thegreekdog wrote:Snorri, we have had this argument five trillion times. The point I'm making, and that I continue to make, and that no one has really disagreed with, is that the federal government should attempt to provide health insurance to those people in that 45 million bucket who want or need health insurance but don't have it because of legitimate financial constraints.
Obviously. I'm not arguing with you in that regard, or even much in any regard. I'm just pointing out several things that strike me as inconsistent or at least a little incomplete. I don't want the federal government managing my healthcare either.
I guess I don't really think you're wrong about what solution is in order but I do think you're sort of ignoring that other countries already do what you'd want.
Additionally, there needs to be some fixing of the health insurance system, specifically the lack of payouts for certain health needs, among other things.
Well yes. And the rampant suing of medical professionals for malpractice. In fact, though I'm not an expert on american law (I'm sure that you could point out where I fail though), I'd say that the first is far easier than the second.
One government-run health insurance system scares the crap out of me, especially if that one government is the US federal government. At least with various private health insurance providers, I can pick and choose what I want, so there is some accountability. Despite our government being a representative one, I rarely have any voice in what does or does not get done (because I'm not a corporation or a union). So, no, I don't think a government-run health insurance system is the same as the government helping out those who cannot help themselves.
I guess it really depends on what you mean by "government run". Surely it makes no difference whether the government or a company pays for your medical bills. Good basic care would have to be funded without question by the both of them, and the extra care could simply be left out of the government portfolio. However, if you're talking about the running of hospitals and clinics and such I can see your point.
Perhaps you should say government-run health
care. Because I would see your point on that. Efficiently running a hospital or a clinic would perhaps be better suited to a private thing.
More to the non-point, things in the United States are pretty good when you can be poor and have a car or DVD player or TV, regardless of the cultural differences between the US and England (or any other country). If we're talking about basic needs and "rights" of US citizens to healthcare, let's keep in mind that these people who are all apparently clamoring for universal health insurance want to also keep their DVD players, houses, TVs, and cars.
Yes but I just explained why that shit doesn't matter.
A.) The poverty levels are relative. Stuff considered a luxury in some countries are considered neccesary in others.
B.) Not having those things really doesn't matter because they are far less expensive than insurance. The dvd-players and tvs would make a difference of about 4 months of insurance (taking the rates here) and cars and houses when taken down a notch (since cars and houses are still needed) would give about the same. Really, that stuff just doesn't amount to much when compared to providing your family with insurance for a long time.
