Over half of America believes in Angels. Smart and popular aren’t the same thing. Which I suppose is a good thing for a shitbrain like yourself. 
Not at all - just didn’t pay it any mind as it’s clearly a false analogy. The fourth amendment is easily defensible on a rational basis.
Of course not. There’s no reasonable way to justify mandatory tribute.
This is not a rational objection, it’s entirely ideological. “I’m content to pay twice as much, so long as I’m not subsidizing someone else’s health care.”
Health care is a universal human need. Whether you’re talking about common interest, or simple self-interest, it’s reasonable to say that access to quality, affordable care is a tangible benefit.
In Canada, our per capita spending on health care is about 45% of that of the United States, and yet everyone is covered, with a comparable standard of care.
What rational argument do you have against bringing your system more in line with ours? (Any any other 1st world country?)
“I don’t want to be forced to pay for the other guy!” isn’t really rational, because in real terms you’re looking at a cost savings.
“I don’t need health care” isn’t a rational position to start from, either.
Even if you keep your ideological (and in my opinion reprehensible) objection to extending health care to those who can’t afford it, it would make sense to overhaul your system to bring costs down to realistic levels, so that less people are unable to afford it.
What rational argument do you have in favour of such a costly, inefficient system? It’s insane.
I understand that anything that whiffs a little bit of socialism is a very hard sell in the U.S., but this emotional and not rational at all. Socialist policies make sense, for some applications - roads and armies, as you’ve allowed, and yes - health care.
The free market is the cat’s ass, for most things. “All the market will bear” is not something that has any place in health services in any kind of civilized society, though.
Will your current coverage pay for reconstructive surgery if you cut your nose off to spite your face?
Here are some facts for you:
In Canada, everyone is insured. Some people purchase private insurance as well, that covers them more extensively.
A meta-study of 38 different academic papers concluded that
This is despite the fact that
The explanation is
Now it may well be that it’s just impossible for the US to replicate what other countries have successfully done in terms of UHC for some reason. One of the reasons is likely the person referenced in the OP above - a significant percentage of the population that is just willfully ignorant about issues, and prefers to listen to “Their Team” (aka, Glen Beck and Limbaugh, the negative voice of the Republicans) rather than to factual analysis.
Another reason may be that there is a significant pot of money that is currently controlled by a huge for-profit insurance industry. You can’t just expect them to roll over and shut their doors. They’ll fight UHC every step of the way, using whatever means they can.
In Canada in the '50s and '60’s, we did not have this twin barriers to overcome, so maybe we were just lucky.
That quote, and I now see the reason for your user name. :rolleyes:
Care to contribute in an intelligent manner? How is HCR screwing people?
No rational person would make the assumption that that because Hitler loved pillows then they must be evil. But many Republicans, because they assume Obama is a Muslim, think he must be evil. Because his middle name is Hussein, that means he’s a traitor and thus will destroy everything that makes America great.
In fact one of the things my friend told me last night was, “How can we be fighting a war on a terror when our own president is a Muslim?”
Granted, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re automatically wrong on Issue X, but it is indicitive of their bullshit reasoning.
Spoken like a true power-hungry liberal. “You don’t know what’s best for you, only I do. Therefore do as I command.”
Or, maybe most of America is worried about the a) cost of the reform, which we cannot afford, or b) the slippery slope that is created leading to Government-run healthcare.
And what of all the horror stories I hear about people from other countries coming to America to get operations? That England, Canada, etc makes them wait in line for 6 months or longer to get needed services like knee reconstructions, etc? My friends from the Navy tell me similar stories, where you would get worked on by whoever, and whenever, they felt like it. You had no choice, you didn’t necessarily get an expert in the procedure, and you frequently had to wait many months.
Since I don’t have any links nor do I live in one of those god-forsaken countries (ie not America; let’s face it, to paraphrase Hertz, there’s America and there’s Not Exactly), I can’t vouch for those stories. But I sure hear them a lot.
The English and Canadian Dopers have told us many times that’s all bollocks. Perhaps you could find an actual example from the world of fact for us?
Did they also tell you they got it free?
The rest of the civilized world is “god-forsaken” now.:rolleyes: Sheesh.
Ever actually seen any of it?
I vote troll, or ignorant moron. Gotta be troll though. :dubious: There isn’t any way that anyone is going to float this turd, is there?
- TD
Perhaps they weren’t given priority because they weren’t citizens of the countries they were in. And why weren’t they getting treated by U.S. Navy medics?
I keep hearing that you shouldn’t flash your lights at cars travelling with their lights off, because it’s often gang members looking to initiatea new member by having him murder the one who does it.
On the other hand, I don’t know anyone who’s waited an unreasonable length of time for medical treatment. (And the one time I needed minor surgery, the wait time was a little over a month, because the condition was causing me some discomfort.)
I continue to be astonished at your ability to bring polite, reasoned, fact-centric discourse to the uncivil world of the SDMB.
Please read my links above, that outlines how a “God forsaken country” can manage to spend much less government money on healthcare, yet have superior health outcomes for the citizens, ALL of whom are covered by health insurance.
This is perfect. As though you have a monopoly on deciding what “civilized” behavior entails. Perhaps I feel as though civilized behavior is paying your own way, and not either expecting others to pay your way or ask you to pay their way.
What you like, you extol as rational, and what you dislike, you wave away as ideological.
There is an intangible cost associated with choosing the path that places health care in same category as roads or the military – two categories of expenditures that are pretty much universally viewed as appropriate targets for shared subsidy. You attempt to nullify this cost by declaring it an ideological objection. In nearly the same breath, you acknowledge that paying “tribute” is not preferable to paying arms costs. But you never explain this view, which at its heart must be as ideological as my objections here are.
So the French are attacking American ships, and demanding tribute payments to stop. What is the rational, non-ideological reason to refuse? The tribute payments will undoubtedly be far less than the cost for creating a Navy capable of defeating them.
Here’s another unemotional fact-based argument to chew on** Mr. Smashy**:
I think he is talking about VA medicial service, you know, the most highly rated health care system in the US. But we need to get out of it because the government is running it and thats un-American.
You know we could also lower the cost of health care by getting rid of all of those old ass people’s Medicare, and those single mom’s on Medicaid that keep having kids. Just take it all away. Then those fucktards in Washington wouldn’t have any excuse for taxing my yacht.
A collection of individuals who don’t interact with each other in any significant economic way is not a civilization. Perhaps you should check your dictionary.
Except by the surprisingly-numerous libertarian contingent on GD, all of whom object strongly to being called “irrational”, ya know. As do you, no matter how often you see your claims blown up in your face.
You might also, if you can for a moment broaden your parochial perspective outside your own national borders, recognize that health care coverage IS “pretty much universally viewed as an appropriate target for shared subsidy”. You can’t claim otherwise without being branded as ideological rather than rational. But you do. You do.
Well, maybe not the Beck/Limbaugh barrier; but as I recall the introduction of Ontario’s single-payer plan in the 1960s, things were rather contentious. I don’t recall people digging in their heels as deeply as some Americans seem to be doing, but I do recall that many people were wary of this new thing, with a number opposing it, some quite vehemently. So there was a barrier to overcome, but that was 40 years or so ago, and I would say attitudes have greatly changed over the years.
Well, that’s where the death panels would come in.
Do elaborate.