The only benefit is lower cost? How about the fact that 60% of all bankruptcies are healthcare cost related?
So then your assertion must be that no one should go bankrupt having to pay for healthcare costs? That goal does not necessitate that government run the system Chris. THAT is what I don't want. My problem with isn't that you want to change the system, cause lord know it ain't perfect (but it is the best one out there). My problem with you (and liberals in gerneral) is that you have so little imagination. Government is a liberals solution to everything. What is so amazingly mind boggling about you is that healthcare is kind of an important thing. And you want OUR government, with it's inefficiency, its beauracracy, its wastefulness running that part of your life.
How about the fact that doctors will be able to be doctors instead of spending half their time fighting with 150 insurance companies over paperwork?
This highlights one problem with the current system and where an actual free market solution would help. In reality this is not true. They only have to deal with a few because currently only so many imsueance providers can operate within an area, usually a couple of states. As was suggested in another thread make health insureance providers part of insterstate commerce, then they would have to compete which would mean lower premiums for individuals.
How about the fact that millions of Americans will have access to healthcare that can't afford it now?
This one is simply false. It will simply be a different million (or more) not receiving care. Again Chris, what is the basic problem and/or goal. To me the argument seems to be this: If not but for cost than more people would utilize healthcare. Neccessarily that would mean with cost not being a major barrier there will be increased demand on the system. Which will mean more waiting.
How about the fact that people with cancer won't have to worry about paying for their insurance premiums while they go through chemotherapy?
This goes back to a more fundamental principle and one I can speak personally about. I HAVE had cancer and have had chemotherapy. Obviously there was no fault on my part in getting cancer. So give me an argument here. Even though I had no responsibility in acquiring my condition, why does that make it okay for me to obligate someone else (the taxpayer), who's never even heard of me, let alone bear any responsibility for me, the expenses of my illness?
Admittedly I don't really see where you're going with this in terms if the system you envision. It seems to me you believe the system would be some flat yearly tax, where that is all one would have to pay regardless of the medical problems that may befall someone, minor or catastrophic. Personally I don't see how you can justify paying the same thing for chemotherapy as the common cold. You will have to explain how see that working out on practical and ethical basis.
How about the fact that American businesses will now be able to compete worldwide because they will no longer have to pay for healthcare?
That would be great. But again accomplishing that does not neccessitate government being the single payee. There are many solution that could be implemented to make insurance coverage more affordable to the consumer.
How about the fact that with a single payer system, the government can negotiate drug costs with the drug companies? How about the fact that there will be fewer medical
Government is already in bed with the drug companies. How can you be so blind as to not see the level of corruption that would take place here. Speaking of single payer, what is your opinion of monopolies. Kind of thought those weren't a good thing. I can think of no worse institution than our government having one.
lawsuits because people won't go bankrupt because of medical costs? How about the fact that liability insurance will be lower for this reason?
Again solution does require that government be the single payer. It has been the right side of the aisle that has proposed reregulation of malpractice insureance (as noted by one of Bush's more memorable quotes) Of course you know that is a big part of the reason why medical costs are so high, because malpractice insurance is so high.
How about the fact that taking care of the sick people in our society is just the right thing to do???
What an absolute crock of shit this one is. You're going to try to guilt people into paying for other people's problems now? Is that the 'right thing to do' Chris? This is why I can't stand libs. Npt only is government your solution to everything. The individual bears no responsibility for the solution either. You would not believe the problems that could be solved if only, when looking for a solution to anything, the first thing people asked was 'what can I do about this'? But they don't. It simply isn't human nature. Human nature is to take personal credit for successes and blame others for problems. Why should I (the taxpayer) have to pay for your heart transplant because you ate McDonalds at lunch every day for 20 years? Or your lung transplant because you were a pack a day person? Our medical costs would go down astronomically if you took the responsibility of simply taking care of yourself. It isn't fair to say taking care of sick people is the right thing to do. Because that isn't the whole picture. Making me pay for your sins is most definately NOT the right thing to do.
