So you want to opt out of those things, but you're williing to pay for Bob's new lung because he smoked for 40 years?
Why shouldn't we all get to choose what we want to pay for? Is it just, things you don't like should be optional, things you do like should be required?
lol, oh I see. So my argument that the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare because they absolutely suck at pretty much everything gets turned into a philosophy debate now, huh? Getting back on track.....the government cannot even balance a goddamn budget. What makes you think that they have any business running healthcare? You really want 6 hour wait times in medical clinics and hospitals because of overcrowded waiting rooms? Or how about poor service because of a lack of competent healthcare professionals, and denied coverage (which they would do plenty of) for the elderly and folks with preexisting conditions that require tens of thousands of dollars a year in medical expenses? And don't give me that "preexisting conditions will be covered" bullshit either, because I don't buy it for one minute. Again: as bad as you think it is with the insurance companies, it is an absolute joke to think it will get better if the government takes over healthcare. Give people an option to go out-of-state to find better health insurance, and stop punishing employers with a tax if their healthcare plan doesn't live up to the government's expectations.
No, just the general principle that things you don't want should be opt-out--that's not manageable. I may want to opt out of all sorts of things with my tax money, but that isn't how we do things. If you think government "sucks at everything," that's certainly an opinion you have a right to. I wouldn't even argue that government is the optimal way to do most things; government is a necessary bureaucracy to ensure that people without monetary means get access to important services like health care though, IMO.
Well, it is a philosophy debate. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask why you think, for example, that schools should be publicly funded, but healthcare should not. And yes, pre-existing conditions would be covered. Because under a national healthcare plan, all citizens would be covered. All, every single one of us. Would there have to be limits on coverage? Of course. There are under the current system too. barfo
Yeah.....no. The last place the government should be is in our healthcare. They already get a pass with invading our privacy and countless other bullshit....the least they can do is stay the fuck out of our doctor's office. And the pharmacy. And the insurance industry. If they run the military and basic emergency services and Federal Infrastructure, that's fine. I don't mind paying taxes for that. But not for Healthcare. I've heard too many horror stories about government encroachment into healthcare from Socialist countries around the world. Canada, for example, is terrible with healthcare, but the politicians don't give a shit because hey...."at least everyone is covered!". Government-run healthcare would be a complete cluster fuck. Even Obamacare was a disaster for millions of people. Have we not learned our lesson here?
Personally, I believe schools should be privately funded, not publicly funded. Oh, I see.....so you're fine with limits on coverage, as long as it's the government limiting it, and not those big bad evil insurance companies, huh? I'll tell you what....when the government agrees to add my hearing aid expenses to my healthcare (I'm out-of-pocket about $10,000, and I need new ones as we speak), and gives me the option to choose my own Ear, Nose, and Throat Doctor for the numerous debilitating inner-ear disorders I have, then I'll buy that line of logic. If they add those two things to my single payer system, then I'll go along for the ride.
Right. You're fine with paying taxes for things you agree with. I'm the same way--health care is just one of those things for me, so that lower income people are provided with health care beyond the emergency room.
Ok, great, how about the military? We could use mercenaries. Everyone has heard the stories about $1000 toilet seats. Obviously the government shouldn't be running the pentagon. Agreed? Not sure what you are talking about - I said there were necessarily limits on coverage either way. It's not something to be ok with or not ok with - it's reality. Sounds like a bummer of a situation, sorry. But honestly, if I was paying $10k out of pocket for healthcare, I think I'd be a bit more open to making changes in the healthcare system. It doesn't sound like the current system is really working that well for you. barfo
I'd be all for those things being a part of what gets paid for, and I don't see why they wouldn't be covered.
So you, as usual, ignore what I said. Okay, well....that's on you. I don't think that's what you said, but it's alright, and thank you for clarifying. You are correct, however, about the reality....and here's the current reality: limits on healthcare are better with an insurance company than with the government. You have options with an insurance company. Not so with the government. With the government, you take what they give you. I'll take my chances with the insurance company, thank you. Thank you. And healthcare doesn't pay for hearing aid coverage, that's what I meant, so as of right now I'm resorted to borrowing money. That's not fun, and it's not something I can sustain long-term. My left-side hearing aid has been on borrowed time for years, and I'm using a bargain-bin hearing aid in my right ear that was partially paid for by the local Elks Lodge. And they only help you pay for one, and only one time. Ear, Nose, and Throat doctor? Had one, and he took my Premera Blue Cross healthcare. Haven't had that in years; due to a combination of switching jobs, rising insurance costs, and Obamacare. I'm trying to get trained as a Heavy Equipment Operator right now, so hopefully in a couple of years I'll be back on track with some decent health insurance.
I didn't ignore it. I responded to it. You said you would prefer schools to be privately funded, and I said, ok then, how about the military. And you think this is the best system possible? This is what you are fighting to keep? barfo
Right now I'm on Medicare (which wasn't my first option or choice...long story). I have a very hard time believing Single Payer would be any better. I would kill to be able to afford my own private insurance again. That shit was great.
I'm not sure if I read this correctly. Do you believe 10k for the average american is pocket change? You're a little out of touch if you think even 1/4 of that is realistic for the average american to pay on a whim.
I'm going to catch some flack from this. I don't think anyone should have their income taxed to pay for an sex change operation. I also don't believe viagra or bc should be paid for out of taxes. These things don't improve or worsen the quality of life of the individual or the masses. I'm sure if I thought on it more I could figure out more things that will be/already are being paid for that our taxes shouldn't be paying. Where as schools and emergency response improve the quality of life of the individuals as well as the masses.
Voting really boils down to what you want your taxes paying for. Some people want the least fortunate of our society to receive basic human comforts. Some people want education. Some people want all of our teachers to carry guns, and a big, beautiful wall. As of right now, the the teacher gun BBWs are winning at the voting booth.
Part of the problem is that many voters view many of the "least fortunate" as actually simply being the "least responsible", and when it comes to government subsidization, there's really no way to differentiate between the two. There's also a philosophical debate as to whether health care qualifies as a "basic human comfort." There's also the fact that many of the things people want the government to pay for are things the public simply can't pay for on an individual basis (like roads, military, or a BBW). I get that there's some validity to your statement, but you're also ridiculously oversimplifying the concept.
I'm certainly no expert, and those against socialized medicine always trot out "horror" stories about countries that do have socialized medicine (which make for interesting reading) but I'm not sure a great deal of that is nothing more than propaganda. I was in Victoria BC about 6 weeks ago, hanging out in a pub and chatting with various folks. I got into a long and truly interesting conversation with a German tourist and a Canadian citizen (who were both absolutely fascinated by the current state of American affairs) and both these gentlemen were truly puzzled as to why America wasn't pushing hard for "socialized" healthcare. Both individuals were very satisfied with the healthcare they received in their countries and had few if any problems with what it cost them out of pocket (over and above the applicable taxes neither seemed to object to). They felt that they were getting their money's worth overall and were extremely grateful to have access to healthcare. When I asked about the delays in receiving needed care, both (remember, they were from two different countries) stated that care was virtually immediate when and if conditions (injuries, heart issues, cancer, etc, etc) were life threatening. But they also said if you needed services that were more "elective" or weren't immediately life threatening (knee replacements, etc) then yes, you might have to wait several months. But both guys were more than fine with that, because they felt that the individuals that absolutely need the care more immediately received it when they needed it, rather than being put off because services were bogged down for the aforementioned elective procedures. In other words, their countries prioritized treatment and services (which in turn can keep health care costs down). Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And this is not the first time in the past decade or so that I have heard this side of the equation. I can't help but think that a great deal (too much) of the crap we hear about things like "socialized" medicine is nothing more than bullshit put out by those with a vested interest in the current system. But then again, the quality of our Veteran's Administration health care doesn't help my point any........
The public can't individually pay for single payer healthcare. And I am familiar with the "poor people are lazy, fuck 'em" philosophy. Like I said, those people are winning at the voting booth, for better or for worse.
TV adds and junk food franchises did this....I'm 63 and no govt official has ever dictated my food choices...except the Navy when on duty and I'm not diabetic or obese...choices...I care for disabled seniors and they could eat an apple anytime....trees loaded with them but they would rather eat oreos....sugar addiction is a problem, just like tobacco, but it's also a choice...not some mandate...marketing infomercials are over the top.....selling every pill imaginable for things that could be contained with simple diet and exercise...which also was taught in schools ...you can lead a horse to water but he might just choose a soda pop.
