I have a legitimate medical condition. I can claim I'm in pain and that it is detrimental to everything and it should be covered. This would have saved me $30 at sport chalet if complaining got me free orthotics. My private health care would cover some of the cost, but it would still cost me over $100 (as well it should). That's why I bought the $30 ones.... because I'm not really in pain. If I were, I'd have paid my portion of the costs. If all it takes is claiming I have pain to get it for free.... well....
(I still wouldn't do it. But lots of people would)
You're making my point for me. It's cheap(er) because it makes ME think about the price. It does that by covering some, but not all, of the costs (though don't get me going on what that does to the cost). Bottom line, making your customers think for just a second about cost saves money and reduces use... which is something you said was impossible unless the world was full of hypochondriacs.
Always a great way to start a post.
You already proved the other way around. We're already paying more in taxes for socialized healthcare than you are and we don't even have it yet. Maybe our government just isn't as good at being socialist as yours. Should that make us want to use it more?
More to the point, we pay higher prices in the US because US consumers support the burden of innovation here. Many European countries benefit from that by saying to drug companies "either charge a far reduced price... one that could never sustain future drug development, or get nothing at all". That works ok if some countries do it. If everyone does it, no more innovation. In a very real sense US consumers ENABLE socialized healthcare elsewhere.
...and almost entirely for healthcare I don't even use (don't even qualify for).
...religiously....
We should have a law against breaking criminal laws.
Totally completely untrue. Many suggestions for healthcare reform in the US that do not involve increases in regulation have been proposed here and by politicians.
Has it? The FDA kills thousands every year. How many does it save? Is that preventing abuse or causing it?
It's a good thing the food industry doesn't have that rule.... oh wait....
Actually you're thinking of a private housing system. It's housing that might leave them out in the cold. Healthcare might leave them in their sickbed. Sounds like an argument for public housing.
No, but health insurance does.
This is because many people's jobs have a physical component. Often getting old means having medical bills AND SIMULTANEOUSLY losing a job that requires physical labor. So now you have no job, and bills. Bankruptcy. Who's fault is that by the way? The guy who didn't save up enough to retire before he got too old to work the jackhammer.
How long does it take you to see a dentist? Do you know how long it takes to get an MRI in Canada? Long enough to die.
Very rarely.... even in England.
**facepalm**
Oversimplifications? Check. (Food is not healthcare)
Misinterpretations of the evidence? Check. (No, I am not proving your point, you are misinterpreting it. The top ten countries in the World for health are ALL either entirely state-dominant or majority state-dominant (that is, "costed" for by the state). When applied properly, state healthcare works efficiently. The US isn't, and it doesn't - see previous posts)
An entirely (thus far) unsubstantiated argument? Check. (Why do you believe that money is almost always the sole - or even dominant - driving factor for motivation? Saying it is, isn't enough. Aren't people more complicated than that?)
Selective reasoning? Check. (I have noted my limitations of knowledge, and instead of addressing it, you have decided to note that I have limitations, and not even gone further to explain your point of view. The drugs corruption allegation source - and thus the point about the power and nature of corporations - was totally overlooked in your "witty" response)
Never mind your lack of empathy for your fellow Americans in general...
Examples of these have all occurred before on numerous occasions, too.
OK,
I am going to advance the debate by addressing some of the issues more directly.
I feel as if I've not made my position clear on this topic (in relation to its quality, nor my argument precisely, in context). I am as willing as the next guy to properly debate this issue. But aside from the fact that you're regularly failing to properly respond (making rebuffs but not having the courtesy to elaborate on WHY you think that, for example), you are also not backing up any of your own claims with anything like the amount of evidence (or references to previous posts containing as such) that I have produced: or any evidence, for that matter.
I'm not saying I, nor my argument, is perfect; but on the majority of occasions, I take the time to provide you and everyone with facts to substantiate my views. You Sir, do not.
Look, the core issue on page one of this thread is, as I interpret it, "what is more important: the state or the self?" I say, it's a balance that needs to be struck correctly (based on reality AND principles). You can provide some things whilst allowing individual achievement to take effect in others. Don't get me wrong, I don't propose (at this stage) a socialised food industry (don't forget though,
food is not the same as healthcare - you can't grow MRI scanners - nor can families afford to buy one, for instance), but I do believe that healthcare should be one of those things that is covered, as does the evidence (from a financial and quality-of-care standpoint - again, as detailed in previous posts); not to mention the moral aspect of drastically reducing that number of deaths (relating to the US system's failing coverage) from 18,000 to virtually nil, stopping people from falling foul of corporate manipulation and stopping those 65,000 medical-bankruptcies a year.
Hell, if you want private health insurance that badly, you can still get it
even in England.
