• @RapidcreekOP
    link
    22 months ago

    Yeah, but there is no doubt those constitutes would have been affected.

    • @idiomaddict
      link
      32 months ago

      Of course we were affected. The last year I lived in Connecticut, I paid $13k for healthcare, as a mostly healthy person in my 20s.

      • @RapidcreekOP
        link
        -12 months ago

        You would have paid the same with Univeral Healthcare, but if you worked f9r a Connecticut insurance com0any you’d be out of work.

        • @idiomaddict
          link
          42 months ago

          Other countries with universal healthcare don’t pay nearly as much as Americans do and not every industry needs to be saved. Health insurance companies are not even the biggest insurance employer in Connecticut, the vast majority of people in Connecticut had a net loss in not getting single payer through.

          • @RapidcreekOP
            link
            -12 months ago

            A lot of other countries own their entire health care structure. Hospitals, the whole lot. That isn’t part of Universal health care and is the big component to lower costs overall.

            • @idiomaddict
              link
              32 months ago

              Some, but a lot don’t. Even if that was the only way to reduce healthcare costs, it would be a great application for eminent domain. Luckily, everyone else has a better solution than ours.

              • @RapidcreekOP
                link
                0
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                The US is a big country in size and population. So, efforts in this area aren’t easy and very expensive. If you maintain everyone to have insurance, as with the ACA, you can lower about 1/3 of health care costs. Move to Universal Care, you’re looking at almost 2/3. Nationalize the entire Healthcare structure and you’ll see almost 3/3. I don’t really see that last one happening in my lifetime. It took a lot to convince people the ACA was good for them.

                • @idiomaddict
                  link
                  42 months ago

                  So we agree that Joe Lieberman voted against the interests of his constituents (the difference between the 1/3 and 2/3 of savings).

                  • @RapidcreekOP
                    link
                    -12 months ago

                    I agree that Joe was listening to those constituents who wanted to keep their jobs. And, if the public would have given democrats more of a majority in the Senate he wouldn’t have been an issue.