What, in your opinion, constitutes a "gross epidemic" of people uncovered by employers? (Almost 60% of Americans receive coverage through an employer sponsored plan even after the dip in coverage after the passage of PPACA. That doesn't count those who don't work and receive Medicare because of their low earning status nor does it include those who receive Medicare due to age or disability. The uninsured remains about the same at about 16%.) Most large employers already offer coverage as a means to compete for talent and plan to continue to do so. Those who don't are most often small employers who aren't covered by the mandates in health care reform even in 2014.coqui_chris wrote:In the USA you've got two sides there are entirely missing the point ...
Democrats support a national healthcare system because of the gross epidemic of people uncovered by their employers. This National Healthcare System is taxpayer funded. Therefore, taxpayers need to have money to draw revenue from, right? Makes sense. But wait a minute ... That means that the majority of Americans need a middle-class job that gives them a middle-class income. And shouldn't that job just be giving them health benefits as part and parcel of their earnings?
Giving all Americans a "middle-class income" can only serve to also increase the cost of goods, giving rise to inflation....this does not necessarily pull people out of poverty, but will increase the cost of living for sure.
Yes, Republicans do not support a National Healthcare (Single-Payer) System. Much more revenue would have to be generated, for sure. The only way to accomplish that would be to eliminate the current Capitalist structure that allows not-for-profit and for-profit insurers to compete for this business. Some say, "Who cares? Let those big insurance companies go out of business!!". As someone who works in the industry, I can say at what cost that would be. There are millions (millions) of people who work for insurance companies, small and large brokers, businesses that supply those businesses with their business, and others whose jobs would be eliminated if we went to a single payer system. Maybe you and others don't care if those millions of Americans suddenly go out of work (which you probably should in this still sagging economy), but if that is your moral belief, I won't judge you for it, BUT you should care about the loss of revenue for the federal government, when those millions of jobs are gone and the multi-billions in federal revenue of income and business tax are lost because those who were paying into the revenue of the country are no longer able to compete.coqui_chris wrote:The Republicans are indignant to a National Healthcare System. More revenue will have to be raised by higher taxes to pay for this National Healthcare System. Expansion of the welfare system. The nerve! But wait a minute ... The Republicans want to expand free trade agreements, undermine collective bargaining agreements, remove safety regulations and empower employers to further extinguish what few defined pension-plans are available and not be burdened to provide health care ... Thereby necessitating that people go on welfare!
What the fuck am I missing here? Does either party have a clue?
How do you institute Single Payer without killing our economy? I'd be impressed (and maybe vote for you) if you could, but no politician (D, R, or I after their name) has a way to do so.