Conservatives, under what conditions would you allow universal coverage?

JoeTheJuggler said:
I've long been a proponent of a single-payer system, but to the point in question, there's no reason the system should outlaw the rich buying whatever private insurance they want or otherwise not using the public benefits they could use.

I believe under the UK's UHC system, private insurance is allowed. (As are private hospitals and other providers.) I guess the point I'm making is there's no reason to see UHC as a threat to the fact that the U.S. has the best medical care money can buy. We could still have that, and have universal access to adequate healthcare.

The public school system, for example, doesn't need to prohibit private schools.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, I don't think the way I linked the exchange was very clear. I wanted to respond to your conversation.

I agree leaving high-end private options in place is a good idea. I just wanted to point out that the crazy guy (Kucinich) has a better idea than the "serious" folks in both parties.
 
Originally Posted by mhaze
So you like free stuff?

What do I get?
​
Travis said:
Do you consider cancer treatment free stuff?
....
Click to expand...
For some people it is, it isn't for me. But right now I don't have cancer.

So...like...

I know what is in the deal for you, and you want it because there is something in it for you.

I'm just asking the same question. What's in it for me?
 
mhaze said:
I'm just asking the same question. What's in it for me?
Click to expand...

Setting aside the fact that countries aren't designed for you, what you get is the following:

-Lower health care costs nationwide.
-More people engaging in preventative care, including vaccines, which reduces your chance of catching communicable diseases.
-You cannot be denied coverage fore pre-existing conditions--most people who are forced into bankruptcy because of health issues had insurance.
-You don't need to worry about your kids and loved ones struggling for coverage, you will not have to pay their way in an emergency.
-If you're a business owner, you no longer have to worry about wasting money trying to cover your employees.

What isn't in it for you? You seem to just be pissy at the idea that some of your money will go to covering others, but of course, this happens already. people getting expensive, emergency treatment without insurance are paid for by your insurance premiums.

The only argument against such a system is the grinch argument: "I'm a dick and I want other people to suffer."
 
TraneWreck said:
Setting aside the fact that countries aren't designed for you, what you get is the following:

-Lower health care costs nationwide.
-More people engaging in preventative care, including vaccines, which reduces your chance of catching communicable diseases.
-You cannot be denied coverage fore pre-existing conditions--most people who are forced into bankruptcy because of health issues had insurance.
-You don't need to worry about your kids and loved ones struggling for coverage, you will not have to pay their way in an emergency.
-If you're a business owner, you no longer have to worry about wasting money trying to cover your employees.

What isn't in it for you? You seem to just be pissy at the idea that some of your money will go to covering others, but of course, this happens already. people getting expensive, emergency treatment without insurance are paid for by your insurance premiums.

The only argument against such a system is the grinch argument: "I'm a dick and I want other people to suffer."
Click to expand...

Oddly this seems to be the bottom line
 
bikerdruid said:
except, of course, almost immediately,
-all americans would be commies.
-all dissenters would wind up in fema gulags.
-christians would get sent to death camps.

....did i miss anything?
Click to expand...
Someone was saying something about a strawman argument.

Where are you now?
 
I generally don't thank people who imply I'm overly biased, narrow-minded, and willing eager to ascribe malicious intent to those who simply have a different political viewpoint than I do, but hey, you're welcome.
 
Last edited:
its very possible to provide universal coverage/option if you end the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, plus remove military troops from Europe and Asia. and end farm subsidies.

Imagine the number of "military" doctors working oversees right now, the US already has thousands of government doctors technically

Ron Paul mentioned something like this, but he doesn't campaign on that proposal.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
I generally don't thank people who imply I'm overly biased, narrow-minded, and willing eager to ascribe malicious intent to those who simply have a different political viewpoint than I do, but hey, you're welcome.
Click to expand...

You're right, I shouldn't have assumed malice.

I'm also willing to accept that you're confused or unable to understand the situation.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I generally don't thank people who imply I'm overly biased, narrow-minded, and willing eager to ascribe malicious intent to those who simply have a different political viewpoint than I do, but hey, you're welcome.
Click to expand...

Call me small minded, but I have a hard time figuring out what could be the rational behind your thinking.

I am Canadian. With my healthcare, I pay much less than you, get equivilant coverage, and cannot be denied service because of lack of monies or a pre existing condition.

Your service is based upon your wealth or the whims of a for profit corporation. I fail to see the advantage of such a situation
 
TraneWreck said:
Setting aside the fact that countries aren't designed for you, what you get is the following:

-Lower health care costs nationwide.
-More people engaging in preventative care, including vaccines, which reduces your chance of catching communicable diseases.
-You cannot be denied coverage fore pre-existing conditions--most people who are forced into bankruptcy because of health issues had insurance.
-You don't need to worry about your kids and loved ones struggling for coverage, you will not have to pay their way in an emergency.
-If you're a business owner, you no longer have to worry about wasting money trying to cover your employees.

What isn't in it for you? You seem to just be pissy at the idea that some of your money will go to covering others, but of course, this happens already. people getting expensive, emergency treatment without insurance are paid for by your insurance premiums.

The only argument against such a system is the grinch argument: "I'm a dick and I want other people to suffer."
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm only repeating Travis's argument. Don't I have the same rights as he?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
There is no :rolleyes: big enough for this.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, what is your solution for people with medical problems who don't have the means to pay? I have never encountered an anti-UHC poster heree who could answer this question.

The example I'll use is a 22 year old with a part-time job and no medical insurance who slides his car into a ditch and is now paralyzed from the neck down.

We know you don't want a single dime of government money to help him so what happens? Do we just leave him in the ditch to die?
 
rustypouch said:
Call me small minded, but I have a hard time figuring out what could be the rational behind your thinking.

I am Canadian. With my healthcare, I pay much less than you, get equivilant coverage, and cannot be denied service because of lack of monies or a pre existing condition.

Your service is based upon your wealth or the whims of a for profit corporation. I fail to see the advantage of such a situation
Click to expand...

Per-capita we generate a lot more cures than your system does.

See, somebody has to invent the things your government hands out for free, and it ain't you and it ain't Europe. Oh, you invent stuff, just not half the stuff, which is the US's fraction of total planetary invention in the medical field.

You know, the 6% of world population that is the US? I know you know that fraction because leftists are always blowing how the US, "only 6% of the world's population", uses half the oil. Or produces half the greenhouse. Or some asinine irrelevancy.

This also puts the lie to the idea the government can make up the difference. Or that, as one nameless poster suggested, the "good will" of scientists will be happy to make up the difference. Of course, a big chunk of the lower production rates may be due more to generally business-unfriendly climates than socialized medicine per se, but that's a different issue.


Imagine how much better life would be, with or without socialized medicine, for everyone, if the rest of the world put out the 94%, proportional to the US's current 50%, such that the US's fraction was it's proper 6%, if you follow that. In other words, the rest of the world's invention rate increased over 8-fold what it was.

If the entire planet was that way, with rude, uncaring, for-profit medicine, but spitting out roughly 8x as many inventions, everyone would be living better, healthier, longer lives than if everyone had socialized medicine with it's current, attendant slower rates of technological development.


It is, literally, murderous on a scale Hitler and Stalin did not imagine. Yes, you, dear believer, are killing far more than you save, by slowing down medical development. Take a good, hard look at yourself in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Per-capita we generate a lot more cures than your system does.
Click to expand...
You blather abot this in every single UHC thread, and have never backed up your claims.

I'm sure you won't be doing so in this thread either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom