[QUOTE="sigh-_-"]No idea. Why someone would rather put their life in the hands of private companies whose overriding goal is the profit motive is beyond me.DarkainiousI would rather put my life in the hands of someone who I can choose not to go to. I could pick another docter if I don't like mine. I could pick a new insurance company. I have choice. I could also choose not to go to the doctor, or have insurance. Don't you think that should be my choice?Equality and the right to healthcare for all - yes, even the poor! - take precedence over the desire to switch between healthcare providers. Personally I don't envy your choice, given that it's between companies to all of whom your health is valuable only because it means more money for them.
Why are conservatives so against universal healthcare?!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Because they don't want to pay their taxes towards gastric bypass surgery for fat people and sex ops for soon-to-be transexuals.
[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]No idea. Why someone would rather put their life in the hands of private companies whose overriding goal is the profit motive is beyond me.sigh-_-I would rather put my life in the hands of someone who I can choose not to go to. I could pick another docter if I don't like mine. I could pick a new insurance company. I have choice. I could also choose not to go to the doctor, or have insurance. Don't you think that should be my choice?Equality and the right to healthcare for all - yes, even the poor! - take precedence over the desire to switch between healthcare providers. Personally I don't envy your choice, given that it's between companies to all of whom your health is valuable only because it means more money for them. Your care means something to them because they will lose you as a customer. It means nothing to a doctor who is making much less money, and who will always be your doctor.
[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]No idea. Why someone would rather put their life in the hands of private companies whose overriding goal is the profit motive is beyond me.sigh-_-I would rather put my life in the hands of someone who I can choose not to go to. I could pick another docter if I don't like mine. I could pick a new insurance company. I have choice. I could also choose not to go to the doctor, or have insurance. Don't you think that should be my choice?Equality and the right to healthcare for all - yes, even the poor! - take precedence over the desire to switch between healthcare providers. Personally I don't envy your choice, given that it's between companies to all of whom your health is valuable only because it means more money for them. Anyone who goes to the emergency room with an emergency will receive care. Period.
[QUOTE="Excaliber717"]This isn't an argument against universal healthcare, this is an argument for cancer screening. Besides, even under universal healthcare you could still have paid a private provider for that x-ray.I was in the military and the care was not outstanding....My dad was in the army and my parents experienced what universal healthcare is like (healthcare is free for military personal), and from the stories I've heard, its not fun. Sure, everyone gets treated, but the quality of care is sacrificed greatly.
When my dad got out, he and my mother started a family. During my first 18 months, I had severe cases of bronchitis and often had to visit the hospital for breathing issues. My mother decided to have my chest x-rayed to see if there was a problem. The x-ray was discouraged but our private insurance paid for most of it and it did turn up a problem, but not due to the bronchitis. Cancer. I had a ganglioneuroblastoma in my chest cavity between my aorta and spinal column. If it hadn't been found and removed I would be in a wheelchair or worse. Socialized healthcare would have easily denied that x-ray because it wasn't deemed necessary. They, at best, would have waited until it was a clear problem and then x-rayed, and then would treat it, when it would probably be too late. I'm sorry if I'm a horrible person for wanting to be able to walk.
Sure, the current system is in need of reform, but mandating universal healthcare is not the correct answer.
sigh-_-
This isn't an argument against universal healthcare, this is an argument for cancer screening. Besides, even under universal healthcare you could still have paid a private provider for that x-ray.I was in the military and the care was not outstanding....So? Or are you happy to complain when people are generalised, but healthcare systems are fair game?[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Excaliber717"]
My dad was in the army and my parents experienced what universal healthcare is like (healthcare is free for military personal), and from the stories I've heard, its not fun. Sure, everyone gets treated, but the quality of care is sacrificed greatly.
When my dad got out, he and my mother started a family. During my first 18 months, I had severe cases of bronchitis and often had to visit the hospital for breathing issues. My mother decided to have my chest x-rayed to see if there was a problem. The x-ray was discouraged but our private insurance paid for most of it and it did turn up a problem, but not due to the bronchitis. Cancer. I had a ganglioneuroblastoma in my chest cavity between my aorta and spinal column. If it hadn't been found and removed I would be in a wheelchair or worse. Socialized healthcare would have easily denied that x-ray because it wasn't deemed necessary. They, at best, would have waited until it was a clear problem and then x-rayed, and then would treat it, when it would probably be too late. I'm sorry if I'm a horrible person for wanting to be able to walk.
Sure, the current system is in need of reform, but mandating universal healthcare is not the correct answer.
LJS9502_basic
I'm not conservative and I'm not for universal health care. Making the current system more affordable, bring jobs in that can handle this benefit, and addressing the uninsured is better. The current government programs are in the red...no way they can handle universal health care. In addition, individuals do have some responsibility in providing for themselves.LJS9502_basicPerfectly stated.
[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]Equality and the right to healthcare for all - yes, even the poor! - take precedence over the desire to switch between healthcare providers. Personally I don't envy your choice, given that it's between companies to all of whom your health is valuable only because it means more money for them.sigh-_-Your care means something to them because they will lose you as a customer. It means nothing to a doctor who is making much less money, and who will always be your doctor.Heh. I think you know it's not that simple; see above for the guy who gave the example of insurance companies refusing a baby because it had a heart condition. Yep, if you're very unhealthy then your life quite simply doesn't matter to them - all you'll do is hurt their profit margins. Needless to say, this sort of horrific stuff doesn't happen under universal healthcare. Your right, that might not happen under universal healthcare. Other horrible things would happen. Thousands of people die because diseases aren't detected. Thousands die because they can't get treatment fast enough. Believe me this is a much better alternative. What we should worry about is the economy so we can get those poor people some jobs so they can afford insurance.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I was in the military and the care was not outstanding....So? Or are you happy to complain when people are generalised, but healthcare systems are fair game?Hmmm...government care on several different posts and with quite a large population to get feedback from. Sorry.....still going with the care isn't as good as you get with private care.[QUOTE="sigh-_-"]This isn't an argument against universal healthcare, this is an argument for cancer screening. Besides, even under universal healthcare you could still have paid a private provider for that x-ray.sigh-_-
Well, probably because it doesn't work I would assume.:|
The usual argument (aside from "ZOMG socialism!") is that they don't want to pay for someone else. What they fail to understand is that under the system we have they're already paying for other people's health care. Health care isn't free, big "duh" there I know. People who have no insurance typical only get any kind of health care at the ER, which is by far more expensive than regular preventative care. Sure, the person will be billed, but if they can't afford insurance then they're sure as hell not going to be able to pay that bill. So who pays it? You and I that's who. We pay in the form of increased healthcare costs, and increased insurance costs. Under a universal system everyone would pay in, everyone would benefit from it, everyone could get regular care instead of just emergency care and costs would be lower for everyone.
Well technically with insurance all money is pooled.....you are still paying premiums for you own health care. Which is not exactly paying for others. You find a provider that you find gives the best coverage for what you want to spend.The usual argument (aside from "ZOMG socialism!") is that they don't want to pay for someone else. What they fail to understand is that under the system we have they're already paying for other people's health care. Health care isn't free, big "duh" there I know. People who have no insurance typical only get any kind of health care at the ER, which is by far more expensive than regular preventative care. Sure, the person will be billed, but if they can't afford insurance then they're sure as hell not going to be able to pay that bill. So who pays it? You and I that's who. We pay in the form of increased healthcare costs, and increased insurance costs. Under a universal system everyone would pay in, everyone would benefit from it, everyone could get regular care instead of just emergency care and costs would be lower for everyone.
worlock77
Oh and I'm not sure where an insurance is raised because of the cost of someone without insurance. The insurance companies DON"T pay what they don't cover.
Plenty of reasons. Firstly, it would be costly. Secondly, it would not allow people to "opt out" of having to purchase insurance. Thirdly, people are not inherently entitled to health insurance. Fourthly, the incentive to contribute to a productive society is reduced by whatever measure the cost of health care is. Fifthly, the number of "uninsured" is a bit misleading. Many whom do not purchase health insurance do not because they are young and healthy, wealthy and don't need to purchase insurance, or are not allowed to purchase insurance as they are illegal immigrants. In fact, those categories easily account for the majority of the uninsured. There are more reasons, but I'll stand with these.
What makes you think it's a better alternative? Bear in mind that the US' healthcare system is just a bit crap - despite the US being the world's most powerful economic behemoth, its healthcare system is ranked 37th by the WHO, behind various nationalised European countries and, might I add, behind a popular target of the anti-universal healthcare movement - the UK's NHS. You can make baseless claims all you want, but at the end of the day US healthcare is an ugly, corporatised mess with - contrary to claims of efficiency and value for money - one of the highest expenditures per capita in the world, and yet no exemplary results to show for it.sigh-_-But that ranking is based on affordability and since some peope don't have it...it ranks lower. Rank just the actual care and it would be an entirely different story.
Well technically with insurance all money is pooled.....you are still paying premiums for you own health care. Which is not exactly paying for others. You find a provider that you find gives the best coverage for what you want to spend.[QUOTE="worlock77"]
The usual argument (aside from "ZOMG socialism!") is that they don't want to pay for someone else. What they fail to understand is that under the system we have they're already paying for other people's health care. Health care isn't free, big "duh" there I know. People who have no insurance typical only get any kind of health care at the ER, which is by far more expensive than regular preventative care. Sure, the person will be billed, but if they can't afford insurance then they're sure as hell not going to be able to pay that bill. So who pays it? You and I that's who. We pay in the form of increased healthcare costs, and increased insurance costs. Under a universal system everyone would pay in, everyone would benefit from it, everyone could get regular care instead of just emergency care and costs would be lower for everyone.
LJS9502_basic
Oh and I'm not sure where an insurance is raised because of the cost of someone without insurance. The insurance companies DON"T pay what they don't cover.
Costs of healthcare across the board go up because there are people using those services who aren't paying. This in turn leads to higher insurance premiums because the insurance is having to pay more overall to cover their people. They're not going to eat that cost, it gets passed along to the consumer.
But that ranking is based on affordability and since some peope don't have it...it ranks lower. Rank just the actual care and it would be an entirely different story.Which ranking? The WHO's? And so you mean solely on affordability or partially?[QUOTE="sigh-_-"]What makes you think it's a better alternative? Bear in mind that the US' healthcare system is just a bit crap - despite the US being the world's most powerful economic behemoth, its healthcare system is ranked 37th by the WHO, behind various nationalised European countries and, might I add, behind a popular target of the anti-universal healthcare movement - the UK's NHS. You can make baseless claims all you want, but at the end of the day US healthcare is an ugly, corporatised mess with - contrary to claims of efficiency and value for money - one of the highest expenditures per capita in the world, and yet no exemplary results to show for it.LJS9502_basic
Not true. Insurance providers pay less than what the cost is...have you read a statement form a hospital or doctor?Costs of healthcare across the board go up because there are people using those services who aren't paying. This in turn leads to higher insurance premiums because the insurance is having to pay more overall to cover their people. They're not going to eat that cost, it gets passed along to the consumer.
worlock77
Because it's socialism and/or communism! I kid, it's not; depending on the type of model and even then, the direction of the model itself. It can't be the latter though, it's certainly not communism.
Using a point that's totally non-demagogic: there are some major budgeting issues in the USA, coupled with the extra expense of a universal healthcare plan that wouldn't be too dandy at the moment. Government debt is no small thing, though not the end of the world itself, still poses a danger to the stability of the social sphere and the political sphere. We should aim to keep government debt to a minimum ideally, and reduce it now, whilst we can - adding the subsidies that typically go with a universal healthcare plan will cause more expense.
Some may oppose it for ideological reasons, do I want to pay for someone who clearly, is being an absolute arse and injuring himself all the time? No, for a conservative perspective, he should take more personal responsibility for his own healthcare provisions and be a tad more careful, I shouldn't have to pay for it if his silliness leads to using up medical resources that I have to contribute towards involuntarily.
Some are more market orientated and believe that if we take away the legal restrictions already on healthcare companies in the USA, like that whole deal with buying along state borders (I don't even know this one), the market will force the less optimal or negligent companies out of business, as in the market (presupposing rationality), no buyer would choose a negligent or downright unethical (deceptive, etc) insurance company over one that functions smoothly as to do so, is absolute irrationality. There's also the question of "will universal healthcare dilute the quality of care?" that I guess one could link in with this point about the market's function in healthcare, namely, if we're having a totally public model as opposed to something that utilizes private finance and resources which are often perceived as superior in quality to the former.
Some may just have complaints with the government, whether it be an ethical complain (big government = bad) or a complaint based on the historical evidence that undermines the USA's bureaucracy/executive's competence in running ventures that they have undertaken, mainly, that they can't keep out of the red.
I'm no conservative, but those are some potential reasons. I've lived in a country with universal healthcare for all my life, I've honestly never had a problem with it, however, I can understand the reasons given by American conservatives on why they may dislike the idea. So yeah, here's some reasons I often see around here, I don't really care about the issue as long as someone doesn't make a totally demagogic statement or makes false claims about universal healthcare itself.
Not true. Insurance providers pay less than what the cost is...have you read a statement form a hospital or doctor?[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Costs of healthcare across the board go up because there are people using those services who aren't paying. This in turn leads to higher insurance premiums because the insurance is having to pay more overall to cover their people. They're not going to eat that cost, it gets passed along to the consumer.
LJS9502_basic
They're not paying less than what the cost is. That would mean that the hospital/doctor are undercutting themselves. They're paying less than the usual rate, but not less than cost.
Not true. Insurance providers pay less than what the cost is...have you read a statement form a hospital or doctor?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Costs of healthcare across the board go up because there are people using those services who aren't paying. This in turn leads to higher insurance premiums because the insurance is having to pay more overall to cover their people. They're not going to eat that cost, it gets passed along to the consumer.
worlock77
They're not paying less than what the cost is. That would mean that the hospital/doctor are undercutting themselves. They're paying less than the usual rate, but not less than cost.
Eh I meant the total cost charged for the service. What it COSTS the insurance company is less. So I don't see a negative to insurance.Why would you want the government to run anything, honestly? Anything they get their hands on turns to a pile of poo. Government is the most wasteful, inefficient entity on earth.
Something should be done about healthcare... but putting it in the hands of the government should be the last thing that you would want to do.
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not true. Insurance providers pay less than what the cost is...have you read a statement form a hospital or doctor?
LJS9502_basic
They're not paying less than what the cost is. That would mean that the hospital/doctor are undercutting themselves. They're paying less than the usual rate, but not less than cost.
Eh I meant the total cost charged for the service. What it COSTS the insurance company is less. So I don't see a negative to insurance.I'm not saying there's a negative to insurance, I'm saying that we're paying more because there are people taking from the system who aren't contributing to it. That drives up costs for those of us who are paying. It's simple economics. In the same way that shoplifting drives the cost of goods at the store up for everyone else. Under a universal system at least everyone would be paying into it.
The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
Eh I meant the total cost charged for the service. What it COSTS the insurance company is less. So I don't see a negative to insurance.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
They're not paying less than what the cost is. That would mean that the hospital/doctor are undercutting themselves. They're paying less than the usual rate, but not less than cost.
worlock77
I'm not saying there's a negative to insurance, I'm saying that we're paying more because there are people taking from the system who aren't contributing to it. That drives up costs for those of us who are paying. It's simple economics. In the same way that shoplifting drives the cost of goods at the store up for everyone else. Under a universal system at least everyone would be paying into it.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Under a universal system not every WILL pay into it. So you still have an imbalance plus government restricts health care when the money isn't there. Which you don't have to worry about with private insurance.This is so true, and why the democrats have been so disappointing when for the first time in over a decade they actually had a mandate to get something done.The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
sonicare
The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
This is so true, and why the democrats have been so disappointing when for the first time in over a decade they actually had a mandate to get something done. Off the subject, but what's going on with the NHS? I've heard rumblings that Cameron is trying to privatize it, but I figure that may be exaggeration?The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
sonicare
Excellent point. I am rather happy that they weren't for it.
The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
This is so true, and why the democrats have been so disappointing when for the first time in over a decade they actually had a mandate to get something done. I am not sure if they did have the votes to pass "whatever" plan they deemed. Correct me if im wrong though.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Eh I meant the total cost charged for the service. What it COSTS the insurance company is less. So I don't see a negative to insurance.LJS9502_basic
I'm not saying there's a negative to insurance, I'm saying that we're paying more because there are people taking from the system who aren't contributing to it. That drives up costs for those of us who are paying. It's simple economics. In the same way that shoplifting drives the cost of goods at the store up for everyone else. Under a universal system at least everyone would be paying into it.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Under a universal system not every WILL pay into it. So you still have an imbalance plus government restricts health care when the money isn't there. Which you don't have to worry about with private insurance.No, not every single person will pay into it, however broadly speaking, yeah, pretty much everyone will be.
Well, though you're correct in the fact that reelection is very important in a Congessman's career. There are some factions within the democrat party itself that would dislike the idea of universal healthcare. The so-called "blue-dogs" within the democrat party are part of the more traditional southern democrat ideology, somewhat conservative one could say. New democrats (example being Clinton) may typically oppose the idea of universal healthcare as well, "the era of big government is over" still, for them. The problem that Obama faced is due to the decentralized nature of the American political party system, as he's not a formal leader of the party, and has absolutely no power to throw a dissident out of his seat or stand him for an election, something that could happen why I am from if you went against prime minister decided party-lines without adequate numbers for security. Mainly, American political parties are like a big-tent, composing of several sub-factions.The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
sonicare
The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
Well, though you're correct in the fact that reelection is very important in a Congessman's career. There are some factions within the democrat party itself that would dislike the idea of universal healthcare. The so-called "blue-dogs" within the democrat party are part of the more traditional southern democrat ideology, somewhat conservative one could say. New democrats (example being Clinton) may typically oppose the idea of universal healthcare as well, "the era of big government is over" still, for them. The problem that Obama faced is due to the decentralized nature of the American political party system, as he's not a formal leader of the party, and has absolutely no power to throw a dissident out of his seat or stand him for an election, something that could happen why I am from if you went against prime minister decided party-lines without adequate numbers for security. Mainly, American political parties are like a big-tent, composing of several sub-factions. I thought Clinton tried and failed to get universal health care passed. Bill put her in charge of health care reform after he was elected.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]This is so true, and why the democrats have been so disappointing when for the first time in over a decade they actually had a mandate to get something done. Off the subject, but what's going on with the NHS? I've heard rumblings that Cameron is trying to privatize it, but I figure that may be exaggeration? The government got rid of an NHS direct helpline and is planning to replace it with a cheaper option dubbed "111". He wouldn't touch the NHS lest the liberal democrats shatter the coalition and another election has to be called, which would be disastrous seeing as the NHS is popular.The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
sonicare
[QUOTE="sonicare"]This is so true, and why the democrats have been so disappointing when for the first time in over a decade they actually had a mandate to get something done.The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
Ninja-Hippo
They didn't even pass a public option. The dems are pretty pathetic if you ask me.
[QUOTE="sonicare"]Well, though you're correct in the fact that reelection is very important in a Congessman's career. There are some factions within the democrat party itself that would dislike the idea of universal healthcare. The so-called "blue-dogs" within the democrat party are part of the more traditional southern democrat ideology, somewhat conservative one could say. New democrats (example being Clinton) may typically oppose the idea of universal healthcare as well, "the era of big government is over" still, for them. The problem that Obama faced is due to the decentralized nature of the American political party system, as he's not a formal leader of the party, and has absolutely no power to throw a dissident out of his seat or stand him for an election, something that could happen why I am from if you went against prime minister decided party-lines without adequate numbers for security. Mainly, American political parties are like a big-tent, composing of several sub-factions.The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
T_P_O
Which tosses people like me with the Republican party. :?
[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Well, though you're correct in the fact that reelection is very important in a Congessman's career. There are some factions within the democrat party itself that would dislike the idea of universal healthcare. The so-called "blue-dogs" within the democrat party are part of the more traditional southern democrat ideology, somewhat conservative one could say. New democrats (example being Clinton) may typically oppose the idea of universal healthcare as well, "the era of big government is over" still, for them. The problem that Obama faced is due to the decentralized nature of the American political party system, as he's not a formal leader of the party, and has absolutely no power to throw a dissident out of his seat or stand him for an election, something that could happen why I am from if you went against prime minister decided party-lines without adequate numbers for security. Mainly, American political parties are like a big-tent, composing of several sub-factions. I thought Clinton tried and failed to get universal health care passed. Bill put her in charge of health care reform after he was elected. Clinton was namely my example of a new democrat. I'll admit in retrospect, a dubious one considering his record in the issue itself. :PThe real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
sonicare
Which tosses people like me with the Republican party. :?coolbeans90Erm, I don't understand your meaning here. Is it a complaint against the analogy or is it just a statement that you'd have to go into the Republican party to garner any chance of influencing elections? I'm not being snarky, I'm rather confused.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Under a universal system not every WILL pay into it. So you still have an imbalance plus government restricts health care when the money isn't there. Which you don't have to worry about with private insurance.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
I'm not saying there's a negative to insurance, I'm saying that we're paying more because there are people taking from the system who aren't contributing to it. That drives up costs for those of us who are paying. It's simple economics. In the same way that shoplifting drives the cost of goods at the store up for everyone else. Under a universal system at least everyone would be paying into it.
worlock77
No, not every single person will pay into it, however broadly speaking, yeah, pretty much everyone will be.
Seems an assumption......and I don't believe pretty much everyone will.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Which tosses people like me with the Republican party. :?T_P_OErm, I don't understand your meaning here. Is it a complaint against the analogy or is it just a statement that you'd have to go into the Republican party to garner any chance of influencing elections? I'm not being snarky, I'm rather confused.
No, not a complaint with your post so much as the reality of the two party system... somewhat depressing at times.
This is so true, and why the democrats have been so disappointing when for the first time in over a decade they actually had a mandate to get something done.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]
The real question is why weren't the democrats for it? They had the house, the senate, and the white house. They had all the votes they needed to pass whatever health plan they wanted. But instead, they created a watered down version of this universal health care that doesn't do much besides jack up the national debt. When push came to shove, they were more concerned about being reelcted than in doing what they thought was right.
SgtKevali
They didn't even pass a public option. The dems are pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Overall I think the bill that passed was good, but I don't like the idea of an insurance mandate without a public option. That just seems like a gift to the insurance companies to me. With that said, from what I understand there's no mechanisms written into the law to actually enforce that mandate.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment