The shutdown is all about the "Unaffordable" Care Act
Designed to "lead" to a single payor system... the Dems are upset that without subsidies it is doomed to failure.
Like Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act" it was totally mislabeled.
The end goal for the Dems, whether they will admit it or not, is government control of the economy.
Mamdani is the canary in the coal mine because he does not mask his intentions.
Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2025/10/14/why-obamacare-is-keeping-the-government-on-shutdown/
Replies to: The shutdown is all about the "Unaffordable" Care Act
Interesting it isn't affordable like they claimed/lied.
I guess they did depend on the stupidity of the Democrat voter as the architect of that law, Gruber, stated at the time.
Oddly similar to the Inflation "Reduction" Act.
Which did nothing to reduce inflation, actually increased it.
Single payer + supplemental is the best solution, IMO.
(no message)
In 2000, manufacturing was the largest industry in all but 4 states. Today it's medicine.
We don't make anything any more, so the medical industry is the engine that drives the economy. That's a problem.
Public education and public medicine should not be profit centers. It's just not a net positive for society.
Unfortunately, drug companies have deep pockets. But, if we really want to change things, limiting drug company lobbying and advertising on TV would be a good place to start. GLP-1 abuse is through the roof, which is not surprising since diabetes is near 30% in some populations over 50.
I'm open-minded here. I just need to be convinced of the plan to pay for it.
I loved that Obamacare (supposedly) touted the principle of making sure that an unexpected medical cost (surgery, broken bone, etc.) shouldn't mean financial ruin for an American citizen. The problem is that as a whole, there was no way that we could pay for it.
I still strongly favor the idea of competitive, inter-state health insurance plans covered through private markets. Yes, it would HAVE to be regulated. But competition and choices are what could keep the costs competitive. A blended approach like you mention would probably work best (maybe single-payer to cover the basic stuff like preventive care, supplemental to cover big unexpected events).
And the next piece of this discussion, which my favorite liberals like jimbasil and Chris and I have debated about before, is that the border has to be secured. These services have finite funding and resources, and if we don't secure the border, there will be a flood of people coming in that we can't support.
Supplemental would be to cover elective procedures and enhanced care.
All preventative and necessary medical care would be covered by the single payer plan.
It would be funded by payroll deduction like Medicare.
90% of health insurance employees would be without a job.
I do like your increased competition plan, but I don't like health insurance being a for profit enterprise.
The border needs to be secure, the whole immigration system needs an overhaul. Legal immigration should be a net benefit to the country and its citizens. Employers need to pay immigrants a fair wage with benefits.
A national health care system should be run by The Mafia.
At least the crime would be organized.
Children are starving in Africa because Dems want spending for this.
The fact that we don't have money to fund food, healthcare, etc. for 8 billion people is never mentioned by the Dems, and they demonize anyone who points out the truth.
On your point about the border. Milton Friedman he's no Paul Krugman.
(no message)
Link: Border Control
I'm going to force you to buy something then give you a subsidy so you can afford it: Obamacare.
(no message)
And schedule that subsidy to expire so they can use it as leverage later against GOP...
or because if they didn't sunset the subsidy, people would see it was too costly...
or both.
Obamacare wasn't about universal healthcare, it was a political weapon.
(no message)
Seems so. Plus it nationalized student loans, allowing Biden to try to bribe voters.
That seems to have always been part of the plan. Otherwise, why nationalize those loans (and never talk about it in the press)?