Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
In thos situations its great, but in certain situations its a pain in the ass, like on healthcare. We can claim up and down that we believe anythings possible, and we can make things work, and yet we're 29th in the world in Infant mortality. We refuse to fix healthcare because of our representitives political interests.
And when we finally get a president willing, and a champion dying of a brain tumor and we're really going to get there this time, everyone goes to the talking points. Currently HMO's tell you ya can't get treatments YOU PAY FOR! Why is the government, who may be slow in the worst case scenario, faulted for being a few months behind when so many of the working poor in this country are without healthcare because the insurance they have hires people to deny their claim.
There ought to be a fire set under the ass of these polticians, and I wish I was in a state where the senators opposed this because I'd run as a third party and steal their votes. The default for conservatives seems to be that the current system is fine.
|
As a conservative in the definitional sense of the word [i.e. please don't relate me to the so-called "conservatives" in office now], I definitely see the problems in healthcare. My problem is with how they plan on going about this economically. We have a bunch of bureaucrats in office that have for the most part never run a business in their collective lives [including the potus], but have put their hands in the banks, the auto industry, and now have their eyes set on healthcare.
I stated it earlier, but my preference would be for a tiered system. Create a safety net for those uninsured which comes from another payroll tax on them and their employers [~3%] on those that cannot show proof of insurance. Put them in a no-frills system that gives preventive cares, regular Dr. Visits, and emergency care. The gov't could contact with private providers that would run low-end facilities [thin staffing, long waits, potentially bad locations] and would be kept out hugely expensive non-compensated cares.
The problem is the idea of a single payer system that is probably the end result of the government entering as they want to. They enter ostensibly as "competition" in an effort, which they will do in the end as a result of rationing. They will force out any private competition they have because no one can truly compete pricing with the government, since the gov. has shown pure faith into just taking on more and more debt with no foresight into the future.
It's not a matter of whether I want my taxes going to those less fortunate. I have no problem with that. But do it responsibly. Maybe start by repealing the stupid ass stimulus bill that hasn't done anything and more than likely won't ever, and use that $$$ for healthcare. And if they're going to refute their promise to not tax healthcare benefits, how about you don't exclude your largest voting block from the taxes [the unions]? Then from there why don't we search into the idea that the people benefitting the most from this aren't paying a dime into it and figure out a way where more than 1/3 of those working aren't paying income tax. It's funny that most the people that don't pay taxes are the one's asking those that do why they don't want to help the less fortunate.