Democrats run away from health care
A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election year issue
What don't you like about people being able to choose to have single payer, government plan and they are the ones paying for it?
"Ah yes, Social Darwinism at it's finest.... "
Translation: Choices are bad. People being able to make their own choices = really bad.
Because then it would involve their own money....
I can't fathom another explanation.
Or maybe it's because they know everyone who signs up to say "yes" isn't paying any taxes so there wouldn't be anybody paying?
I don't know. I don't really understand it either. If you want it--why then be so unwilling to pay for it?
Agree...I think that even if 30% of Americans want to join a government pool, that would be larger than a corporation, so they can figure out how to make it work.
I absolutely agree. There has to be a cap and I don't know that there is a way around charging some people more. How else are you going to pay for those who can't or won't pay their own way?
Somebody has to make up the difference and it's always going to be those who are more successful. Let's face it--we're always treated that way--responsible for the masses.
I can even handle that so long as it has some basis in fairness. I don't believe anyone should have every lifesaving measure known to man at someone else's expense--especially when it is for minimum return or at the end of one's life.
Basic care should be offered and paid for by everyone. Beyond that--buy insurance or pay your own way. If you can't afford it--oh well. Life's not fair, all is not equal. People get sick. They die. It's life. Nobody should be left to suffer--basic care would make sure that doesn't happen.
"Basic care should be offered and paid for by everyone. Beyond that--buy insurance or pay your own way."
Out of curiosity...how would you define "basic care"? I mean, would you consider "basic care" to include, say, life-long insulin treatment for a diabetic? Or, for example, prenatal care or care during acute illnesses or accidents? Or does "basic care" mean something more along the lines of annual check-up and not much more?
If you need insulin or YOU DIE then for you that would be "basic care". You should pay something for your own care. If the cost is not reasonable based on your income--it would be subsidized...i.e. once you met an out of pocket expected level of contribution then you pay no more.
I don't even consider routine check-ups to be "basic care". Those are things that should be expected and planned for. Much like an oil change. Society shouldn't be responsible for your routine care. It should help cover the unexpected. Nobody expects to have to live on insulin supplements.
Care during accidents/illnesses to put someone back together or alleviate their pain/suffering is to provide basic care. You need your breast removed because of cancer--removing it is to provide basic care. Replacing it is nice but it's beyond basic care. If you want a new one (you don't need it to live a healthy life) then you're gonna have to cover that piece yourself or buy yourself some insurance to replace it if you want it replaced. It's above and beyond basic care. Replace breast with any other body part you can live without. Now if it's a part you "need" to live and your life is not at it's end, that would be an acceptable level of coverage. A new liver for someone who by all accounts will live for many more years...OK....for someone at the end of their lifespan...not reasonable.
Thanks! I'm inclined to agree with your definition of basic care overall, though I might quibble with routine check-ups (particularly well-child check-ups).
I really liked the Swiss version of universal health care: everyone was required to buy (private) insurance that covered all of the basics (rather similar to what you list). The private insurance companies could only charge a certain amount per person per month for the basic coverage, and were not allowed to refuse anyone based on pre-existing conditions, deny coverage for those conditions, or charge more for people with pre-existing conditions.
However, the companies were free to offer all sorts of "bells and whistles" insurance packages in addition to the basic coverage. The companies could charge what they liked for the "bells and whistles" packages, deny anyone coverage for those packages and deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. It seemed like a reasonable system to me: everyone was covered for the basic stuff, and those who wanted more (high and mighty specialists, private rooms, home nursing, etc.) could pay for it.
Interestingly, we have to pay a fair bit out of pocket for medicines in Sweden before the government health insurance kicks in and covers the rest. Adults also have to pay a co-pay for every doctor and hospital visit. One can also simultaenously sign up for a private insurance that provides more bells and whistles (including more coverage for medicines). This also seems reasonable to me. The funniest thing (to me) is how often foreigners complain about the co-pay and the costs for medicine. For some reason, they always seem to think that universal health care means "free healthcare" :-).