Ah, I see the rumors of Francis Dec's demise were greatly exaggerated.
You know how socialized medicine works, right?
Yeah, that's where the government taxes the rich and provides healthcare to everyone, including the rich. Works great in most countries in the world, esp. when there is a semi-private system, and public institutions must compete with (subsidized) private hospitals.
The ACA is an insurance mandate, which is far more complex, because the insurance companies take the place of government bureaucracies.
I'm yet to meet someone who exists in the echo chamber who has a wonkish understanding of even these basic issues. But hey, I lived in three countries, and don't have a partisan stake in the shit-show that is politics in this country. So that puts me at odds with basically everything that happens in the echo chamber, even though I'm a conservative.
Sure, have the "freedom" to start your own (possibly unprofitable) business by not having to worry about pesky bills and responsibilities.
The point of mandating people to buy insurance is that they *do* take responsibility for pesky bills.
No more. Cheap, high deductible policies are no longer allowed. And if you forgo coverage, the gov't will take it out of you in the form of a penalty.
Said young person will be on their parents plan until 26 years old. Then, if they are at or about the poverty level, they will be covered by Medicade in those states that choose to expand it.
The reason why some red states are obstinately refusing to reform medicade is that they want the ACA to fail. But it will only cause a crunch in their states -- forcing many hospitals to close, and placing a huge burden on those who can afford it the least. Of course, you could raise the minimum wage, but that's a non-starter amoungst the faithful as well.
We have already seen GOP moonbats blame the ACA for the very problems they are causing.
There is not one single thing that the Government of the US has ever done more efficiently than the private sector.
When the private sector took over the electricity infrastructure in New Zealand, they stopped doing maintenance. The plan was that they would sell the majority share of the company to foreign investors before things started to break, and calculated a 10 year window. And then Auckland had record blackouts that cost the economy huge amounts of money, and the government had to step in and do something about it.
Some thing happened in Queensland, Australia.
Not so simple, is it.
Everything "works" fine so long as you can throw money at it.
That's not true.
The problem is, and as you've seen over the last several years, you eventually run out of other people's money.
If a government solution delivers more for less than a private solution, then why would a society subsidize a few monied interests? Of course you think the private solution will always be cheaper and better... but that is a rather extreme ideological position based on an abstract mathematical model of the economy which has been shown to be flawed empirically. Of course, right-wing economists are the first to say that they don't need to test their models with data.
Then the "invisible cost" suddenly becomes very real.
The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and it isn't that great. I know from personal experience, that Canada and Australia has better healthcare for a working professional. Government is a *big* part of the problem in US healthcare... and there needs to be a gradual rollback of institutional rules and subsidies. But it is a mistake to think that the situation would automagically be better without regulatory interference. There are real healthcare markets in the world which already operate like that (such as Russia), and they are *terrible*.
Why would anyone think the Government could run healthcare?
Every other developed country can do it.
Is there any sign of competence or efficiency in Medicare, Medicade, or the VA?
The VA has systemic issues that are out of control. But the echo-chamber engages in a lot of motivated reasoning in an attempt to portray medicare and medicade as somehow less efficient the private insurance. Well... if that's what you want to believe, then you'll always be able to cobble together *some* argument. But the vast majority of people who study the issue accept that medicare has lower administrative costs (much lower), and is able to use is single-buyer muscle to extract much better deals from the healthcare industry. Arguments to the contrary tend to focus on abstract economic ideas, such as this is more expensive in totality, because it distorts "natural" economic activity, which is, ipso facto, more efficient. This abstract idea has never actually been tested (because such markets are mathematical abstractions), and the vast majority of economists point out fundamental problems with this idealized notion. But if you restrict you economics advice to those who already ideologically agree with you... then you'll find a small cadre of "chicago economists" who are actually against empirical tests of their hypotheses!
prices "on the wall" for all procedures so the consumer can make open choices
I agree with that. The USA is really struggling because of the complex institutional nature of Healthcare subsidies and rules. There is nothing in the ACA that would preclude "prices on the wall" for all procedures. Remember the law is about getting people to buy reasonable quality insurance. It is not dictating the price of anything, but it is giving the individual consumer with more bargaining power, and more information, so that they can make choices that suit them. The insurance companies and hospitals will do anything to hide the real costs to patients, because they will make more money that way. So there will need to be some law that mandates that customers should now the costs up front. Expect the health industry to whine though.
The feds will undoubtedly try to impose price controls
You've spent too much time reading partisan news that is betting on ACA failure, and all the associated wishful thinking. In the "reality based community", the chances of this happening currently very small. I hope you're not too disappointed, but eventually it will sink in.
freedom to shop around worldwide for better drug prices
That would be *hugely* beneficial. Keep in mind that shopping around the world will only have marginal utility unless there is reasonable patent reform. But these guys should get a kick in the pants. The drug companies don't even pay for their R&D any more. They are massively wasteful parasites.
freedom of entry to the field for technical specialists (nurse/practitioners, midwives, et. al.)
So long as they are actually qualified. Problem is that quacks always think they are qualified, and we have the entire morass of the pseudo-health industry. It works because people have ideological blinders. (Think of all the liberal gaia-hypothesis-spiritual-health-quacks.) I believe the government has a role in promoting real science -- which has to be the kind that pursues the truth, and not partisan agendas.
On a serious note, businesses do need to hire consultants who know the rules and regulations, so that they can assess if they are compliant. It would be a good thing in general if the regulations make sense -- but that seems to be a bit of a hit and miss affair. Better than nothing though.
The defenders of this law are guilty of more spin than the Iraqi Information Minister some years back.
I would be a card carry conservative if the party wasn't ruled by anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-democratic tendencies. Projection is the net result of this. At least the Democrats have the good sense to be ashamed of the liberal moonbat fringe. I'm yet to meet a conservative who actually knows something about the ACA that they didn't learn in the echo-chamber. But of course, it's the other guy pushing propaganda. And that is the madness that stops us from actually solving our problems.
Your argument: the following is a "good test":
Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.
Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make. (It doesn't.)
Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together. The reason for this is that there is some theory we'd have to agree to first..
You've made an argument. I made an objection. You've refused to answer.
One thing at a time. Got to stop *your* gish galloping. If you did this, then in theory we could cover everything.
If, and only if, you reply in a mature fashion, we can continue this discussion.
Do you have any oblique awareness that you are batshit insane?
The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible.
Enumerating the arguments one-by-one is the opposite of a gish-gallop.
Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.
What does that mean?
Do you not know what a decadal trend is?