Is forced charity even possible? I think it's an oxymoron. The funny thing is that both sides practice what they preach: Republicans out-contribute Democrats when it comes to charity while the Dems support more social programs...... that they want the rich to pay for.
so I'm not entirely against such a system.
Obviously both systems work to accomplish the basic goals of healthcare and keeping the population healthy. I wish people would acknowledge this instead of rushing to tear down any good things about the other system, as if it simply can't be acknowledged. There's no one solution to any problem. - Just better solutions to problems. Like ones that don't involve giving up all our freedoms...
Why is it single-payer proponents spend so much time and energy building a case that denies even the integrity and honesty of private healthcare only to rush to a first defense that the choice will still exist? Shouldn't such a system be outlawed altogether if their arguments have any merit? Shouldn't they support it being outlawed altogether if they really believe doctors without government will take your feet and your child's tonsils for profit?
Of course, I still support a safety net, because I don't believe a utopia, left or right, will ever exist. But it should still be charitable contributions, not an appropriation of public funds. I'd say some program run by the private sector with oversight by the government. Reason: The private sector engages in profit, not revenue, so they sort of tend to place more value on a dollar than the government. You read the amounts of money the government will spend on things like turtle bridges (Yes. Bridges for turtles. Complete with little lit pathways. Millons.) and toilet seats and come to one of two conclusions: Either the government is engaging in frauding the American public and these dollars aren't going to these projects, OR Congress has absolutely no concept of money because they know they can just ask the Treasury and the Fed (*twitch*) to print more or buy the debt.
And what about those of us who currently do have good healthcare, who are in positions to pay for the privilege? [...] And then you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do: denied people's right to have access to healthcare.
Exactly! We worry about healthcare specifically for Terri, and by extension of empathy, all chronic patients. There's a provision in the bill, for instance, for having too many tests run. Doctors get charged a fine. She has to have periodic blood tests among other things, and needs to be able to see a doctor on a regular basis as well as at any given moment, so we're talking about patients being punished -because the doctors will have to pass along the costs, and when you shove X million into the system with no new doctors, there are going to be waits- for maintaining their health! As diseases progress in people with chronic conditions, their medication needs become more defined and extreme: Will the government be willing to pay for state-of-the-art treatments to help them? Or will that care be rationed?
It sounds so altruistic to say everyone should be covered, especially when no one they know is really sick, but at what cost? Is that cost even sustainable? Is that goal even achievable? None of the bills in Congress can even accomplish that goal and look how much it costs already --in government estimates which are ALWAYS wrong!
no subject
so I'm not entirely against such a system.
Obviously both systems work to accomplish the basic goals of healthcare and keeping the population healthy. I wish people would acknowledge this instead of rushing to tear down any good things about the other system, as if it simply can't be acknowledged. There's no one solution to any problem. - Just better solutions to problems. Like ones that don't involve giving up all our freedoms...
Why is it single-payer proponents spend so much time and energy building a case that denies even the integrity and honesty of private healthcare only to rush to a first defense that the choice will still exist? Shouldn't such a system be outlawed altogether if their arguments have any merit? Shouldn't they support it being outlawed altogether if they really believe doctors without government will take your feet and your child's tonsils for profit?
Of course, I still support a safety net, because I don't believe a utopia, left or right, will ever exist. But it should still be charitable contributions, not an appropriation of public funds. I'd say some program run by the private sector with oversight by the government. Reason: The private sector engages in profit, not revenue, so they sort of tend to place more value on a dollar than the government. You read the amounts of money the government will spend on things like turtle bridges (Yes. Bridges for turtles. Complete with little lit pathways. Millons.) and toilet seats and come to one of two conclusions: Either the government is engaging in frauding the American public and these dollars aren't going to these projects, OR Congress has absolutely no concept of money because they know they can just ask the Treasury and the Fed (*twitch*) to print more or buy the debt.
And what about those of us who currently do have good healthcare, who are in positions to pay for the privilege? [...] And then you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do: denied people's right to have access to healthcare.
Exactly! We worry about healthcare specifically for Terri, and by extension of empathy, all chronic patients. There's a provision in the bill, for instance, for having too many tests run. Doctors get charged a fine. She has to have periodic blood tests among other things, and needs to be able to see a doctor on a regular basis as well as at any given moment, so we're talking about patients being punished -because the doctors will have to pass along the costs, and when you shove X million into the system with no new doctors, there are going to be waits- for maintaining their health! As diseases progress in people with chronic conditions, their medication needs become more defined and extreme: Will the government be willing to pay for state-of-the-art treatments to help them? Or will that care be rationed?
It sounds so altruistic to say everyone should be covered, especially when no one they know is really sick, but at what cost? Is that cost even sustainable? Is that goal even achievable? None of the bills in Congress can even accomplish that goal and look how much it costs already --in government estimates which are ALWAYS wrong!