Realistically, if we’re ever going to get real healthcare reform, it will have to come from a Republican. Trump probably isn’t the man to do it, but Republicans at this time in history are the party of change. Democrats don’t support any change. I wonder at this point if people with progressive issues on healthcare should start running as Republicans.
I agree that we got change under Obama, but I wouldn’t call it any more than that. Softening the edges of the existing system just enough to gut any real push toward change isn’t reform; it’s entrenchment fundamentally different systems like universal healthcare wasn’t reform; it was entrenchment.
Well then you didn’t have any pre-existing conditions.
I don’t know why you would assume that, or why you would imagine that I was unaware of this change.
That was huge for me and millions of other people. A game-changer.
Of course this was huge for people, but it wasn’t a huge reform for the health insurance agency. It didn’t change the for-profit nature of health insurance; it just put a guardrail on it. It softened one of the hardest edges of private health insurance, which made it palatable enough to escape real reform.
I would agree, but for different reasons. The GOP is unapologetically obstructionist when the Dems are power. Conversely, Dems are more likely to compromise. Now, if a moderate Dem can quietly work with a moderate Rep, or at least one that agrees health care reform is a priority, some kind of reform could happen. Private insurance isn’t going anywhere, though. There’s just too much money involved for a politician from either side to threaten those profits! The old excuse: “But what about the economy!?”
Realistically, if we’re ever going to get real healthcare reform, it will have to come from a Republican. Trump probably isn’t the man to do it, but Republicans at this time in history are the party of change. Democrats don’t support any change. I wonder at this point if people with progressive issues on healthcare should start running as Republicans.
There is a zero percent chance that Republicans turn on their donors
We got healthcare reform (nowhere near enough but we got some) under Obama, so I think it would have been possible under Harris as well.
I agree that we got change under Obama, but I wouldn’t call it any more than that. Softening the edges of the existing system just enough to gut any real push toward
change isn’t reform; it’s entrenchmentfundamentally different systems like universal healthcare wasn’t reform; it was entrenchment.Well then you didn’t have any pre-existing conditions.
I did.
That was huge for me and millions of other people. A game-changer.
I don’t know why you would assume that, or why you would imagine that I was unaware of this change.
Of course this was huge for people, but it wasn’t a huge reform for the health insurance agency. It didn’t change the for-profit nature of health insurance; it just put a guardrail on it. It softened one of the hardest edges of private health insurance, which made it palatable enough to escape real reform.
I would agree, but for different reasons. The GOP is unapologetically obstructionist when the Dems are power. Conversely, Dems are more likely to compromise. Now, if a moderate Dem can quietly work with a moderate Rep, or at least one that agrees health care reform is a priority, some kind of reform could happen. Private insurance isn’t going anywhere, though. There’s just too much money involved for a politician from either side to threaten those profits! The old excuse: “But what about the economy!?”