I still think it’s a mess even though you’re happy with your insurance.
And you will ruin your country and your fellow citizen’s health in order to keep it. Bravo for you. You have the ideological high ground.
I call your position “Libertarian of convenience”. You’re libertarian about any new issues where you’re already in a good position with good insurance. You’re on board - pull up the ladder!
Other things where you’re currently benefiting from society- not so much libertarian there, eh?
And yes, voters will support the side they find most persuasive. Or the side that frightens them more. Or the side that creates fiction like “death panels”. Or the Red Team. Go Red Team! Because for a significant portion of voters, issues do not matter one whit. They support their “team”.
I have a job, yes. That income allows me to buy things I want. Food. Air conditioning in summer. Heat in winter. Clothes. Health care. Education for my child.
And in a sense, it’s unfair that someone without a job can’t obtain those things.
But that unfairness is not fairly cured by mandating that I pay for my own food, air conditioning in summer, heat in winter, clothes, health care, and education for my child and then ALSO pay a share of someone else’s costs. This is not a “we’re all in it together” situation. I do owe you, via society, certain things. But the list is not as extensive as you would like it to be.
This debate is at its heart an attempt (now a failed attempt, thank goodness) to reframe the standards of society so that “health care” is on the list. You tried. You failed.
And that’s a good thing.
Like what, for instance?
A good thing for you.
Because you personally will continue to have a choice of health insurance.
A bad thing for your country, which will continue to deal with health care costs spiralling out of control
A bad thing for those that get basic medical care by going to very expensive (for you) Emergency Departments
A bad thing for those who have insurance, only to be cut off when they have a medical need for it.
A bad thing for those who face bankruptcy due to medical costs.
A bad thing for those who die because they could not afford treatment or were cut off insurance.
But it’s a good thing for you, so YAY for you!
If it were me, as King of the Americas, imposing this decision by Royal Decree, you’d be right to be upset at me. But the whole point of this system is to let your fellow citizens express their will through their elected representatives.
Your contempt for them is evident. When they agree with you, they are enlightened; when they disagree with you, they are fools, pawns, or selfish bastards.
There is no room in your view to accept that your view simply may not be what’s desired by your fellow citizens, is there?
You do realize that the HCR bill is exactly what you’re describing there, right? Personally I’d prefer single payer, but I prefer things that work better, more efficiently and cost less.
What does the amount of profit have to do with anything? First off 3% of a couple trillion is a lot of money. Second off, the credit card companies went out of control and started producing misleading and purposely distorted programs. It turns out that if you don’t regulate a large company, it starts doing horrible, unethical stuff. Health insurance companies are already doing horrible, unethical stuff, the last thing you want to do is reduce the amount of regulations they are under.
That is an opinion, not a fact. Also, the current HCR on the table is almost entirely regulatory now that the public option is out. The only thing aside from that is the subsidies. And the subsides are necessary if you have a mandate. And a mandate is necessary if you have no pre-existing conditions. So what are you against, exactly?
It isn’t, because it results in fewer people receiving health care. It’s a bad thing you like, perhaps.
Please not the inclusion of both “care” and “insurance” in the following polling:
University of Texas/Zogby - 6/18-22, 2009 = 84% of people are satisfied with their health care
The Washington Post, 6/18-22, 2009 = 81% satisfied with insurance coverage, 88% satisfied with quality of care
NYT, 6/12-16, 2009 = 77% are satisfied with quality of care
Democracy Corps, “The Health Care Reform Debate”, 6/15, 2009 = 76% of self-identified independents, 72% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans are satisfied with their coverage
Gallup, 12/4/08 = 83% of Americans say the quality of healthcare they receive is either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’
CNN/Opinion Research Poll, March 2009 = 73% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance coverage
And add me as one more who is satisfied.
Almost entirely regulatory? Which bill are you reading? How about the public exchange? And, please note that I mentioned one regulation re: pre-existing conditions. The maze of other regulations in the bill are hardly an example of restraint.
And you seem to have a loose definitions of “subsidies” - is paying for Nebraska’s share a “subsidy”? How about the payoffs to Louisiana?
Actually, no - you have put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that do not exist. I don’t believe I’ve ever called anyone a fool, a pawn or a selfish bastard.
I do think that some voters do not care to educate themselves on the issues, and others have allowed themselves to be led by rhetoric and the politics of fear though.
You can keep your intemperate language.
You benefit from schools, the military and police to name a few. But as you have already said, those are “entrenched”, and so off limits from the current discussion. You are apparently only opposed to health care in particular, as it’s a “new” thing on the table.
Thus, a libertarian of convenience.
Bricker has health insurance, and is happy with it.
The insurance companies which do business in my state deem it financially unsound to sell health insurance to some people they consider to be poor risks. I don’t deny that this is their right.
Just to be clear, I am NOT asking Bricker or anyone else to pay for health care for someone else. My insurance doesn’t cover eyeglasses. I’m not asking it to, because that’s not its purpose. What I am asking for is for people who don’t have health insurance to have the same opportunity to mitigate the financial risk from illness as people who have health insurance.
In short, I’m asking why someone should be opposed to letting someone else buy health insurance, to achieve a level of risk management that Bricker has achieved.
But since the insurance companies believe it is in their best interests not to offer health insurance to everyone who wants to buy it, it’s clear to me that the only option is some sort of universal health insurance.
Perhaps it can be done like assigned-risk auto insurance. Insurers would be required to provide high-risk customers with basic coverage, even if it’s what you and I consider to be an outrageous cost. Perhaps it can be done by grouping people into pools and offering group rates. Perhaps it can be done by allowing adult children to continue to participate in their parents’ plans after they leave home.
And for everyone who’s happy with their insurance, good for you. The rest of us would like the same opportunity.
As a matter of fact, I see no purpose in this thread for you to “point out” what you believe to be “selfish attititudes”–particularly not when “pointing it out” is couched in one-liner snide remarks that are borderline insults.
If you would like to examine a specific proposal and then carefully lay out a response that demostrates why that proposal appears selfish to you, have at it. But simply hurling epithets at one side or the other is a waste of time and counterproductive.
= = =
I will note that you are not the only poster in this thread guilty of this behavior. Posters on both sides have resorted to cheap shots. However, your posts have most recently been the most inflammatory with the least substance.
I am telling EVERYONE to try to put some thought in this discussion and ratchet back the partisan rhetoric.
[ /Moderating ]
I have a job too… making well into 6 figures so I can buy things, travel overseas often and live a good life. But no amount of money will allow me to buy private insurance back in Nevada. So, like most people, I’d be one accident away form bankruptcy. It is also against the law in Nevada for me to pool together a bunch of people from my industry (other small business owners) and collectively get a group plan. I can only do it for my single business and only with 2 or more employees - so get the costs down, I’d need 30 or 40 which I could do in an industry-group rather than an employer-group. But it is not allowed.
Seems to me the crux of the Conservative position is:
- Any form of UHC means they’re being “forced” to pay for others.
And this is a bad thing because it erodes their freedoms.
Is this it in a nutshell?
First off, who is telling you this? Do they speak for all the myriad factions within the conservative movement? As with the liberals, the conservatives aren’t some monolithic organization, all walking in lockstep on every issue. There are factions in both organizations, and each faction has its own hot button issues…and issues where they either have no position or they really don’t care.
Well, you might want to ask them WHY they don’t want to pay for others. It might be insightful for you to see what their motives are and their reasoning. You still might not agree, but you would at least come away with a more nuanced answer, which, in turn, might help yo to ask more nuanced questions, in the future.
You see how this has been simplified down to where it’s practically a strawman. It takes all the context and nuance out of the thing by simply asking this question in this way.
Not really. It’s not even the Cliffs Notes version, nor the Readers Digest take on the subject.
-XT
Thank you. If you use the ER and you don’t have insurance, yuo will get bills. First from the hospital, then from the collection agency. If, God forbid, you should lose your insurance, you would be ill-advised to use the ER if don’t have to, unless you care nothing for your credit rating.
No - you’ve missed off the bit where those making the claim also claim to be Christians.
I see.
Well, I’d prefer “libertarian of practicality.”
It’s true there are public services already in place that I feel should not be publicly funded, but because the debate has already concluded and the answer decided against me, I accept the state of affairs. Indeed, what else could I do? I have already pointed out in this very thread that we have a system of government that selects its leaders by popular vote and who then craft policy. I don’t always join in the desire for a particular policy, but I accept that my fellow citizens are acting in good faith as they see it.
But publicly-funded health care is not a debate that’s already concluded. It’s very much un-concluded, thank God, and looking more and more like it will die a well-deserved death. I can certainly speak out against it, oppose it, without also needing to re-fight fights I’ve already lost.
Can’t I?
(And I’ll add just for the record that I may benefit from the schools, but if I do it’s merely an indirect benefit; I send my child to private school and my taxes still fund my neighbors’ kids’ schooling. I’d prefer vouchers, but that debate doesn’t seem too likely to win the day just now. So, for practicality’s sake, I write two checks and grin weakly.)