So, in other words rather than being a 50% slave to the government, I'm a 60% slave to the insurance companies because they're going to charge more? Health care should never be for profit when it is a necessary (non-cosmetic) treatment. Sorry, that's just the way I feel. If the government is so inefficient and worthless as right-wingers suggest then it should be absolutely no problem for the insurance companies to compete and win. And unlike a lot of other countries if the majority feel the program stinks then we'll elect someone new in 3 years to eliminate it.
You're no slave to the insurance companies until govt. makes you one by fining you or throwing you in jail if you don't buy insurance. Right now, insurance is voluntary. Even if your employer offers it, you can refuse. Liberty.
It's one of the big arguments. There are many. So the government is responsible for basic necessities? I guess all the grocery stores should be government run, because they sell food and earn profits. I guess all apparel companies should be government run, because they sell clothing and earn profits. And I guess all real estate should be government owned, because you can't have anyone earning a profit on shelter, right? We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Too often the second one is encroached upon and we ignore "the pursuit of". Make your own way in this life. Don't expect others to do things for you. As for health insurance, there is private health insurance Loretta can get. That system works pretty well. May she have to sacrifice something else to pay for it? Yep. Too bad. We all make choices. And if she truly can't pay for it, there are plenty of charities out there who will. She can also get a financing plan from the hospital. And in extreme cases, the government or a private entity picks up the tab. No one goes without health care in this country who needs it, which is more than I can say for those in countries with socialized health care. Wrong again. Take out our higher risks (traffic accidents, murders, obesity, etc.) and our life expectancy is the highest in the world. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html What it means is that once you're in our health care system, you receive the very best care in the world. Our cancer survival rates are among the highest in the world. We do more transplants than anyone else. We perform joint replacements rather than confining people to wheelchairs, which is what they do in countries with socialized medicine. Want more proof? Where do the wealthiest people in the world come when they're really sick? The good ol' U.S. of A. As for what the "final" bill will look like, it doesn't matter. Health care is the slipperiest of slippery slopes. Barney Frank has admitted all they want is a toe hold. So has the creator of the public option. Government programs are like ratchets--they only go one way. And in this case, they get bigger and more expensive. As for its quality? All you need to know is Congress is exempting themselves and their families from the plan. A couple of things. First, that supplemental insurance is incredibly expensive, and combined with the high tax rates in countries with socialized medicine, is basically unaffordable for those people considered to be in the middle class in those countries. Second, where does that supplemental insurance send you when you're sick? To America. Well, that ends when we socialize our medical system. You don't seem to understand the basics of supply and demand, so I'll recap it for you: When you provide more people with more care while simultaneously lowering the amount doctors get paid, you're going to lower the supply of doctors. What happens then? Rationing. You can have all the health insurance in the world, but it won't do you a damn bit of good if no one can treat you. Newsflash: The US government wasn't designed by our forefathers to be the boss of the people. It's supposed to be the other way around. I'm happy to help fund a social safety net for those who really need it. However, we've been asked more and more to subsidize the lifestyle of others. I say enough is enough. If someone can't get health insurance and have the same standard of living, well tough shit. In the words of George Michael's and Andrew Ridgley's uber gay T-shirts, "Choose Life!". I'd rather be alive than have an X-Box. People in this country get health care, and they have access to the best in the world. If the issue is making sure the 8.5MM-17MM people who truly can't afford health insurance are covered, fine, let's pay for their policies. Sweet. That will cost at the most $6K/head. For between $52B-$102B, the problem is solved. There's no need to spend $2T and still leave 25MM uninsured.
The government already provides food stamps. People can get clothes, food, and housing without bankrupting themselves for the rest of their lives. There is a distinct difference between these. So she can pay for it the rest of her life for something she didn't even choose. Yes, my point again, thanks for making it. Interesting that you think that everyone in this country gets health care who needs it when they don't. Those that can afford it or find a way to afford it can get health care. And those that can't go broke. Again proving my point, thank you. Wrong again, life expectancy != quality of care. I could amputate all of your limbs and keep you alive in a box until you were 105, using all sorts of medical devices. Hey, what a great life! How about SOME proof. Let me rant like you, will that make it true? Absolutely not. Where do people in the U.S.A. go for expensive operations when they can't afford it - Asia! From what I understand Congress is exempting the vast majority of the population from the plan, so what again is your beef? Link? Proof? I'd like to see this information that all supplemental insurance in all socialized countries sends you to America. No, actually I understand it quite well. But you keep on being patronizing like you always are. Newsflash: You obviously have no idea about how the forefathers thought and haven't done much research. There were multitudes of "camps" and ideas about how things should be run. Hamilton v Jefferson was a classic example. And they all believed the government was responsible for providing some services to the people.
To everyone? Do we have single-payer food stores? I know people who have been bankrupted because they overpaid on a house. I know people who have been bankrupted on buying too many superfluous items, such as clothing and dinners out. People go bankrupt for all sorts of reasons. No one says "people are going bankrupt so we have to nationalize the source of the bankruptcy!", yet that's your argument for health care. Interesting. Where do we draw the line? I know you don't like the idea that bad luck can lead you bankruptcy, but the government can't protect you from everything. Come to think of it, isn't bankruptcy government protection in and of itself? Please list the statistics that demonstrate that people die because they don't get health care in this country. My mother used to be a hospital administrator (Tuality, Meridian Park & Emanuel) and she has emphasized that NO ONE who needs health care is turned away. Is it just those two hospital systems where this is the case? Perhaps, but that's highly unlikely. In fact in her last year working, Emanuel subsidized $22MM in services they gave for free. Yep. Let 'em die. No offense, but why is that your decision? Shouldn't a person be able to make their own decision on what kind of care they receive? The point of that study was to isolate health care from lifestyle to more accurately calculate the quality of health care. And when it did, like the Olympics, the USA is #1!!! USA! USA! USA! Ah, nothing like someone who claims to be open-minded deciding they have nothing left to learn. And that will be a growing market, but only among the wealthy. The US will be just like Europe where the wealthy are the only ones who can afford the choice. As for me, I'd rather be able to get the health care I wish here in the States rather than some cut rate Third World clinic. Rationing and government control will assure that you only receive the care the government decides you can have. If you don't think single-payer is the goal, you're simply not paying attention. Anecdotal from living in Spain and Scandinavia. Most, if not all of our investors had insurance that would bring them to the US when they got sick. What's your proof that folks in socialized countries can get all the care they wish in their own country by purchasing supplemental insurance? But the problem is you actually don't. You think we can have the same level of health care with more patients and fewer doctors at a lower cost. Try paying doctors Medicare rates for all their patients and see how many physicians there are in a decade. You don't incur their level of debt and spend that long in school and residency to make $75K. And those that do could hardly be considered our best and brightest. As for me, I prefer the guy that's going to cut open my chest been part of a highly competitive process that separated the wheat from the chaff. How do I know what our forefathers thought? See, they wrote these documents and everyone signed them. Those are our guiding principles. I must have missed the point where they instituted nationalized health care. Somehow we've managed to become the wealthiest country in human history and a beacon of freedom without socialized health care. Everyone else that has instituted it has been eating our dust for decades. Coincidence? Bottom line, the freer the society, the more prosperous that society is.
