Only 10% in the US do not have medical insurance

dogs4thewin said:

but ERS are not meant to be abused like that so they ought to be permitted to kick people out that do not meet certain requirements.

Click to expand...

Which leads to the issue I pointed out in the post, the problems get worse when untreated and cost more to remedy later.

dogs4thewin said:

ERS were not meant to the no cost basic health care solation.

Click to expand...

As have said, for some they are the only option.

dogs4thewin said:

EVERYONE in this country with very few possible exceptions has access to healthcare if they truly need it. That is to say that if someone is currently dying they have access to healthcare.

Click to expand...

Why wait until it reaches that point where it is the hardest and most expensive to treat?

dogs4thewin said:

so how do people know which are which?

Click to expand...

They educate themselves

mark46 said:

There is an underlying assumption by many here that the US federal government would be better at running and making decisions about the healthcare of our total population.

Click to expand...

No there isn't. You should learn more about Single Payer.

If you are talking about reimbursement and payment then that is true. But you seem to think that Insurance company employees are somehow better at this. Because right now that is what is happening to you right now. Only difference is insurance companies operate for profit most of the time. So those decisions also include a certain profit-based motive.

dogs4thewin said:

not if they kicked them out until such time as their condition met the requirement.

Click to expand...

Health issues are not know for resolving due to being denied care.

dogs4thewin said:

The problems are also more likely to prove fatal the later they are caught.

Click to expand...

Yet you want them to be compelled to wait until that stage.

dogs4thewin said:

1 in 5 uninsured is not awful numbers that still means that even without Obamacare the VAT majority of people are covered.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see your point. So you are OK with 20% of our population not having access to healthcare? Considering we are about the only developed first world nation without nearly 100% coverage of their citizens for healthcare I'd say it's pretty sickening.

But then I actually am NOT happy that 20% of our society (or even 10%) don't have access to affordable healthcare.

dogs4thewin said:

because that is what ERS were designed to treat not petty ( everyday) things.

Click to expand...

Again, people "abuse" them because they are the only option that cannot turn them away. Those with no other options, if denied care at an earlier point due to the issue being too minor, will return later when their condition meets your life or death criteria. How is that advantageous for anyone?

dogs4thewin said:

That is what ERS are for not for basic care. It clogs the system when people treat them in a way they were not meant to be used.

Click to expand...

Which is only an issue due to lack of other options.

dogs4thewin said:

that is how FOR PROFIT works. If something is for profit it will not last if that is not taken into account.

Click to expand...

Which is probably part of the reason many economists don't think of healthcare as a normal market good.

I do a lot of things in my life that I don't make money off of. I guess I'm not a good American because I don't maximize my profit on the backs of whoever is unfortunate enough to wander into my path.

dogs4thewin said:

If something is for profit it will not last if that is not taken into account.

Click to expand...

How about not for profit? Public utilities are capable of running without someone making an open ended buck.

dogs4thewin said:

that is why I said that is how FOR profit works.

Click to expand...

I should have said not for profit as an alternative.

The BOTTOM LINE should be universal access to affordable health care. That has been the Democratic goal since the 40's and was the goal when Obama led the country to accept the ACA. Since it was a new plan, it was clear that there would need to be improvements.

The courts have rejected the idea of mandatory coverage. Many states have decided not expand Medicaid. The federal government has not increased subsidies when needed. As a result, though the cause matters little, premiums and deductibles have become unaffordable for many.

OBAMA brought us close to universal access to affordable health care. Many millions were added to those who already had coverage. We need to take the next step. Since there is no mandatory coverage, there will be significant costs, $750B over 10 years, less that the last tax cut. Biden's additions to the ACA continue its approach.
========
There is an alternative that is agreed upon by the Democratic "progressives" and almost all Republicans: gut Obamacare and start over. IMO, this is losing position for Democrats. Many more of the base may come the polls, especially in heavily progressive Democratic states and districts. Many more will also stay home in more moderate districts, particularly Obama Democrats who are rightfully outraged at the attack on Obama's signature achievement. When Trump was elected, 95% of Democrats has favorable views of Obama. NOW, I wonder whether he could get the Democratic nomination.
====
As I have said before "improving" Obama's policies by having Medicare for All, and decriminalizing illegal border entry would likely result in an overwhelming Trump victory, and perhaps loss of the House. Given the opportunity before us, this would truly be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.