Why does Obamacare have to be replaced? Why can't it just

Dunno what is going on with Obamacare, but the US medical system needs a major financial overhaul. You guys pay a -lot- more per capita compared to any other OECD country, yet get very mediocre outcomes.

A good system for the US is a complicated answer, but the short version appears to be that insurers need to be removed from the equation. Some markets are highly amenable to the market, but a few aren't; healthcare is one such.

Ideally, some states would experiment with universal healthcare, and see how that goes. If a state finds a good model, other states can adopt it. If they don't, back to the drawing board.

>>132793317
It doesn't and it shouldn't be replaced. The reason they want to replace it is because they want votes from welfare queens and because a few insurance companies want to drive out competition by forcing smaller companies to be able to accept net losses from high risk patients that they can't deny coverage to.

>>132794009
Well from what I have gathered the government needs to be completely eliminated from the equation as the government protected labor union the AMA greatly restricts the number of doctors and hospitals allowed in the country so doctor wages can be higher, for a drug to come onto the market it takes 10 years and a billion dollars in FDA fees along with the FDA completely eliminating competition among manufacturers by only making it affordable for a select few companies to provide medical equipment. not to mention the increased demand and in return prices that result from government health programs that make it so it's nearly impossible not to have health insurance. Some procedures are even not allowed to be preformed unless being paid for through health insurance.

>>132794672
Interesting is there anything you can cite for the insurance companies wanting smaller companies to take net losses. I'd be really interested in reading more about that.

>>132794773
That could all be true.

But being an empirical frog, I'll going with numbers over theories. The OECD health results are what they are.

There may be some confounding factors at work here -- correlation is not causation -- but the burden of proof is definitely on the other side.