Because as nearly as this American Dem can tell the Republican response is that of George W. Bush’s let them go to the emergency room when they’re sick variety.
Thank you.
They aren’t the party in power…they don’t HAVE to have a specific stance on this, just point out the flaws in the other parties programs and stances. Just like the Dems over Iraq and Afghanistan, before they won their majority and the problems fell on THEIR collective shoulders. Didn’t you notice the shift from both sides, as the Republicans just went into attack mode on how the Dems were doing things, and the Dems went on the defensive, when they had to actually come up with plans and implement them? Turn around, and turn around again, and now the Dems are in control, so it’s them on the defensive, while the Republicans can just snipe from the sidelines, and simply point out the mote in the Dems collective eye, without dealing with the one in their own…
-XT
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I can tell you that I don’t believe there’s a right for society to pay for your care if you’re sick. The basic premise for health care “reform” seems to start from that proposition – that a person who is sick is entitled to demand that society pay for his care.
I don’t agree.
I find your language interesting. You say that you don’t want “society” to pay for everyone’s care when they’re sick. You use loaded words like "entitled and “demand”. Interesting choices.
How about putting it as “everyone should be able to have health insurance that is reasonably priced, and one way to get this is to have the government have a major role in providing this insurance”. Sure it does not have the same catchy ring as “don’t want society to pay for some other guy”, but…
Really, it seems that many in the US are willing to NOT do what is in the best interest of society as a whole… as long as THEY are OK. Screw the good of the country as a whole… what about MEEEEE!
What about people who pose a threat to public health because of contagious illness?
For example measles is one of the world’s most contagious diseases. Vaccination can reduce the rates of measles in any given community to close to zero because of herd immunity.
Don’t you personally have a vested interest in health care measures such as vaccination?
Why should I then pay for your kids to attend school, for a fire department to defend your home or for police to protect you?
Why should society pay for these things for you?
Well, what did they do from 2001-2006? They passed medicare part D. But that was unfunded and a corporate giveaway.
Whatever health reform (if any) the GOP gives is usually based on a few fundamental rules
They don’t explain how they are going to pay for it
It involves deregulation (usually deregulation of consumer protections, like the ability to sue a doctor for malpractice or the ability to be protected by state consumer protections)
It will involve tax cuts somehow
That’s quite a leap. It is possible and perfectly rational to believe that a bloated, expensive government-run beurocracy is not any better for the country than a bloated, expensive corporate beurocracy.
I don’t know the Republican idea of health care reform, but society is already paying for health care for millions of uninsured people every time they use the emergency room. And that isn’t even counting Medicare and Medicaid. And I don’t see how it is good for the country to continue spending billions on entitlements when we are already trillions of dollars in debt.
Those ships have sailed. Public education, police, and fire, no matter how I feel about them (and I do not express an opinion here) are simply entrenched.
Health care, as a right, is not yet entrenched. So I confine my argument to the issue that’s on the table now.
Here are my main ones (libertarian and Australian, but whatever):
First, the destruction of infectious diseases is a common good. I fully support taxpayer funds being used for vaccinations and other attempts to limit the spread of such diseases.
Second, if you’re going to provide a tax break for health insurance, it should apply to all health insurance, not just if you get it via your employer.
Third, if you really insist on taking people’s money to subsidise other people’s health insurance, do so directly. Do not, as the current Bill would, use this as an excuse to force people to buy a third-party product, because that just gives that third party free reign to rip everybody off.
If you fail to extinguish a fire in your house, it makes it more likely that my house will catch on fire. If you fail to apprehend a burgular after he breaks into your house, he’s more likely to break into my house. If you break your leg, it doesn’t make me more likely to break my leg.
Some things inherently produce negative externalities, and some only produce negative externalities because the government makes them negative externalities.
But your loaded words don’t reflect the reality that I will continue to pay for my own health care, and assume some fraction of the burden of paying for those that now can’t afford it. That’s the reality.
Nor is it a matter of money. It’s the principle that’s wrong: the idea that every person is entitled to health care whether they can afford it or not.
a few things …
-
Allow interstate competition between insurance companies.
-
Allow individual tax credits for individually bought and self-employed purchase of insurance(as currently restricted to employers providing insurance).
-
Expand and encourage the use of high-deductable health savings accounts.
-
Restrict any sort of public option type thingy to high risk pools that would otherwise be unable to get insurance.
In other words, fix the leaks in the roof, don’t rebuild the entire house.
I find it odd, this embedded presumption that only republicans are unhappy with the HCR stuff.
Again I ask you. What if someone is sick with something contagious? Should they be entitled to health care if they have the H1N1 flu and risk spreading it other people even though they can’t afford to pay for their health care?
What about vaccination? Isn’t that a form of health care? And don’t you have a vested interest in seeing that people don’t get whooping cough, measles, polio or other vaccine preventable illnesses just because they can’t afford to get vaccinated?
Isn’t it also good for everyone if people are healthy and able to work? With no health care at all, life expectancy would be about 35 as it is in the poorest countries. I have a vested interested in keeping me and my employees healthy, but because of a pre-existing condition that has cost me just $10K in almost 40 years, I am unable to buy insurance at any price… at least in the USA.
So I took my business, hiring and spending overseas. UAE 1, America 0.
What you and Grumman don’t seem to be taking into account is that EVERYONE can be better off personally because of UHC in my country.
I benefit directly because I am paying less in terms of % of GDP for an outcome that is (at the very least) just as good as that in the US. I can move employment with no worries about health insurance. I could start my own small company with no worries about health insurance. I can move provinces with no worry about health insurance. When my spouse needed major surgery, we could concentrate on her recovery,and not on the cost.
I benefit indirectly because everyone is covered. If my mechanic breaks his leg, he gets it fixed right away by excellent doctors. He’s back at work soon, fixing my car. He does not have to declare bankruptcy, lose his job and become a drain on society.
I need to have people in my society who are perhaps not the highest paid, but do important jobs. I can’t “afford” for them to get screwed over by an insurance company, and I can’t “afford” for them to delay a needed doctors visit.
And msmith537, you are right in that you are ALREADY paying for uninsured people. It’s not like UCH will make you pay AGAIN for these people. Unless you’re willing to shut the poor out of hospitals and have them die in the street, you will continue to pay for their care one way or the other. UHC is just a more efficient way of paying.
For the most part, what cerberus said. I would like to add putting at least some limit on the ass raping by the Pharmaceutical companies. I think limiting them to an insane profit vs an obscene profit is a reasonable thing to ask.
A few more not mentioned…
- Tort reform for malpractice.
- Flexible Savings Accounts should allow excess/unspent savings to roll-over at the end of the year.
- Medical Savings Accounts/Health Savings Account should be allowed to pay premiums of insurance.
There are other ideas that the GOP has talked about that escape me right now.
Perhaps you could express an opinion. Do you feel that the US would be a better place if its poor* didn’t *have a right to education and law enforcement and the opportunity to have their shantytowns not burn?
Interesting choice of words indeed. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. :rolleyes:
I thought this experiment in democracy was a collective effort. You don’t sound like much of a team player, to me.