My POV is if you don't want to get the public health care... then don't get the public health care. If you have an elderly relative who you think is going to need substantial medical treatment in the near future... then get a policy which is gonna leave you covered and so be it.
If it's government run it's probably going to be run like a bureaucratic machine. It'll probably be popular with young people who can't afford health insurance as is and who will need it mostly for routine check ups and minor injuries.
This isn't, with a stroke of the pen, going to make it the only guy in town. Even if that's what a lot of people think.
the "fear" is reality -- look at Canada - England.. Hopefully you won't have to learn this lesson the hard way with personal experience, rather you can learn it with some reading on England- Canada and other countries and see how well this works there... Universal health Care scares me, but Cap and Tax scares the shiz out of me...
And not to sound callous, but elderly people getting major treatment to extend their life a couple months is a pretty big problem. A lot of these people should have died a long time ago.
With that being said, if it were my grandma who had the possibility of living a bit longer with a procedure I'd be all for it. I suppose it's easier to sign somebody's death warrant when you're not personally invested.
Man, Board repubs can be silly sometimes.
Has the Obama plan promised to take care of every procedure, bar none? I doubt it has.
man, board progressives can be stupid.
All it promises to do is make a nation more dependent on the government.
Here's what I don't get.
Right now, some people can't afford health care AT ALL. How are these people getting screwed over if they get health care?
Right now, some people can afford expensive health care. Will those health care coverage options disappear?
The same people who argue that national health care will be horrible, with long lines, are also the same ones saying that there's no way private health care will be able to compete with government health care. The two don't make sense put side by side.
Wow, I'm sure all the people who are dying, and aren't dependent on the government, are really concerned about that.
In many different polls, the majority of people are vote some sort of universal health care.
We can argue whether it's right or wrong to do so, but let's not argue that the majority of people are going to be screwing themselves over with this. There's a large amount of people who aren't covered now that would love even some basic coverage.
Big surprise! People love (seemingly) free stuff!
they do ? What polls are those ? the ones like the NYT offered asking if the person wanted free healthcare ? Well it isnt free skippy... so the polls are useless. The majority of people will be screwing themselves over -- have you seen the cost ? and government healthcare will run most private healthcare our of business - as it has in Canada - England etc...
you are placing healthcare into the hands of politicians - and the language will be open-ended.. procedures will get denied - refusal to pay for things - it happens now in other countries and it will happen here.. we are being sold a bag of garbage.
Skippy? How old are you, 70?
Look, peope know it's not free, because everyone will pay taxes towards it. But they know it will cost them less than it does now. That's why they're for it.
And all this BS about Canada and England having horrible healthcare... give me a break. There's as much evidence to say it sucks as there is to say it's great.... which, surprise surprise! Is the same as America.
This belief that suddenly all private practices will go to India or someplace else is pretty ridiculous. Has government run police depts stopped private security agencies? Has the Federal Post Office trampled all over other private shipping companies?
Don't lie. Not everyone will pay taxes for it and you know that. I will pay taxes for it. Likely, you will pay taxes for it. But not everyone.
Yes, your'e right. But the point stands that a majority want it, so people arguing against it shouldn't use the argument that the new health care will be so horrible... because the majority of people supporting it probably A) can't afford it at all or B) can't afford good health care.
People need to find a better argument, like it's unfair, or it won't work for X do ented reason. The fact is, other countries have universal health care and get good ratings from the people. (Switzerland is one of them, I believe.)
this coming from one of the biggest on the forum
clapbake at it's finest.
The problem is, companies will just ditch their private plans they are paying for - it's good for their bottom line. Then many won't have a choice as to taking Obamacare.My POV is if you don't want to get the public health care... then don't get the public health care.
Spoken like someone who has never been in the corporate world.This isn't, with a stroke of the pen, going to make it the only guy in town. Even if that's what a lot of people think.
Oh, by the way, I don't see any of you Obamaniacs ing about Obama's response last night that he wouldn't be okay with subjecting his family to the same standards that all regular Americans are going to be judged by as far as this plan goes.
Obamacare for you, rich elitist bas care for his wife and kids.
So Obama is saying there will still be options for those who don't want government run health care.
Including richers.
I don't see the problem.
Yeah, except the "richers" will still have to pay for the ty health care.
Let me repeat it again for those who didn't get it the first time.
Universal health care will provide options for those who currently have none. Do you think people with NO health care are going to about long lines?
If universal health care will be horrible, and have long lines and shoddy service as most boards Republicans say, then private practice should still be very viable due to the free market. Either government service will be efficient, and price out the private sector, or it will be inefficient and private service will still have relatively well-off people who don't want to wait in lines.
Yes, and I'm sure you can see why the majority of the populace with no or little coverage are probably going to have more votes than the minority of rich people who have no problem afforing coverage.
Politically speaking, a rally cry of "But the rich will pay more taxes!" probably isn't going to go over too well.
How does that work if the government forces the private sector to treat patients on the public plan?If universal health care will be horrible, and have long lines and shoddy service as most boards Republicans say, then private practice should still be very viable due to the free market. Either government service will be efficient, and price out the private sector, or it will be inefficient and private service will still have relatively well-off people who don't want to wait in lines.
Show me where that's been said anywhere.
In fact, you just pointed out how Obama said he might look at other coverages.
I've seen nothing anywhere stating that the government would force private care doctors and physicians to work for the government.
They, and we, already do. I prefer to do away with the s game currently being played with health care costs, but I understand people like to pretend.
Compe ion - that's ALL govt. run health care is going to be, right - just to "keep the insurance companies honest" - because, apparently competing with each other doesn't do so? Then, shouldn't government have a player in every major industry (oops, looks like that's what's happening - nevermind).
Anyway, since this is a basketball board, why don't we try this analogy -
It's bad playing the Lakers in the playoff, we can all agree, they often get many favorable, even questionable calls that go there way. Some have argued that the Lakers have an unfair advantage - it's not true compe ion.
That is NOT what it would be like if the Obama scenario comes to pass -
ONLY if David Stern along with Joey Crawford, Bavetta and the rest of the officials ACTUALLY owned the Lakers would the analogy be appropriate.
So, you actually, BELIEVE what people promise in terms of what a govt. program is going to do/be/become? I get it. You might what to go back to 1962 - '64 and SEE what "they" were saying Medicare/Medicaid would NEVER become, or how expensive they would be. It's enlightening.
What Obama/Congress creates - future administrations will grow and make more onerous. Social Security, after all, began as a voluntary, 1% tax.
15% AND mandatory (and doomed to bankruptcy even at THAT) - you would have been called a bomb thrower, a reactionary, a right wing fear monger; but that is exactly where we are (and it's gonna get worse).
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice - well, call me a liberal.
Please show me where the majority want the health care plan proposed ....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
