If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[danielpalos]

You Only need Ten Commandments if everything is that simple.

Those are the powers delegated to Congress via our federal Constitution.

Yes, and they are specific. Tell us where the right to healthcare exists.

Providing healthcare provides for the general welfare.

There is no, common Offense clause nor any general Warfare clause.

Your interpretation does not make heathcare into a right. Sorry.

Yes, it does. All Congress has to do is stand around and take voice votes to have any Act enacted as Law in our republic.

The right wing, and You in particular, are simply clueless and Causeless.

Let me give you one last clue before I dismiss your stupid ass.

Rights do not come from government.

Good bye idiot.

You really are, just clueless and Causeless. And, you have no arguments to Prove it.

 

[PredFan]

No, it isn't. Prove me wrong, give us the words.

Yes, it is. You merely have lousy reading comprehension and repeal. Coincidence or conspiracy?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I knew you would post that, that has been debunked many times already. It is merely your interpretation of "general welfare". I knew you couldn't prove what isn't true.

That proves it. You have show how health care does not provide for the general welfare.

Wrong idiot. You are claiming it's a right, YOU have to prove it. You have failed so far.

Only idiots resort to emotionalism. Providing healthcare promotes the general welfare.

Again, you simply stating the opposite isn't proof. You haven't been able to prove it's a right and your automatic gain saying is giving me a headache. Stay stupid, I don't care. Dismissed.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. You merely have lousy reading comprehension and repeal. Coincidence or conspiracy?

I knew you would post that, that has been debunked many times already. It is merely your interpretation of "general welfare". I knew you couldn't prove what isn't true.

That proves it. You have show how health care does not provide for the general welfare.

Wrong idiot. You are claiming it's a right, YOU have to prove it. You have failed so far.

Only idiots resort to emotionalism. Providing healthcare promotes the general welfare.

Again, you simply stating the opposite isn't proof. You haven't been able to prove it's a right and your automatic gain saying is giving me a headache. Stay stupid, I don't care. Dismissed.

How is our Second Amendment, enforced?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Imagine if you lived in the UK. You'd probably be paying around 8% of your wages, and you'd get healthcare whether you were working or not. And you don't want this? You could go get private healthcare and still be under 25% of your wages and have higher quality healthcare.

Imagine Democrats had passed single payer instead of ACA. Imagine Trump and his basket of deplorables in charge of your health care. Go team!

Either way, I could be paying a lot of money for a healthcare system, or I could be paying a lot of money for nothing, which is better? The NHS is still better than nothing.

You assume 'nothing' is the only alternative to government control. You create your own false dilemma and then crow about it.

You haven't got back to me on my other posts which clearly show US people pay MORE in taxes to the US federal govt for healthcare they don't receive than the British people pay for healthcare which they do.

Because it's irrelevant data to me. I don't usually get involved in the debates over efficiency when it comes to public policy for that reason. Many things could be made more efficient by strict authoritarian control over our personal decisions - but that's not the kind of world I want to live in. You could prove to me, beyond any doubt, that our society would benefit from reinstituting slavery, and I would still oppose it. You could show me how making government the sole provider of food and housing would radically improve my personal and financial health, but I would still think it's a bad idea. Crime could be radically reduced if people weren't allowed to leave their home without permission from government. Same thing.

It seems like socialists hold a persistent conception of government as a universally benign force that can be trusted with everything we hold dear. And even in the face of outrageous evidence to the contrary, they will continue to propose that we give up more and more of our personal freedoms in the name of that delusion. I ain't buyin.

Assume? What else is there then?

You pay taxes in the US and you get nothing from that healthcare, whereas in the UK you get full coverage. Am I missing something? Or do you have nothing to say in response, so you just decide to attack with vague nonsense.

Let's try this. In the US, you pay MORE in taxes to the Federal govt than British people do to their govt for healthcare. What does your average middle class worker get out of that in the US compared to the UK?

It's IRRELEVANT? What the fuck? Sod it, if you're not going to have a proper conversation, if you're going to ignore everything that isn't convenient, I'm not doing this. Bye. If you want to continue this conversation, then i expect you to be sensible.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

Imagine if you lived in the UK. You'd probably be paying around 8% of your wages, and you'd get healthcare whether you were working or not. And you don't want this? You could go get private healthcare and still be under 25% of your wages and have higher quality healthcare.

My main concern is the power you'd be giving government if you allowed them to control your healthcare.

Let's take Commie Care for instance. They created law that an insurance company cannot charge you higher rates if you have a preexisting condition. But they can if the applicant uses tobacco products. Democrats are against tobacco products. You have to purchase a plan that has birth control, but you don't have to include life sustaining prescriptions such as what I use.

See how it's all about politics? And that's what happens when you give government the power to control something as serious like healthcare.

What I'm saying is that lets say we went to a government run system, and eventually the Democrats get control over all three branches. You don't think they would use that control to get you to do what they want?

For instance, you can still own a gun since it's constitutionally protected, but you must pay higher rates because you own a gun. Or maybe cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes are legal, but you have to pay higher rates if you smoke. If you weigh too much? Higher rates again.

Democrats love to control people by taking their money if you don't march in lockstep. If you don't have health insurance because you can't afford it, then they will keep your income tax refund check. See how it works now?

Democrats are not to be trusted--never will. Democrats are power hungry control freaks and yes, they would use government healthcare to promote that power to push their political agenda.

Oh, I understand that totally.

But if you're worried about the govt, then you should also be worried about private companies being able to control you. I certainly am. Buying healthcare annoys me greatly because I know I'm being conned.

Now, the deal here is, how can you have a system where you're protected no matter what? Where you get healthcare no matter who is in government etc? Govt can control healthcare regardless of whether they run healthcare or not.

In some countries there are not for profit health insurance companies that work in tandem with the govt. People buy their healthcare from these companies. But then again the govt can change regulation at will. The only real solution is that people can buy healthcare insurance that lasts for a lifetime, and they pay into this healthcare insurance somehow, and that this can never be taken away from them. But even then a govt could find ways of taking it away. It doesn't really matter whether you have a private system or a state run system.

So we're just left to worry, and worry, and worry about this, aren't we?

Yes, I see how politics gets in.
Pre-existing conditions, however, aren't a choice. Tobacco is a choice. Do you see the difference there? Yes, you might see politics playing a part, however your choice of example is poor.

In the UK you have the NHS, govt run, one of the biggest employers on the planet. The Tory govt is fucking with the NHS, it's getting worse. But the people have a choice, they can vote the Tories out, and did so in 1997 and would have done so this year had Corbyn not been leader of Labour. People have the choice to rescue their healthcare from the politicians.

With private companies, you can choose which dick is going to fuck you up the ass, that's your choice.

As for your rant about Democrats, your partisan nonsense bores me and I didn't bother even reading it. I'm here to discuss the issues, not play bullshit partisan politics.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

Imagine if you lived in the UK. You'd probably be paying around 8% of your wages, and you'd get healthcare whether you were working or not. And you don't want this? You could go get private healthcare and still be under 25% of your wages and have higher quality healthcare.

My main concern is the power you'd be giving government if you allowed them to control your healthcare.

Let's take Commie Care for instance. They created law that an insurance company cannot charge you higher rates if you have a preexisting condition. But they can if the applicant uses tobacco products. Democrats are against tobacco products. You have to purchase a plan that has birth control, but you don't have to include life sustaining prescriptions such as what I use.

See how it's all about politics? And that's what happens when you give government the power to control something as serious like healthcare.

What I'm saying is that lets say we went to a government run system, and eventually the Democrats get control over all three branches. You don't think they would use that control to get you to do what they want?

For instance, you can still own a gun since it's constitutionally protected, but you must pay higher rates because you own a gun. Or maybe cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes are legal, but you have to pay higher rates if you smoke. If you weigh too much? Higher rates again.

Democrats love to control people by taking their money if you don't march in lockstep. If you don't have health insurance because you can't afford it, then they will keep your income tax refund check. See how it works now?

Democrats are not to be trusted--never will. Democrats are power hungry control freaks and yes, they would use government healthcare to promote that power to push their political agenda.

We have a democrat agent hiding under your bed, Ray, and he is recording everything that goes on in your house.

 

[Vandalshandle]

BTW. I was turned down for a job once, at a health insurance company, because the CEO was an old friend of mine, and he knew that I smoked. Since he was the one who put that rule in, he could not make an exception for me. He was a hard core republican.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

Imagine if you lived in the UK. You'd probably be paying around 8% of your wages, and you'd get healthcare whether you were working or not. And you don't want this? You could go get private healthcare and still be under 25% of your wages and have higher quality healthcare.

My main concern is the power you'd be giving government if you allowed them to control your healthcare.

Let's take Commie Care for instance. They created law that an insurance company cannot charge you higher rates if you have a preexisting condition. But they can if the applicant uses tobacco products. Democrats are against tobacco products. You have to purchase a plan that has birth control, but you don't have to include life sustaining prescriptions such as what I use.

See how it's all about politics? And that's what happens when you give government the power to control something as serious like healthcare.

What I'm saying is that lets say we went to a government run system, and eventually the Democrats get control over all three branches. You don't think they would use that control to get you to do what they want?

For instance, you can still own a gun since it's constitutionally protected, but you must pay higher rates because you own a gun. Or maybe cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes are legal, but you have to pay higher rates if you smoke. If you weigh too much? Higher rates again.

Democrats love to control people by taking their money if you don't march in lockstep. If you don't have health insurance because you can't afford it, then they will keep your income tax refund check. See how it works now?

Democrats are not to be trusted--never will. Democrats are power hungry control freaks and yes, they would use government healthcare to promote that power to push their political agenda.

We have a democrat agent hiding under your bed, Ray, and he is recording everything that goes on in your house.

I wouldn't put it past them, that's for sure:

Putin: I envy Obama, because he can 'spy' and get away with it

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

Not at all, and it had nothing to do with our insurance not being to ACA standards because I work for a small company of under 50 employees. We are exempt from those standards.

My employer dropped insurance because Commie Care gave him the ability to do so without losing all of his workers. That wasn't possible before Commie Care because many of our employees would have left for companies that still had insurance.

Until Commie Care came along, I had insurance all of my life and I have preexisting conditions. Okay, so go find another job! Not so easy in your mid 50's as it is in your mid 20's. The jobs I did call all said the same thing, they too dropped coverage for their employees. So keep looking until you find a company that has health insurance! Okay, even if I could do that, and I start with a new company at the bottom of the ladder, what's stopping them from dropping their insurance a year or two after I take the job? Nothing, because we have Commie Care now.

So I'm in a bad position. Commie Care wants 25% of my net pay to get insurance, and it's not even insurance really. There is only one plan for me to keep my healthcare facility, and it comes with a $7,000 deductible and a $7,100 out of pocket. There is no prescription, no dental, no eye care, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

Like I said, Commie Care was designed for Democrat voters--low wage workers, and it's the middle income people that get screwed because there are many more Republican voters who are middle-class. A french fry maker can get insurance for fifty bucks a month but middle-income workers would get the same plan for $700.00 a month. It's was a vote buying scam right from the beginning. Take care of Democrat voters and let Republican voters die off.

Imagine if you lived in the UK. You'd probably be paying around 8% of your wages, and you'd get healthcare whether you were working or not. And you don't want this? You could go get private healthcare and still be under 25% of your wages and have higher quality healthcare.

My main concern is the power you'd be giving government if you allowed them to control your healthcare.

Let's take Commie Care for instance. They created law that an insurance company cannot charge you higher rates if you have a preexisting condition. But they can if the applicant uses tobacco products. Democrats are against tobacco products. You have to purchase a plan that has birth control, but you don't have to include life sustaining prescriptions such as what I use.

See how it's all about politics? And that's what happens when you give government the power to control something as serious like healthcare.

What I'm saying is that lets say we went to a government run system, and eventually the Democrats get control over all three branches. You don't think they would use that control to get you to do what they want?

For instance, you can still own a gun since it's constitutionally protected, but you must pay higher rates because you own a gun. Or maybe cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes are legal, but you have to pay higher rates if you smoke. If you weigh too much? Higher rates again.

Democrats love to control people by taking their money if you don't march in lockstep. If you don't have health insurance because you can't afford it, then they will keep your income tax refund check. See how it works now?

Democrats are not to be trusted--never will. Democrats are power hungry control freaks and yes, they would use government healthcare to promote that power to push their political agenda.

We have a democrat agent hiding under your bed, Ray, and he is recording everything that goes on in your house.

I wouldn't put it past them, that's for sure:

Putin: I envy Obama, because he can 'spy' and get away with it

Spare me.........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, I understand that totally.

But if you're worried about the govt, then you should also be worried about private companies being able to control you. I certainly am. Buying healthcare annoys me greatly because I know I'm being conned.

The difference between private and government is private competes and offer choices--government does not. It all depends on who is in charge at the time, but like we've seen with Commie Care, a lot of damage can take place in a short amount of time, and to change it back is sometimes impossible. If you don't like your private insurance or their regulations, you make two phone calls and the switch is made.

In some countries there are not for profit health insurance companies that work in tandem with the govt. People buy their healthcare from these companies. But then again the govt can change regulation at will. The only real solution is that people can buy healthcare insurance that lasts for a lifetime, and they pay into this healthcare insurance somehow, and that this can never be taken away from them. But even then a govt could find ways of taking it away. It doesn't really matter whether you have a private system or a state run system.

Government is in more control over changing things if they run it than if the private sector runs it.

Yes, I see how politics gets in.
Pre-existing conditions, however, aren't a choice. Tobacco is a choice. Do you see the difference there? Yes, you might see politics playing a part, however your choice of example is poor.

I didn't provide you an example, I provided several.

Tobacco is a choice for some just like narcotics. Some can quit and others can't. I know people who have spent a month or so in the hospital or jail, they came right back out and smoked. I know a few people that spent time in prison; some for over five years, when they came out, they started using drugs again.

Now ask yourself what party inflicts the most sin taxes in America? I'll give you a hint: it's the control freak party.

As for your rant about Democrats, your partisan nonsense bores me and I didn't bother even reading it. I'm here to discuss the issues, not play bullshit partisan politics.

Partisan politics is politics unless you wish to put the palms of your hands to your ears and sing aloud. Of course you ignore it because you can't defend it.

 

[dblack]

My main concern is the power you'd be giving government if you allowed them to control your healthcare.

Oh, I understand that totally.

You really, really don't. What you fall to see is the radical difference between state power and economic power. You won't understand what we're worried about until you comprehend that difference, and understand what we give up when we make ourselves dependent on the state for our necessities.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, I understand that totally.

But if you're worried about the govt, then you should also be worried about private companies being able to control you. I certainly am. Buying healthcare annoys me greatly because I know I'm being conned.

The difference between private and government is private competes and offer choices--government does not. It all depends on who is in charge at the time, but like we've seen with Commie Care, a lot of damage can take place in a short amount of time, and to change it back is sometimes impossible. If you don't like your private insurance or their regulations, you make two phone calls and the switch is made.

In some countries there are not for profit health insurance companies that work in tandem with the govt. People buy their healthcare from these companies. But then again the govt can change regulation at will. The only real solution is that people can buy healthcare insurance that lasts for a lifetime, and they pay into this healthcare insurance somehow, and that this can never be taken away from them. But even then a govt could find ways of taking it away. It doesn't really matter whether you have a private system or a state run system.

Government is in more control over changing things if they run it than if the private sector runs it.

Yes, I see how politics gets in.
Pre-existing conditions, however, aren't a choice. Tobacco is a choice. Do you see the difference there? Yes, you might see politics playing a part, however your choice of example is poor.

I didn't provide you an example, I provided several.

Tobacco is a choice for some just like narcotics. Some can quit and others can't. I know people who have spent a month or so in the hospital or jail, they came right back out and smoked. I know a few people that spent time in prison; some for over five years, when they came out, they started using drugs again.

Now ask yourself what party inflicts the most sin taxes in America? I'll give you a hint: it's the control freak party.

As for your rant about Democrats, your partisan nonsense bores me and I didn't bother even reading it. I'm here to discuss the issues, not play bullshit partisan politics.

Partisan politics is politics unless you wish to put the palms of your hands to your ears and sing aloud. Of course you ignore it because you can't defend it.

How many insurance companies offer the choice of healthcare for pre-existing conditions at affordable prices? Er... none.

What choice do you get in the US?

You don't get the choice of paying taxes, and you pay MORE in taxes for healthcare than the British do.

The Brits have a choice. They can pay their taxes and pay more for private, whereas in the US you pay taxes and then have to pay for insurance on top whether you like it or not.

What choices do you get in the US that you don't get in the UK?

As I've said with healthcare, even if you have a US system where it's all private insurance companies going around fucking poor people over, the govt can STILL come along and change the regulations, can't they? Obama's done it, Trump's trying to do it. So what?

With single payer you're at the whim of the govt, without single payer you're at the whim of the govt. What's the difference?

As for private insurers, it's not always so easy is it? Especially if you're ill. If you're ill, you're screwed and you stop having choice because the insurance companies don't like you any more, am I right?

"Government is in more control over changing things if they run it than if the private sector runs it. "

I don't really get your point here.

Some people can't or won't give up smoking.
It's funny, because you don't have a problem with private insurance companies basically telling people with pre-existing conditions to fuck off, but you DO have a problem with the govt telling people who smoke to fuck off.

What? How does that make any sense? Insurance companies ask if you smoke. They charge you more. They fuck you over. No problem. The govt does it "oh they're bad".

You know Ray, I get the distinct feeling you don't come up with your views based on whether they're right or wrong, I get the feeling you come up with your views based on what you think makes you stick to some kind of Republican rule book or something.

How do you come up with the view that pre-existing conditions and tobacco should be treated the same, but tobacco should be treated differently in government than health insurance companies?

Partisan politics is bullshit. it's about having the "right argument", it doesn't need to make sense in the real world, it just needs to sound good. But like I said, you go off on the bullshit "it's all the Democrats fault" like a broken record, then I doze off and....zzzz

 

[frigidweirdo]

My main concern is the power you'd be giving government if you allowed them to control your healthcare.

Oh, I understand that totally.

You really, really don't. What you fall to see is the radical difference between state power and economic power. You won't understand what we're worried about until you comprehend that difference, and understand what we give up when we make ourselves dependent on the state for our necessities.

So, you're telling me what I think. No, you don't get to tell me what I think.

No, I don't see the difference in power between state power and economic power.

Basically you're wrong.

 

[JBond]

Oh, I understand that totally.

But if you're worried about the govt, then you should also be worried about private companies being able to control you. I certainly am. Buying healthcare annoys me greatly because I know I'm being conned.

The difference between private and government is private competes and offer choices--government does not. It all depends on who is in charge at the time, but like we've seen with Commie Care, a lot of damage can take place in a short amount of time, and to change it back is sometimes impossible. If you don't like your private insurance or their regulations, you make two phone calls and the switch is made.

In some countries there are not for profit health insurance companies that work in tandem with the govt. People buy their healthcare from these companies. But then again the govt can change regulation at will. The only real solution is that people can buy healthcare insurance that lasts for a lifetime, and they pay into this healthcare insurance somehow, and that this can never be taken away from them. But even then a govt could find ways of taking it away. It doesn't really matter whether you have a private system or a state run system.

Government is in more control over changing things if they run it than if the private sector runs it.

Yes, I see how politics gets in.
Pre-existing conditions, however, aren't a choice. Tobacco is a choice. Do you see the difference there? Yes, you might see politics playing a part, however your choice of example is poor.

I didn't provide you an example, I provided several.

Tobacco is a choice for some just like narcotics. Some can quit and others can't. I know people who have spent a month or so in the hospital or jail, they came right back out and smoked. I know a few people that spent time in prison; some for over five years, when they came out, they started using drugs again.

Now ask yourself what party inflicts the most sin taxes in America? I'll give you a hint: it's the control freak party.

As for your rant about Democrats, your partisan nonsense bores me and I didn't bother even reading it. I'm here to discuss the issues, not play bullshit partisan politics.

Partisan politics is politics unless you wish to put the palms of your hands to your ears and sing aloud. Of course you ignore it because you can't defend it.

How many insurance companies offer the choice of healthcare for pre-existing conditions at affordable prices? Er... none.

What choice do you get in the US?

You don't get the choice of paying taxes, and you pay MORE in taxes for healthcare than the British do.

The Brits have a choice. They can pay their taxes and pay more for private, whereas in the US you pay taxes and then have to pay for insurance on top whether you like it or not.

What choices do you get in the US that you don't get in the UK?

As I've said with healthcare, even if you have a US system where it's all private insurance companies going around fucking poor people over, the govt can STILL come along and change the regulations, can't they? Obama's done it, Trump's trying to do it. So what?

With single payer you're at the whim of the govt, without single payer you're at the whim of the govt. What's the difference?

As for private insurers, it's not always so easy is it? Especially if you're ill. If you're ill, you're screwed and you stop having choice because the insurance companies don't like you any more, am I right?

"Government is in more control over changing things if they run it than if the private sector runs it. "

I don't really get your point here.

Some people can't or won't give up smoking.
It's funny, because you don't have a problem with private insurance companies basically telling people with pre-existing conditions to fuck off, but you DO have a problem with the govt telling people who smoke to fuck off.

What? How does that make any sense? Insurance companies ask if you smoke. They charge you more. They fuck you over. No problem. The govt does it "oh they're bad".

You know Ray, I get the distinct feeling you don't come up with your views based on whether they're right or wrong, I get the feeling you come up with your views based on what you think makes you stick to some kind of Republican rule book or something.

How do you come up with the view that pre-existing conditions and tobacco should be treated the same, but tobacco should be treated differently in government than health insurance companies?

Partisan politics is bullshit. it's about having the "right argument", it doesn't need to make sense in the real world, it just needs to sound good. But like I said, you go off on the bullshit "it's all the Democrats fault" like a broken record, then I doze off and....zzzz

When insurance companies ask about your weight and height (no you don't have big bones). It's a real thing.

 

[Markle]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Please show the quote where anyone has said they wouldn't deserve health insurance because of "bad lifestyle decisions". Or, are you lying?

White House Budget Director Excludes Diabetics From Healthcare With 5 SHAMEFUL Words

So if a terrible diet and being overweight is the cause of Type 2 diabetes, he has a point doesn't he?

Get in touch with Ray in Cleveland. You two should get a room.

Not surprising. You have nothing but a personal insult. How mature of you!

 

[Markle]

The UK govt spends LESS per capita on healthcare than the US federal govt spends. Go figure.

Here how:

Charlie Gard's Death Sentence: The Consequences of Usurping Parental Rights
JOHN STONESTREET , CHRISTIAN POST GUEST COLUMNIST
Jul 6, 2017 | 1:03 PM
Can the government tell you when and where your child will die? For one couple in the U.K., the answer is "yes." This is a chilling precedent.

An incredibly complicated and heartbreaking life-and-death medical case has sparked an international debate: It's the case of little Charlie Gard.

[...]

Charlie Gard's Death Sentence: The Consequences of Usurping Parental Rights

In my PERSONAL OPINION, I believe the child should be taken off life support and allowed to peacefully pass away. There is no hope for the child.

At the same time, I strongly, vehemently oppose the government making the decision rather than the parents.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you have a good argument as to why those groups should be punished for doing no wrong?

Those 2 groups are unnecessary. Children can be replaced and the elderly no longer add anything to Society.

Ebenezer Srooge? Is that you?

If you want to play the villain, play it well. Otherwise you're just pitiful.

 

[Issa]

You are part of the problem. U in it for the money. The rest of the world has is better, we should learn from the best.
Healthcare staff are overpaid, treatments are overly priced.
Greed and selfishness is what's wrong with this country.

Who should go without?

Those who cannot pay for it, or receive it as a benefit for their employment.

No one should go without healthcare. It is a basic human right.

Bull shit. I'm in healthcare, you have no right to my time or my training. It's the stupidest argument coming from the left since, well, you guys say a LOT of stupid shit.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Please show the quote where anyone has said they wouldn't deserve health insurance because of "bad lifestyle decisions". Or, are you lying?

White House Budget Director Excludes Diabetics From Healthcare With 5 SHAMEFUL Words

So if a terrible diet and being overweight is the cause of Type 2 diabetes, he has a point doesn't he?

Even in the link it is explained that that is not necessarily the cause of diabetes. I have diabetes. Had it for years. I'm 5'9" and 145 pounds. Does that add up to diabetes caused by overeating?

Learn how diseases work before you decide you're opinion is anywhere close to correct.

 

[Markle]

Imagine if you lived in the UK. You'd probably be paying around 8% of your wages, Yyou'd get healthcare whether you were working or not. And you don't want this? You could go get private healthcare and still be under 25% of your wages and have higher quality healthcare.

You're just afraid to do your research, aren't you? Why do you intentionally lie about things so easily proven?

Don't forget that in Great Britain they also have a 20% Value Added Tax on most everything. Do you know what a VAT is? Just curious.

UK tax year date : 6th April 2017 - 5th April 2018

Income tax rate
2017 - 18
Starting rate for savings 0% £0 - £5,000
Basic tax rate 20% £0 - £33,500
Higher tax rate 40% Over £33,500
Additional rate 45% Over £150,000

Basic rate on dividend Income
7.50%
Higher rate on dividend income 32.50%
Additional rate on dividend income 38.10%


Income Tax Allowances
2017 - 18
Personal allowance £11,500
Income limit for age-related allowances £28,000
Married couple's allowance born before 6 April 1935 £8,455
Minimum amount of married couple's allowance £3,260
Blind person's allowance £2,320
Rent a room tax free income £7,500
Dividend allowance £5,000

Reduced tax allowances by £1 for every £2 income over £100,000

National Insurance
Between 113 and 866 per week you pay 12% above that you pay an additional 2%
2017 - 18
LEL per week £113 (Lower Earning Level)
UEL per week £866 (Upper Earning Level)
Primary Threshold per week £157
Secondary Threshold per week £157
Employee - between PT - UEL (A) 12%
Employee - Over UEL 2%
Employers class 1 over ST 13.8%
Employment Allowance £3,000

Corporate Tax
2017 - 18
All profit 19%

Capital Gains Tax
2017 - 18
Individuals 10% and 20%
Trust 20%
Qualifying Entrepreneurs' Relief 10%


UK Tax Rates 2017-18

National Insurance: How much you pay - GOV.UK

VAT rates - GOV.UK