4 ms·

...implementing a healthcare policy cooked up by conservative think tanks in the 1990s. The rest of the developed world shows that anything short of national h

...implementing a healthcare policy cooked up by conservative think tanks in the 1990s. The rest of the developed world shows that anything short of national healthcare system is an expensive mistake.

malvosenior 8y ago
So the democrats are not to blame for implementing it? I don't see how you can single out any particular party for this situation and if I had to, I'd go with the people that actually jacked up my premiums (democrats).
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  Oh, they’re entirely to blame and I’m just as angry as anyone for them furthering this broken system. But their choice of doing so was guided by right-wing ideology. The Democratic Party is a center-right party. You might not be able to single out any one party for this problem, but you can certainly indict those who further this kind of thinking in the face of its demonstrable moral and economic failure.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    I'm sorry but the sheer amount of regulation around healthcare is not a right-wing ideology. Let's get the free market in here and watch costs come crashing down. Do away with mandatory coverage, subscription windows, the government run "marketplace" and costs will come down. There's nothing right-wing about any of those features.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      > mandatory coverage Yes, removing this reduces costs - by creating a category of people who can't get insurance at anything resembling a price they can afford, and therefore either have to suffer, go bankrupt, die, or all three.
    - komali2 8y ago
      In a free market, why would the insurance companies continue to cover someone that got cancer? And then, when coverage was revoked, why would any other person insure this new cancer patient?
- sv123 8y ago
  The democrats big mistake was trying to compromise with the republicans, who still refused to work on it. it's clear the whole system is borked, and I only see one party at least trying to do something about it.
  - RightMillennial 8y ago
    What compromise? The ACA passed the House [1] and Senate [2] without a single Republican vote. [1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html?noredirect=on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03... > The House voted 219 to 212 to approve the measure, with every Republican voting no. [2]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122400662.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12... > Vice President Biden presided over the 60 to 39 party-line vote, ...
    - sv123 8y ago
      It was watered down to make it a "budget bill" under the Senate rules so it could withstand filibuster. (In doing this, the ACA had to be stripped of almost all its cost-containment features.)
      - komali2 8y ago
        It's incredible to witness, real-time, people such as who you're replying to trying to change the facts of history mere years after the thing occurred. This is in line with my original point - since when did facts become so malleable?
chimeracoder 8y ago
> The rest of the developed world shows that anything short of national healthcare system is an expensive mistake. Of "the rest of the developed world", only one country (the UK) has a "national healthcare system", and even that's a bit of a stretch, because England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have different systems. Canada runs healthcare at the provincial level. France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. - all of those countries use private systems that cannot reasonably be called a "national healthcare system", unless you're going to stretch the definition so far as to say that countries like India (and the US) also have national healthcare systems.
- richmarr 8y ago
  > Of "the rest of the developed world", only one country (the UK) has a "national healthcare system", and even that's a bit of a stretch, because England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have different systems. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes 4 countries, just FYI. This handy graphic explains in case of confusion: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg/300px-British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Br...
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes 4 countries, just FYI. ...yes, that's the point. When people talk about "the NHS", as they usually do on HN, they're conflating four different systems (or, more commonly, thinking only of NHS England). The point, in case you missed it is that nobody outside the UK has what can reasonably be called a "national healthcare system" in this context.

malvosenior 8y ago

So the democrats are not to blame for implementing it? I don't see how you can single out any particular party for this situation and if I had to, I'd go with the people that actually jacked up my premiums (democrats).

knuththetruth 8y ago
Oh, they’re entirely to blame and I’m just as angry as anyone for them furthering this broken system. But their choice of doing so was guided by right-wing ideology. The Democratic Party is a center-right party. You might not be able to single out any one party for this problem, but you can certainly indict those who further this kind of thinking in the face of its demonstrable moral and economic failure.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I'm sorry but the sheer amount of regulation around healthcare is not a right-wing ideology. Let's get the free market in here and watch costs come crashing down. Do away with mandatory coverage, subscription windows, the government run "marketplace" and costs will come down. There's nothing right-wing about any of those features.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > mandatory coverage Yes, removing this reduces costs - by creating a category of people who can't get insurance at anything resembling a price they can afford, and therefore either have to suffer, go bankrupt, die, or all three.
  - komali2 8y ago
    In a free market, why would the insurance companies continue to cover someone that got cancer? And then, when coverage was revoked, why would any other person insure this new cancer patient?
sv123 8y ago
The democrats big mistake was trying to compromise with the republicans, who still refused to work on it. it's clear the whole system is borked, and I only see one party at least trying to do something about it.
- RightMillennial 8y ago
  What compromise? The ACA passed the House [1] and Senate [2] without a single Republican vote. [1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html?noredirect=on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03... > The House voted 219 to 212 to approve the measure, with every Republican voting no. [2]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122400662.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12... > Vice President Biden presided over the 60 to 39 party-line vote, ...
  - sv123 8y ago
    It was watered down to make it a "budget bill" under the Senate rules so it could withstand filibuster. (In doing this, the ACA had to be stripped of almost all its cost-containment features.)
    - komali2 8y ago
      It's incredible to witness, real-time, people such as who you're replying to trying to change the facts of history mere years after the thing occurred. This is in line with my original point - since when did facts become so malleable?

chimeracoder 8y ago

> The rest of the developed world shows that anything short of national healthcare system is an expensive mistake. Of "the rest of the developed world", only one country (the UK) has a "national healthcare system", and even that's a bit of a stretch, because England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have different systems. Canada runs healthcare at the provincial level. France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. - all of those countries use private systems that cannot reasonably be called a "national healthcare system", unless you're going to stretch the definition so far as to say that countries like India (and the US) also have national healthcare systems.

richmarr 8y ago
> Of "the rest of the developed world", only one country (the UK) has a "national healthcare system", and even that's a bit of a stretch, because England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have different systems. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes 4 countries, just FYI. This handy graphic explains in case of confusion: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg/300px-British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Br...
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes 4 countries, just FYI. ...yes, that's the point. When people talk about "the NHS", as they usually do on HN, they're conflating four different systems (or, more commonly, thinking only of NHS England). The point, in case you missed it is that nobody outside the UK has what can reasonably be called a "national healthcare system" in this context.