Realistically, yes. Even extending Medicaid to those 10 million would be cheaper than usurping the whole healthcare industry.Originally Posted by Dipre;463846;
Realistically, yes. Even extending Medicaid to those 10 million would be cheaper than usurping the whole healthcare industry.
But then you're just updating the current system, and that is not what they intend to do.
That's why i said not realistically.
WAR is good for something.
so basically making insurance available to those who cannot currently get it? I just don feel that those that do have healthcare should have to pay for others who dont work as hard to get healthcare.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
This is true, however, thus the conundrum.
WAR is good for something.
The current system works fairly well for those who buy reasonable coverage. It also works very well for the poor who utilize it. Of course, there are problems, as jacksonianmarch has stated. Economical coverage for the tweeners, paucity of doctors, incentives for research, drug costs and malpractice reform all need to be addressed. But they should be addressed individually, not as a government takeover.
IMO this is what the reform SHOULD constitute.
But they want to make a hostile takeover.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theory guy, but there's something weird with the whole issue.
WAR is good for something.
No need for a conspiracy. State run healthcare has been the goal of a certain political party in this country for the last 70 years.
Lulz.
Wouldn't that count as a sort of conspiracy?
WAR is good for something.
No, it's not a conspiracy, it's just another push towards socialism.
JFK must be rolling in his grave with what these clowns are doing.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." BAWHAWHAW, yeah, if you work you can pay more taxes. If you don't, it's evidently your Constitutional right to have what others earn.
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they hide is crucial. Aaron Levenstein
No offense, but that's stupid.
Socialism would take tens of years to apply in the US.
You need to go ahead and look up what socialism actually is, and how it's impossible to convert a purely capitalist country into socialism.
For actual socialism to be applied, your economic regime would have to be crushed.
WAR is good for something.
No, government exists as agreement among people to give up some of their freedom (natural, anarchy type freedom) for stability. How much of that freedom they give up is decided by the people who establish the governing system (or, in some cases, they have no say and allow themselves to be ruled by others). There is no set purpose for government. It's variable. The people decide what they want the role/responsibility of government to be. To me, this Jerry McGuire, "You complete me", shit is nonsense. That's not the country I was raised in, and I damn sure hope it doesn't become that.
we'll never get to pure socialism. But, having an unequal tax system pushes toward it, AND when you make it more unequal, then you continue the same push.
Hal sucks
You said yourself the role is determined by those who govern it, and remember that Governments are not meant to DELIVER SERVICES, but to create the structure for services to exist, that is universal among the so-called democratic states.
If your government wants to shit itself by staging a hostile takeover of the healthcare system, good for them, but don't mistake that for the basic premises of what a State's supposed to do, even if the constitution doesn't specify it.
WAR is good for something.
You can't even push as long as the unequal nature of capitalism exists.
No matter how hard they push, the social differences can not disappear, therefore not even a "moderate socialism" can take place.
WAR is good for something.
Taking over complete industries will bring us to socialism. Banks, autos and now healthcare make up 30% of our GDP.
Posting Permissions
