Like I said - what’s new? The IRS was founded in 1862. Taxes are not some new idea that Barack Obama just invented. Stop acting like it’s the Apocalypse.
But if you really find you can’t handle it anymore, there’s always Costa Rica.
If what you say is true what you need isn’t health care reform, it’s contract law reform. You need to implement something similar to the Australian Trade Practices Act, and you need to enforce these laws. Otherwise it doesn’t matter what you do, your attempts at health care reform won’t be worth the paper they’re written on.
Since all the health insurance under the new law will be through private insurance comapnies, just how exactly is the government coming between you and your doctor? Specifically, please.
It may well be that yu do not want to be forced to pay for something you do not feel applies to you,but should you (or a family member) not have insurance and the need arises,such as: You by some accident have a spinal injury from an unexpected fall, or a brain injury, and you would go bankrupt if you did have a little savings, would you expect others to pay for you?
If you didn’t drive wouldn’t you be glad that the person who drove you around did have insurance, if the person had an accident that was their fault?
I’ll take Darth at his word. Maybe he really would be willing to die rather than accept any form of public health care.
How does that make public health care an unacceptable idea? It wasn’t created just for Darth. It was created for everyone.
If I decided I wasn’t planning on going to school, it wouldn’t make it illegal for the government to operate schools using my tax money. If I decided I didn’t want to drive anywhere, the government could still use my taxes to build and maintain roads. If I decide I’m a pacifist, the government can still use my taxes to fund the armed forces.
This is the way democracy works. The majority elects a government and the minority accepts the decision, even if they didn’t agree with it.
But state government is STILL a form of government, no?
I understand that I will be taxed extra if I don’t buy into it and that there will be exchanges set up by around 2014. I’m just worried about the the whole setup is all. Like I said previously, I don’t make much money and I’m afraid of the extra money taken out of my paycheck. Please don’t misunderstand me, I WANT health insurance. It’s the affordability right now I’m concerned about, exchanges existing or not.
Well, from what I understand, you will pay a penalty if you don’t buy into a plan. SOME arm of the government has to enforce this, no?
I heard Rush is moving there… so it’s not really an option.
If countries with socialized medicine have such quality, why did the Canadian Premier Danny Williams go to Florida for his heart surgery?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_heart_sur.html
That’s a non starter. The actions of one person do not reflect on the system as a whole. Nor does the fact that a person with a lot of money and political capital traveled to a US specialist for a procedure. No one has said that the US has poor quality care. We have among the best in the world, but if you cannot afford it, you’re screwed.
How does this constitute coming between you and your doctor? Mandating private insurance doesn’t affect your doctor/patient relationship one whit.
I leave it at your own quote: “We have among the best in the world”
There is a third party involved, no? The IRS has to determine whether or not you have health insurance.
The third party is not the government, so your original claim can be put to rest. Next!
Boehner said health care would pass “over his dead body”, yet he’s still with us.
You have proof that Boehner’s leathery, nictotine-embalmed cadaver is actually still alive?
…if you can afford it
Your point then? Quality does equate to accessibility, affordability, or even to sensibility. What difference does it make if we have the best if half the population can’t afford to be seen?
The existence of first-rate specialists in the US has no relationship with the absence of universal coverage as addressed by the bill. Such expertise is a function of economies of scale, education and infrastructure. So pointing to the desirability of US specialists is irrelevant to the general point. By OECD standards, for example, the US pays far more as a percentage of GDP than everyone else for equivalent or worse outcomes in the case of the 50 million uninsured and countless under-insured. Such an abysmal situation is a joke for a sophisticated, developed Western nation and self-styled leader of the free world.
A true public option, with genuine competition, and the abolishment of the existing employee funded arrangements would be far more ideal to meet the twenty-first century, but this reform is better than nothing.