"More attention to health care means less attention to these other causes. The Democrats’ educated, liberal base and infrastructure may resist that—even if a net enlargement of their coalition would result."EXACTLY!!! Upper middle class professionals have no problem accessing medical care. They may not be willing to sacrifice their "pet projects" for boring old healthcare.
"Upper middle class professionals have no problem accessing medical care." That does not mean that they can pay the full sticker price. They do need health insurance.
Serious problems in public discourse about health care issues are: 1) people conflate health care with health insurance and 2) people conflate Medicare with Medicaid. Effectively, everyone has access to some type of health insurance, albeit often too expensive but health care still sucks. One of the prime reasons that health insurance is so expensive is that health care sucks. The problem is on the supply of health care professionals and I don't just mean doctors. It was pretty easy to see this coming as a consequence of an aging population (and an aging cadre of providers) and an immigration surge but little was done to ramp up the supply. In fact, it was screwed up further by the COVID response. You see the same problems in a universal system up in Canada, maybe worse because they have also underinvested in technology. As for Medicare-Medicaid, one is a semi-prepaid, semi-premium paid plan and the other is welfare. We probably need a welfare system but Medicaid isn't the only way to do it.
As for health care being a Republican vulnerability the first four issues are also policies of the Trump administration and only when you get down to #5 do you get a deviation. And note that that issue is only about pre-existing conditions. That is so popular it was in place in many states before Obamacare. Someone has to pay for it however-either the premium payers or the tax payers which is often lost in the discussion. Democrats are also going to pay a price for opposition to MAHA or at least to the leadership thereof.
Emergency medicine is decent but overconcentrated. For more routine stuff the problem is wait times and admin SNAFUs. These are directly related to staffing shortages which should have been avoided. They also drive cost increases which get baked into insurance premiums. I don't know what is wrong with the electronic systems that were supposed to make things easier but every doctor I have ever encountered either in person or on the Internet complains bitterly.
The ACA was never needed, was a way for Democrats to control more of the health care system not for the people but for votes. True False?
Obama care has cost this country billions, probably trillions by now, while building and supporting it's own support system.
The FEHB is the Federal Governments Health Benefits plans for federal employees including the elected people. With all the permutations, single, married etc there are 220 plans. The system is there and has been long before Obama care. The government pays 75% of the premiums. And Obama care leaves around 20 million still uninsured. What would it take to roll the uninsured, maybe even Medicade and Medicare saving the overhead of two agencies, or is it one massive one, making sure all citizens have afford health care with only one place to go to get it all done. I've never seen the numbers run but then it again,this was never even considered.
So the question is, why is the health insurance plans for government employees including the elected representatives of House and Senate good enough for those folks, but not every citizen who needs health insurance coverage? The only reason I can see is becasue it wouldn't give the elected representatives the control they crave over the health care sector of our country.
Real saving with real coverage of all citizens, how can anyone say no to that? Because between pundits, MSM and politicians, it doesn't fit anyone's needs except for the need of more control by the few.
When I retired at 50 before the poorly named Affordable Care Act became law, no health insurance companies would cover pre-existing conditions. The ACA changed that and I was able to obtain coverage through my husband's plan. So I do not agree that the ACA was not needed.
Really, there is no GOP "achilles heel". The Social Security Administration, under DOGE, just found almost 600,000 ballots sent out that shouldn't have been---to the dead, missing, etc. 600,000.
At least 475,000 of these qualify as "felonies."
These names are COMING OFF voter rolls, not just in Florida, but virtually everywhere. I am 100% serious when I say that Democrats just lost millions of voters off their rolls at a time when in every single state we track, except CO, the GOP was already gaining net significant numbers of new voters. Removal of these dead or other voters would instantly change at least a half-dozen states from slightly blue to slightly red, whereas states such as NJ that have a high number of "old line" traditional Democrats are going to be jolted. VA, NM, NH, are all instantly in play with no other changes.
You make valid points about the first order impact of cleaning up voter rolls in various states. But Ruy's point is also valid: cut off millions of living, breathing people from necessary medical care and there will be a huge public backlash that will overwhelm the effects of purging voter rolls of fraudulent/ineligible voters. Republican candidates criticized Obamacare/ACA when campaigning, but when push came to shove they didn't dare eliminate the provision that requires covering people with pre-existing conditions. A huge majority of the public - including a large majority of Republican voters - wants their fellow citizens to receive necessary medical care without having to fear being ruined financially. This fact really is a huge advantage for Democrats and Trump knows it.
I suspect Trump will veto any serious cuts to Medicaid. Also, even though I voted for Trump, I despise Elon Musk. I look forward to the day when Trump does to him what he has done to so many other "friends" in his former administration. Musk will be lucky to escape jail time.
Nice to see a focus on the Liberal Side of The Liberal Patriot, for a change. This seems to have freaked out some of your Maga-adjacent readers, however.
The ball is in the Republican court to come up with $2 trillion in cuts to federal programs. That target will not be reached without substantial cuts to Medicaid.
"More attention to health care means less attention to these other causes. The Democrats’ educated, liberal base and infrastructure may resist that—even if a net enlargement of their coalition would result."EXACTLY!!! Upper middle class professionals have no problem accessing medical care. They may not be willing to sacrifice their "pet projects" for boring old healthcare.
"Upper middle class professionals have no problem accessing medical care." That does not mean that they can pay the full sticker price. They do need health insurance.
Serious problems in public discourse about health care issues are: 1) people conflate health care with health insurance and 2) people conflate Medicare with Medicaid. Effectively, everyone has access to some type of health insurance, albeit often too expensive but health care still sucks. One of the prime reasons that health insurance is so expensive is that health care sucks. The problem is on the supply of health care professionals and I don't just mean doctors. It was pretty easy to see this coming as a consequence of an aging population (and an aging cadre of providers) and an immigration surge but little was done to ramp up the supply. In fact, it was screwed up further by the COVID response. You see the same problems in a universal system up in Canada, maybe worse because they have also underinvested in technology. As for Medicare-Medicaid, one is a semi-prepaid, semi-premium paid plan and the other is welfare. We probably need a welfare system but Medicaid isn't the only way to do it.
As for health care being a Republican vulnerability the first four issues are also policies of the Trump administration and only when you get down to #5 do you get a deviation. And note that that issue is only about pre-existing conditions. That is so popular it was in place in many states before Obamacare. Someone has to pay for it however-either the premium payers or the tax payers which is often lost in the discussion. Democrats are also going to pay a price for opposition to MAHA or at least to the leadership thereof.
"health care sucks"
Proof please.
Emergency medicine is decent but overconcentrated. For more routine stuff the problem is wait times and admin SNAFUs. These are directly related to staffing shortages which should have been avoided. They also drive cost increases which get baked into insurance premiums. I don't know what is wrong with the electronic systems that were supposed to make things easier but every doctor I have ever encountered either in person or on the Internet complains bitterly.
The ACA was never needed, was a way for Democrats to control more of the health care system not for the people but for votes. True False?
Obama care has cost this country billions, probably trillions by now, while building and supporting it's own support system.
The FEHB is the Federal Governments Health Benefits plans for federal employees including the elected people. With all the permutations, single, married etc there are 220 plans. The system is there and has been long before Obama care. The government pays 75% of the premiums. And Obama care leaves around 20 million still uninsured. What would it take to roll the uninsured, maybe even Medicade and Medicare saving the overhead of two agencies, or is it one massive one, making sure all citizens have afford health care with only one place to go to get it all done. I've never seen the numbers run but then it again,this was never even considered.
So the question is, why is the health insurance plans for government employees including the elected representatives of House and Senate good enough for those folks, but not every citizen who needs health insurance coverage? The only reason I can see is becasue it wouldn't give the elected representatives the control they crave over the health care sector of our country.
Real saving with real coverage of all citizens, how can anyone say no to that? Because between pundits, MSM and politicians, it doesn't fit anyone's needs except for the need of more control by the few.
When I retired at 50 before the poorly named Affordable Care Act became law, no health insurance companies would cover pre-existing conditions. The ACA changed that and I was able to obtain coverage through my husband's plan. So I do not agree that the ACA was not needed.
The FEHB would have covered it.
give us cost estimates please....recognizing that the National Debt grows larger every day.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-09/59273-health-coverage.pdf
Look at it tomorrow. Thanks!
Really, there is no GOP "achilles heel". The Social Security Administration, under DOGE, just found almost 600,000 ballots sent out that shouldn't have been---to the dead, missing, etc. 600,000.
At least 475,000 of these qualify as "felonies."
These names are COMING OFF voter rolls, not just in Florida, but virtually everywhere. I am 100% serious when I say that Democrats just lost millions of voters off their rolls at a time when in every single state we track, except CO, the GOP was already gaining net significant numbers of new voters. Removal of these dead or other voters would instantly change at least a half-dozen states from slightly blue to slightly red, whereas states such as NJ that have a high number of "old line" traditional Democrats are going to be jolted. VA, NM, NH, are all instantly in play with no other changes.
You make valid points about the first order impact of cleaning up voter rolls in various states. But Ruy's point is also valid: cut off millions of living, breathing people from necessary medical care and there will be a huge public backlash that will overwhelm the effects of purging voter rolls of fraudulent/ineligible voters. Republican candidates criticized Obamacare/ACA when campaigning, but when push came to shove they didn't dare eliminate the provision that requires covering people with pre-existing conditions. A huge majority of the public - including a large majority of Republican voters - wants their fellow citizens to receive necessary medical care without having to fear being ruined financially. This fact really is a huge advantage for Democrats and Trump knows it.
"Really, there is no GOP "achilles heel".
***
"Great Depression? Won't ever happen again. Real estate always goes up."
-Every banker and financial analyst in the world, 2006
The fact (if it is a fact) that 600K ballots were sent out does not prove, or even imply, that anyone voted with those 600K ballots.
Color me skeptical.
I suspect Trump will veto any serious cuts to Medicaid. Also, even though I voted for Trump, I despise Elon Musk. I look forward to the day when Trump does to him what he has done to so many other "friends" in his former administration. Musk will be lucky to escape jail time.
Musk can retire and practice learning all of his children's names.
Nice to see a focus on the Liberal Side of The Liberal Patriot, for a change. This seems to have freaked out some of your Maga-adjacent readers, however.
Medicare cuts could really impact the Republican's majority health.
The ball is in the Republican court to come up with $2 trillion in cuts to federal programs. That target will not be reached without substantial cuts to Medicaid.