Solutions for Universal Healthcare in the US

[pknopp]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I have the best solution:

1. No universal health care

2. No government welfare program

3. No government subsidies

4. Everybody is responsible for their own health care bills and the government has nothing to do with it.

So then we just let people die who cannot afford treatment? Not sure about that. I like The personal responsibility aspect but it’s not feasible IMO.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bill. It is your responsibility.

If the government would stay out of the business of regulating the shit out of the health care business it would be less expensive for everybody.

I do not disagree but the Govt can’t help itself

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

??

 

[SweetSue92]

9 things Americans need to learn from the rest of the world’s health care systems

"Universal health care is hard, but it should be possible — and eight more things I discovered from visiting other countries."

www.vox.com

So I have historically been against Universal Healthcare. To me you can have two of the three when it comes to healthcare:

#1) Quality
#2) Cost Effectiveness
#3) Universality


In Canada, Europe, Australia...they have universality and we an argue if they have quality or cost effectiveness but I would argue the latter as the best quality remains in the US. Here of course we have quality and cost effectiveness to a point but not universality. The issue for me now is that many with poor or no insurance wait until their maladies are critical and then seek care, which is way more expensive than if they saw their doctor immediately so I am wavering on universality. The problem is the cost and the cost it takes for persons to become MDs in America. Tuition is not free, it is super expensive. So my solution would be:

#1) Universal Healthcare by 2027 - Gives the Gov't time to put the program together
#2) MDs pay no federal taxes for their first five years post medical school, and pay 10% federal for the next 15 years. This will help them pay off student loans and incentivize more people to become doctors.
#3) Invest in robotics and such to rely less heavily on humans
#4) Increase tax rates, unfortunately therein lies the beast. But we pay pretty heavily through our employers now so we would have to figure that part out but I would provide incentives for those who are healthy and don't use their UH as much, like auto companies do. Maybe a tax break? People who take care of themselves and are healthy should not have to pay the same as those who eat chips all day and are fat and unhealthy. Slippery slope, I know.
#5) Work with Big Pharma for more affordable drugs, especially critical ones for those with debilitating conditions.
#6) Allow persons to purchase additional insurance to be used if necessary. Yes, that favors the wealthy but such is life in capitalism. Tom Brady will receive better treatment than some insurance salesman named Tom Smith.
#7) Legalize all drugs and tax them heavily, use those monies to help cover the costs of UH. Would reduce the war on drugs cost as well if we privatize it.
#8) Create a scholarship fund to attract more persons to the medical profession - Nurses, doctors, etc.
#9) Allow doctors to also take private monies - like they do for LASIK.
#10) Elective surgeries like cosmetic and gender changing would not be covered and would have to come from private monies.


Those are my thoughts and again, I am not sold on this but seeing how our insurance industry is now I believe we need drastic changes. I know those on the left believe we can just magically do it but those who are moderates like myself and those on the right, what are your thoughts? Am I completely crazy to suggest this?

Thank you

PS - Moonglow, you're a troll and you suck, your opinion here is unwelcome. Get lost, loser troll.

#1--biggest issue, will return
#2--If we get over #1, I have no problem with this
#3--Has its place
#4--I don't want govt moderating this. Only at the front end. You want to tax, say, chips and soda right up front, that's fine. And offer tax breaks for gym memberships, etc, fine too. But I would have a problem if drs have to "report". This will tie in to #1
#5--This is a huge issue. Big Pharma would HATE the US caving to UHC at this point because there goes pretty much the only 1st world nation where they can charge exorbitant rates for their new drugs. They will fight UHC with they last breath. Not a huge fan of them either so....
#6--This will happen, and Leftists will whine about it. Also private drs and private hospitals. Can't do anything about it.
#7--Don't know how much savings that is in the long run, as rampant drug use comes with its own long list of health problems. When I say I don't know I mean....I don't know.
#8--Definitely. And to make treating patients easier, make MORE treatments OTC, like in the UK and Canada.
#9--YES
#10--Oh man this will be ugly, no pun intended. Yes to all cosmetic surgeries, but imagine the cries about gender reassignment. Etc.

Which to some extent brings me to #1. My biggest issue with UHC is philosophical and it's not a small consideration for me: a govt that controls your health care controls your entire life, as we see in the UK with Covid. So while UHC might be practical at this point, I'm still very skeptical at this point. Don't trust Big Pharma/Medicine. Probably trust Big Govco even less.

 

[pknopp]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

Don't run from cops who will question you when youre wearing fatigues and carrying a small arsenal.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

 

[pknopp]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

Don't run from cops who will question you when youre wearing fatigues and carrying a small arsenal.

Less than one weapon each and the 2nd Amendment acknowledges that right.

 

[pknopp]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be trying to saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

You understand the point.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be trying to saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

You understand the point.

Wow. That's pretty fucked up. And completely irrelevant. Do you want more freedom, or less?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

Don't run from cops who will question you when youre wearing fatigues and carrying a small arsenal.

Less than one weapon each and the 2nd Amendment acknowledges that right.

How would the police have known that since they ran?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be trying to saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

You understand the point.

Wow. That's pretty fucked up. And completely irrelevant. Do you want more freedom, or less?

pknopp is a retired miserable anarchist and he is completely sidetracking this thread.

 

[pknopp]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

Don't run from cops who will question you when youre wearing fatigues and carrying a small arsenal.

Less than one weapon each and the 2nd Amendment acknowledges that right.

How would the police have known that since they ran?

Nothing wrong with deciding to walk. If we really believe in the 2nd Amendment the police had no reason to do anything.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be trying to saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

You understand the point.

Wow. That's pretty fucked up. And completely irrelevant. Do you want more freedom, or less?

pknopp is a retired miserable anarchist and he is completely sidetracking this thread.

I just don't get that tact. It's fairly common, but makes no sense. They seem to think drawing some kind of black and white line, and declaring that we aren't free country, ends the argument. They seem to think it's a real gotcha - but I just don't get it. It's similar to the way they say "there is no free market", as though that justifies any incursion they might dream up.

 

[pknopp]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be trying to saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

You understand the point.

Wow. That's pretty fucked up. And completely irrelevant. Do you want more freedom, or less?

pknopp is a retired miserable anarchist and he is completely sidetracking this thread.

I just don't get that tact. It's fairly common, but makes no sense. They seem to think drawing some kind of black and white line, and declaring that we aren't free country, ends the argument. They seem to think it's a real gotcha - but I just don't get it. It's similar to the way they say "there is no free market", as though that justifies any incursion they might dream up.

Simply stating facts. I gave you the chance to prove you really support freedoms and you refused to do so.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

Don't run from cops who will question you when youre wearing fatigues and carrying a small arsenal.

Less than one weapon each and the 2nd Amendment acknowledges that right.

How would the police have known that since they ran?

Nothing wrong with deciding to walk. If we really believe in the 2nd Amendment the police had no reason to do anything.

They were pulled over on the road with their hazards on at 2AM and dressed in military fatigues. Stop it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be trying to saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

You understand the point.

Wow. That's pretty fucked up. And completely irrelevant. Do you want more freedom, or less?

pknopp is a retired miserable anarchist and he is completely sidetracking this thread.

I just don't get that tact. It's fairly common, but makes no sense. They seem to think drawing some kind of black and white line, and declaring that we aren't free country, ends the argument. They seem to think it's a real gotcha - but I just don't get it. It's similar to the way they say "there is no free market", as though that justifies any incursion they might dream up.

You can't argue with crazy.

 

[pknopp]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

Don't run from cops who will question you when youre wearing fatigues and carrying a small arsenal.

Less than one weapon each and the 2nd Amendment acknowledges that right.

How would the police have known that since they ran?

Nothing wrong with deciding to walk. If we really believe in the 2nd Amendment the police had no reason to do anything.

They were pulled over on the road with their hazards on at 2AM and dressed in military fatigues. Stop it.

The horrors.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? That we should give up?

That we do not have a free society so don't argue we do.

I still don't get your point. I'm not arguing that we have a perfectly free society. It's not a toggle switch. We can have more freedom, or less. What's your preference?

One never has "freedom" absent of life and health.

I still don't get your point. You seem to see it as an all-or-nothing prospect. Why?? Just building a strawman so you can dismiss it?

I am not able to grasp the idea of being able to afford health care as being a drag on anyone's freedom.

I realize that. I'm trying to explain it to you. When someone controls access to the things you need, they control you.

Would you also advocate for government controlling access to housing? Food? Everything else we need?

I'll take you seriously when I see you defend the 11 arrested in Massachusetts.

When you run from cops you get arrested. I live in MA.

Chicken/egg. When you live in a free country there is no reason to avoid arrest here.

I don't understand your point, or if you even have one. You seem to be trying to saying "we don't live in a free country, so it's silly to worry about freedom". Is that it?

You understand the point.

Wow. That's pretty fucked up. And completely irrelevant. Do you want more freedom, or less?

pknopp is a retired miserable anarchist and he is completely sidetracking this thread.

I just don't get that tact. It's fairly common, but makes no sense. They seem to think drawing some kind of black and white line, and declaring that we aren't free country, ends the argument. They seem to think it's a real gotcha - but I just don't get it. It's similar to the way they say "there is no free market", as though that justifies any incursion they might dream up.

Simply stating facts. I gave you the chance to prove you really support freedoms and you refused to do so.

Well, alrighty then. I'll consider myself trolled!