Burnthings
Active Member
Even if you saved more money overall. The tax you pay vs the price you pay for private insurance?I’d rather pay for higher health care, than higher taxes....just sayin’
Even if you saved more money overall. The tax you pay vs the price you pay for private insurance?I’d rather pay for higher health care, than higher taxes....just sayin’
That's what Bird Dog meant by "higher" health care. The health care we get is FAR better by it being on the capitalist market, free market, than it would be if it were taxpayer provided. The government makes EVERY single thing it runs worse, less efficient, and more costly.Even if you saved more money overall. The tax you pay vs the price you pay for private insurance?
If this is true why do other developed countries on single payer receive better care while paying less, while having everyone covered.That's what Bird Dog meant by "higher" health care. The health care we get is FAR better by it being on the capitalist market, free market, than it would be if it were taxpayer provided. The government makes EVERY single thing it runs worse, less efficient, and more costly.
As someone in the VA health care system if it is better than they could get outside in the free market. Ask yourself why the English have such horrific teeth. Ask anyone in Canada what their tax rate is. It is not less expensive to have government run it, and it is worse in the long run.
Now, ask yourself why any pharmaceutical company would do the R&D for new life saving drugs if there was no profit in it. By eliminating profit, you eliminate the desire to find the new solutions. That's not just at the corporate level - individuals in those companies make money, too. Why would they do the research? What would be the reason to do that work?
So, not only would you end up with worse health care, you'd end up with fewer new solutions to problems.
Now, ask yourself where you get better care; is it at the very expensive private hospitals, or the public hospitals? Knowing the answer is the private hospitals, ask yourself why someone would spend 8 years in school, followed by residency, etc., to get the same pay they'd get if they were an Army doctor (you know what they call the folks who get D's in medical school? They call them "Doctor", but it's almost always "LT" in there somewhere, too).
Every aspect of it is bad. You lose freedom. You lose more money. You lose quality of care. You lose competent doctors. You lose innovation into new techniques or drugs. You gain unnecessary bureaucracy, cost, and restrictions. You gain time between finding a medical issue and getting a solution.
It IS an option, of course...one that has saved me easily $100,00 over the many years since I stopped wasting money on health insurance. ;-)And, what about those who choose to not have insurance? Should that not be an option?
Sounds like a fun gamble till it's not.It IS an option, of course...one that has saved me easily $100,00 over the many years since I stopped wasting money on health insurance. ;-)
All of lifes' a gamble, Smokey.Sounds like a fun gamble till it's not.
Well, I said a lot of things so I don't know which you mean by "this" (in "if this is true").If this is true why do other developed countries on single payer receive better care while paying less, while having everyone covered.
I have a step daughter in law who lives in England...she would strongly disagree with you. While she was living in the USA, she was amazed at how quickly she could get doctor and dentist appointments as well as pediatrician appointments for her daughter.If this is true why do other developed countries on single payer receive better care while paying less, while having everyone covered.
I have a step daughter in law who lives in England...she would strongly disagree with you. While she was living in the USA, she was amazed at how quickly she could get doctor and dentist appointments as well as pediatrician appointments for her daughter.
All of lifes' a gamble, Smokey.
Nut up.
The public education system failed to teach him he lives in a republic.
Well, ya see now? We are a representative Republic, where the elected government gets its authority from the consent of the governed. And since education in this Nation is for crap now, what there is, is a whole bunch of 'implied consent' going on. 'Implied', because people are uneducated, and unwilling, or too scared, to stand up, en mass, to their elected representatives, and say 'No Effing Way Asshats!' So they just go along to get along making it seem that it is the majority's wishful informed consent to go along with the healthcare BS. When in actuality it is the well informed non-consenting majority that are standing up and making arguments against the BS. But the MSM only runs with the 'implied consent' ignorantes opinions to give the appearance of true consent allowing government to go where it has no business going.That's not how it works, everyone has to be in. Collective bargaining power. That's how countries like Canada are able to negotiate such low prices for drugs.
View attachment 141693
I'd do a bit more research into that resource.
Seems they were funded by Philip-Morris and Koch.
They would have a vested interest in swaying policy.
I know your buddy is anecdotal evidence but you should ask him if would switch to American style healthcare.
Where is the liberty when you are tied to a job for health insurance. Where is the liberty in being raked over the coals by crazy premiums. Where is the liberty in watching children die because care is cutting into some CEOs profit margins.
Works for every other first world country and we end up spending more for less care.