I'm hoping this won't devolve into a discussion of the Affordable Healthcare Act (so-called "Obamacare"). Let's do that under a more specific topic.
Rather let's discuss the current system in America, what's wrong with it and what's right, whether it needs fixing, and how to fix it. Non-Americans are encouraged to chime in.
Here's my take:
1) There is no healthcare system on a national level beyond Medicare and Medicaid. Any other systems are local to some degree or other.
2) Pretty much everyone who doesn't have their head up their hind end can see that the current way of handling healthcare is not sustainable. within a decade or two, assuming costs continue to rise, healthcare will become unaffordable for most Americans.
3) Healthcare isn't a normal market where competition functions to lower cost. Yes, insurance companies exclude certain high-risk, high-cost people in an effort to maximize their profits and keep their rates down. However, that doesn't work because for the excluded people the local ER becomes the primary care provider. Somebody has to pay for this care, so it's passed along to the people who are insured through their insurance company. This is one reason why hospital Tylenol can cost $25. The marketplace actually RAISES costs.
4) Do you think it's ethical to throw 30+ million under the healthcare bus in order to keep rates low for those with insurance, especially considering that it ends up (as explained in the 3rd point) making costs higher anyway.
5) 30+ million people need affordable healthcare, and indigents need free healthcare. Is it so bad to have socialized healthcare for them, especially if it will function to bring costs down for the rest?
Wow, powerful words, wonderfully put together, and such an important message - thumbs up X 10!
Thank you very much Heather!
Beyond this, I'm not going to bother wasting my time responding to you. I do this not only because the rambling, incoherent jumble of letters you assembled above makes absolutely no sense and does not lend itself to response, but also because I fail to see any point in involving myself in a conversation with someone who doesn't seem to have a basic grasp of spelling, grammar, punctuation, or the ability to assemble a reasoned rebuttal but still nonetheless seems to think they can debate public policy.
ur argument with the number of around $19000 makes the person eligible for medicaid where he can get the medical insurance and pharmaceuticals for FREE. using emotional rants like that don't serve any purpose. look at this from washington state. http://www.basichealth.hca.wa.gov/
Ur rant above reminded me of fox news people who used gay marriage and said quotes like if u let 2 guys or gals get married, who is going to stop a guy from getting married to a goat.
hope this makes more sense to u.
Please let whatever it is wear off and try to express some actual thoughts in actual sentences. And maybe drop the chatspeak in favor of normal English bcuz it makes u seem like ur 13 yrs old. Most people won't take a 13 year old seriously when it comes to discussing public policy.
This isn't a question of business or economy...
I disagree in the sense that a minimum standard of health care for all people lowers future costs, both for treatment and a worker's production.
Can you expand on this thought?
Sure. Preventative care, and less sick days.
We want to detect and treat E. coli before it takes out the kidneys; detect certain cancers before they require major surgery or intensive care on a death bed; have a reasonably accessible infrastructure in place to detect epidemics as soon as possible; make sure people's teeth are clean and healthy before they require repair or removal; get the infant mortality rate back down again, like it was when we used to lead the world in those statistics; treat a kid's chronic ear infection before it causes deafness. And so on.
I'm still not getting it, but maybe it was me that wasn't succinct enough: I know that this debate affects the economy and business, I'm just saying that is not even remotely important to the debate. If businesses and economies are negatively affected by the change to a health care system that resembles something sensible (which the majority of the industrialized world has managed to get their economies and businesses through), they're the things that need to change. It isn't about whether they're comfortable or not because it's not a question of business or economy.
I'm still not too sure when we decided "it will affect business" became some sort of gold-plated, bulletproof response anytime someone wants to change something anyway, so that argument doesn't hold a lot of water with me. I feel like if some company was piping toxic sludge through my backyard and I made a big deal out of it, out would come the pouty business class, whining about how not dumping toxic sludge into my backyard would affect their bottom line. I really couldn't give a toss whether it affects their bottom line, the health of the populace is not some sort of calculation on a spreadsheet.
Haunter - RE: "the health of the populace is not some sort of calculation on a spreadsheet."
While I agree, I predict a future time when the cost of keeping someone alive and healthy will be weighed against that person's potential for future contributions, and a decision made accordingly. As the world's population growth runs rampantly unchecked, the value of a single life will mean less and less.
In all of the philosophies, of all of the philosophers who ever lived, none have ever faced an overcrowded earth, running out of resources, so no philosophical precedent has ever been set for what is looming in this planet's future.
That said, who's for ice cream?!
I'm still not too sure when we decided "it will affect business" became some sort of gold-plated, bulletproof response anytime someone wants to change something anyway, so that argument doesn't hold a lot of water with me.
I don't know exactly when, but at some point our legislators started listening very closely to people who gave them campaign money. And at some point after that, they started working for those people as much or more than for the electorate.