Republicans and Libertarians should not receive government healthcare since they oppose government involvement in healthcare.
From the opposition of Medicare, Medicaid, to rich Republican health care CEOs like Rick Scott, the Frist family, etc.
The next time a Democratic trifecta is in control, they should put an amendment saying that Republicans be banned from getting government healthcare.
If Trump’s DOJ can get access to voter records, it should be done for all active Republican voters.
Take power, then act like them.
Right. 
I get the desire to play childish games with other people’s lives while at the same time I get that playing childish games with other people’s lives is monstrous.
7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Gobb’s Posts
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you”. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Gobb, are you trying to “balance out” your image on this message board?
So, you disagree with the OP?
Do they get to opt out of paying the taxes used to fund it? I don’t think their problem is government healthcare. Their problem is paying for government healthcare. The government is spending nearly 30% of taxes on healthcare. Get rid of that, and reduce taxes by 30%. That’s exactly what they want.
Are you saying this should apply to ALL people registered as Republican or Libertarian?
Nope. It’s that they don’t want their tax dollars paying for abortions and healthcare “dem illegals”. Everything else is OK.
That wouldn’t work because the whole purpose of insurance (including public insurance) is to share costs, and if you let people opt out (especially since there’s going to be a strong correlation between how healthy you are and how likely you are to try and opt out) then that just doesn’t work.
If someone once demonstrated with a “Defund the Police” sign, and failed to subsequently become a Republican, should they be denied police protection?
That 30% (27% actually) is very misleading. That includes Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans’ health care, as well as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage.
It looks like ACA is only 5%.
A moderate is not someone who thinks that both sides are playing by the same rules, and has to ignore reality to do so.
Why limit the scope to the ACA. The OP didn’t mention the VA, but definitely intended to include Medicare and Medicaid. VA is also only around 5%.
The part of the ACA that fined you if you didn’t enroll was removed. You’re still not supposed to opt out, but there’s no penalty for doing so.
One of the ideas of the country is that each state should be treated as, more or less, its own largely sovereign state. Federalism has it that the central government takes dominion over international affairs and, otherwise , only has a small part to play in interstate commerce or other domestic issues.
Despite desires to the contrary, that’s still largely true and the focus on the President and Congress by the general public is unbalanced relative to how important the Federal government is to them. The post office just isn’t an integral part of most people’s day.
More importantly, the general expectation would be that each state figure out it’s own stuff and develop its own character and concerns.
If a state wants to offer a deep and generous social welfare system, then it should do so - based on the elected representatives of the local populace having decided that it matches the state’s ethos. If the local culture is “from one to all”, they should do that. Or if, on the contrary, it’s “each man for himself”, then so be that.
In general, we should have 50 different systems, all being tested out and trialed.
Really the question isn’t what any one of those should be - maybe one state would do as you suggest - it’s why each of the 50 states is completely ignoring their own sovereignty and trying to push the issue to the Federal government.
Personally, I suspect that the parties have decided that wrangling over this and other intractable “centralized government” issues 1) helps to drive money to the national party and, subsequently, the party has more motivation to ignore working on these problems at the state level, and 2) any politically sensitive issue, poorly done, risks significant political backlash. If you can push it to the Federal stage then it’s someone else’s problem and, there, Constitutional limits against the Federal government form a built-in blockade against any actual implementation. The parties are naturally protected from having to actual do something and thereby risk completely flubbing it.
In general, politicians would rather seem to be doing something than actually do it. Our current election system selects for natural yes men. Yes men are, generally, just not people with big ideas of their own. And they don’t feel competent to do the complicated work that we’re asking them to do.
So like I said, how to actually organize health care is a much smaller issue to the question of how to get it so we can actually get movement on health care. That probably won’t happen without revisions to the electoral system, to encourage people of substance to get into government.
Otherwise, we might as well suggest that our healthcare system include free rides to the Moon and a slice of cheesecake for all that it really matters. The focus by the general public - like most of the people on this forum - on which system to choose, how to finance it, etc. instead of the question of why there’s been no movement in decades despite our system clearly being worse than pretty much every other option that anyone could come up with, is what keeps us from getting a better system.
As an engineer, you don’t ask, “What’s the coolest bridge?” You ask, where do I get workers, what materials can I use, what’s my budget, what are the predominate natural disasters in the region, etc. Building the bridge is a relatively small concern relative to the “how” - the basic foundation of moving from a desire to an actual product.
That foundation is missing, and everyone’s too busy dreaming up their perfect bridge to notice that there’s no raw materials.
Should there be an amendment to the federal income tax act to allow pacifists to opt out of paying the percentage of their taxes that go to support the military?
Should there be an amendment that allows opponents of abortion to opt out of paying the percentage of their taxes that go to fund abortions?
Should libertarians be able to opt out of paying the percentage of their taxes that go to farm support programs?
How do they deal with health care (Medicaid) in your state?
Disease doesn’t restrict itself to only infecting people who “deserve” it. Letting rightwingers get sick (more than they are already doing to themselves) just means (further) turning them into disease vectors that can infect the rest of us.
Really, if we are talking about ruthlessly (and impractically) dealing with the medical issues caused by the Right, either forcing vaccinations on them or putting them all into quarantine would make more sense than making them even more dangerous.
How they do it in practice isn’t really relevant. Under the Federal system, Medicaid is a voluntary program that states are invited to join but also free to ignore. If they do join, then they are obligated to manage a system that’s in compliance with the Federal guidelines, in return for Federal tax money.
Any state that wanted to could drop out, they could ban private providers from operating within their state, or really anything they want.
Illinois could pass some laws and have its own system that’s exactly modeled on the Dutch healthcare system, tomorrow. Alabama could drop out, entirely, and tell it’s citizens that they’re adults, and they’re free to figure out how to keep themselves alive - stop asking other people to figure things out for you.
For as much as the red states complain about healthcare, the One Big Beautiful Bill expressly gives more money to red states by reserving a $50b fund, half of which is divided equally by state (by state, not by population), and the other half can be directed to wherever the Executive Branch decides to send it.
I’m skeptical that they’re really all that motivated to drop out.
Realistically, at the time that all the social programs were created at the Federal level, the core of the Democratic party was in Alabama and the South. It was their way to get the North to finance good healthcare for low population density, rural America. The free market just wasn’t able to swing it, without government aid.
They didn’t expect the party geography to flip, and that they’d be socially obligated to go on the offensive against what they’d made for themselves, in the name of hating everything favored by “the other side”.