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.
So I am not a liberal/progressive. I don't even think that healthcare is a human right. But I do think that conservatives should accept some form of government guarantee of health insurance as a protection within the borders of the US. If you disagree then explain why my logic is incorrect.
The reason is simple:
It is a practical impossibility not to do so.
Let me explain,
The difference is that healthcare coverage in a genuine catastrophic manner, lets use life, limb or eyesight as a starting point for what is catastrophic. Even Ann Coulter rights about healthcare,
"I'm perfectly healthy, but I'd like to buy health insurance for heart disease, broken bones, cancer, and everything else that a normal person would ever need, but no more."
I think this is perfectly sensible as I am in the same position as hers. However what if I do not pay? Should the government just allow me to get hit by the proverbial bus and die? Well it can't because it's impossible. Hospitals CANNOT practically distinguish between paying and non-paying customers at a genuine emergency. If you were to fall over unconscious, you obviously cannot prove to the hospital at that point whether you are a paying or non-paying member. (i.e. you have health insurance) So the government already forces hospitals to guarantee that they will patch someone up regardless once they walk into the emergency room. The money happens after the procedure. This forces the taxpayer to pay for everyone who doesn't have insurance due to negligence, difficulty etc. And this is a very expensive and needlessly burdensome problem for both taxpayers and the person who is injured. Therefore since taxpayers are forced to pay, it is reasonable that we are given assurance for what we are going to ultimately responsible for anyway.
Let's use the car insurance analogy that is so popular. The difference between car insurance and health insurance is that if you crash your car, the government doesn't force repair shops to fix your car for you. Taxpayers don't subsidize repair shops, but they do pay doctors. We just don't get a good deal on what we pay for doctors. If we were to guarantee the coverage and force hospitals/doctors to take lower fees (like they do in other countries) for this procedure. We could both lower costs and guarantee a sensible approach to healthcare.
Look to Singapore as an example. They have the closest to a free-market system and they do precisely that, they guarantee catastrophic coverage while having people pay for basic procedures. Not to mention that it is probably politically unsustainable to not guarantee that people will get hit by a bus and get covered.
I made some silly writing errors. But still, come on conservatives, reply! I want to know why you believe the government shouldn't do anything about healthcare.
I thought I read somewhere that the Trump administration was planning on providing catastrophic insurance to all Americans. Don't remember where I read it though.
That is exactly what I think would make sense.
With the ACA, we don't even have the ability to buy catastrophic insurance.
This was basically a non-answer. A complete dodge.
Can someone else actually answer my argument?
It's not a dodge. Only someone who is okay with inadequately run would want to see federal government run on the label. Big Pharm ring a bell? Federal government run VA humming along? In what may be the only industry that it has happened, in medicine technology hasn't lowered the costs.
What part of that don't you understand? How many more examples do you need?
Theoretically, the issue of the ERs could be solved by having those without health insurance wear some kind of prominent badge so that everyone knows not to call 911 for them if they go unconscious (since they wouldn't be able to afford medical care).
I've been saying it all over the boards and I'll say it again here:
If you're a statist (and all Republicans believe in involuntary government) it is absolutely insane to not accept the State to mandate complete health care for all.
You have no pro-capitalism claim (as an anarcho-capitalist only in a stateless society can capitalism exist) and you have no moral claim (you're already accepting theft, imprisonment and murder by accepting the State).
It's just absurd to say "Get the government out of this one aspect of the market" when it's
1. Not possible
2. Not consistent with any claims of pro-capitalism
Someone has to do something about the prices pharma wants to charge. Many insurance companies won't even cover the cost of some of these meds. So some people are just out of luck because they can't afford them. Government needs to step in.
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.
