‘ An corporations receive funding only because the money they get from the government is directed to expand access and coverage to more Americans. It is not a bailout to sure up their balances, but rather a simple recognition that healthcare is expensive and many sick people do not have the individual means to pay for it through their premiums alone.’
Kinda like the bank bailouts and housing? It’s the action, not the intent that makes it a bailout. Pretty similar justification behind the bank bailouts.
Social security was bipartisan in both its creation and alterations (read mostly expansions), as was broader welfare. These aren’t equivalent to a piece of legislation that faced unanimous opposition by one party. But even assuming these are equivalent, which Democrat proposal shrink the welfare handouts from Obamacare as these two policies did? All I’ve seen are demands for more funding, but perhaps I’ve missed it.
‘Yes, there are some disadvantages to the more socialized system, for example with as you mentioned with advanced treatment options; however, the vast majority of people do not use said options,’
Number 1 cause of death? Heart disease. Number 2? Cancer. I’d say these complex treatments are the concerns of the vast majority in the US. Again though, apples to apples comparisons, i.e. holding age, weight, health, etc. the same, show US healthcare outcomes are almost always superior. The reason other countries don’t copy the US is because they cannot afford high quality treatments for their entire populace.
More options and better consumer satisfaction, but consumers are dumb and don’t know better! It’s all about outcomes for all and Obamacare obviously improved health for the entire country! Wait, what’s that? Oh, life expectancy dropped and mortality rates rose for the first time in many decades following its enactment…
