Way to fail. The title of this thread is a question.
And the answer is that you’re already paying for the healthcare of people who don’t have insurance. If we bring in a proper single-payer universal system you’ll end up paying less, not have to worry about denial of care so much, etc.
I agree that that is one possible outcome.
So where’s my pony, bitch?
Oh come now. The question is clearly posed in the form of an offer. If you wish to fall back on a grammatical technicality to renege on that offer, I shall be forced to regard you hereafter as a chiseling weasel. Or a weasely chiseler. Your choice.
If the end result is that far fewer children are born and raised in squalor, that’s a good thing, right?
This kind of “misunderstanding” of a post, that by now appears purposeful, has stuck in my craw for a long time.
You shouldn’t say things like that unless you can prove them. Which you can’t.
(Hint-pointing at some other country is not proof.)
I can prove that America could cut around 30% from healthcare insurance bills by switching to a single-payer system easily.
This is a whoosh, right?
And yet, you didn’t go on to do so?
Nope!
Medicare is a single payer system with about a 3% overhead, and most of that could be cut by hiring some of those socialist Canadian healthcare experts to set the Medicare framework up like the Canadian system.
Why do you think it’s possible for Canada’s system to run a 1% overhead but not America’s? Why are they different to us? The only difference is they take the profit out of running healthcare insurance while we don’t.
Because Canadians can read words like “take the profit out” and not run screaming from the room.
The profit margin for health insurers is only about 6%. While that is not insignificant, it is hardly unprecedented or indicative of gouging. The problem with our health care is not the “excessive profits” health insurers enjoy, despite the heated rhetoric on this board (I don’t mean you).
Its not the amount of profit, but the means to that end. A lot of us find condemning people to pain, suffering, and possible death a bit, well, unseemly.
The battered and broken foster care system is a GOOD idea for kids? Really? I don’t think I’d want to put up with the bitching from people like you in 15 years when a lot of those kids are making your life miserable by being unproductive members of society because they were so traumatized by their impersonal, GOVERNMENT-PLANNED, TAXPAYER-FUNDED upbringing.
Mine too. I expect to read your scathing excoriation of Rand Rover in the “Palin says Obama would kill her baby” thread, which is what I was referring to, any minute now. I take that back, actually; since it’s you, it’ll take about a week for you to read this post and answer it.
Then it’s probably not a good idea to tag excessive profits as the cause of the health care issues, eh? Yet, that’s exactly what Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the Dem imbeciles are doing. The old sleight of hand.
Why, no, you’re quite right, its not the excessive profits, its the means used to obtain those profits. By the way, love your guitars.