I think the people who profit off of these poor choices are the ones who will be most upset.
The more likely alternative, imo, is a government takeover of healthcare and new âsinâ taxes on what the FDA decides is adverse behavior. Prepare to pay a sin tax on grass-fed steak, but you can fill up on corn for cheap.
2 Likes
Very good point I completely missed. Yes. Good catch.
From your mildly retarded posts one can surmise you are an ideological republican. If you are a libertarian who is against foreign entanglements, my apologies. However, I can just imagine you beating your chest for the wars in the mid-east all the while claiming it is to stop terrorism. Not making any major complaints about the cost. So we can spend money killing innocents but canât spend it giving healthcare to the citizens of this country?
I for one plan to leave my appointment where Iâm diagnosed with lung cancer and do the following:
- Write each of my kids a letter, contents personal
- Write my wife a letter, same
- Go out as quickly and painlessly as possible, without causing undue financial struggle.
Iâm going to tell my wife I love her, fly out to Vegas, drink Jameson and smoke Cubans until I donât wake back up in the morning. I canât wait for this wild ride to be over lol. Iâm going to miss my kids and all, but god damn am I tired.
1 Like
And they have better healthcare than we do. Yes taxes will go up but there wonât be any more premiums to pay resulting in a net savings. So less money spent and more for people. I thought conservatives were for this?
They have significantly higher income taxes than us, and the US subsidies their bloated welfare state via our military spending, and our paying the premiums on the healthcare they price fix.
So how does our military spending subsidize their bloated welfare state? Proof please.
Price fix? You mean they donât let the health insurance industry scam the public like we do in the U.S.?
If we stop paying those cost premiums âlike everyone elseâ the consequences could very well see the entire discipline decline into the dark ages of innovation and advancement.
So the every other industrialized country ought to be in the dark ages?
There is zero way to prove this would be the case in any sort of empirical way, what-so-ever.
I would hope everyone would be for that lol.
The place where âconservativesâ come into play is the resistance to change, and that is largely due to there being no way to prove your first point above.
Ummm, NATO for oneâŠ
The US is world police, for better or worse. We have bases all over the globe. All these magical Western Nations youâll list as great examples know weâll step in if anyone actually attacks them and help out.
So they donât have to spend as much, because we are part of their defense system. If we had a more isolationist foreign policy, like prior to our involvement in WWII, Iâm not sure the EU wouldnât have already burned to the ground. They have a history (well Germany in modern times) of trying to kill each other and big brother Russia likes to get involved too.
Iâm sure there is graft and corruption in the system, no doubt. But to think that itâs the sole driver of higher costs is absolutely silly in itâs lack of critical thought.
Not what I said. Not at all what I said.
Note I said âcouldâ when you finally try and address what I typed and not your strawman.
However, only a simpleton would look at this and assume it is because of said single payer system that the cost is lower. There are numerous factors to consider. For example, Obesity in the U.S. is higher than all of the other countries listed
However only an ideologue would not see this as evidence.
They donât⊠I even put it in a spreadsheet, fuck, man⊠Too bad itâs true.
Iâd like to point out something else. Scale. Why isnât this a factor in any other country? And why doesnât this effect Medicare in this country?
We, of course, know that obesity is a precursor to about 1,000 health issues and that obviously drives costs up. We, of course, know that obesity is a precursor to about 1,000 health issues and that obviously drives costs up.
Brought to you by the garbage food sold by large food producers. Why try and sell something healthy when you can sell garbage and make more money?
If you donât spend the money now, Sueâs gonna end up with cervical cancer, which will cost an enormous amount to treat. Likewise, absent insulin Fattyâs going to get staged amputations of her lower limbs, go on dialysis, have an MI, then stroke out and end up in a NH.
Pay a little now, or a lot later.
1 Like
The thing about NATO and the US having bases in Europe is that we didnât do that as a charitable gesture to Western Europe but because it served our interests. Had the USSR been dealt with after the fall of Germany we wouldnât have needed to be there. But we gave the Soviets Eastern Europe and a piece of Germany and helped them become a super power and a boogeyman for over 50 years.
Not everyone is on The Commonwealth Fund train:
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/sp_Do_Other_Countries_Have_the_Answers.pdf
http://www.weeklystandard.com/last-in-credibility/article/489469
2 Likes
You understand no one gives a fuck what your opinion is or what you âimagineâ, right?
We spend gobs and gobs of money on healthcare for citizens in this country already. Oh, wait, I forgot, youâre the dumbest person in America. Scratch that, on the planet.
Pretty shitty options either way, imo. I shouldnât have to pay anything for Sueâs indiscretions.
Thatâs an understandable sentiment. The question is, are you OK with letting her (along with many thousands of others) die a slow, lingering death because she canât afford health care?
Isnât that what weâre all doing with insurance anyway? (Not being snarky)
Yes and no.
Europe has been slaughtering each other since the Romans âleftâ for various reasons⊠Germany REALLY wanted to own the place in the 20th. Finally figured out how to do it peacefully with the EU.
Yes an no. Not directly, but yes, indirectly, sure you can look at it that way.
Not to mention the fact that millions of people will both have higher taxes AND have to pay premiums for âoptionalâ private care on top of said increased taxes. Because the government single payer plan is slow and doesnât cover what they want. Double whammy.
3 Likes
I donât believe the only choices are a) pay for her poor choices or b) let her die a slow agonizing death.
But, since I donât like to not answer questions directly, I will say assuming those are the only two options then yes I am okay with letting some people die specifically in cases where it is their choices that led to that death because healthcare is not a right.
That said, I donât see any reason why the wealthiest nation in the history of history canât afford to provide healthcare to everyone affordably (or even free to someone like Susie at the expense of others) anyway. Iâd prefer she not die over a dumb decision, but I also would prefer the spoils of my labor go to my family and not some stranger because he/she canât control their Oreo habit.
Sure, I think thatâs accurate. I donât think our current system is a very good one. I just donât think a government-run system void of choice would be better.
1 Like
Surely the same could be said for their appalling behavior landing them in their dire straits to begin with.
1 Like
Dude, learn how to use the fucking quote function already.
Itâs evidence that youâre blinded by your ideology. Two single payer systems cost more per capita. Most cost roughly $1-$2k less on average. Only 1 or 2 were half. HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY PAY IN TAXES. A question you can never seem to answer. Not to mention often times healthcare premiums here are shared by employees and employers. YTD Iâve paid $2.4K in healthcare premiums. My employer has paid $17K.
Why use critical thinking skills to come to a logical conclusion when itâs so much easier to type complete non-sense?