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 want to shop for my health insurance like I shop for my auto insurance. Across statelines.
I want to see Flo (Progressive), Mayhem (Allstate) and Jake (State Farm) all selling health insurance just like they do car and home insurance. I want the ability to choose a catastrophic, high deductible plan or one that covers everything from brain surgery to a hang nail with the same co-pay.
There are 300+ million people in this country and now we have to choose between 3 plans offered by a handful of companies. There should be a plan to meet the needs of 99% of the population. Will that take 4, 40, 400 or even 4000 plans? Let the market decide.
The conservative argument for UHC is the fact that it would remove a HUGE burden from the backs of the employers, boosting their profits and competitiveness.
I don't feel employers should be forced to provide insurance in the first place.
Employers did this as an incentive to get people to work for them, and somehow their generosity has become a mandated burden.
IMHO, the best case scenario is having concierge type medical care with catastrophic health insurance coverage for most people and then a government program for the poor.
I feel responsibility for making sure my fellow citizens don't die in the street, but I also don't feel the government should force me to help give them the same type of treatment I receive.
I feel responsibility for making sure my fellow citizens don't die in the street, but I also don't feel the government should force me to help give them the same type of treatment I receive.
So you want them healthy enough to be able to fully experience the misery of the second-class human existence you would grant them, but no better than that. Understood.
Regardless, UHC doesn't require that others have "the same type of treatment [you] receive". It generally establishes a baseline level of healthcare that everyone benefits from and then allows you to use your own money to purchase non-essential healthcare services.
So what it seems like you're saying is that the extra luxuries you can buy with the lower taxes you pay are more important than the life and health of people you don't care about.
Luxuries or necessities, it's money I'm working hard to earn and should be able spend by my own choice. Your idea of necessity and mine may not match. 3rd grade tuition for my child ran me $26K this year, yet I still pay taxes to support the public schools, and feed the kids there breakfast, lunch and dinner. Now you want me to subsidize their health costs as well?
I'm not for denying healthcare to anyone, I'm just not willing to pay for it for anyone other than myself and my family. It's a consumer product, not a right to be paid for others. The argument has been put forth that without health insurance people will die. And with it people will live forever? How's that work? How did people live before? So you want me to cut corners and live a little worse so that you can live a little better/longer on my dime - when I'm the one getting up early to go to work each day?
Despite your claims, they are different, and different on an ethical basis. Denying that, as you did, just underscore the lack of merit in the criteria you're using to make decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
Your idea of necessity and mine may not match.
Your idea of self-defense may not match mine. Guess what! We have a way of handling those difference of perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
3rd grade tuition for my child ran me $26K this year, yet I still pay taxes to support the public schools, and feed the kids there breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Good for you. Now try to defend society allowing people to have so much extra money that some can spend more to double-pay for education than others earn in a year. Of course, you are entitled to do so, but is that premium education your children get more important to society than some poor person getting essential healthcare services to address their chronic disability? No one is saying you shouldn't make the best decisions for your family at the point in time you're making those operational decisions. Rather, this is about what we as stewards of society should be deciding about society's economy, budget, laws, etc. If you're intent on always and only looking at matters from a self-centered standpoint (and again, you're entitled to do so) then you'll never really understand how civilization made it to here, nor will you understand the measures necessary to continue civilization's progress into the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
I'm not for denying healthcare to anyone, I'm just not willing to pay for it for anyone other than myself and my family.
Again, this isn't about what you are willing or unwilling to do, but rather what society should be doing with regard to its economy, budget, laws, etc., to address society's obligation. You are entitled to vote in an utterly self-centered way. That doesn't mitigate the fact that doing so is, indeed, self-centered and therefore not respectable.
So you want them healthy enough to be able to fully experience the misery of the second-class human existence you would grant them, but no better than that. Understood.
No, I think they should be responsible at some point to provide for themselves. (Obviously, we're talking about able-bodied adults)
If you keep providing people with what they need, many of them will never do anything to provide it for themselves.
Regardless, UHC doesn't require that others have "the same type of treatment [you] receive". It generally establishes a baseline level of healthcare that everyone benefits from and then allows you to use your own money to purchase non-essential healthcare services.
So, I get to pay for UHC for myself and others, and then if I want to use a better doctor, I have to pay even more?
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...
The U.S. doesn't have the tax system to pay for it. European countries have regressive tax systems to pay for universal health care, etc. The U.S. middle class and below refuse to pay the amount of taxes it would take to pay for UHC. So, it won't happen. There's not a broad enough tax base to pay for it.
No, I think they should be responsible at some point to provide for themselves. (Obviously, we're talking about able-bodied adults)
If you keep providing people with what they need, many of them will never do anything to provide it for themselves.
I agree but I was working 48-50 hours a week and paying taxes but I couldn't afford a health care plan. I have one now but we don't even have what you seem to be saying we should do.
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.
