Is that the same for as calling them "fatties" and "lardasses"? I agree I'm not for government engaging in name calling but lets not pretend that our society doesn't brand the obese.
-Can it get much worse then how corporations are running the sector right now? The most expansive system in the world is average at best and most would concede that it is mediocre. -Get over socialism, America is a mixed economy and already implements elements of a command/centralized economy such as a centralized mail system, control of most road networks and schools as well as Amtrak. No sensible economy excludes elements of different economic schools of thought based on ideology. - You're basically arguing that choice will be lost because the private option will be out-competed due to it's mediocrity. Is this not one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism, that competition breeds better fruits for all? It's not like Obama is abolishing the private option, your argument about choice is like me arguing that I am not free to choose "Random brand shoes" at $125 because Nike came in and offered better shoes at $100...and "random brand shoes" went bankrupt but for some strange reason (perhaps I am a masochist), I want my "random brand shoes". -Obama Adminstration has already made some tentative moves towards tort reform in trying to get doctors on board with the health care reform...it stands to follow that moves in this direction could dramatically up the incentive for new and old doctors.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, Medicare is far, far, far more efficient right now then the average private plan. And this makes sense, as it has no profit motive a la private companies. No it's not. A single payer system would be socialist (vaguely, and in a very limited way), not the proposed plan. Regardless, my point was that the fear-mongering is absurd - no one complains about our "socialist" highway system, our "socialist" education system, or our "socialized" fire departments. Please define socialism as a starting point, Space Ghost, if you truly want to fight this battle. My understanding is that there is no requirement for insurance, but rather a tax if you choose not too - presumably to cover the cost of an unexpected visit to the ER. If this has changed I'd be interested to know. Unnecessary, as I've already explained the illogical nature of your claim, and Shishir has further addressed it above.
Yippee. We can all be like a young Yao Ming conducting the regimented routines in the state exercise yard. Be fit or you will pay!
So up the competition to include the gouvernment and (in theory), private companies better suit up or get booted the hell out. Because he's relatively new and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt before I chuck them into the "Do not bother responding, post incoherent random pictures" category. jeez fat people get it lucky. if you want to smoke weed, you're branded as a criminal. i think that's a stage past antisocial?
No they don't, because they aren't. I don't have a choice in provider through my employer, and private insurance would be more expensive. Even if it wasn't, the game is rigged.
Totally agree. I'd take it a step further and take "statistical success rates" into account when queuing expensive procedures.
I don't like the road that goes down personally. So will the government be able to decide that people are a burden on the system and therefore penalize them for sexual choices?
I do not really understand the government plans for healthcare reform at all. My guess is that the majority of people for it and against it are the same way.
Well, yeah, it's morally difficult (as Obama mentioned when referencing his Grandmother's hip replacement). However, to me "rationing" can be an effective way to control costs with the advent of extremely advanced, yet horribly expensive, procedures. It's not the only way, but I'd still remark that the life-long smoker should be lower on the priority than a young kid for some advanced lung therapy. Perhaps even not offered, in which case it would fall on his own responsibility to pay for all or some of the treatment before it is administered. Dunno about this one in entirety - it's complicated and I've not thought it through 100% or anything. I guess I've resigned myself to some level of "unfairness" because that's reality...
I'm not aware of any cases in Canada or in other nations of discriminative treatment towards people with STDs. I think you're forgetting that governments are treading on eggshells when it comes to stuff like this; they are responsible to the people. Enough unpopular measures will cause them to lose power. Corporations don't have to worry about that; as long as they are making profits, it doesn't matter. ...of course, wouldn't that be a social conservative's dream...to penalize people for deviant sexual behavior?
