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.
We need Free Market Healthcare in this country. It can work.
We had free market healthcare, that was the one where they could cancel your policy any time they wanted, limit how much they paid out, and deny payment for a pre-existing condition. It never worked for anyone except for the insurance companies
Do you really think the choice is that simple? Name a country who's either purely capitalist or purely socialist.
As long as the U.S. has things like Social Security and Medicare, we won't be pure capitalist...and very few people have an issue with those programs.
Our government is different than the entire country. We have a capitalist government, not a social government with a capitalist economy. That's different.
We prevent capitalism from working introducing social programs into the mix. If we are going that route then we should just change to a socialist form of government. Mandating things like healthcare in a for profit system won't work out. We either need supply and DEMAND working in full order or forget it.
We now cannot go to a doctor with cash. The doctor doesn't compete. The drug companies and health equipment companies don't compete. Mandates everywhere. Capitalism in name only doesn't cut it. True capitalist don't have programs, they rely on market regulation.
Socialist governments with a non profit care system sets regulations, mandates, and controls the coverage allowed. A for profit healthcare system doesn't. There are no caps, no price fixes, none of it applies. Yet we are forced to have it by our government or we get fined? It's a mixed bag of crap but it won't work in the long run. Pick a side. We either are or we are not, you can't have both and expect any kind of success. That is why other countries always kick our ass. Their governments job is clear. Ours is anything but.
I simply do not like the idea of being forced into health insurance, or health CARE, when you do not want it. While my view may not be the norm for people my age, I am sure a lot of YOUNG PEOPLE will agree. You WANT it, and medical treatment, that is YOUR choice and should be available, but not if you DON'T.
I have no problem with your view/approach. Just understand that when you get ill...ear infection, tooth ache, broken arm, simple laceration requiring stitches to stop the bleeding and antibiotics to quell the infection....you sit by the curb, in agony, until you die from your injury. Completely YOUR choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
I am good with people who don't want medical treatment or health insurance.
I just want to be sure that if they get sick or hurt they don't try to sneak in the back door and get treatment, the cost of which falls on the rest of us.
See above. No Pay = NO Health Care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl
My question is what were the Republicans going to replace Obama care with? (Crickets?)
The Republicans have no desire nor interest in proposing a National Health Care Plan. The view is: we've got ours; you worry about yourself. What is really odd is that they have organized an attack on the current ACA to divert people into thinking that the issue is "how bad" ACA is, rather than having the electorate thinking, "hey, wait a minute, my representative and his family are getting free health care for life (at MY Expense) and he doesn't want me to have anything? WTF". It is just amazing how gullible people are. They LOVE it when their representative stands up and rails against ACA, but offers no option. It just doesn't dawn on them, "hey , wait a minute...he gets his, for free, for life...and he wants me to have NOTHING". Let me vote for him...again.
Human behavior is just extremely curious. How could the above thinking possibly happen? But it does! The more the "little guy" gets crushed, the more they like it. Go figure!
In dissent, Scalia cranked up his increasingly tired act as the Court’s sound-bite generator. According to Scalia, the Court engaged in “interpretive jiggery-pokery,†spouted “pure applesauce,†and should prompt Obamacare to be renamed “SCOTUScare.†The problem with Scalia’s dissent is the problem with the lawsuit as a whole. It’s a transparent attempt to undermine the law by whatever means happen to be available rather than by any consistent jurisprudential principle. Back in the nineteen-sixties and seventies, judicial conservatives believed in restraint—in deference to the elected branches of government. That led them to oppose such decisions as Roe v. Wade, which overturned state laws banning abortion, and to support broad exercises of executive power. The King case shows that some conservatives have abandoned their old idea of deference to the executive branch and are simply filing lawsuits against the laws they don’t like—and coming up with whatever reasons they can to support them.
Remember - these are the same clowns who work themselves into a frenzy of adulation over a ruling (Citizens United v. FEC) that claims the words 'person' and 'people' in the Constitution mean corporations and giving unlimited money to politicians is free speech, therefore XYZ Incorporated (it's a person! ) gets to give millions to its favorite candidate (that's free speech! ).
Our government is different than the entire country. We have a capitalist government, not a social government with a capitalist economy. That's different.
We prevent capitalism from working introducing social programs into the mix. If we are going that route then we should just change to a socialist form of government. Mandating things like healthcare in a for profit system won't work out. We either need supply and DEMAND working in full order or forget it.
We now cannot go to a doctor with cash. The doctor doesn't compete. The drug companies and health equipment companies don't compete. Mandates everywhere. Capitalism in name only doesn't cut it. True capitalist don't have programs, they rely on market regulation.
Socialist governments with a non profit care system sets regulations, mandates, and controls the coverage allowed. A for profit healthcare system doesn't. There are no caps, no price fixes, none of it applies. Yet we are forced to have it by our government or we get fined? It's a mixed bag of crap but it won't work in the long run. Pick a side. We either are or we are not, you can't have both and expect any kind of success. That is why other countries always kick our ass. Their governments job is clear. Ours is anything but.
The reason we have Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, the VA, and health insurance programs for public employees is because the free market never worked well when it came to health care. People can't be in the position of being healthy one minute and critically injured in an accident, the next, without some expectation of getting medical care. Than, you have groups who struggle with chronic conditions like juvenile diabetes that they had no part in creating. Decent people don't throw the sick and the aged to the wolves to be devoured. They struggle and they make provisions for those less fortunate than the average--imperfect though their solutions may be.
Anyone who wants the free market to govern the operation of health care, in essence believes that the quality of care ought to be better depending on how much money you have. You can slice it any way that you want, but that's what they are saying.
If the USA were to adopt some free market "solution" to the health care problem it would be alone among the modern nations of the world in doing so. Every developed country has gone in a different direction. The universal rejection of the free market, alone, ought to tell people that the idea of going in this direction is nothing, but a fantasy that comes from a bad Ayn Rand novel.
The truth is the ACA does rely a great deal on market forces. State insurance exchanges and the federal insurance exchange create a place where insurance companies compete against each other, in terms of price, for your business. Before the exchange, making these comparisons was so complex that it was near impossible. One can make a good argument that the ACA has done more to make market forces work to solve the health care problem than any other reform has.
Gotta love conservatives. Most of them bad mouth the ACA endlessly, but have no real constructive suggestions to offer to replace it.
I have no problem with your view/approach. Just understand that when you get ill...ear infection, tooth ache, broken arm, simple laceration requiring stitches to stop the bleeding and antibiotics to quell the infection....you sit by the curb, in agony, until you die from your injury. Completely YOUR choice.
Wow....the bolded part has "drama queen" written all over it.
Medical costs can be negotiated if you don't have insurance. You don't die because of a tooth ache, and you don't need to sit by the curb, in agony, with a simple laceration.
There are literally THOUSANDS of places nationwide that will take care of things such as this, and you can negotiate the cost with them. Completely YOUR choice, of course.
And if you know how to negotiate, you'll likely pay far less than you would with a high-deductible Obamcare policy.
Toobin's article is so full of holes, only clowns think he nails it.
The funniest is his repeated reference to people who bought insurance on 'thefederalexchange.'
Everyone who believes this decision makes any legal sense should stop using the words 'federal exchange,' because 6 jokesters ruled everything is a state exchange.
For whatever their reasons, Kennedy and Roberts chose to dumb-down their legal knowledge for this ruling.
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.
It's a mixed bag of crap but it won't work in the long run. Pick a side. We either are or we are not, you can't have both and expect any kind of success. That is why other countries always kick our ass. Their governments job is clear. Ours is anything but.
) gets to give millions to its favorite candidate (that's free speech! 
