1. If you choose to use more gasoline? You pay for it. 2. If you choose to use more electricity? You pay for it. 3. If you choose to use more water? You pay for it. 4. If you choose to own a bigger nicer house? You pay for it, every year, in property taxes. 5. If you, through your eating choices, choose to use more of the healthcare system? Everyone else pays for it. Are items 1-4 socialist and evil to you? Judging by your responses, yes. Go go obesity tax. Or in Germany, it's actually more like an incentive. You get a tax break if you hit certain basic health targets. Imagine: encouraging people to take good care of themselves. What socialism. Er wait. Germany is not socialist, but er, it's different from us so it must be socialist. (head explodes)
Yes, we do need health care reform, im not going to argue against that. I'll get over the word socialism when we decide the constitution no longer applies. You can't have both. Either completely rewrite the constitution or abide by it. 10th amendment is pretty clear. Healthcare is not guaranteed in the constitution, nor is so much of the crap that has been passed in the last 100 years You can call it out competed all you want, but in the end, people will not have a choice. It see it as the market responding to conditions, just as many businesses choose to outsource jobs to cut costs. Your analogy sucks because you fail to account that UHC is NOT FREE. When employers no longer offer healthcare, do you really think they are going to pass that on to the workers? As a single rider on employers health care, i've paid between 50$ - $100 a month for good health care. Under UHC, I will pay possibly more than 2x that, if not more, through taxes. You can argue all you want, but the UHC quality of care will not be better. Tentative moves towards tort reform? Great! Lets pass it! THe only way you're going to get more doctors is to bring them from overseas.
Sure, but they don't have the power to levy taxes, set criminality, etc. By the way, I know I am going way hypothetical with the sex history stuff so please don't think this is my attempt to attack the system. I'm just thinking it out on the message board. If the government is given the power to regulate medicine based on personal decisions, what's to stop them from down the road requiring us to tell them, under legal penalty, who we have sex with, what type of sex we have, etc. What's to stop them from bringing tax, rationing care, etc. based on people who sleep with multiple partners vs married people?
This made me laugh. Not because I don't believe it but because it is kind of true and breaks it down into a simpler to understand comparison.
no, but now we've seen a mass backlash at the GOP; they have nearly no power and Bush's policies are slowly being dismantled one by one. I have faith that ultimately, if the Obama administration or any other admin. proposes bills of this nature, the American people will punish them.
Perhaps, but once the road is ventured down, there is usually no going back. But, to be fair, I see your point, and as I said earlier this was more just letting my mind wander on a message board than a legit concern with current bill.
lol at this whole episode. According the left, Hippie liberal war protestors = patriotic Americans Health care protestors = out of work wingers who are ruining America hypocrisy at its finest
that's what forums are for. or should be for anyways, the D&D is not always the sanest place. case in point...eh, might as well
Agree. Just trying to circulate the idea as part of my own warped agenda after Cindy that hawt chubby girl turned me down in 8th grade. And seriously, the obesity penalty, or even a health incentive for a tax rebate, have made ZERO appearance in the US congressional discussions, from what I can tell. I do think people should be confronted with the hidden costs of their choices, when the impact is this huge.
