You GOTTA have insurance

[Storker]

There's the extreme left that thinks that everyone should get government sponsored healthcare for free

What you regard as an "extreme left" POV is extremely mainstream and hardly at all discussed in every other first world country.

They are only community services because at some time in the past the community decided to make them community services.

Let's try Ghost95's argument on other community services:

everyone should get government sponsored firefighting for free

everyone should get government sponsored police for free

everyone should get government sponsored water and sewage service for free

Um, yes? Except that they get it for the taxes they pay, of course. Free at point of use, paid in advance through taxes. Just like healthcare in single-payer healthcare countries.

 

[boulderjohn]

When people use the slippery slope argument, they frequently have to ignore realities. "If we enact the same kind of health care as they have in Europe, we will be forced to do things that they have not been forced to do in Europe."

When America was debating the the Equal Rights for women amendment decades ago, one of the favorite slippery slope arguments was that separate bathrooms for men and women would become illegal. That argument is still around today, because that amendment was never passed nationally. It was, however, passed in Colorado, and we put it in our state constitution. It has been the law here for 40 years, and we still have separate bathrooms. In fact, none of the slippery slope horror predictions have come true.

 

[Ghost95]

View attachment 621725

What you regard as an "extreme left" POV is extremely mainstream and hardly at all discussed in every other first world country.


Let's try Ghost95's argument on other community services:

everyone should get government sponsored firefighting for free

everyone should get government sponsored police for free

everyone should get government sponsored water and sewage service for free

Um, yes? Except that they get it for the taxes they pay, of course. Free at point of use, paid in advance through taxes. Just like healthcare in single-payer healthcare countries.

I apoligize. The term free is somewhat inflamatory. Yes it is paid by taxes. I will replace free with unfunded or underfunded, in relation to current cost.

The police and fire departments are funded by taxes as well but their community contribution to the community as a whole is much more tangable than healthcare is currently.

Water and sewer is paid by use, at least where I am. Just like electricity is paid by use.

Again I am not suggesting that there be NO public saftey net for those in need but rather control cost so people who are employed can afford good preventative healthcare without the need for $1500 a month policies.

 

[dmaziuk]

I thing that is the fundamental difference between a lot of Americans, and a large part of the rest of the world.

The rest of us see health as a service, that is as important for society as firefighting, sewage service, defence etc.

Yeah well... there are places in this country where municipal broadband is illegal. Some might consider Internet access an important service and an integral part of modern infrastructure, but here in Murka we don't let them stop us.

 

[Ghost95]

I don’t really think of Canada, Germany, and Britain as being extremely left. If I recall correctly, they are NATO friends that have supported the US in deterring Russian and Chinese aspirations of international influence, as well as supplying forces in our military adventures in the Balkans and the Middle East.

I was speaking of here in the US. Left and right, and extreme left and extreme right are realities here in the present time. The louder they each yell the more coverage they get which just encourages whoever is on the other side to yell back louder. What those countries have done may be working for them as far as healthcare.

I'm not sure the health care is any better or if the the people just make healthier choices, eat less processed food, don't work 70 hours a week and stress out about making the payments on a house they can't afford or a third car payment, and lead more active life styles. I seem to recall that the same percentages of people that present with a heart attack still die there as well as here but there are just less heart attacks because of a healthier lifestyle.

 

[Ghost95]

Affordable healthcare for everyone is a great idea but until the ballooning cost of healthcare is brought under control we can't tax enough to provide it. Taxing people, business, property, today won't cover the cost of healthcare services tomorrow with the way they're going.

Figure out a way to bring adaquate, quality, preventative healthcare within the grasp of average working people WITHOUT requiring insurance, and then reevaluate the situation. Right now we can't afford it. He*l, we can barely afford it with insurance.

 

[Storker]

Affordable healthcare for everyone is a great idea but until the ballooning cost of healthcare is brought under control we can't tax enough to provide it.

Funny that literally - literally literally, not the "literally" which really means "virtually" - every other first world country can provide it, some way or another.

The police and fire departments are funded by taxes as well but their community contribution to the community as a whole is much more tangable than healthcare is currently.

Cite?

Or iow, I don't buy that argument. A fairly healthy populace, to a large extent reached by preventative healthcare (which your system dissuades) is, in fact, a very important contribution to community. Me, I'd much rather that my fellow citizens were healthy enough to work and pay their taxes (even if those taxes, in a progressive tax system, would be rather minuscule on a per-person basis) than being on the dole, living on food stamps or being homeless and out of work because they can't afford to have their ailments treated.

Or perhaps that's just my liberal bleeding heart showing. Idk.

 

[Darnold9999]

The difference is those are community services, YOUR healthcare is your responsibility, not a community service.

So my niece who developed a one in 2,000,000 disease at 5 years old is responsible for her healthcare for her entire life (not a chance she could buy insurance ever, anywhere), or my sister that had a spinal stroke at 50 (also incredibly rare) should be responsible for her healthcare? Its almost like you think that these diseases were their fault so they should pay. Yes there is an argument to be made for those who smoke or drink should be responsible for the adverse health consequences of these (or other) behaviors, but that is actually harder than you might think to define. The difference here (and other single payer jurisdictions) is that we define healthcare as a community service in exactly the same way as we do police services, fire services, roads, parks, sewer, water, etc. and can't understand how any advanced society doesn't.

When you make arguments like this substitute police services for healthcare and see if they make sense to you, because the argument that you just made could easily be transferred to police services. You could easily have private police that you access if you have purchased insurance or can pay for directly. The argument would go something like this: your protection and the investigation of a crime perpetrated against your person is your responsibility not a community service that I should have to pay for, after all your the one that went out late at night dressed like a rich man. I can protect myself and mine, why should I pay to protect you. I likely have exactly the same reaction to your healthcare argument as you likely have to the above police services argument. It doesn't make sense, everyone should have access to police services no matter their income level, or position in society. Particularly if something catastrophic happens like assault, or robbery - it just makes for a society that works better for everyone than the one where we are all responsible for our own individual protection.

 

[Ghost95]

Cite?

Or iow, I don't buy that argument. A fairly healthy populace, to a large extent reached by preventative healthcare (which your system dissuades) is, in fact, a very important contribution to community. Me, I'd much rather that my fellow citizens were healthy enough to work and pay their taxes (even if they, in a progressive tax system, would be rather minuscule on a per-person basis) than being on the dole, living on food stamps or being homeless and out of work because they can't afford to have their ailments treated.

Or perhaps that's just my liberal bleeding heart showing. Idk.

Ok, change the word tangible to visible. You see the workings of the fire department when they show up at a wreck or house fire. You see the police when they catch a bank robber or whatever. Those are immediatly visible and you see the effect that your taxes are having.

Currently our medicade/medicare dosen't show good results. It makes it hard to convince anyone that they are better off under a government run system. Currently.

Also, I agree with you. I want people healthy and able to work so they can pay into the system too. The economy is better off with all of us making payments and buying stuff. It makes the word go round, gets the roads paved, parks cleaned, ambulances and fire trucks run, ect.

Preventative health care is dissuaded by cost primairly, and to a lesser extent lifestyle. You know a 4th truck is more important than going to the Dr's. for a checkup. But primairily cost.

If we could get costs down to where the guy stuck working at McDonalds or the bagger at the grocery store could afford to go get the check up, they might. Things could improve, more revenue from taxes, more spending and sales tax, and we could concentrate on the underemployed, the disabeled, and the mentally ill.

If we do't control cost first though it dosen't matter what we do with a national health insurance because there will never be enough. If more money is avaliable, insurance and the healthcare industry will find a way to raise rates.

I would rather have regulation of the costs and pay for things myself than be forced into a system like our medicaid system as it is now.

 

[BRT]

View attachment 621725

What you regard as an "extreme left" POV is extremely mainstream and hardly at all discussed in every other first world country.


Let's try Ghost95's argument on other community services:

everyone should get government sponsored firefighting for free

everyone should get government sponsored police for free

everyone should get government sponsored water and sewage service for free

Um, yes? Except that they get it for the taxes they pay, of course. Free at point of use, paid in advance through taxes. Just like healthcare in single-payer healthcare countries.

You think we get water and sewage service for free? No, we are not that far down the socialist road yet.