The Healthcare Debate: Intro

...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Health
• Care
• HR3200
• Obama
• Obamacare
• national
• insurance
• act

[unassumption]

Interesting to see someone presenting a dispassionate libertarian alternative to universal healthcare.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

I pretty much had to. Everyone coming out heavly to one side and with no fariness to the issue.

[Mjhavok]

With the amount the USA pays for health care it should be what some Republican talk heads think it already is, the best in the world. The USA has the best if you are rich. for sure. America has great technology and pioneered some of it but in the WHO report the USA was 37th. You spend the most per capita in the world and come out at 37th. It is an atrocity.

[abaddon5]

There will always be problems with any healthcare system. But universal healthcare would solve many problems.

[abaddon5]

Leviticus 19:27

And to this, God sayeth "Go suck a cock".

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Of course it has some benefits but no system is perfect.

[abaddon5]

Yeah, you usually have to wait unless it's a dire emergency. Nathanforst is the best example of a Canadian who LOVES the healthcare his country gives him. Yes, he has to wait for things, but you have to wait for things here as well.

[zthustra]

I don't know why, but I missed these two intro videos. It doesn't change my disagreements with your other videos, but it goes a long way toward understanding where you are coming from.

I'll stop trying to tell you that H.R.3200 isn't Universal Health Care (i.e. national health insurance and/or national health delivery).

I agree that it is unfair to say that a fee market wouldn't work. We don't have one and we don't even know what it looks like. I think a real free market would work.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Yeah, instead of just dropping you they will go, "Oh, sorry, fresh out. You will just have to wait your turn." The government has the uncanny ability to take plenty and turn it into a storage.

[abaddon5]

Exactly. The more people you insure, the cheaper it becomes. That's especially true if the healthcare provider isn't doing it for profit, i.e. the government. Even if you have a lot of people being covered at an insurance company, actually paying out means that you're losing profit. Healthcare companies drop people all the time because of bullshit reasons. The government wouldn't.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Because of current restrictions. The more people you insure, the easier it becomes to pay. But if the states (or HR 3200), decided what is going to be in YOUR plain then you cannot pick a cheaper one or pick a company you want to pick from. And so, insurance is not going to be cheep, which cause more to be uninsured, which causes it not to be cheep....

[abaddon5]

That's my point. We pay them to give us healthcare, but they don't want to pay for it. It's not profitable to actually pay out.