makes as much sense as conservative health care "reform"health care, reform, poor, poverty, rationing, death, panels, shortages,conservative,
Are conservatives in this country stupid or insane? Seriously, it's got to one or the other. Anne, the Backyard Conservative (whatever that means) is pushing, like a lot of conservatives, the so-called Patient Centered Reform. Reading this, I have to ask, stupid or insane?
Right now, in this country, 50,000,000 people are uninsured, and even those with insurance are self rationing (why, yes, I do belong to that club):
Right now, in this country, 50,000,000 people are uninsured, and even those with insurance are self rationing (why, yes, I do belong to that club):
In the new poll 59 percent said that the cost of their health care had increased more than their other expenses over the past two years. Fifty-one percent said they had faced difficult health care choices in the past year. The most common responses were putting off a doctor visit because of cost (28 percent), not being unable to afford medical bills or medication (25 percent), and putting off a medical procedure because of cost (22 percent).
Twenty-eight percent said they had lost or experienced cutbacks in their health care coverage in the past year. The greatest concerns about health care expressed by respondents were a major financial loss or setback from medical cost due to an illness or accident (73 percent), not being able to afford health care in the future (73 percent), necessary care being denied or rationed by health insurance companies (73 percent), and the prospect of rising costs forcing them to choose between health care and other necessities (64 percent).
So this is the conservative answer to the problem:
Begins with individual ownership of insurance policies. The tax deduction that allows employers to own your insurance should instead be given to the individual.
I can't afford my $1,000 deductible. I can't afford the $50 copay to see my specialists. I do without care, tests and medication because I can't afford it. Right now, I cannot afford it. A tax deduction means spending the money up front and getting it back a year, maybe 14 months later. If I can't afford $50 to see my doctor, what makes you think I can afford to pay for health insurance up front? Are you stupid or insane?
Leverages Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs empower individuals to monitor their health care costs and create incentives for individuals to use only those services that are necessary . See above.
Allows interstate purchasing of insurance. Policies in some states are more affordable because they include fewer bells and whistles, and consumers should be empowered to decide which benefits they need and what prices they are willing to pay. "Bells and whistles"? This sounds like in some states, insurers are covering cosmetic surgery and thorough frivolous tests and procedures. What they're calling "bells and whistles" are actually maternity care, pap smears and mammograms. If you, or anyone you care about, has a vagina, a uterus or breasts, these are not "bells and whistles", these are necessities. Are you stupid or insane?
Reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. Empowering consumers to choose which benefits they need is only effective if insurers are able to fill these needs. see above.
Eliminates unnecessary scope-of-practice laws and allows non-physician health care professionals practice to the extent of their education and training. Retail clinics have shown that increasing the provider pool safely increases competition and access to care and empowers the patient to decide from whom they receive their care. Yes, a physician's assistant is fine for a healthy person who has an ear infection. The concept of people seeing PA's as their primary health provider is horrifying. PA's do not have the necessary training to deal with chronic illnesses, or even to recognize most of the uncommon ones. This is a recipe for disaster. are you stupid, insane, or do you just enjoy disasters?
Reforms tort liability laws. Defensive medicine needlessly drives up medical costs and creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients . Yes, yes, yes, trial lawyers bad! Patients greedy! Limiting medical liability would amount to less than 0.5% of health care spending. Yeah! that'll solve all our problems! so, stupid, insane or incapable of understanding math?
Basically, the conservative answer to currently existing shortages, rationing and death panels are to make people who already can't afford health insurance pay more. I don't even know how to describe that, but it makes me sputter with rage. That's right, I'm sputtering right now.
My primary doc is actually a PA. She caught my Fibro only because she has another patient with it. Howvere I go to a very small practice, and my PA consults with the other two docs on anything other than your basic stuff. The joys of going to a "homeopathic"* practice.
ReplyDelete*No, they are not new-agey herby people, they are a practice that believes in figuring out your whole wellness since mind and body work together. They treat the whole body too, and it works.
Hmm, I have to disagree with most of those points. None of those proposals are either stupid or insane. Most are reasonable ideas for reform.
ReplyDeleteIndividual ownership = a great idea. Having healthcare attached to employers causes massive problems, and forces people to stay in jobs they hate.
HSAs - have good and bad points. They'd help many people, but would be useless for some.
Interstate purchasing = another good idea, especially if this allows individuals to buy into group coverage at group rates. Right now individuals get ridiculously high rates that many self-employed people can't afford. And yes, there are are things that people could opt out of. For example, our family no longer needs coverage for maternity.
Reducing mandates = also good. Lowers costs.
Scope of practice - I agree with you on that one. Sounds like a bad idea.
Tort reform = way overdue and necessary. Should be mandatory for any health care bill that even pretends to be a "reform." The .5% number is pretty funny and I see it comes from a lawyer.
Most of those reforms would probably greatly improve the current system, which works well for most of the country. For those who can't afford it, there needs to be greater assistance, such as increased eligibility for Medicaid, which has already been implemented in certain states, such as here in NJ thru NJ Family Care.
UNNR - can you define "most of the country"? hell, can you define "works well"?
ReplyDeletebecause, i have to tell you - this is not just from me, or the people i know, but from working as a volunteer at multiple places - this current "health care system" does *NOT* work well for people who aren't at the very minimum WELL OFF.
what do i mean by that?
here's a good example. i know a couple, married 15 years, 1 kid. kid is in perfect health, dad wears glasses but otherwise perfect health. mom was, about 6 years ago, diagnosed with PCOS and endometriosis.
now first off, understand that "dad" here is the employee who got the better benefits, so they chose his health plan - but *also* understand that he works for a Catholic Hospital. they *DO NOT* cover anything that might EVER be birth control. so "mom" has been paying, out of pocket, for a succession of ever-more-expensive birth control, in an attempt to control her PCOS and endo. she has been FORCED to stop working. that was 4 years ago. 4 years ago, they thought they could scale back a little but still be ok, on one income. they wouldn't need childcare anymore, for one... except, 4 years ago, the kid was 9 and there wasn't all the much childcare to begin with - and their income had been HALVED by a chronic condition that, in theory anyway, is easily treated. "mom" has been, in all but name, REMOVED from the insurance coverage - turns out that because one time when she was 13 she went to the doctor for her first period, because her mom wanted her to hear about it from a doctor, she didn't "fully disclose" her medical history (because seriously, it was "now you are a woman talk" for fucks sake!) and so now everything is a "pre-existing condition" and NOT ONLY is she effectively no longer covered by the insurance, but they are demanding that she PAY BACK everything that the insurance company PAID to PROVIDERS from *before* they decided she was a "pre-existing".
they, 4 years ago, had a nice condo and two good used cars and were able to go out twice a month to a movie.
they now live in what is, effectively, a white-trash ghetto and have a single car which needs new brakes and a muffler. and new tires. and a new transmission.
but hey, their health care "worked well", didn't it? both high-end computer programmers, with good jobs and good benefits...
i have MET people in homeless shelters who are homeless BECAUSE THEY GOT SICK.
the "working poor", or whatever the hell you want to call people who make less than $50k a year, can't afford to USE the health insurance they have - between high deductables and high premiums, with a side of huge co-pays, they save health care for "emergencies" - and by the time they ADMIT it's an "emergency", because they can't afford it, they are DYING.
in the meantime, the "real" poor (those at 300% of poverty level or less - and please note, the "federal poverty level" is cited to be $9,870/year for a single adult. each additional person does "add" another $9,870, but i DARE you, you personally, to LIVE with less than ten grand a year. EVERYTHING - rent, bills, food, transportation - i, barely, survive on $25,000 and i live in a CHEAP apartment and split bills. and i DON'T "go out". and that is *not* including medical anything.) the real poor, they just go to the ER for everything. because, by federal law, if they can't pay, they have to be seen and treated.
(cont)
(cont)
ReplyDeletethere is a precinct in DC that tracked ambulance 911 calls. over 50% were for clinic service to poverty-stricken people!. there was a woman who called, on AVERAGE, 3 times per day for help going to the restroom. SHE had no choice - she was not at ALL able to do it without help, and while she got SSI/SSDI, it did NOT pay for anything but her rent, bills and some of her food (most of her food was from a pantry). Medicare REFUSED to pay for her to have assistance, and REFUSED to place her in an assisted living home, because it would cost too much. the average that a living assistant would cost, at the rates that are national average, as per the Red Cross when i asked last week, for 24 hour/7 days a week care, is $2,000.
each ambulance call? minimum of $250, just to send the ambulance out 3 times a day (at best - there were days she called 6 or 7 times) so the CHEAPEST week there is over $7,000.
who pays for those 911 calls?
anyone who pays taxes for that area.
DC is the *worst* when it comes to 911 calls, but they happen EVERYWHERE - because getting to a hospital may not be possible, but the ambulance *HAS* to come, and they *HAVE* to treat you - even if it's a scratch. federal law REQUIRES that medical personal who are currently working ("on the clock or otherwise recieve renumeration") *must* do ALL THAT THEY CAN for a patient who has been brought to their attention. the only minor exception is children, if there isn't a parent around *AND* the person who brought in the child insists that parents be called first, if the kid doesn't look to be dying... but even that is tricky, because if there is any "lasting" harm (even a scar from a scratch, if it can be shown that prompt treatment might have kept a scar from showing) the doctor or practicioner is *fucked* if they can't prove they did all the can
but if a kid gets picked up off the side of the road and brought in randomly, and the doctor who is there doesn't *immediately* try and help the child, that doctor can be fired, fined, or even jailed.
it doesn't matter if it's a crash victim with multiple fractures and brain hemmoraging, or a 35-year-old broke jobless man with a paper cut. it *MUST* be treated, to the absolute best of the practicioner's ability, to the limit of the available materiels.
and so the person without a job [for no reason other than general job-less-ness, except that is *never* the real reason] will get an ambulane at 3pm with all the bells and whistles, and have a paramedic team do a full physical in his front room and *GIVE* him $2,000/week antibiotics for the sinus infection he has - because otherwise, they may A) lose their jobs, and even worse B) have to come back the next day and do it again.
and the absolute worst of this?
that woman, with her 3 calls for the restroom a day?
THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE WAY THAT HER CARE IS ADEQUATE. she is seen, daily, by "health care professionals", and hasn't been able to see an actual doctor, or even a NURSE, for over 7 years (as of the time the article was written, in febuary09) because there is not a single doctor within her range who will accept Medicare. she is totally incapable of using the toilet by herself. one of the paramedics who saw her on a regular basis worried to the reporter that her diabetes ("new", in that it had developed after she became wheel-chair-bound) was not being watched, at all. she isn't on insulin, and has a 12-year-old "sugar meter," and fasts for days on end if her sugar starts to "rise", and eats generic froot loops when it starts to bottom. the paramedics have, 5 times between september of 08 and febuary of 09, taken her to the ER because *they* took readings and were worried. and the ER is *NOT* set up, at ALL, to deal with a thing like diabetes. so they stabalize her, then send her home. they give her "referals" - to doctors that either won't take her Medicare, or that she literally, physically can't get to.
(cont)
(last cont!)
ReplyDeleteand the worst of the worst thing about this? that woman, calling 3 times a day for highly trained trama techs to spend $250 to come and help her go to the toilet?
she is *LUCKY*.
because as horrible as her situation is, the people that come and help her to the toilet, for the most part, treat her with dignity and respect. and they *come* when she needs them. and she lives somewhere where 911 comes.
but she gets ZERO actual medical care. it is BARBARIC that this woman has to call people who are (or were, anyway, they aren't anymore) complete and total strangers, ask them to come into her home, and then have them help her perfom an act that is completely undignified. because we, as a society, have deemed "health care" to be of less importance than "health coverage" or even just "health".
once again, i DARE *YOU* to live like this. not like this poor woman; live like me. i get $5900 a quarter (oh, jesus... i only get that 3 times a year. every quarter, but only 3 quarters a year. i "make" $18,000. fuck.) i have to pay for books and supplies out of that too, and fees and other things for school... so i ACTUALLY have $3500 a quarter.
so sit down, do the math. say that i have $12,000 a year to LIVE ON (i don't).
i DARE YOU TO TRY IT.
pray, to whom-and-what ever you might pray to, that NOTHING happens - no flat tire, no sprained ankle, no getting a ticket for going 40 in a 35, NOTHING. because a goddamned parking ticket means you're gonna be eating nothing but Ramen for the next month, and an actual emergency means you can't pay your rent.
yes, up there i said ERs are "free". know what's not "free"? anything that ISN'T an emergency. you may be able to go into the ER for a cold and get it "treated" for "free" - but ANTIBIOTICS aren't free. getting a cast REMOVED isn't free. having ANY sort of chronic illness isn't free. seeing the doctor might be - but anything they *don't* have to do in the ER you have to PAY FOR before you get it.
and if you AREN'T like VERY lucky me, you HAVE TO WORK - you miss time, you lose money. i know people who have gone to work on un-seen-let-alone-treated breaks and tears, and they have fucked themselves up so bad there is *no* fixing it - because they COULD NOT miss work. couldn't afford the missed pay, and in most cases would have been fired.
but hey, this "works well" for those who can afford, right?
i'm sorry that this turned out so long - and trust me, i edited and edited it down, but there's just too much. this is, maybe, 10% of what i originally was going to say.
but it boils down into 3 words that anyone who is "well off" cannot even understand:
IT DOESN'T WORK. our "health care system" works BEAUTIFULLY - if YOU CAN PAY. if you don't have the money - and i *DON'T* mean, "the money to pay for a health insurance plan", i mean "the money to pay your premiums, your co-pays, your co-insurance, the incidentals that aren't actually covered by anything, the money to pay for things that NEED to be done but insurance won't pay for..." - at best you get emergency care. which is beautiful in an emergency. it's almost worst than nothing, when it's a chronic problem.
I can give you a bunch of anecdotal evidence too. That's meaningless. It's just a bunch of emotional points. And I'm well aware of the situation for low income people. My wife is fully disabled and can't work, I'm self-employed making virtually nothing since the economy crashed, and working two crummy part-time jobs. We spent some time uninsured and my wife's prescriptions alone were thousands a month. She had to pick and choose which medications to take because we drained all our savings in no time.
ReplyDeleteBut the vast majority of people in this country have decent health coverage. The poorest are already covered by government programs. The main problem is the situation of people who make too much to get government coverage, but either don't have a job with coverage, or can't afford their medical expenses with the coverage they have.
If we enact reforms that manage to lower the costs of health care for those who are already doing ok, that should free up more money to use to improve the situation of those who are in the gap.
There's a huge difference between what may be good for me as an individual and what is good for the country. It would be great for me if the government could forcibly extract more of other people's money to give me better health care coverage. Maybe they could provide me with a spacious home and a six figure salary job too. Wouldn't that be nice? But it wouldn't be good for the country as a whole.
UNNR, how is the government making sure it's people are healthy and able to work a bad thing? I have decent healthcare and can't afford my co-pays. I am below the poverty level and can't get any kind of state insurance. My daughter and I both suffer from this.
ReplyDeleteI would not mind paying more in taxes to ensure that people are healthy since we pay more now in people being sick. And it would still be less than the $4000 a year that the health insurance companies are promising, not even threatening but now promising, they will raise premiums. I can't afford that, I won't be able to pay for healthcare for my daughter or myself. And then I will have to pay a fine for not having healthcare because the insurance companies have made damn sure that got stuck in the bill. How does that benefit anyone?
This isn't about handouts, it's about doing the right thing for other human beings. I'm sorry you get bogged down in details that aren't even there and you miss the concept of human decency. It certainly sounds like you would benefit from this bill.
"UNNR, how is the government making sure it's people are healthy and able to work a bad thing?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it isn't the government's job to be everyone's Mommy & Daddy? But I'm not even making that libertarian argument. We already have massive government involvement in health care and it isn't going away. As I mentioned before, I would support an expansion of Medicaid eligibility, preferably through federal aid that helps establish expanded Medicaid programs such as NJ Family Care. But it should be combined with reforms that improve and lower the costs of the existing private sector system -- not ones that create even more government bureaucracy, diminish quality, and generate higher costs.
" I will have to pay a fine for not having healthcare because the insurance companies have made damn sure that got stuck in the bill. How does that benefit anyone?"
It doesn't, and I'm strongly against mandated insurance and other such attacks on personal freedom.
"This isn't about handouts"
Of course it is. Giving other people's money to poorer people, including to myself, is a handout. Unless I'm personally paying taxes larger than the amount I'm receiving, any time I get some sort of benefit from the government I'm getting a handout. Pretending otherwise is just self-deception. Why should I feel entitled to have you pay my health care bills?
"it's about doing the right thing for other human beings."
I don't consider forcing one group of people to pay for the problems of other people "doing the right thing." It may be a necessary evil to combat the greater evil of letting people suffer and die, but that doesn't mean it's inherently a good thing, or that there might not be better ways to solve the same problems.
"and you miss the concept of human decency. "
No, I don't. I look at it from a different angle. And again, you seem to have a strawman picture of my views anyway.
" It certainly sounds like you would benefit from this bill."
Again, i don't judge public policies or what might be good for me personally, but on whether or not I think they'd be good for the country as a whole.
"I don't consider forcing one group of people to pay for the problems of other people "doing the right thing." "
ReplyDeleteOK, first off, no one is paying for the problems of another group. You make it sound like there is this class of people who pay no taxes and we have to support them. You'd be paying for people like yourself and me, people who already pay taxes anyone and need the help. Is that bad? Our taxes already go to a number of public works, this would be another one, like roads and schools. For the good of the country, not for the good of a select group of people. It could be argued that the healthcare setup right now is the opposite of that, the good of a select few at the expense of the majority.
"It may be a necessary evil to combat the greater evil of letting people suffer and die, but that doesn't mean it's inherently a good thing, or that there might not be better ways to solve the same problems."
We've been letting people die, in greater and greater numbers. So far the best option the republicans have come up with is to tell us poor folk to suck it up and get better jobs, because poor folk are all lazy. Of course I'm poor and have a job and have seen my daughter in teh hospital twice in her 5 years because of illnesses, and I can't afford her premiums, but yeah, I'm lazy. Letting my daughter die? And other kids die? For the good of the country. After all, does it matter if we rank below countries in AFRICA in regards to healthcare? Does it matter we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the western world? That we have time and time again chosen profits over people? Nah, good of the country. It's a good thing, right?
And frankly, I'm tired of the "government shouldn't be mommy or daddy" argument from the party that feels the need to tell me who I can or can't marry and what I can or can't do with my own damn body. Government interference is OK if it's the Republicans doing it apparently. But try to provide healthcare for people so they won't die and suddenly the government is overstepping it's bounds.
Most of what you wrote is a strawman that has nothing to do with my positions.
ReplyDelete"OK, first off, no one is paying for the problems of another group. You make it sound like there is this class of people who pay no taxes and we have to support them"
You are denying reality. A minority of people in this country pay the vast majority of taxes. And there are plenty of people who pay no income taxes.
"the best option the republicans have come up with is to tell us poor folk to suck it up and get better jobs, because poor folk are all lazy."
That's complete nonsense. Republicans have all sorts of proposals, some of which make sense. They are just being ignored or dismissed out of hand in favor of the fantasy that more government intervention is going to solve our problems.
"And frankly, I'm tired of the "government shouldn't be mommy or daddy" argument from the party that feels the need to tell me who I can or can't marry and what I can or can't do with my own damn body. Government interference is OK if it's the Republicans doing it apparently. But try to provide healthcare for people so they won't die and suddenly the government is overstepping it's bounds."
I'll respond to this strawman since it's so egregious. I guess you missed the multiple times I said I'd favor an expansion of Medicaid to cover people caught in the coverage gap. I'm also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. I'm speaking for me, not the GOP. And just because people accept government interference in one area, doesn't mean they have to automatically accept greater interference, or more government in other areas. People can evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis.
I could easily turn your argument around. You don't want the heavy hand of government discriminating against gay people, or telling women what to do with their bodies, but you are perfectly ok with the government taking people's money and redistributing it to others, and telling private companies what they have to do. At least libertarians are consistent in their advocacy of freedom. Unfortunately freedom comes at a price.
It's completely ridiculous to pretend that people who are reluctant to sign on to a monstrosity of a bill that they think will probably make things worse, are somehow doing so because they want people to die, think poor people are lazy, or have a general callous disregard for others. It's just an assumption of bad motives instead of recognizing that there are all sorts of valid reasons for opposition.
you know what i am in favor of?
ReplyDeletetax shelters going away.
because this thing you talk of - this "robbing from the rich to give to the poor" that you say is *so* bad - it does not happen.
yes, in theory, rich people and businesses and corporations pay more than people with smaller incomes.
EXCEPT for all the little games they play, moving things here or there, opening an "office" in Tibet or Rio because then they pay less in taxes...
why was it *huge* when the Swiss finally agreed to STOP shielding people who used Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes on that money?
why the FUCK was there a huge battle over estate tax? one of the first "acceptable" taxes, ever, and all of the sudden out of no-where people who won't EVER have to pay it are hugely against it. and most of them still don't know what it was.
rich people, whether they are flesh-and-blood or corporate persons, DO NOT pay "their fair share" as it is. it's one of those things most people just... don't mention. oh, one could say that this lack is partialy mitigated by the fact that they employ so many accountants, but...
here are two ways, off the top of my head, to have the money to pay for a health-care SYSTEM better than Canada or Britain:
you can *stop* the bullshit "military spending" that is so incredibly padded and opaque that it does almost prove that we have alien prisoners -
or you can make people who are rich ACTUALLY pay their taxes.
either would work. and would end up *CHEAPER* all around.
why do we have SUVs all over the damned place, with milage that is, at best, sucky, while gas prices go up and up and up?
because the oil companies SPEND for lobbyists.
why do we have ever-spiraling health-costs, with no end in sight and premiums going *UP* in every direction?
because the insurance companies SPEND for lobbyists.
the thing with anecdotes in this situation? no, anecdotes don't always equal data - except, in this case, it *was* data, the data that waaaaaaay too many people *everywhere* don't have adequate health coverage, and that is DATA, and even more, that is PEOPLE who are SUFFERING.
people who, if we had a rational government system, would A) not suffer and B) COST TAXPAYERS LESS.
you know why i'm not "afraid" of more "government bureaucracy"? because (in theory, anyway) we currently have a choice, and that choice is BETWEEN "insurance bureaucrats who are PAID to TELL YOU KNOW" and "government bureaucrats who DON'T CARE EITHER WAY". in the first case, they ACTIVELY try and find reasons to NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING. in second, they just do their job, without worrying that if they don't reduce claims by another 3% they will lose their jobs.
i have *yet* to hear an argument that didn't, when challenged, end up at some sort of "rich people shouldn't have to support the poor" argument. as in, this is the US, if people get rich, they shouldn't have to share it!
except *most* of the rich people? they are rich because it was handed to them.
no, i don't think little johnny-silverspoon has *more* right to the fortune grand-dad made during prohabition than i do to decent healthcare. really. i don't want to "re-distribute wealth" (ok, i do, but pretend i don't) i just want people to stop BEING STUPID. a single-payer system WILL BE CHEAPER than what we have now, AND better.
but, no, can't have that, poor johnny-silverspoon might have to see a poor person at his doctor's office...
"tax shelters going away."
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on that.
"rich people, whether they are flesh-and-blood or corporate persons, DO NOT pay "their fair share" as it is."
I agree that rich people have all sorts of ways to pay less than they are supposed to. But they still pay the vast majority of the overall tax burden. According to MSNBC, the top 10% in income account for 55% of all federal revenue as of 2005.
"or you can make people who are rich ACTUALLY pay their taxes."
Good luck with getting more out of them. One of the many benefits of being rich, is having lawyers and accountants to find every possible loophole to lower their tax burden. We have a treasury secretary that didn't even bother to pay a six figure tax bill until it came up during his confirmation. The only way to eliminate loopholes is with a flat tax, and most on the left oppose that.
"and even more, that is PEOPLE who are SUFFERING.
people who, if we had a rational government system, would A) not suffer and B) COST TAXPAYERS LESS."
Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. What is far more likely to happen is that the overall system will lose quality and cost more. Things can always be made worse. And it is much easier to worsen them then make them better.
And if you like anecdotes, there are all sorts of personal stories about the horrors of government-run health care.
"in second, they just do their job, without worrying that if they don't reduce claims by another 3% they will lose their jobs."
You must be joking. Have you ever dealt with government health care such as Medicaid or Medicare? They operate exactly like private insurance bureaucrats. You think costs don't matter to the government? (I know it seems that way given how they waste money).The only difference is with the government, you have no choice. You have to take what they decide. And their system is likely to be less efficient and more costly, since they don't have to compete in even a restricted free market.
"*most* of the rich people? they are rich because it was handed to them."
BS. There are all kinds of self-made wealthy people, including many of the wealthiest.
"if people get rich, they shouldn't have to share it!"
I find it laughable that you think this is some sort of horrible idea, that people should be allowed to keep their own money and not have it forcibly removed and given to others.
" a single-payer system WILL BE CHEAPER than what we have now, AND better."
Yeah right. Our government programs are always cheaper and more efficient. There's just so much evidence of that. Look at the Post office and how smoothly it runs and how much money it saves. Oh wait.. What about the military, one of our largest government-controlled systems. It's a wonder of efficiency and cost-saving for taxpayers, isn't it? Medicare and Medicaid. They are just rolling in money from all the cost savings aren't they?
Fantasies of a single-payer system are almost as unrealistic as libertarian dreams of a true free market system. We have a hybrid private/public system and probably will for the foreseeable future.
Btw, I hesitated to post on this topic because I know people on left & right see the health care issue from drastically different points of view. But my insanely argumentative nature betrayed me and I was sucked in. :)
ReplyDelete