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 is sustainable. We just need to snippy snip the defense budget and foreign aid.
I'm all for snippy snipping the defense budget down to almost nothing and ending all foreign aid!
But it might be better for the whole of the country if we used that money to make a dent in the 18 trillion dollars of debt we are in. If we did that, maybe our magic green toilet paper would have a little more purchasing power...
Why is it such a big debate in the US then? Taxpayer per capita spending on health in NZ, is about the same as the US, with the difference that it covers the whole population., and not just a percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Like I said, there is no evidence, whatsoever, anywhere in the universe, that your assertion is true, and all the evidence we have says it's false. So, why do you keep arguing it?
No, "radical" is saying that your wants justify asking government into intrude into other people's lives to steal what you want for you.
That's your American perspective. By and large, that sort of thinking doesn't apply here.
Not of those representatives have specific, clearly defined limited duties and powers, and prohibited from doing anything else.
We are not intended to to greatly influence the federal government, since none of its defined powers have any significant influence on our lives. It's when it strayed past its limits that things have gotten way out of hand.
I have no solid idea what you mean by that.
However, the overbearing state brings about its own demise - when Atlas Shrugs.
You might find this interesting...starts around 30 seconds in. Two guys talking about how they used to be minarchist libertarian (as you are) and how they got to be anarchist.
My libertarianism is slipping: I am formally on record for supporting universal health care
This falls in line with what I have been saying. A lot of libertarians are actually Democrats, they are just tightwads (or think they are).
LOL...Democrats (and Republicans) condone initiations of force to get their way. Libertarians do not. If you hear a "libertarian" promoting initiations of force, they are definitely not libertarians. They are some collectivist looking for a better label for their version of tyranny.
I'm not going to support this until you leave private insurers alone. If people get to have guaranteed health coverage, then why do you need to still pick on private insurers? Private insurance can be provided by employers as a benefit or purchased by individuals if they so desire, and will be crucial to rolling out a single payer system for all since it will relieve the strain of having 300 million+ people on one system.
How am I "picking on" private insurers? I get very annoyed at the people who make analogies of health insurance to car insurance. They're not the same thing! Cars are expendable; our bodies aren't. This has nothing to do with the health insurers. I'd be fine with a system that utilizes private insurance, but I don't want them to be able to sell stripped down policies that actually don't cover anything when you really need it.
I am trending towards a healthcare model that rewards people for taking care of themselves.
Those with a normal BMI, non-smokers and non substance abusers get the lowest rates.
The 75+ % of adults who are overweight and/or smoke and/or are addicted to substances are required to pay substantial premiums or do without.
I'm pretty much with you - except that a person with weight or substance issues *who is enrolled in a program to fix those issues and is hitting the benchmarks* should get lower rates as well.
How am I "picking on" private insurers? I get very annoyed at the people who make analogies of health insurance to car insurance. They're not the same thing! Cars are expendable; our bodies aren't. This has nothing to do with the health insurers. I'd be fine with a system that utilizes private insurance, but I don't want them to be able to sell stripped down policies that actually don't cover anything when you really need it.
My question to you is why do you need to regulate a private system when we'll have a public system for all.
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.
