Originally Posted by tonton
Dozens of people far more qualified than you or I. Who wrote all the reviews saying the Walmart bottom-of-the-barrel plan was good for workers? Oh yeah. Nobody.
Let's see them. Let's examine some sources.
Nope. Although it's aimed toward those who don't have enough income to pay for it, i.e. "can't afford it", it's available to all to reduce administrative costs, eliminate investigation and legal costs, and eliminate the chance that someone who really needs help falls through the cracks.
Income-based assistance is what's wrong with our social safety net today.
Basic health care and emergency care, as defined by the WHO.
Fuck the WHO...for multiple reasons. Also, define "basic." "Basic" is certainly not what those who want universal care are arguing for.
Taxes, dipshit. The same way it's paid for in every modern country in the world besides the US.[/quote[
Who's the dipshit...the person who wants to know where the money is going to come from (since we're broke), or the person who takes that to mean he doesn't know how government raises revenue in general? We're out of money. We have $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and massive deficits and debt. We don't have the damn money, period. Oh, and as for the rest of the world, they are not our country. For one thing, they don't have the need to protect themselves and their interests...not as long as the good ol' bully the U.S is around.
Is that a "fact"?
Are you so ignorant that you aren't aware of how many people don't have anywhere near "a few hundred dollars a month" to spare? SERIOUSLY!?
If we got employers and the government out of it, they WOULD. They're already paying that much in taxes that don't benefit them much.
So, how does it help the parents of those kids?
It doesn't. So?
How empathetic of you.
I didn't realize that we had an "empathy" amendment.
So do I. But that's not what we're talking about here, so why the straw man?
We absolutely are.
At least, we should be, because someone has the make a decision somewhere
about rationed care. It's only way to keep such a system solvent. We've seen it in Great Britain with long wait periods and denied procedures. "Death panels" are inevitable.
First of all, you're incredibly elitist and unbelievably naive if you honestly believe everybody who doesn't earn as much as you do doesn't work as hard as you do.
I never said that/ Perhaps you misinterpreted.
Secondly, if you pay for more than what they pay for, you should get better than they do. Everyone should have the right to go to a hospital and get treatment when they're sick, and not just for emergencies.
They already do.
But only those who choose to pay for it should get the benefit of their choice of doctor, or a private hospital room. There are levels of care, and basic care should be available for all.
Again, define basic care.
"Slippery slope" arguments have always been idiotic.
Besides, there are fully prescribed glasses available for $25 including lenses and eye testing. Why should this be an issue? No one is going to expect government coverage to let you choose Prada frames and coated ultralight lenses.
YES, they WILL. This is what happens when the consumer doesn't care about cost. We already have some of that now, because patients have no idea what the insurance company pays and what the doctor bills in many cases.
tonton, the effects of universal coverage are clear...at least in most countries. Britain's system is in crisis. Take Taxachussetts, which has Romney Care:
The average wait for an appointment with an internist was 48 days, which was five days shorter than last year, but the average wait for family medicine was 36 days, a week longer than in the 2010 survey
and of course....
Medical students are eschewing the grueling hours and lower pay that primary care often entails in favor of specialties that offered a more consistent work schedule and quicker path to repay medical school debt, experts say.
By the way: Please realize this whole conversation is moot. The US will not put private insurance companies out of business. It's simply not going to happen. And I standby my point that universal care will be more wasteful, corrupt, expensive and ineffective than the current system. Moreover, it's not a Constitutional responsibility of our government. Of course, this why folks like you LOVE Obama, because he advocates for "redistributive change" and changing out system from a "charter of negative liberties" to one that is mandated to "do things on our behalf."