I consider it a Kafkaesque piece of crap that's been constructed strictly to pacify a bunch of marginal collectivists who are fearful of true freedom, and who wish for the rest of us to descend to their level and lack of initiative.
Here is a list of facist states which 'control' healthcare. The metrics clearly show it at least twice as efficient as a system built to produce profit, rather than provide services....
BB Idaho, you're a reasonable guy and I KNOW that YOU KNOW that there are other ways that we can reach 100% coverage without having the Federal government confiscate the entire infrastructure. Hell, my dude, even Obamacare, IF THEY IN FACT DID IT INTELLIGENTLY (making the fine significantly stiffer to ensure compliance, totally eliminating all of these political paybacks/waivers, etc.), would be better than this single-payer junk. The 2 frigging parties just need to sit down get it done. Yeah, yeah, I know.
Jerry. Why does it have to be a single payer, really? It always seems that the goal is to increase the might and control of the federal government as opposed to improving the health of Americans.
dmarks is arrogant for telling me and Jerry, when we say "we want single payer", "no, it's bad".
Here I am accurately perceiving that single payer is in my interest, while dmarks hasn't a clue about my life, or the lives of people like me who would benefit from single payer... and he's making a wild guess as to what is good for us.
The opt-out suggestion by Jerry is certainly a lot less arrogant.
There are two big problems with our healthcare system. One, uninsured people and two healthcare costs. Single payer addresses both those problems. Everyone is covered. And what better way to bring down the cost than to have the negociating power of the vast majority of people in the form of the government? It is not a government take over of healthcare. The care is still in the hands of you and your doctor. The republican plan simply limits cost to the government, not to the individual.
"What about a single payer system that allowed individuals to opt out as long as they can prove that they have health care coverage?"......Jerry, I much prefer the government in more of a facilitative/augmentative role but, yes, a hybrid model along the lines of the Swiss model would be a far superior one to a single-payer monstrosity serving over 300,000,000 people and/or the Byzantine Obamacare model that's replete with favoritism/disincentives.
Jerry: Your arguments can be used to justify denying any choice in any sector of the economy, and to argue for the ruling elites controlling everything. Single-payer is monolithic control. No choice, no alternative, unless you flee the country. Which you might have to do to avoid the bloodthirsty death panels which are a feature of the single payer system.
So. Single payer, which in Europe features rationing and bloodthirsty death panels (see the example of the Holland hospital eager to slaughter "defective" people), is irrelevant in an informed society.
Excuse me for being informed on this, and objecting to the idea that monolithic, fascistic "one size fits few" single payer is superior than letting the people make their own choices.
Will said: "erry, I much prefer the government in more of a facilitative/augmentative role"
That is because you have a healthy disrespect for authority. It makes for much better citizens than those who get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when they hear the phrase "We're from the government, we're here to help you".
I have no problem with people having choices. Like I said, have single payer with the option to opt out if you can show other sufficient healthcare coverage. Single payer sets the base. If you want to add to it, get supplemental coverage. If you don't like it, get coverage from a private company. Where's the problem?
Because we all end up paying for those that don't have healthcare coverage and we pay at the maximum rates. Are you willing to just let them die? I am not.
"Because we all end up paying for those that don't have healthcare coverage and we pay at the maximum rates. Are you willing to just let them die? I am not."
No we don't. A lot of people choose to pay for healthcare as they need it, without insurance.
But seriously, I do support free government healthcare for the needy. But only them. It is a pure waste to government to provide it for people of means.
I favor welfare for the needy, not the well off. Why don't you?
dmarks wants to opt out, then stick the taxpayers with the bill if he gets needs medical care. It's heads he wins, tails he wins... either way he doesn't pay. He's one of the freeloaders, in other words.
31 comments:
I consider your view on this topic to be utter nonsense.
Ein Volk
ein Reich
ein Healthcare
What an arrogant comment dmarks.
The only thing arrogant is the idea that the state can control healthcare.
Here is a list of facist states which 'control' healthcare. The
metrics clearly show it at least
twice as efficient as a system
built to produce profit, rather than provide services....
Huh?..oh yeah, the listing .
"What an arrogant comment dmarks"... As was yours wd...
BB Idaho, you're a reasonable guy and I KNOW that YOU KNOW that there are other ways that we can reach 100% coverage without having the Federal government confiscate the entire infrastructure. Hell, my dude, even Obamacare, IF THEY IN FACT DID IT INTELLIGENTLY (making the fine significantly stiffer to ensure compliance, totally eliminating all of these political paybacks/waivers, etc.), would be better than this single-payer junk. The 2 frigging parties just need to sit down get it done. Yeah, yeah, I know.
What about a single payer system that allowed individuals to opt out as long as they can prove that they have health care coverage?
Jerry. Why does it have to be a single payer, really? It always seems that the goal is to increase the might and control of the federal government as opposed to improving the health of Americans.
dmarks is arrogant for telling me and Jerry, when we say "we want single payer", "no, it's bad".
Here I am accurately perceiving that single payer is in my interest, while dmarks hasn't a clue about my life, or the lives of people like me who would benefit from single payer... and he's making a wild guess as to what is good for us.
The opt-out suggestion by Jerry is certainly a lot less arrogant.
Jerry: It might be a good idea, but it would be a lot better if people can choose to opt out for any reason..
dmarks: but it would be a lot better if people can choose to opt out for any reason.
Stupidity? (a belief that government run insurance is somehow fascistic, that is).
It does in fact meet a large part of the definition of fascism. Why not instead decentralize? Step away from "big" entirely?
dictionary.com/stupid: annoying or irritating; troublesome...
It has been confirmed that dmarks qualifies as "stupid" under (at least) one of the definitions.
There are two big problems with our healthcare system. One, uninsured people and two healthcare costs. Single payer addresses both those problems. Everyone is covered. And what better way to bring down the cost than to have the negociating power of the vast majority of people in the form of the government? It is not a government take over of healthcare. The care is still in the hands of you and your doctor. The republican plan simply limits cost to the government, not to the individual.
Well said Jerry.
"it has been confirmed that dmarks qualifies as "stupid" under (at least) one of the definitions."
wd - you're even beginning to irritate me with your false jabs at dmarks. And I don't always agree with everything he says.
As Forrest Gump's Mom said "Stupid is as stupid does." Think about it wd....
"What about a single payer system that allowed individuals to opt out as long as they can prove that they have health care coverage?"......Jerry, I much prefer the government in more of a facilitative/augmentative role but, yes, a hybrid model along the lines of the Swiss model would be a far superior one to a single-payer monstrosity serving over 300,000,000 people and/or the Byzantine Obamacare model that's replete with favoritism/disincentives.
Jerry: Your arguments can be used to justify denying any choice in any sector of the economy, and to argue for the ruling elites controlling everything. Single-payer is monolithic control. No choice, no alternative, unless you flee the country. Which you might have to do to avoid the bloodthirsty death panels which are a feature of the single payer system.
So. Single payer, which in Europe features rationing and bloodthirsty death panels (see the example of the Holland hospital eager to slaughter "defective" people), is irrelevant in an informed society.
Excuse me for being informed on this, and objecting to the idea that monolithic, fascistic "one size fits few" single payer is superior than letting the people make their own choices.
Will said: "erry, I much prefer the government in more of a facilitative/augmentative role"
That is because you have a healthy disrespect for authority. It makes for much better citizens than those who get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when they hear the phrase "We're from the government, we're here to help you".
Question authority.
I have no problem with people having choices. Like I said, have single payer with the option to opt out if you can show other sufficient healthcare coverage. Single payer sets the base. If you want to add to it, get supplemental coverage. If you don't like it, get coverage from a private company. Where's the problem?
"Like I said, have single payer with the option to opt out if you can show other sufficient healthcare coverage"
How about the "option" to opt out, period?
Because we all end up paying for those that don't have healthcare coverage and we pay at the maximum rates. Are you willing to just let them die? I am not.
"Because we all end up paying for those that don't have healthcare coverage and we pay at the maximum rates. Are you willing to just let them die? I am not."
No we don't. A lot of people choose to pay for healthcare as they need it, without insurance.
But seriously, I do support free government healthcare for the needy. But only them. It is a pure waste to government to provide it for people of means.
I favor welfare for the needy, not the well off. Why don't you?
Are you implying that single payer healthcare is welfare for the rich?
dmarks wants to opt out, then stick the taxpayers with the bill if he gets needs medical care. It's heads he wins, tails he wins... either way he doesn't pay. He's one of the freeloaders, in other words.
WD said: "dmarks wants to opt out, then stick the taxpayers with the bill if he gets needs medical care."
True on the first, not on the second. You are making stuff up from whole cloth.
"He's one of the freeloaders, in other words."
Sorry, I am not a member of a union.
You are changing the subject by mentioning unions. I was talking about your desire to be a freeloader.
Post a Comment