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.
I'd rather give my money to a system that won't deny me care than to a useless, greedy, money-sucking middle man insurance company whose level of care they will allow is based solely on the company's profit margin.
Yeah, I don't know how anyone could be against healthcare availability for all. People should not be going without such a basic service in a well-functioning modern society. The issue is in how it gets done - is it affordable and can basic rights and freedoms be preserved while implementing it.
If we're going to have a State (hey, not my idea ) then the argument against a universal health care system has no merit. I'm talking about going to the doctor and getting the procedures for free. Meds free. Advice free. The whole nine yards.
All of us suffer under the socialist system now. Might as well make it a uniform system of suffering (which it would be but whatever).
I'd rather give my money to a system that won't deny me care than to a useless, greedy, money-sucking middle man insurance company whose level of care they will allow is based solely on the company's profit margin.
Except that all single payer health plans continuously and intensely decline operations, decline drugs, and decline care as part of the heath care rationing that MUST be present to keep costs in line. How do you choose not to see that?
And in combination with that, taxing citizens at 60%+ of their income, so nobody is able to make or save any money. Or build a business. Or achieve a dream.
I am not sure what level of stupid is required to actually believe that one can get something for nothing.
While obviously an exaggeration polls consistently show a majority of Americans want more government programs and lower taxes. That’s why we have a twenty trillion dollar deficit.
A Swiss style system seems more reasonable. Theirs is almost entirely privately run, but with stronger regulations and an insurance mandate. It makes a lot of sense.
The entire nation has the population of one large US city.
The beauty of the US is that we are sometimes looked at as "50 experiments in democracy" (never mind that we're a republic). My suggestion would be, before going national-some states that are strongly supportive of "single payer" try it out. They can let the rest of the nation know how it all works out. If they prove that it results in better service, and more importantly at lower cost, and does NOT increase anyone's taxes, it might be worth emulating. Seems like CA or MN could lead the way.
Yeah--but that is the problem. People opt out and then use the emergency room of a hospital that is forced to treat them, and they can walk away and not pay. We have to allow emergency rooms to turn people away who choose not to opt in. Being the fake christian society we are, turning people away from emergency rooms will not fly.
So how would this be resolved?
Don’t know, more importantly, don’t care. I want no part of socialized medicine.
While obviously an exaggeration polls consistently show a majority of Americans want more government programs and lower taxes. That’s why we have a twenty trillion dollar deficit.
I want no government programs and no taxes.
Probably why I'm not in debt.
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.