I have no problem with some of my taxes going to pay for a poor guy to have his appendix removed, as long as he’s a U.S. citizen and is willing to work if he’s able. I thought we already had that covered with Medicaid and the various state children’s health programs, but if we don’t, I’m in favor of fixing it.
What concerns me is that the proposed program is universal and overarching. If private insurance companies can’t control costs, how can the government do it?
Plus, once this gets going, the list of treatments eligible for reimbursement becomes politically determined. Remember folks, we live in a democracy. Get ready for government-funded tattoo removal, boob jobs, tanning salons, massages, ionic foot baths, crystal therapy, and whatever else any quack can think up and get his Congressman to sneak into the appropriations bill.
Please. You are the king of ideologically driven statements of faith. You never make arguments, you just state conclusions (and asinine ones, at that).
Exactamundo. And the surtax being discussed now is only the beginning. The program will become underfunded, at which point Congress will say “we have to fund this promise we made!!”, and the surtax will increase, and it’s slow growth and a shitty economy for decades.
Economy of scale, lack of a profit motive, concern for the future come to mind. Besides; the fact is that the government DOES control medical costs better, as seen all over the world. This isn’t some weird, wild eyed idea that’s never been tried. The wild eyed loonies here are the Americans who insist that the private sector MUST be more efficient for health care, in the face of all the evidence showing the opposite.
Just like now, in other words. The main difference being we can vote against a politician who insists that they will provide Viagra but no birth control; we can’t when a private group does that.
Fucktard, this boat sailed 230 years ago. The power to tax is an inherent part of our government. Your whining that the government is taking your money to pay for things is a nonstarter. If you oppose a particular policy make a convincing argument against it.
And yet, you dumbass snatch, my last job did NOT provide decent health insurance, unless you were full-time. (They DID offer a program through AFFLAC, but it was a complete joke – and didn’t cover jackshit. Not prescriptions, specialists, anything other than routine check-ups.)
Either way, I’m another with a pre-existing condition, so I’m fucking screwed.
Yeah, it’s all her fault that you’re a bully and a mean-spirited jerk. The topic is universal health care, not picking on those you perceive to be weaker than you. Try to remember that, even though the line between the two is blurry for folks like you.
Again, I’d like to ask you where you got the impression that employer-based health insurance is forced to take any employee, regardless of current health or condition. Because it certainly doesn’t appear to be the norm.
Of course!!! Why didn’t I think of that!!! Such a simple solution – I’ll just go and get that one right now – despite the fact that there’s not much around here that isn’t nursing, or accounting, or basically something that requires a degree other than my own.
And of course, said health insurance will just magically cover my health problem, won’t it?
(Just curious, Carol, what DO you do? Seriously?)
And I’d like a cite that they don’t take everyone. Obviously, they can’t ask about health conditions in the hiring process, but once your hired, the same group plan applies to everyone. So where is your evidence that employer-based health insurance is deniyng coverage?
I thought the economy has been shedding jobs for a year now. The numbers without insurance is just going up. Go to Steamland where good paying jobs with terrific coverage are everywhere.
