So when people are liberal, its ok to lessen the value of their vote? Forgive me for not seeing the logic in this. You will have to convince me with a more detailed argument on this one, if you care to take the time to educate me.
Yes, it means that the government pays through a tax appropriation. Yes, is is a slight redistribution of wealth, but not in the scary way you make it out to be.
That is truly sad. I guess you have never experience an extreme, unexpected medical expence that you couldn’t afford?
My argument is that, as a part of our society, every person should be able to see a doctor as needed. This isnt an economy breaking expense, especially when our medical costs are way too high.
The deeper issue is that the pharmaceutical companies have way too much power, they educate and drive our medical professionals, and they are making a killing on keeping us sick.
In this we agree!
Im really think we agree on a lot of things, after rereading your response. Our main differences lie in social and economic theories and ideals, but i think we agree that the main problems are big corps influencing policies and legislation.
Yes we can disagree on that. My opinion is formed by actually living in other countries around the world where I have experienced different forms of Healthcare systems, so no I am not trying to make it out to be scary, it simply is a bad idea and I don’t support it. How many different countries have you lived in where you can make a better informed opinion about healthcare and the system that you prefer?
No its not sad. Its basically the argument between what I believe and what you believe. Address the issue that I alluded to previously and health care becomes affordable again. There was already an attempt to try it your way and it failed miserably so now lets try what I believe in? For those who can’t afford it, and meet the threshold of a certain criteria set forth by Government to receive assistance then that is what Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare is for. Safety nets that we as tax payers pay for. Funny how people are so short on memory when discussing the latter concepts, because before healthcare was even an issue (hello Hillary and along came Obama) we had a pretty decent system where everyone had reasonable access to care. It wasn’t until Prices started rising due to lobbying efforts from the healthcare industry that suddenly it was a good idea to neglect our safety net programs and start making it a hot button issue. The point is, politicians didn’t want to address the cost side of things, and update the safety net programs, instead they started on a campaign about free healthcare for all on false pretenses, and got people like you to believe it was a good idea, a one size fits all solution.
Yes every person should be able to see a doctor when needed, but there also has to be personal accountability in the broader discussion, such as I shouldn’t have to pay for others poor consumption and unhealthy lifestyle decisions. For example, if I drive a car continuously over rough terrain and I neglect its maintenance, does that mean I have the right to ask that my maintenance needs should be a right or subsidized by government? No, I look for people who provide a service to help me maintain my car and make the necessary repairs. The same is with healthcare, Doctors provide a service to those who need to address certain issues with their body. Healthcare is not a universal right and anybody who argues this that it is, is not making their arguments grounded in logic. I believe in a free market healthcare system with the proper mechanisms in place that insures fair competition. Government subsidized healthcare will only reduce the quality of care, increase wait times to see a doctor, and limit the choices of insurance providers, and we already seen that with the rollout of the ACA, and that is why I am not in support of this, it was nothing more than a scheme to consolidate control and another form of tax. The “one size fits all” argument is not a solution and it loses every time, its a lazy argument talking point by politicians to wanting to get elected.
Why do you think those programs are ok? I am not being facetious, i truly would like to know what the difference is for you? Does it come down to the requirement to qualify for those programs? I ask, because i would have pegged you as opposing those programs before you made this comment.
This makes sense to me, but i dont think its a great comparison. Health is a complicated thing, and much of it is contigient on diet and other choices, which are, in my opinion, not always very healthy, based on, again, lobbying groups deciding what the government tells us, or allows them to tell us, is healthy.
Because and to be clear, its one of the things that FDR got right, we can’t simply avoid having safety nets for those who are truly in need of it. Yes its a social entitlement, but with reasonable accountability and addressing abuses, then those entitlements work pretty well. Yes people should be able to meet certain standards in order to take advantage of government assistance. That is why they are called Assistant programs, to assist people who are need of them. The problem currently with these programs is that lack of oversight on systemic abuses has bloated the budgets for these programs, along with a myriad of other issues such as Doctors over-billing, Politicians moving around monies to offset other programs to meet budget requirements has threatened the solvency of these programs.
Well how is this, programs such as “SNAP” where people are allowed to buy, cakes, soda, candy where the money is suppose to help people with nutritional needs is going towards adverse diet choices. You can’t advocate for government run healthcare if the same Government is complicit in encouraging people to make poor decisions as well. They have to practice what they preach!
I think a car is an excellent analogy because the human body requires maintenance. It comes down to the personal choices we make, ignoring that facet in the argument is ignoring the bigger picture altogether.
It seems like the most efficient way to fix the broken system we have. The insurance companies have no incentive to change, and the pharmaceutical companies are making a killing. If we have a public, single player system, these things could be regulated and controlled based on the money coming in, and the costs of providing services and medicine.
Yeah this is where we fundamentally disagree on. You are ignoring the fact that is was already tried with the ACA and there is many examples that support my argument.
So you have the key to health? Please tell me! Obviously soda and candy is not healthy, that is the extreme, and a fallacy of thay system. To claim that you can control your health completely, though, is arrogant and ignorant
Yes in fact I do! It all comes down to what I call the “white death” processed sugar and is the leading cause to diabetes a leading killer as was well as a leader cost burden on the health insurance industry. It is also a leading example that led to the debate on preexisting conditions. The costs in addressing this problem was enormous!
You are more hippie than you let on. Lol! I have some strong opinions on food and diet, but its not quite as simple as cutting white sugar
Well I can share with you about a lot of things on “white Sugar” that would roll your head backwards. I have done extensive research on this subject and it leads to other things that connect other nefarious influences that plagues our food source.
No, I am not a hippie, I am a fitness nut and educated myself on eating right.
Have you read any Jo Robinson? She has some great books on choosing, storing, and preparing food, with tons of scientific studies backing it up.
No I have not. I am actually a big supporter of Dr Haas, and his book “Eat To Win”
Check out Eating on the Wild Side, by Robinson. She goes in depth about phytonutrient and antioxident contents of different foods, and how choosing certain varieties of fruits and vegetables can make a big difference
I will look into that
We are a Republic. The entire purpose of the United STATES is to put various levels of government at odds with each other so that we don’t end up eating our house pets while the elite feast on Waygu beef every Wed nite.
Mic drop.
1 Like
And yet they do. What is your point?