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.
Yes but all the government has to do is set the prices so low and there will be no more choices because private insures will not be able to meet those low prices. The government can also make the payments to doctors so low that the doctors will not be able to stay in their practices which in turn causes rationed care and long wait times.
There you go again basing your arguments on YOUR predictions of the future.
Your crystal ball is not valid, and is not accepted as an argument. It's is an assertion based on your imagination.
Please, point out to me any big-government entitlement program that does what they claimed it would do initially.
Well that's the point. What is it they are claiming? Every day you come here and argue against something that nobody is proposing.
Medicare seems to be working just fine, our Seniors are overwhelmingly happy with it. How did that start out? Of course I'm SURE you won't be using Medicare when you're a senior, lol.
Location: where the moss is taking over the villages
2,184 posts, read 5,548,973 times
Reputation: 1270
I didn't know the difference: thank YOU
[quote=ovcatto;10574552]I ask because there seems to be a great deal of confusion between the two on this board. What is being promoted in Congress is a national healthcare insurance plan, in short the Federal government will provide healthcare insurance in competition with private insurers. Doctors, and other healthcare employees, hospitals, and clinics would remain in private hands which isn't the same as developing a national healthcare service, such as Britain, where all the above are employed by the national government. The confusion seems to be most prevalent with those who insist on comparing what is being proposed and what exists in Great Britain, they are two completely different animals. [/quote]
Ovcatto,
I learn so much on these boards! Thank you for taking it upon yourself to clear the smoke.
Ok, so the govt wants to COMPETE with private insurance. If the govt were to UNDERCUT the PI's, that sssseems like it could be a good thing because... well you know, long story short: they wouldn't have many investors I guess but it seems like it would be good for the CONSUMER.
But then the govt could, perhaps snoop in all of our medical records under their plan. That makes me fidget.
I'll read your thread more before posting something redundant.
Thanks again. I hate ignorance too - so I must educate myself a bit here.
a more recent claim to fame, like within the last 10 years.
You mean while Bush was in charge?! That's a tall order.
I'll tell you this though, under Clinton, our taxes were cut while the budget was simultaneously balanced. And don't forget that Americorps has been wildly successful (also under Clinton). There are numerous instances where the government has done things well, but they tend to be during times when Democrats are in power. I once read an article (wish I could remember exactly where but ironically enough I think it was the Wall Street Journal) that discussed this very thing, and it made the argument that since Republicans loathe "big" government, they intentionally attack, undermine or stymie government programs in order to say, "See? We told you it wouldn't work," when it fails.
So, in the last ten years the government really didn't do much good. We got involved in two unwinnable wars for dubious reasons. The physical size of our government has grown enormously (irony!) alongside our national debt (more irony!), and our economy has faced the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. Bush's run was only spectacular for his failures, not his successes. In truth, if a Republican were pushing this healthcare plan, I probably would only grudgingly support it. I'd like the idea, but I'd know it would be designed to fail.
The bridges are failing, among many other facts. Did you consider that?
One bridge collapsed. One. So what you're implying is that if one aspect of a system fails, then the entire enterprise is a failure?
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.
I didn't know the difference: thank YOU
Ovcatto,
. If the govt were to UNDERCUT the PI's, that sssseems like it could be a good thing because... well you know, long story short: they wouldn't have many investors I guess but it seems like it would be good for the CONSUMER.
Thanks again. I hate ignorance too - so I must educate myself a bit here.
how about
