wtf. All I asked for was someone to supply a rational complaint. Not ****ing made-up "death panels", bogus claims of "no choice" and hyped up piss-poor accusations of socialism. As Northside already pointed out, only one of those concerns is "real" in the sense that it's not enabled by emotional reaction and/or misinformation. I'm not sure what your "communism" comment even means. As for doctors, the idea that suddenly 2x the number of people will seek medical care is audacious. Do you think people without insurance just lay down a die of the flu? No - they go to the emergency room. Furthermore, the argument above is framed on a rather callous disregard for that "half of the population".
You don't think number one on that list is a valid concern? Edit: By the way Northside Storm, I tried to rep you but apparently I've already done it recently.
Ah, I see. Government control of my lifestyle is worth it end the end. Thank you so much for saving me from myself. The government counseling has really severed its purpose and has truly exceeded my expectations. I will no longer question.
Considering how government run entities such as Amtrack and the US Post Office I think this is a valid argument. Also in regard to comparing the US to Europe or Canada the scale of things here is much larger which could present problems for a public health care system. With all of that though we clearly have very big problems with the way the system works now.
Wait a minute. Typical right wing theory to follow... Europeans=promiscuous philanderers who have moved away from morality, are more deviant, etc. than America. European governments=control European lifestyles.
The complaint wasn't that the bill created a single payer system, rather that it would ultimately force us into one. I think that is a legitimate argument.
Perhaps. But one for another time, IMO. Also, as northside pointed out, if the government system is more efficient than our current piss-poor private options, then that's a good thing! High comedy to b**** about having to afford paying for health care for the poor while simultaneously tacitly endorsing corporate welfare.
The argument isn't that it will force us into single payer due to efficiency, rather that we will be forced into single payer due to tax penalties, government audits, price control on the government side, etc. that will ultimately hurt the country long term. You can argue on any of that if you like, but I think that is a valid concern and is worth debating.
Those are all very valid points, and as the bold part points out, you do not find them valid. Once again, NHC sounds great, but in 30 years, if that long, it will be drastically different. Social Security sounded great 80 years ago, but most young people do not believe they will be able to collect. -The government running it efficiently is a valid concern. -If this is a piss poor accusation of socialism, then please explain your definition of socialism. This IS socialism. -Choice WILL be lost. Everyone will be REQUIRED to get healthcare. Healthcare will not be free. If you make over a certain amount (30kish) then you will be required to pay (i believe) 7% of your income towards your healthcare. Choice will be lost because many employers will no longer offer it through their company and the private cost of health insurance will be much higher than that. -Once again, explain to me where we will get the additional doctors and maintain the ones we already have.
Many things are like that including Laissez-Faire Capitalism. We force people to have auto insurance and we force homeowners to have homeowners insurance. I don't get what you are saying. People need medical care when they need medical care. If I have a heart attack I'm goign to the hospital whether there is socialized medicine or not. You might have people using different parts of medical care. Under our system there is a disincentive to go get preventive care so consequently a lot of medical care is consumed in the most expensive and intensive way, during emergencies. If more people were to go get regular checkups its possible that while you might see more check ups you see less emergency room visits. Also your statement seems to contradict itself. Wouldn't more people needing medical care mean more money for doctors since they are getting more work? I agree but that doesn't mean there aren't things we can learn from Europe. That said I don't think we can or should wholesale copy the European or Canadian system here.
Fair enough. Now please define "hurt the country", because I'm pretty sure our current system is "hurting the country" too. Assuming we go to single payer - what's the feared impact? I'm inclined to believe that the fear is related more to philosophical distaste as opposed to level of service.
What the hell does this even mean? You took two random anecdotes and extrapolated them to Obama's healthcare reforms=1984? Despite the fact that a slew of other nations have implemented universal health care without irrelevant anecdotes and that Japan is, let's admit it, just a wacky country. To be honest, all I hear is..."potential fears" based on nearly nothing. Oh the gouvernment might want to control costs? Can it not be given that private corporations do too...and that they don't care about efficiency while we're at it, unless it relates to profit?
Well I don't know. I agree with your last point that current system=not good, but I don't know the long term effects of a single payer system on this country and our medical system. My personal concern is that I feel like we are being force fed something that has not been thought out, has not been analyzed and has not had honest intellectual debate given to it. I accept that healthcare reform is a necessity in this country. I just want to make sure we do it the right way as opposed to "getting it done because we think we have the political willpower to do it now that the Republicans are minimized."
Private corporations (in theory) have a better incentive to provide better options/care/plan designs/etc. because they are competing with each other.
Is New Zealand and Germany just "bonkers" too? Germany has mounted an aggressive anti-obesity campaign in workplaces and schools to promote dieting and exercise. Citizens who fail to cooperate are branded as "antisocial" for costing the government billions of euros in medical expenses.
Healthcare isn't free now. As you note your employer pays for health care. That is money that could go to your own paycheck but instead goes to healthcare. Practically part of your income is already going to health care. I can tell you as a small business owner we can't afford to hire people when we have had good times because we can't afford health care for them. A public option or even single payer system would allow us to hire people. So yes socialized medicine is expensive but it could actually be a benefit for the economy by spreading the burden for paying for health care.
Sign me up -- just like smokers need to pay additional cig taxes, obese people cost the whole system a lot of extra money.
