Everyone will be forced to accept it. Even if we don't choose to use a government-managed plan (assuming a "universal" plan doesn't pass & some private options remain for a while), we'll still be burdened with paying for it with even more taxes.
Yeah, a whopping 1-2% more in taxes, ONLY ON PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE THAN $250K/YEAR. Think they'll really miss it? I don't. They just think they will.
In the Soviet Union, the government controlled all industry.
... which is not true here, and will still not be even close to true here if a public health care option is made available along side private health care.
The lesson is clear. The more government-controlled the economy, the more impoverished & miserable life is. The more free the economy, the healthier & more enjoyable living is. Increasingly, I'd tend to put America in the former category rather than the latter.
But what does this have to do with offering a public health care option? NOTHING. Lok at Canada. Look at the UK (where despite your ONE bad anecdote regarding the ambulance, most of the people say they LOVE the NHS, including Stephen Hawking). Hell, look at most of the developed world, which is doing better than the US in terms of health care results. You make me laugh, whipping out clearly the one and only bad anecdote you have found a second time. Put that away, and go speak with some British people.
To respond to your other item, I think the public healthcare "option" is a fallacy. The reason is that government and market mechanisms cannot coexist for long.
Funny, because somehow it works out fine elsewhere in the developed world. The UK is a good example of a two-tiered health care system that runs pretty smoothly.
where a bureaucrat at the government-run hospital decided she didn't need one
... and this is worse than a health insurance "bureaucrat" deciding millions of people are uninsurable because of preexisting medical conditions how, exactly?
a whopping 1-2% more in taxes, ONLY ON PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE THAN $250K/YEAR
The tax increase will ultimately be much more than that; politicians always underestimate the costs when they're campaigning for a new program. And if you think only the wealthy will be affected, then you do not have the proper skepticism of government.
As an example, in 1916, Congress instituted the Personal Income Tax. At the time they promised it would only affect the richest 2%. Naturally, 98% thought this was a great idea, which is why it passed. Well ... do you know anyone who doesn't pay an income tax today? This is how they shoehorn things in; once people get suckered into accepting it, they can expand it far beyond what anyone anticipated.
In the Soviet Union, the government controlled all industry. ... which is not true here
Give it a few more years. Whatever healthcare legislation gets passed, it'll be another step in that direction.
Look at the UK (where despite your ONE bad anecdote regarding the ambulance, most of the people say they LOVE the NHS ... The UK is a good example of a two-tiered health care system that runs pretty smoothly.
The UK is about the worst example you could cite. Government spending is over 50% of the entire GDP, with the few remaining industries there buckling under the increasing tax burden, with many being driven out of business. The British government's costs are rising, while its tax revenue is falling. In a few years, the UK will be bankrupt. Then no one will be getting health care. I wonder how much the Brits will love the NHS then.
Yeah, a whopping 1-2% more in taxes, ONLY ON PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE THAN $250K/YEAR. Think they'll really miss it? I don't. They just think they will.
In the Soviet Union, the government controlled all industry.
... which is not true here, and will still not be even close to true here if a public health care option is made available along side private health care.
The lesson is clear. The more government-controlled the economy, the more impoverished & miserable life is. The more free the economy, the healthier & more enjoyable living is. Increasingly, I'd tend to put America in the former category rather than the latter.
But what does this have to do with offering a public health care option? NOTHING. Lok at Canada. Look at the UK (where despite your ONE bad anecdote regarding the ambulance, most of the people say they LOVE the NHS, including Stephen Hawking). Hell, look at most of the developed world, which is doing better than the US in terms of health care results. You make me laugh, whipping out clearly the one and only bad anecdote you have found a second time. Put that away, and go speak with some British people.
To respond to your other item, I think the public healthcare "option" is a fallacy. The reason is that government and market mechanisms cannot coexist for long.
Funny, because somehow it works out fine elsewhere in the developed world. The UK is a good example of a two-tiered health care system that runs pretty smoothly.
where a bureaucrat at the government-run hospital decided she didn't need one
... and this is worse than a health insurance "bureaucrat" deciding millions of people are uninsurable because of preexisting medical conditions how, exactly?
Reply
The tax increase will ultimately be much more than that; politicians always underestimate the costs when they're campaigning for a new program. And if you think only the wealthy will be affected, then you do not have the proper skepticism of government.
As an example, in 1916, Congress instituted the Personal Income Tax. At the time they promised it would only affect the richest 2%. Naturally, 98% thought this was a great idea, which is why it passed. Well ... do you know anyone who doesn't pay an income tax today? This is how they shoehorn things in; once people get suckered into accepting it, they can expand it far beyond what anyone anticipated.
In the Soviet Union, the government controlled all industry. ... which is not true here
Give it a few more years. Whatever healthcare legislation gets passed, it'll be another step in that direction.
Look at the UK (where despite your ONE bad anecdote regarding the ambulance, most of the people say they LOVE the NHS ... The UK is a good example of a two-tiered health care system that runs pretty smoothly.
The UK is about the worst example you could cite. Government spending is over 50% of the entire GDP, with the few remaining industries there buckling under the increasing tax burden, with many being driven out of business. The British government's costs are rising, while its tax revenue is falling. In a few years, the UK will be bankrupt. Then no one will be getting health care. I wonder how much the Brits will love the NHS then.
And here's a second anecdote. How would you like to pull out your own teeth with pliers or fix your own crowns with glue because the NHS is failing.
Need any more anecdotes?
Reply
Leave a comment