to all the people who bitch at the cost of universal health care here is the cost of what you want, of your beliefs, and of your ideas. tell me which is cost is higher; a little cash out of you pockets or these peoples lives. if you and the rest of the people who oppose UHC have a shred empathy, a shred of decency, and a shred of humanity you will answer the later.signed phi.... ....... ..........i jr. a human being
Well at least you play peoples emotions in both directions, however your plea rings just as hollow as your crude analogies. From your link... Doesn't sound like the uninsured are fighting for their lives. The majority of those 30 million make $50k+ or more than the median income. In most of those cases if they wanted or needed health ins. they could get it.
did you read the whole thing? that is a down right lie. but honesty its what i expected from your side of the aisle.
I have no problem with it at all AS LONG AS You organize and run it privately on user donations and fees If the government gets involved, it a)distorts the market b)means more spending, and increased taxation c)is socialism d) is unfair on the wealthy UHC, like most programs, is just a means of the masses to exploit and leech off of the wealthy. It's sickening that you WOULD support socialist policies.
The government is already involved. The anti-trust exceptions for insurers, subsidies of R&D, FDA process, endorsement of AMA boards, etc. already represent massive govenment distortions. And the market cannot exist in the first place without government support. In the case of health care reform, it means less spending and less taxation. So what? The United States has been a welfare state for generations now. Get over it. Nonsense. Any additional costs the wealthy bore would be more than offset by the benefits they'd accrue by living in a healthier, safer, more stable society with a healthier, more productive, more mobile workforce. They'd likely end up richer than before. Which is why opposition to universal health care is not coming from "the wealthy," or "the business community" or anything like that. It's opposed by private insurers and other components of the medical industry that would stand to lose their privileged positions, right-wing ideologues that want to destroy government, and the ignorant rubes they manage to fool with FOX news propaganda about socialist death panels. The rest of the business community is in favor of it, since it solves all their headaches about employer-provided healthcare (which is a major factor driving payroll costs) and provides a more productive, more mobile workforce. The only reasons to oppose universal healthcare are either a craven self-interest (for those who profit from the current system), or an irrational opposition to government.
The market requries that the government enforce contracts and protect property rights. Nothing more. The rest is unnecessary and needs to be cut; of course, because we are so addicted to welfare and "programs", the cutting will have to be gradual, not overnight. Then it depends on what you mean by reform. If you mean less government involvement and more privatization and free market, then that's great. If it's more "universal", then no. One could easily have said to the Jews: "So what, Germany has been a Nazi country for years now. Get over it" No, we don't need to get over violations of the Constitution and attacks on our freedoms. Government is inefficient, wasteful, bloated, and institutionalizes poverty and mediocrity. Get over it. How would they be any healthier? They're wealthy: they can already afford health care. And you can force "benefits" on them and make them pay, but that's not any more legitimate than washing your car without permission and forcing you to pay. Again, it's a parasitism by the vast majority of non-wealthy, moronic people on the entrepreneurial and ownership class. It's pretty sickening, but then again, so is all socialism in general. I see no reason why the wealthy businessman ought to pay for the lowly lazy pothead gang-banger to get health treatment. You say "reform", but reform just means change. Universal health care? Bad. But health care reform? It could be good, depending on what you mean by that. Less government involvement, less corporatism and protectionism, less bureaucracy = good. The only people that want government control are lazy, irresponsible people that have no problem spending others' money.
The market for healthcare requires significantly more than that. It requires anti-trust enforcement for the insurers and hospitals, enforcement of requirements for professional certifications, provision of safety and efficacy testing for new drugs and treatments, exemptions from traffic laws for ambulances, etc. etc. etc. This is not some simple commodities trade we're talking about here. No, privatization and reduction of government's role have resulted in exploding costs without comparable improvement in outcomes. This has been occurring for years now, so is not a matter for speculation. You're offering nothing besides reality-free affirmations of ideology here. Way to go for Godwin. And a Jew would have been just as assinine to advance "But that's Nazism!" as an argument against a government policy in Nazi Germany, anyhow. I said they'd live in a healthier society, not that they personally would be healthier. Although their increased wealth, and the decreased cost of care, would presumably result in increased health for them as well. And yet it's apparently legitimate enough for us to apply progressive income taxation. The wealthy benefit more from the system than anyone else, by definition, and so have a greater responsibility to maintain and advance it. More to the point, a good reform of healthcare would lower costs for everyone. Everyone - even the rich - would end up with more money in their pockets. Would you consider it illegitimate if I washed your car, and then gave you $10 for the trouble? For it to be "parasitism" it would have to harm the "entrepreneurial and ownership class." Healthcare reform would benefit everyone, in all classes. Which makes it symbiosis. He already does that, so that's irrelevant to the issue. Although the reason is that any sane wealthy businessman would rather live in a society where people have healthcare - it's a nicer place to live, and he'd stand to make more money to boot, in the long run. Universal health care would mean that the wealthy businessman pays less for the healthcare of the poor, while getting wealthier himself. And it would create more wealthy businessmen, as the leading cause of individual bankruptcy would be eliminated, along with the leading cause of corporate payroll growth. I'd point out here that Universal Health Care does not have to be government-operated healthcare, or even government-operated health insurance (although those options seem to work better than government-mandated health care). So you're literally saying that it would be a bad thing, in the abstract, for everyone to have access to health care, independent of how that is achieved. Do you really think that? That's exactly what we're talking about. A universal, single-payer healthcare system would eliminate the multiple, overlapping layers of bureaucracy that comprise the private insurance system, as well as got the corporate protectionism that sustains them. And in doing so, it would save everyone - except for the insurance companies - big money. Or are you only bothered by bureaocracy when it's located in government? More naked ideology. /yawn
Nonsense; when have we had true free market health caer? The status quo is a corporatist mess of protectionism, monopolism, and wasteful bureaucracy. It applies. Fine, but only if you ask their permission individually before raising their taxes. Make it voluntary to pay for this thing. That's parasitism Nonsense. How do they "benefit more"? They are not given free money. They work and have their own enterprises that give them money; the thing they are giving back to society is the enterprise, which they are deriving wealth from. They don't "owe" society any more because they have already given! Otherwise they would not be wealthy. Nobody "owns" the system; and the system is just micro-transactions on a large scale. ...but only if they need to, as opposed to everyone paying for something they aren't using. Then, no increased taxes? No increased spending? No government involvement? If you can achieve health care reform without the above, then you have my support. People can have health care. It's called buying it. Just like people can have cable service: they just have to buy it. And if he is so concerned with providing free access to health care to everyone, then he ought to take the initiative and organize privately with others to meet that end. As long as government doesn't do it, it's fine. If government does it, then it will be unfair as it will be forced on everybody. If universal health care is provided privately by contributions and donations, then that's fine. If it is achieved exclusively by private parties, then that's fine. Thus, it would operate on user donations and government would not get involved; plus, the actualy industry wouldn't be affected.
you know what i find ammusing in a sad way. The constantly made argument about "breurocrats making health care desisions rather than the doctor and pt". I have NEVER been rung up on swiping my medicare card to be asked by the federal goverment what i was there for in order to decide if its important enough for them. In fact the ONLY reason medicare cards are used at all for doctors (the qualifier is simply because at pharmacies they are used to double check perscriptions against names) is to ensure that doctors dont lie when they bill medicare for the pts.
Asguard, when will you EVER get it through your head that America is the subject in this debate - and you know practically *nothing* about how things operate in America!! This is NOT Australia, and as Americans we know full-well how our government would set it up here. There would be all manner of exclusions and conditions for treatment here along with TONS of read tape. So until such time as you come over here and live for at least ten years, please STOP assuming you know anything at all about how our systems work!!!!
But seriously.... that isn't government healthcare, so you DO have problem with it. a/ Fedex and UPS doing just fine with the existence of the Postal Service. b/ I am sure we could cut in military spending. c/ like in every capitalist Wester Societies? This one is pure stupidity. d/ the current system is unfair on the poor You have any other non-problem?
its called a comparison. Its a way of show how something would work. And now read we would have exclusions or red tape (well unless we let the right wing design it) That only exists in your head all the while people pay the human cost that you ignore.
Dude, you're almost as bad as Asguard. We all know why YOU would like to see government sponsored health care paid by taxes. It's because it would cost YOU nothing - you've never had a job, probably never intend to get one and therefore DO NOT pay any federal taxes!!!
pjdude1219 beat me to the punch but as it was aimed at me i will still respond. When looking for ways which something will work and when looking for evidence as to wether something CAN work we ALWAYS look for examples. When the goverment (or the oposition for that matter) talks about introducing a program they tend to be asked "how do you know it will do x?" and in the majority of cases there examples fall back to how things are done either well or badly in other juristictions (either state or other countries and i dont paticually care WHAT country your in this happens). Nothing happens in isolation and it is only a person who simply oposes for the sake of oposing who would have no intrest in how things are handled else where and how that could be improved upon or incorperated in order to make a program in juristiction x the best possable. Further more i find it facinating that people who make broud statments like "the US has the best standeds of health care in the world" (a blanketly INCORRECT statement) are the same people who when DETAILED analyisis is made of other juristictions and how that could be incorperated in order to improve dismiss it out of hand if it comes from another country. The only conclusion which can be drawn from this is either a) they simply dont want to know so they can cuddle there own fears to there chest or b) they are so arrogant that they dont belive that ANYTHING could POSSABLY be done better anywhere else other than the US
I have had a job. I intend to get one and currently pay federal taxes. Not some fancy high paying thing like you had. a real job that involved work. I would have gladly given my entire pay check universal healthcare.You know nothing of my reasons. Not having it cost me my cousin and yet you fucking presume to lecture me on the costs involved. You haven't the right. Tell me how much his life was worth to you? 200, 300 dollars? You talk about me supporting UHC because I wouldn't pay the cost and yet here I am having paid the cost for what you support; I think I paid a little more than you would have. You get to lecture me on this when you have to grieve over the human costs of what I believe. Until than go back to your ivory tower with your fine wines and caviar and quit shitting on every day americans.
