J
JoshuaIsLord
Guest
Italy has Universal Health Care
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You’re not in favor of universal healthcare.
You’ve wailed repeatedly about how much Obamacare raised our premiums because it eliminated pricing for preexisting conditions (and, thus, pricing those folks out of coverage).
Government dictated, Church dictated, private insurance company dictated; either way, you’re negotiating with someone more powerful than you are about who pays for your care and what’s covered.
T
Theo520
Guest
Seems the mods deleted my link. It’s a real problem for some facilities per the article. Hiding it under the size of total budget is a deflection. Don’t even know how accurate your numbers were.
Of course I’m in favor of it. I think everyone should have healthcare. The difference between government and the Church is I can walk away from the Church, not give them my money. I also know the Church won’t fund immoral acts such as abortion and abortifacients.
What I’ve complained about is government dictating the terms I’ve complained about the denial of free association (I know, one of those 18th century rights you regularly wail against).
ACA was a lie from the start.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The poster in question is against all government healthcare, yet he changes his mind when it comes to medicare. You really can’t count on him for consistency. He really ought to own a waffle house.
T
Theo520
Guest
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I don’t know if the Catholic Church should be taking up specific policy positions like that.
I can tell you that the UK NHS is a disaster for the most part as all universal health care systems are in that they ration care and have more limited accessibility. It’s quite amazing what people have done because of it.
I can tell you that the UK NHS is a disaster for the most part as all universal health care systems are in that they ration care and have more limited accessibility. It’s quite amazing what people have done because of it.
W
whyeyeman
Guest
The reason socialism is bad is because it seeks to replace God with the state and is suppressive of religion. This does not mean that a government cannot act to help its citizens.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I’m honestly not sure you can have a system where you never ration care. Resources will always be limited.
This is a lie. I, too, am opposed to Medicare, but unlike you, I am not in favor of taking people’s money for 40 or more years under a promise of return of services, then saying 1) sorry, no services for you, and 2) then slandering their integrity by saying it is really welfare and in expecting a return you are stealing from others.Vonsalza:
The poster in question is against all government healthcare, yet he changes his mind when it comes to medicare. You really can’t count on him for consistency. He really ought to own a waffle house.
If I owned a Waffle House, I wouldn’t take money, not provide the waffles, then accuse the customer of expecting a hand out.
The second lie is that I oppose all government supplied healthcare. What I do believe in is subsidiarity. If local government works in conjunction with charities to help local people - providing space for care, etc. , that is okay.
Last edited:
Then who gets to deny people care? Government?
Exactly why I oppose it
D
DarkLight
Guest
Usually, the private insurance company, either by denying insurance to those who are too expensive or simply refusing treatments that aren’t on the “preferred” list.
Honestly, I’d rather have the person denying be a government that’s at least ostensibly answerable to the voters, than a for-profit corporation that’s answerable only to stockholders. I don’t really believe this whole “free association” thing results in any meaningful sort of freedom for a significant number of people.
If an insurance denies care that is contractually agreed upon, the legal action is possible for the person. As Stinkcat regularly points out, government will be under no obligation to provide anything, even if promised.JonNC:
Usually, the private insurance company, either by denying insurance to those who are too expensive or simply refusing treatments that aren’t on the “preferred” list.
Honestly, I’d rather have the person denying be a government that’s at least ostensibly answerable to the voters, than a for-profit corporation that’s answerable only to stockholders. I don’t really believe this whole “free association” thing results in any meaningful sort of freedom for a significant number of people.
At least with for-profit corporations I can walk away with my money. Under a government dictated plan, even if I can walk away, government keeps my money.
As for association, the irony is that is exactly what proponents of single payer rely on: a large pool of people required to pay in in order to help cover the cost for the expensive individual. On that we agree. I just disagree that the central government should be in charge, because then all decisions are made by government.
It is association, but not free.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Under previous Social Security rules, it was possible to establish a competitive system.
So, we then got the Galveston County plan.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
The Galveston County plan’s benefit pays THREE TIMES AS MUCH as Social Security.
And then, Social Security got rid of the permission to set up competitive systems.
So, we then got the Galveston County plan.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
The Galveston County plan’s benefit pays THREE TIMES AS MUCH as Social Security.
And then, Social Security got rid of the permission to set up competitive systems.
Last edited:
And, of course, they would do the same thing under single if they had to. But Medicare for All takes most of the money out of the market place through high taxes, leaving choice moot for all but the ruling elite
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Yeah, about that…
If people can “walk away from it”, then it’s not “universal”. Again, you don’t actually believe in universal healthcare. Please don’t say you do.
You appear to be a much, much bigger fan of the healthcare scheme of the 90s where costs hadn’t risen as exponentially as they have in the last decade and our premiums were cheap because chronically ill folks were deliberately priced out of coverage.
They only got coverage when the financial devastation of their disease finally qualified them for Medicaid, ironically.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The real lie is to pretend a welfare program is not really a welfare program and then engaging in calumny when somebody points out the truth. For example, the current recipients paid no taxes to support Medicare part D, yet the taxpayer is on the hook for billions each year because of the program. There is no justification for parts B or D of Medicare, those could immediately be eliminated because those are pure welfare programs plain and simple.
I am glad you finally admitted your ignorance about Medicare. There is no contract, if the government shut down medicare tomorrow, you would not have any standing to sue. You are no different than Bernie Madeoff’s clients. Should taxpayers have to sacrifice for Bernie’s victims? No, and neither should they sacrifice for Medicare leeches.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The important thing to note is that the numbers they present were based on the stock market bubble of the early 2000s. One huge difference between social security and the galveston plan is that Social Security is by its nature redistributive. For example, a married single earner household will usually do better under social security, because they nonearner spouse gets a benefit without contributing anything to the system. If you favor the galveston plan, the question is why have social security at all, since I can save myself and do just as well as the galveston plan. So if you are arguing to eliminate social security effective immediately, I agree wholeheartedly.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Except what happens in practice is “no insurance company will agree to put this treatment in the contract unless legally forced to do so.” Because if none of them do, people can’t leave for one that does, and if it’s not in the contract there’s no way to force them except by making laws that say what they can put in the contract. Usually they’ll slip in something that they can deny anything they deem not medically necessary, too. You’re not really free to choose your own care in that system.
It’s kind of like how people say, if you don’t like your job, get a new one. Except, a lot of places I have, you’re going to be dealing with the same problems no matter what unless you manage to get more qualifications (which of course cost time and money, things which can be in short supply if you’re trying to live off of low-end jobs). You technically have freedom, but you don’t have the freedom to work for a living wage unless someone’s willing to hire people with your skill set for a living wage.
It’s kind of like how people say, if you don’t like your job, get a new one. Except, a lot of places I have, you’re going to be dealing with the same problems no matter what unless you manage to get more qualifications (which of course cost time and money, things which can be in short supply if you’re trying to live off of low-end jobs). You technically have freedom, but you don’t have the freedom to work for a living wage unless someone’s willing to hire people with your skill set for a living wage.
- Status