did only cover a section of the US. 27 million were (are?) uninsured under the ACA. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/ https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the... I don't know the right answer on specifics of agricultural policy. I wish grains were less emphasized in US agricultural supports - but I also acknowledge that there is a built up knowledge base, and capital momentum around grains and the efficiency of food systems (as a total system around citizen health), isn't trivial. You have to trade off energy->food, caloric efficiency, and total health just to name a few factors.

dv_dt 9y ago

I think this is a much better level of discussion than populist or not-populist.

vidarh 9y ago

In a lot of countries with universal healthcare it is provided by the government insuring the poorest and the unemployed, and requiring everyone else to insure themselves. The idea being that it gives those with the means who might want to pick and choose higher levels of coverage can do so, but nobody gets left behind.

thisisit 9y ago
Thank you for highlighting that. Food Security bill provided coverage to 2/3rd of population which was estimated to be 850 million people. This bill says it will cover up to 500 million people. So there are 320 million people who are poor that they can't eat but not poor for health care. That is the question on inclusive-ness. Though we have to see the full bill to actually find out what exactly is going on.