To those against UHC, what would you do in this hypothetical?

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

If they’re against it, what objection, other then greed without regard for morals, could justify them taking out more then they paid in?

Further lets say after the program pays for their kid’s organ transplant and they manage to lead a campaign to get the program removed. A month later a mother who’s kid faces same medical crises calls them, but like them she can’t afford the surgery, through her tears she asks why her kid should die after theirs lived from this program.

What could possible be said to this woman that’s not more evil then Hitler raping an orphaned kitten?

This is moronic, and an excellent example of how certain people will argue any point, not matter how ridiculous, so long as it is on “their” side of a debate.

They’re going to be forced to pay money into a system, yet prevent themselves from actually using the system. Brilliant. They would have no other choice, so they would have to use the system available to them. Just because they’d rather have a choice does not mean they are hypocritical for using what is forced upon them. On top of that, accounting is impossible when you’re talking about individuals and how they contribute to a government program.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@you_with_the_face

No it’s not. If your job doesn’t give you insurance and you don’t qualify for government-assistance, you’re either stuck with nothing or a plan with ridiculously high premiums. In the system we have now, you can also be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions like diabetes and asthma. This reality is nothing like the option I presented you with.

I meant after the individual left the program. You said they couldn’t go back. That would mean they would be essentially in the same situation we’re in today.

Thanks for answering the question, by the way. The odds that someone would lose their job and by association, their means to pay for healthcare seem higher than the odds that they or one of their loved one’s would need medical care requiring a quality of care so high that it’s unlikely to be found at a public hospital. Which do you think scarier to most people: the risk of having no care at all or the risk of having some care but not the absolute best of the bestest?

In the situation you posed, there was a 100% chance that their children needed an extremely high level of health care.

[Frylock]

@smiling_bandit

Simply put, we don’t lookat the issue in the same way. You want to talk about poor little babies and innocent grandmas who will surely die without the government’s assistance. We tend to look at the “Big Picture” and what it will do to the country. You want to focus on sweet adorable faces and we look at the body as a whole.

Ridiculous.

You guys quite typically make arguments about individuals, their rights, how rightfully angry people are or would be to have those rights taken away, and so on.

Meanwhile, liberals quite typically make arguments about what is best for the nation economically and in terms of moral character.

Both sides have “big picture” arguments, and both sides have “how can you do this to this individual person?” arguments. For you to claim your side has a monopoly on one and ours shows a lack of reflection, or may even be downright disingenuous.

[you_with_the_face]

@Labrador_Deceiver

I meant after the individual left the program. You said they couldn’t go back. That would mean they would be essentially in the same situation we’re in today.

Okay, you’re right. Opting out would be to keep things the same, but at least you’d have the other option of accepting government care. So you’d have more choices not less.

It’s curious to me that the Republicans aren’t advocating public healthcare with an opt-out clause. To go back to the pizza analogy, it’s like telling everyone that doesn’t want to eat pepperoni that they can’t order sausage instead. And if they can’t afford to buy pepperoni, then they get nothing. Why is that any better than when the pro-UHC’s supposedly do it?

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@you_with_the_face

It’s curious to me that the Republicans aren’t advocating public healthcare with an opt-out clause. To go back to the pizza analogy, it’s like telling everyone that doesn’t want to eat pepperoni that they can’t order sausage instead. And if they can’t afford to buy pepperoni, then they get nothing. Why is that any better than when the pro-UHC’s supposedly do it?

I honestly couldn’t tell you if they are or not. I know most republicans would like to be able to opt out of SS, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they were okay with a UHC system with an opt-out solution. I’m not sure if that’s workable, though.

[you_with_the_face]

@Labrador_Deceiver

I honestly couldn’t tell you if they are or not. I know most republicans would like to be able to opt out of SS, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they were okay with a UHC system with an opt-out solution. I’m not sure if that’s workable, though.

Don’t see why not. Didn’t you just say your friends in London have their own private insurance?

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@you_with_the_face

Don’t see why not. Didn’t you just say your friends in London have their own private insurance?

Yes, but I think they still had to pay into the government run system.

I need to clarify that with them. At least 2 families are back in the States now.

[gonzomax]

The objections are Catmanesque. It is my money, not your money, it is mine. I don’t care about your problems. I don’t care about your children or anybody else’s. It is my money.I will never need help. I am absolutely a self reliant back woodsman ,and I will never need help.

[sleestak]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

If they’re against it, what objection, other then greed without regard for morals, could justify them taking out more then they paid in?

Further lets say after the program pays for their kid’s organ transplant and they manage to lead a campaign to get the program removed. A month later a mother who’s kid faces same medical crises calls them, but like them she can’t afford the surgery, through her tears she asks why her kid should die after theirs lived from this program.

What could possible be said to this woman that’s not more evil then Hitler raping an orphaned kitten?

This post is a perfect example of why I am against putting UHC in place. I believe that UHC is going to cost way more and provide lower quality and less choice for individuals.

Of course, it UHC does get put in place and I am correct, there is no way it will ever be repealed because the only people who would want it repealed are little Hitlers who don’t care about anyone. Fiscal responsibility and the effectiveness of the system won’t mean much to a lot of people who scream ‘But what about the children?!?!?!’ while they ignore the reality of the situation.

The Tao’s Revenge argument is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. If you are against UHC then you are Hitler, regardless of any rational reasons for your opposition to UHC.

I would be for putting UHC in place if there were some sort of guarantee that, if costs were higher than expected or the results were worse than expect, the program would be killed. But we all know that will never happen. All that would happen is that the government would keep the program in place while throwing more money at it regardless of the results.

Are there things that can be done to make the health system better? Certainly. Is UHC the best option? I highly doubt it.

Slee

[Der_Trihs]

@sleestak

This post is a perfect example of why I am against putting UHC in place. I believe that UHC is going to cost way more and provide lower quality and less choice for individuals.

Ah; the old “America is uniquely incompetent” argument. It’s the opposite for everyone else; better care for less money. But somehow in America alone that won’t happen.

@sleestak

Of course, it UHC does get put in place and I am correct, there is no way it will ever be repealed because the only people who would want it repealed are little Hitlers who don’t care about anyone.

Pretty much. The people who oppose it ARE mostly the sort who care for no one but themselves. And when people see how much better things are, they won’t listen to the selfish ones anymore. And you won’t be correct; all the evidence from other countries says you are wrong.

The crazy experiment here is not UHC; that’s the mainstream. The experiment here is America’s profit driven system, and it’s a failed experiment.

[otternell]

@you_with_the_face

The argument that I hear most commonly is that a public option for those who can’t afford it translates to socialized medicine because for-profit healthcare can not compete against free healthcare. Few employers would pay for private insurance if there is a free plan that available. This would make private healthcare obsolete.

There are plenty of people who are opposed of the idea of making healthcare accessible to all just on this basis.

There are also those who object to paying higher taxes to pay for other people’s healthcare. They don’t see themselves as potential beneficiaries. Only other people.

My HR exec mentioned to the controller, that if there were a public option, and the low level of fines to not provide health care (this was several weeks ago) than my company would ditch the current health care and pay the fine for all employees to be on public health care. So yeah, I am nervous about a public plan, because cheap skate companies like the one I work for would rather have me on a plan that they don’t have to pay for. Don’t want!!:mad: