I never said it wasn’t flawed, what I was trying to say is that it’s not flawed enough for most people to demand change. It’s at the level of being a pretty large pain in the ass when you actually have to engage with it from a payment/coverage perspective, but for most people that’s not a frequent thing, and most people aren’t in the situation where the gaps in coverage, etc… are affecting them. Like I said, it’s typically at the edges.
I think that single-payer advocates would be well advised to expound how single payer health care is going to both improve health care coverage AND make things cheaper overall to the average middle-class person insured through their jobs. Right now the perception is that overall, they’re going to pay more and get some combination of lesser quantity of coverage, less choice in providers and facilities, and onerous trouble seeing specialists without PCP referrals, etc… It’s all well and good that it’ll help other people, but when you start telling people they can’t see the doctor of their choice, when they want, and it’s going to cost them more overall, you have a uphill battle to sell that to the electorate.
Meh, we citizens agree to pool our money to do all sorts of things, some of which don’t immediately benefit us as individuals. Right before the commonsensical nature and superiority of universal health care systems seems like a strange place to draw a line.
So, people forced to buy auto insurance who don’t have accidents are getting abused?
And it is nice that you know what your medical bills for a year are going to be before you purchase insurance. The rest of us don’t.
I’ve got my socialized medicine, I love it, and I want UHC for everyone not enjoying it.
I also somehow don’t want to spend every day in the doctor’s office, (which is very nice) despite being retired. I don’t know anyone else who does either.
Wonder why?
When Capitalism was immensely healthy in this country, it was “small business Capitalism”. It was healthy because the people providing our goods and services were directly responsible to their customers so, if the quality of products or services was lacking, it took money directly out of their pockets. Therefore, there was a lot of accountability, and it benefited consumers greatly.
Unfortunately, the United States is now almost completely run by “corporate Capitalism”, which is extremely unhealthy because the rich people who control these corporations do not directly answer to their customers. Their sole aim is to get rich or richer from the corporation, which means that a reduction in quality, available services, employees and, inevitability, culpability are the result instead. CEO’s of corporations that go bankrupt get huge golden parachutes because they actually did the job the Board of Directors really wanted, and that was to maximize profits, milk the enterprise dry, and get out from under.
Health care is corporate Capitalism at its worse. Sick? Too bad, pony up or die. The worse the disease, the more expensive the medicine, because they have you by the short hairs. It’s all about maximizing profits at the expense of the consumer. The beauty of it is that everyone eventually gets sick, so losing consumers through death doesn’t hurt. In fact, it’s good because it sends a big message to the rest of us.
I see you’re back, and talking out of your sphincter again.
What insurance? Car insurance? In civilized jurisdictions, auto liability insurance is mandatory because of the potential costs you would impose on others and/or the public if you cause a serious accident. No sane person would consider it optional anyway. Of course, you can always choose not to own a car. Then the whole package is indeed voluntary.
Exactly the same with health insurance, except I don’t know of any way you can choose not to have a physical body. No real option there, I’m afraid.
The problem with you fucking libertarians is you don’t understand civilization, or society, or the idea of a literal common wealth. I still say you’d be happiest in pre-2002 Somalia, where everything was optional. In fact there was no government at all to “force” anyone to do anything, and pretty much no laws and no one to enforce them anyway. A libertarian paradise!
TBH, I think I don’t care for letting them describe themselves as “libertarians” The word still has too many positive connotations, semantically speaking, and far too few of the “crackpot” implications.
Yeah, actually there are a few rational libertarian types around, though in my experience the rational ones tend to be the minority. Perhaps the best term for someone like WillFarnaby – definitely not one of the rational ones – is either “anarchist” or, just cutting to the chase, “fucking lunatic”.
Perhaps some of the resentment to UHC is being forced to pay for something the person doesn’t feel they need.
I understand the dislike of paying for someone else to have medical care, but I don’t have a problem contributing to health care for children in Mississippi. (Mississippi and West Virginia are the only states generally in a worse situation than my Arkansas.)
See? This just doesn’t make any sense. EVERYONE at some time or another is going to need health-care of some kind. Even if you are buying private health insurance, your premiums are going towards the care of everyone in the pool.
Only way around your dilemma is to not have any sort of insurance and to pay out of pocket for all your own health needs over your lifetime. Unless you are a gazillionaire, good luck with that. :rolleyes:
I’m confused. Do you mean the people who don’t think they need health care (and thus insurance because they are healthy? They can get sick at any time and then they are screwed.
Or do you mean young people who don’t need as much healthcare as old people on the average. Unless they guaranteed that they are not going to get old, I wonder how they will feel when no one wants to pay for them and their premiums go through the roof.
I don’t think you are getting the concept of insurance.
I know you said ‘on the average’ (and I agree btw) but young people are more prone to having serious accidents (MVA’s, sporting etc), women get pregnant and need expensive ante-natal, birthing and post-natal care, and of course mental illnesses are more common in the younger demographic too. ALL of these are going to be very expensive to treat.
Just hope your hypothetical ‘young person’ who thinks none of these things will happen to him/her has access to a UHC scheme.
And just to reiterate…would you rather be screwed by paying a huge monthly premium to a private for-profit company making $$ from your ill-health (plus paying huge out-of-pocket expenses), or a much LOWER premium that covers you for pretty much everything?
Except some people genuinely do believe they won’t ever need healthcare - they’re healthy, they never get sick, if they’re injured they tough it out…
The most recent one I’ve encountered bragged to me about his great health, boasted of never being vaccinated, never gets sick… while smoking a joint after half a pack of cigarettes and sucking down a couple beers. Sure… you can get away with that in your 20’s, even into your 30’s…
Is it conclusive that it would be a lower premium AND no out of pocket? When people say things like that, it gives me a gut feeling that there’s some wishful thinking going on, and/or some kind of hidden catches that are carefully not being mentioned.
