But doesn't everything after "Obamacare is not 100% bad." show that it is, in fact, really bad? I mean you could go as far as to say that it is the merging of corporate and government otherwise known as corporate fascism. Its pretty clear who wrote the law..
Nope. Access for all Americans is positive and it can be done the right way. Like drug testing for access. Real measured requirements for assistance financially. Like education demands for Welfare recipients.
Unfortunately we can not control these things. Government caters to votes, and nothing gets votes like handouts to citizens who wants something for nothing.
Well yeah i mean getting everyone healthcare is a noble cause but that's not the purpose of the ACA. All the best analysts pretty much universally agree that there is still going to be 30 million uninsured. This was a government induced takeover of the healthcare in America and that limits/regulates competition. Any time competition is limited or destroyed and the government starts picking who gets what from whom you've effectively destroyed capitalism. Limiting competition has been shown to always raise costs because shit becomes a monopoly and they can charge whatever they want. My wife's healthcare went up by about 33% and we are by no means wealthy.
pretty much this.
"Healthcare is a necessity, so it's morally wrong for people to profit off of it."
"Seriously, do you even Econ, bro? The fact that health care is a necessity makes it ever the more important that the profit incentive exists to allocate capital and fund innovation. Profit is exactly what is needed to bring about the competition that facilitates better quality and lower prices. It is what gives talented physicians a reward for providing essential services to other human beings.
There are many problems with health care in the United States; most of them are brought about by government. The profit motive is not the culprit here"
Healthcare is a necessity, but Obamacare treats healthcare as an entitlement and I think that's where it goes wrong.
Being entitled to healthcare is a slippery slope. You might say everyone is entitled to "basic" healthcare (and even that's a stretch, I don't really agree with any government entitlement programs), but should a welfare baby who has cancer get the million dollar experimental cancer treatment on the taxpayers back?
Hell no!
So I say healthcare is not an entitlement. You can get healthcare if you can pay for it. You can get better healthcare if you can pay more for it.
With how piss poor the coverage is with Obamacare (see my previous post about doctors putting my youngest brother who is on obamacare at the back of the line behind those with private insurance) it might head that way anyways. Those that are on Obamacare won't pay hardly anything for it (my brother for example pays like $6/mo and gets a $250/mo government subsidy to cover his healthcare) but they'll get sub standard care. Those who can afford it will buy private insurance and get good care.
This is how it works in my socialist countries. The government provided healthcare is shit for the most part so those who can afford it buy additional private insurance or just pay cash to the best doctors. We have plenty of Canadians in this guild - I've heard you can wait FOREVER to get a necessary operation through the free Canadian healthcare system. I've also heard people go to the emergency room with a headache so they can get free Advil.
Using my youngest brother as an example again, he smokes a pack of cigarettes a day which comes out to about $150/mo I suppose. Yet he gets a $250/mo government subsidy for his healthcare. WHEN he gets cancer from smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, he SHOULD NOT get the latest and greatest cancer treatment paid for by the government. He should get only what he can afford, no more, no less.
