No country is as litigious as the US. None.
Agreed. It was a rhetorical question for sure. 
Not being picky but I was speaking to marvin as to ‘malpractice’ exposure in his/her country.
@catahoula - I don’t know about malpractice here, sorry.
(If you want to know how it’s possible, well, a whole heck of a lot is possible if the government isn’t spending $597 billion per year on the military)
It wasn’t a rhetorical question but thanks for the answer.
It’s the little things, like how much the threat of being litigated out of a living affects healthcare spending, which make comparing one system to another pretty much a useless exercise. Too many parts, too many hands out, too many mouths to feed. Too many lobbies, too much rent-seeking.
By a large margin, more people think they are worse off under ACA than think they benefit from it. Calling it not real data or feelings does not change the fact that ACA is tremendously unpopular.
Time to kill this bill and replace it with something new.
@catahoula No worries. I know what you were trying to get at. The rhetorical question I was referring to was my own, the one @marvin100 quoted. But, yes, I think we all know that the costs of operating many businesses is increased in this country due to litigation.
That the countries trotted out as examples of an enlightened healthcare system don’t squander their money on defense spending is certainly a fact, marvin.
I might be wrong in assuming you live in one of those but… would you know if your country enjoys any aspect of the US defense umbrella?
I think this is becoming too much of a derail, @catahoula .
Post 543 had a number of statements that often show up, in one form or another, on healthcare threads. Asking about the specifics that enable the views doesn’t seem much off-topic.
Feel free to answer or not.
Then nah
I’m both someone who would have been completely uninsurable if I ever had a lapse in large group coverage pre-ACA (congenital disability that was an automatic denial of coverage) and–knock on wood–a young person who almost never uses health insurance. I will gratefully pay for an individual plan if need be, because the alternative was never, ever being able to get health insurance and being somewhat likely to die early due to that. Also, the previous yearly and lifetime coverage limits were actual “death panels,” for all the mostly grounded hysteria about healthcare reform summoning them–cancer treatment to expensive by July? Just wait until January, because that’s feasible, clearly. When people vote against the ACA, they are voting against my life and well-being, for a disability that could have only been prevented by me dying at birth. I have been–and possibly will always be–a single issue voter on this topic. It’s that important to me.
Hm… exactly how do you know these responses were based on only feelings and not hard math and known effects on their families? Did you talk to them?
But even more interesting, why do you think the metrics the responders used to determine “hurt” is not as relevant, or maybe even more relevant and accurate, as your metric to determine whether they are hurt?
And consider they are the ones saying they are hurt, exactly who are you to tell them they might not be hurt and dismiss the fact that they say so?
Are you that silly to think you can tell others what is going on in their own lives and the effects of something on their lives, i.e., lives you are only observing from the outside and have zero knowledge or details about as to their particulars?
You need to stop projecting from within that bubble you are living in. If you have not noticed, the real world already passed a verdict on the ACA.
“You need to stop projecting from within that bubble you are living in. If you have not noticed, the real world already passed a verdict on the ACA.”
You keep repeating this and THAT is silly. What do you mean by this? I imagine you mean Trump was elected who was speaking out against ACA. That’s not a vote against ACA. It’s also by far not a majority vote either. People vote for different reasons. It was 25% of voters max, not a majority of the popular vote and the vote wasn’t on ACA. Don’t twist facts.
BTW, you keep ignoring my questions, @awcntdb. You know, that one where you claimed that people at your company paid different rates for things they needed? Male and female? Post #523
Come on you folks, you know if you go there the thread gets closed.
I’m interested to watch how the ACA changes under the new administration. Health policy is hard. Whatever is done will be sure to be very unpopular with some people, and they will be loud in their disapproval.
If you poll about the ACA in general, it’s unpopular. But if you poll about various provisions of the ACA, some are very popular. People love being able to keep dependents on their parents’ plan until age 26 and getting rid of the Medicare drug “donut hole.” The Medical Loss Ratio rule, where an insurer has to give back part of people’s premiums at the end of the year if the insurer didn’t spend enough on health care, is also a popular feature. The pre-ex exclusion is also favored by many people-- and disliked by many others. So if Congress gets rid of the whole ACA, they’re getting rid of some things people like and want.
“there was never a race or campaign for a popular vote”
We’re talking ACA here not the election. There was never a vote on ACA so your long posts, once again, do not address that fact nor are they pertinent to the discussion on ACA or other options for healthcare. THAT sounds like bubble thinking to me.
It is almost like he lives in Brussels. 
It’s probably better to simply ignore than engage.
If one side says repeal and replace - they need to develop a solution that includes a new plan.
Otherwise it’s third rail because many millions of voters will become disenfranchised. The comparison point will not be pre-ACA and post ACA. It will be ACA and no ACA.
Belgium is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the US defense umbrella. If I recall correctly, Belgium spends 0.5% of GDP on defense, compared to the expectation of 2%.
How about this? Let’s get Belgium to fork over 1.5% of GDP to fund US healthcare. Oh that’s right, they cannot. Due to careless spending on social programs they cannot afford, their debt is already over 100% of GDP.