highwaystar101 said:
Alternative Republican plans I've read about all seem a bit, well, Patronising as opposed to anything else tbh. |
I don't know... the main differences seem to be....
Democrats
Extend coverage to 36 million
Reduce Premiums to the consumer. (While rising healthcare spending at a cost of GDP at higher rates then it's rising now..)
Cost 1 Trillion.
Republicans
Extend coverage to only like 3 million.
Reduce Premiums
Cost 64 billion.
The Republican bill doesn't really extend coverage... but it seems to do a lot more with what it's spending... and has a much better chance of actually lowering GDP healthcare expenditures... which seems to be the biggest complaing people always have in these arguements.
80% of people are already happy with their coverage... including a lot of people that are uninsured. Only 67% are happy with the costs.
Attacking costs, and making provisions for the few not happy with their care is the right way to do it.
Not revising everything to where it's a totally different system 80% of the people may or may not be happy about and will cost us more in the short and longrun as a country.
The republican plan with some democratic ammendments would be much more sensible.