Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you oppose health care reform (the inferior Obamacare, or much preferred single-payer model), please list your reasons for doing so.
I oppose universal health care as a right for every American citizen because:
1.
2.
3.
Good luck.
I have health insurance through my employer and am perfectly cool with that.
Health care did not really need to be reformed, but there are always going to be ways and new ideas in which people can make it better than it was before. If you think the government's the answer, then you are dead wrong. We had a free market system which worked just fine for many years. You can have a good health care plan without any hint of government interference. It is quite possible.
I have health insurance through my employer and am perfectly cool with that.
Health care did not really need to be reformed, but there are always going to be ways and new ideas in which people can make it better than it was before. If you think the government's the answer, then you are dead wrong. We had a free market system which worked just fine for many years. You can have a good health care plan without any hint of government interference. It is quite possible.
Worked fine for some. As I've noted, it's not really up to the government, it's up to us. I would like to see those that it didn't work fine for have health care also.
I have health insurance through my employer and am perfectly cool with that.
Health care did not really need to be reformed, but there are always going to be ways and new ideas in which people can make it better than it was before. If you think the government's the answer, then you are dead wrong. We had a free market system which worked just fine for many years. You can have a good health care plan without any hint of government interference. It is quite possible.
No, the ability to buy insurance needed to be fixed. But it kept getting blocked by certain liberals and states like NY which demanded an insane amount of coverage that will likely never be used, instead of allowing people to buy a meat and potatoes plan people were forced into the filet and lobster tail. That could have been fixed with a federal law allowing people to buy insurance across state lines and allowing for high deductible but low cost plans that would serve as an emergency fund instead of a total care plan, that was stopped too.
Now we have requirements to buy a filet and lobster tail plan and those plans are in the same league for payment scheme as the high deductible plans that were consistently blocked because it would make people poor, only they cost more.
Excuse me for isolating this one part of your response to another forum member however I'd like to comment that I don't think it's an absolutist, black/white or either/or thing.
Imho, public policy & legislation is very often concerned with & considers moral questions. Fr'instance why are there laws & public policies against theft? Isn't at least part of the reason because theft is considered to be immoral?
I too am interested in pragmatic solutions.
Who's morals do you go by? Morals are divisive. Morals are not black and white. I'm willing to bet there are situations where you would not call theft immoral, situations such as tax collection by the US government. There are pragmatic reason why some form of UHC system should exist but liberals inflame the debate with their moral superiority which has no credibility with the conservatives. Its the same way when conservatives talk about the death penalty, abortion or gay marriage, liberals roll their eyes at the "moral" argument. If liberals attacked UHC from more practical aspect instead of calling conservatives immoral you might get a few more of them to agree.
No, the ability to buy insurance needed to be fixed. But it kept getting blocked by certain liberals and states like NY which demanded an insane amount of coverage that will likely never be used, instead of allowing people to buy a meat and potatoes plan people were forced into the filet and lobster tail. That could have been fixed with a federal law allowing people to buy insurance across state lines and allowing for high deductible but low cost plans that would serve as an emergency fund instead of a total care plan, that was stopped too.
Now we have requirements to buy a filet and lobster tail plan and those plans are in the same league for payment scheme as the high deductible plans that were consistently blocked because it would make people poor, only they cost more.
The Health Care Choice Act of 2011 was a bill on selling insurance across state lines. It hasn't moved since 2011 - 12.
We can't pay for UHC unless everyone, and that means EVERYONE, is taxed for it. I haven't fully analyzed the numbers, but perhaps a national sales/VAT tax of 15% would be able to fund bare-bones UHC.
The other choice, as another c-d member already mentioned, is excessive new money creation, which further impoverishes the poor but boosts American workers' and retirees' pension/retirement investment assets.
This is the problem with the far left on here. They don't think low income should pay, they demand "Cadillac" plans for all but paid for by some. They punish hard work and want you to pay for your families care and the family down the street all because they deem it moral. It's sickening
Because, make no mistake about it, if you remove the state regulatory boundaries, all the insurance companies will set up shop in the state with the fewest regulations and start to sell insurance nationally. This is exactly what happened with the credit card industry.
Is this an apt analogy? If so, it would demonstrate credit card companies have succeeded in lowering costs.
Are public policies & legislation about moral questions or are they not?
Yep and that's the problem. That's how you get homophobic laws and in general how you get laws that violate liberty.
Quote:
Personally, I'm not one of those folks who feel, 'Taxes are theft.'
I think you have to make some logical leaps to think that forcefully taking something that belongs to someone else as not theft. Taxes are theft but there is pragmatic reason for the government to steal a portion of peoples money. However, if we want to talk about its morality it comes off as immoral. However, allowing a citizen to steal from another citizen is not pragmatic way for society to operate. It would be chaos and unproductive.
Quote:
Maybe you can clarify?
I think its rather simple. When you argue from a moral perspective, that morality better be absolute or it has no credibility as moral. An example, the person who made the moral argument in this thread stated that if you do support every human being having access to UHC you are immoral. Now if this is true and we have an obligation to uphold morality as the premise implies...we must send doctors to Iraq at great risk to life. I'm willing to bet liberals would object to this as would I and consequently invalidating the morality justification for UHC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
