Besides being wrong, you are still missing the point
1. They are not the same. You are required to have liability which is to cover damages you cause. Not injury to yourself as healthcare coverage does.
They simply are not the same thing.
2. You are also wrong as you can drive a motor vehicle without insurance on your own property.
United Health care is leaving the exchange. BCBS is going to limit it to certain counties.
"UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield are the only health-care insurers that sold marketplace plans in every Arizona county this year. If Blue Cross Blue Shield also drops marketplace plans in some rural counties, it could leave consumers in those counties without a way to get subsidized health-care insurance.
One of Arizona's largest health-care insurers to exit marketplace; second could follow
imo, Obamacare has been a train wreck. Less coverage and higher premiums.
Obamacare has been a train wreck, but it wasn't designed to fix any problems. Just shuffle money around and mandate that people buy a faulty product.
Doesn't matter one bit who you think can save money or not. Spinning the argument doesn't change the underlying basis of the facts.Paul saves money and gets greater access to healthcare, as does Peter. Peter is still paying as well, just not as much (as is Paul).
less money for and greater access to healthcare is what can be achieved through proper use of nationalized healthcare.
I already provided you example of what healthcare would be covered under general welfare.Just an opinion, you've given not proof that it is an invalid argument.
No. Healthcare is not needed for you to live your natural life.and now that healthcare has aggregated to such levels of technology and sophistication it has and prices are where they are and that everyone has the right to life, under general welfare we can make a nationalized healthcare system that ultimately saves the People money and allows them better access to our healthcare system. Improving quality of life and individual liberty.
1. Irrelevant.Peter and Paul both make out well.
Just like the broken promise of you can keep your plan and doctors.
Yes it is wrong, as it is not the same thing in scope or coverage.It's not wrong. Car insurance is a form of insurance mandated by government. To use your vehicle on the public roads, you must have it, regardless of whether it is something you own or not.
Wrong.The main difference between car insurance and health insurance is the overall cost of the system.
1 Lame argument as they are not the same thing.Car insurance is easier to handle on the private side because the costs of fixing/replacing cars is far lower than that of healthcare. We already aggregate car insurance over everyone, this is done via government mandate. So a less complex and less expensive insurance system is already under mandate from government.
Not your or the government's business.With nationalized health insurance, you can aggregate risk and costs over all the People, thus lowering costs and increasing accessibility of healthcare.
Oy Vey!Nobody exists in a vacuum, people being sick or dying can affect us all through costs and insurance premiums.
Increasing the population we're able to aggregate over helps not only to offset the costs by having more people to pool from, but also with greater access comes reduction in costs as well. It's easier and cheaper to treat cancer when it's caught early.
We do not have to have that. Especially as we can see what it has lead to and the difficulties that then exist with trying to eliminate it.We already have forms of nationalized healthcare. We have medicade and medicare systems for specific groups of folk,
Not really.but also we have the ER. The ER cannot turn down anyone, regardless of ability to pay. Those who can't pay...the taxpayer eats the cost. So we're already doing it.
Things aggregated to far lower values and size. There's plenty private business can do, but it cannot do everything. Healthcare has aggregated itself to such large levels, financially and universally across the People. The current insurance system isn't working, it's produced a system that is amongst the most expensive and most exclusive in the modern world.
Yes, government mandates that you have car insurance. You cannot drive a car without it.
The current system of insurance is, indeed, one reason why costs have become inflated. The poor regulations, the improper regulations, on insurance are one of the reasons that happened. It doesn't mean there should be zero regulation, there needs to be proper regulation. What we have now obviously, and measurable, doesn't work.
If it is about access/affordability for those among us you are actually arguing for, then start a non-profit insurance agency where all of you who are like minded can support those you want covered as well.
If You wont do it because you know it isn't a tenable solution to get what you want, so instead you want to wrongly burden everyone else.
If 1. Irrelevant.
2. Against choice.
3. Still taking from one to give to another.
Less we save the aggregate people money by aggregating risks and costs over the whole. Then people can end up paying less for and having more access to healthcare. Part of the reason government exists is general welfare.
Our insurance and healthcare system clearly do not work well at this point. America has the highest costs and lowest accessibility to healthcare than any other advanced nation.
it's the same system and dynamics as insurance. there are plenty of places where we have government mandates for insurance, including car insurance and now health insurance. You for ending car insurance as well? And have you tried going without medical insurance? The prices have over inflated to ridiculous values. It's one reason we have insurance, but the system hasn't been regulated well and thus it's exploded into the mess that we have currently. An intelligently designed nationalized healthcare system can lower the costs of healthcare while increasing the access to it for everyone.
Should have done this right, should have had a public option.
We could benefit the people greatly by a real National Healthcare System...but that won't net the Republocrats profit, so we will never get it.
No, nothing is more detrimental to society then enforced reliance on Government. This is a bad idea on a number of fronts, the least of which being cost.
It would be cheaper. All modern countries that have some form of nationalized healthcare overall pay less for and have better access to healthcare.
There is no enforced reliance on government, government is merely a tool to achieve these ends given its size, stability, and ability to aggregate over very large populations and financial obligation.
Then move to one of THOSE countries and don't try to force you views of morality on me.
No. What a fascist thing to say "My way, or move out". It's America, I am free to pursue political agendas and support candidates who will bring about those ends. If you want political censorship, why don't you move to China? Don't force your view of morality on me. haha
\Should have done this right, should have had a public option.
We could benefit the people greatly by a real National Healthcare System...but that won't net the Republocrats profit, so we will never get it.
Our insurance and healthcare system clearly do not work well at this point. America has the highest costs and lowest accessibility to healthcare than any other advanced nation.
it's the same system and dynamics as insurance. there are plenty of places where we have government mandates for insurance, including car insurance and now health insurance. You for ending car insurance as well? And have you tried going without medical insurance? The prices have over inflated to ridiculous values. It's one reason we have insurance, but the system hasn't been regulated well and thus it's exploded into the mess that we have currently. An intelligently designed nationalized healthcare system can lower the costs of healthcare while increasing the access to it for everyone.
No one but the individual should be responsible for their healthcare.
It would be cheaper. All modern countries that have some form of nationalized healthcare overall pay less for and have better access to healthcare.
There is no enforced reliance on government, government is merely a tool to achieve these ends given its size, stability, and ability to aggregate over very large populations and financial obligation.
You want to enslave me into a healthcare system that I have no choice but to participate in, taking my income to fund your desired system.
And you call ME Facist. Get a mirror buddy.
Except we score among the highest in healthcare. In things like timeliness of care and effectiveness of care.
For most americans.. the 90% that are insured.. a national healthcare program would be a decrease in coverage for them.
I was just handing back what you were dishing out Mr. "Go move somewhere else if you don't like what I like".
I'm not looking to "enslave" anyone. Just pay less money for while gaining more access to healthcare.
UHC and other Government imposed systems where in unelected bureaucrats control your well being, choices and you cannot escape from is fundamentally repulsive. That is what UHC is.
Unelected bureaucrats making choices for you, you are forced to adhere to with no escape, no choice and forced to pay under penalty.
I fail to see the value in any of that.
Actually, modern nations that have some form of UHC typically post lower healthcare costs and better access to healthcare than we have in America. I'd call paying less for more has intrinsic value to it.
It's an illusion. You pay for it in taxation and lower economic freedom for the false belief you are being saved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?