Kasz216 said:
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.
|
Well as you say at the end, mixing plans would be good. I'm sure that the Republican plan is (what I would call) patronising to attempt to influence the Democrats plan to be honest. Taking the good qualities of both would be the best way to achieve a positive general consensus, and that is what a lot of Republicans are trying to do.
In a way I don't really blame them for having such patronising plans, it's just a method of getting their point heard and incorporated.
Although. Universal is just that, universal. I never get the feeling when hearing about Republican alternative plans that they want theirs to be universal.
