Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Trump Smears UK Healthcare, Then Gets Mauled By Brits" video.
-
The half baked, a-tiny-bit solution is the enemy of the good solution.- And going for the half baked solution cost a lot of political capital, trust. If Obama had fought teeth and nail (and that would have been necessary to defeat the money interest, also from the DEMOCRATS) the country would have universal healthcare/single payer now, or would be in the transition phase to get it. With a lot of positive expectations.
And the Republicans would have NO CHANCE to badmouth it - it would go against the experience of the patients (The Sanders solution to fade people into Medicare is good, take the existing system and expand it - not all at once, so the bugs can be cleared. Plus of course lots of strict regulations that people cannot be denied care. And better cost control until the switch is completed).
And no way, the GOP would dominate ALL branches of government. Folks would have had a GOOD REASON to come out in the presidential elections and in the midterms (except for the hardcore fans, people KNOW that the Dems sell them for 30 pieces of silver just like the Republicanss - they do it just with inclusive language (language !! not necessarily actions !)
Transgender people for instance often have economic and health problems. Having theoreticak civil rights does not help them when they struggle with everyday and financial problems.
The donors (of the Dems AND the Republicans) mostly do not care if gay people marry or where they pee. So that they can grant the unwashed masses. Beyond that - the Dems have nothing to offer. The Dems and also - especially - Obama serve the interests of Big Donors. Those interests are almost never aligned with the interests of THE PEOPLE.
A form of Medicare for All could have been his legacy (in which case "Obamacare" would really be a legacy, such names tend to stick).
Of course he put the representatives of the special interests incl. Wallstreet into the administration right from the beginning. The foxes from Wallstreet took over the henhouse (as usual !!) - so it was clear from the beginning to those who observed the situation rationally that Obama was not going to be a FDR 2.0
The racist attacks "saved" him from being found out. The Dem voters rallied around him because of the outrageous discusssions.
If both parties had agreed in smoke filled backrooms to play a game of "good cop, bad cop" so that they do not need to REALLY hurt the interests of the donors while appeasing the angry voters they could not have arranged it better. I know that some folks are really that backwards and mean - but their meanness helped Obama and the Dems to obfuscate their betrayal right form the beginning.
Implementing GOOD healthcare would have won him the respect of some conservatives (the non-racist people at least). (The Dems had - and needed - a window of opportunity where they had a filibuster proof majority. THEN they passed ACA (in 2009) despite the tantrums of the Republicans. THEN they could as well have had a GOOD BILL ready and pass that.
right from the beginning (after a sensational campaign, and the public mood elevated !) Obama started with a very much weakened position regarding healthcare - and form there it was watered down.
The problem: the insurerers could not exclude people as easily as before - so they slapped the costs on the people that were relatively wealthy and / or healthy. Of course the insane administration and the high profits still have to be financed.
Before some folks profited from the cherrypicked pool. The insurers could make their profits and those who were lucky enough to have insurance (good job, relatively healthy) had costs they could handle. These cost were of course too high considering of how many cost factors were excluded by the corporations. But the people did not know that.
Until approx. 2000when the assault on manufacturing happened, many people were insured with their company. The insurers did not harrass those patients as much - they had a company behind them.
So the workers/patients had no idea how overpriced the services are in the U.S. And the media and bribed politicians CAREFULLY AVOIDED to have any meaningful debate. (The internet, independant media and Sanders have changed that).
The uninsured people were fewer, and those who slipped through the cracks were disregarded. Their number was not so high as it is now, they did not count (think poor areas), minorities, black people. NOW a lot of white folks who used to think they are middle class are hit - and the number of people that are hurt (eithe by bad care of the costs) has grown substantially.
People even under the Obama admin died (did not get the appropriate more expensive treatment, got only the minimum, still got completely denied, can't afford the meds - think no diabetes meds for instance).
For a first world country - with the highest GDP per capita - that is an outrage.
"Under ACA less people died than before, net it did more good than harm" does not cut it. Not, when all other countries are much more successful since the 1950s with other systems (they are not doing it all the exact same way, but their poeple all live longer, they all have way lower costs, have everyone insured, and the solidarity and non-profit aspect is very strong).
Canada and Australia were late to the party - they joined the civilized world in the 1970s.
13
-
2