Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hi, i'm a new user, collecting data for my paper in unviersity!

Please click in the poll, thank you very much!

Thank you very much for asking us this question.

We have quite a few conservatives posting on this site. Intelligent, educated, well-informed conservatives. If even they support a Universal Healthcare option (the poll shows that they do, most likely), you can be sure that the numbers we commonly see have some sort of skew or sampling taint that is not being picked up.

Almost everyone I know supports a Universal Healthcare option including my extremely conservative pals from Oklahoma who live in the country.


Why?

Because conservatives know about the multi-Trillion dollar Health Insurance lobbying that keeps fighting to keep a a program like "medicare for all" from being implemented.


Good luck on your research. Thanks for doing something like that! I love it!

Surely I'm one of the people DDM is talking about. As one of those people, I will say I honestly don't want anyone to be denied healthcare. Well, not any American citizen.

But it needs to be feasible, it can't be a pipe dream.

Originally posted by Surtur
Surely I'm one of the people DDM is talking about. As one of those people, I will say I honestly don't want anyone to be denied healthcare. Well, not any American citizen.

But it needs to be feasible, it can't be a pipe dream.

Everyone deserves healthcare. Everyone

Originally posted by Surtur
Surely I'm one of the people DDM is talking about. As one of those people, I will say I honestly don't want anyone to be denied healthcare. Well, not any American citizen.

But it needs to be feasible, it can't be a pipe dream.

So what would you change?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png

Cut military spending.

haermm

The Military Industrial Complex needs to end. It's no laughing matter.

Originally posted by Surtur
Cut military spending. Agreed

Yeah I'm all for cuts there, but it's important to note that discretionary spending doesn't cover the whole pie chart of government spending.

Yep. Me too.

You could close all but the most strategically geopolitically important bases around the world for a start. Spending half that budget on the military would still mean outspending the nearest rival nation by 5x

Split the rest between health, education, energy, infrastructure and science and you'd solve a considerable amount of America's problems within a generation. You'd have a healthier and better educated populace meaning less welfare spending. You'd have a modernised country to help future proof the economy. You'd break the reliance on the 2 century old technology of burning stuff for power. You'd set the world up for a technological revolution to equal the industrial revolution.

Go on. Do it.

Originally posted by Surtur
The Military Industrial Complex needs to end. It's no laughing matter.

You think

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yep. Me too.

You could close all but the most strategically geopolitically important bases around the world for a start. Spending half that budget on the military would still mean outspending the nearest rival nation by 5x

Split the rest between health, education, energy, infrastructure and science and you'd solve a considerable amount of America's problems within a generation. You'd have a healthier and better educated populace meaning less welfare spending. You'd have a modernised country to help future proof the economy. You'd break the reliance on the 2 century old technology of burning stuff for power. You'd set the world up for a technological revolution to equal the industrial revolution.

Go on. Do it.
Or work on paying off the debt and giving the rest back to the taxpayer (or rather letting the taxpayer keep it)

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah I'm all for cuts there, but it's important to note that discretionary spending doesn't cover the whole pie chart of government spending.

Correct. Actual military spening is closer to a trillion, annually.

I'm in favor of universal healthcare.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yep. Me too.

You could close all but the most strategically geopolitically important bases around the world for a start. Spending half that budget on the military would still mean outspending the nearest rival nation by 5x

Split the rest between health, education, energy, infrastructure and science and you'd solve a considerable amount of America's problems within a generation. You'd have a healthier and better educated populace meaning less welfare spending. You'd have a modernised country to help future proof the economy. You'd break the reliance on the 2 century old technology of burning stuff for power. You'd set the world up for a technological revolution to equal the industrial revolution.

Go on. Do it.

It's likely not going to happen with a Conservative in office and every time a Liberal President cuts even a small slice out of the Military budget the calls of "you hate the military; you don't support our troops!" goes out to the masses.

I can't see it happening, is what I'm saying.

the lack of universal healthcare in any first world nation is a disgrace

Originally posted by Darksul POWER
Hi, i'm a new user,

something something beautiful family etc

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Military_Expenditures_2018_SIPRI.png

We easily cut some military spending fat out and it wouldn't matter, to make sure no kids in the US go hungry, our elderly are cared for and our veterans don't end up holding "Can you spare a dollar" cardboard signs.

I live in the states and am not in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm willing to make compromises for juveniles, and subsidize initial ER treatment costs related to trauma-related accidents, but overall too many people in this country are chronically unhealthy to make any sort of universal healthcare system work. Hospitals are not centralized and have a very wide array of subpar to excellent quality control measures. Healthcare personnel are strained as is---allowing anyone to receive health-care for bullshit would be disastrous and simply lower the standard of care for everyone.

We live in a society where junk food is easier to obtain than healthy foods. People are fat, lazy, and ignorant about their health overall. Perhaps we can take baby steps over the course of decades to reach the end goal, but it ain't happening overnight.

I find myself largely agreeing with Kurk

Originally posted by TempAccount
I live in the states and am not in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm willing to make compromises for juveniles, and subsidize initial ER treatment costs related to trauma-related accidents, but overall too many people in this country are chronically unhealthy to make any sort of universal healthcare system work. Hospitals are not centralized and have a very wide array of subpar to excellent quality control measures. Healthcare personnel are strained as is---allowing anyone to receive health-care for bullshit would be disastrous and simply lower the standard of care for everyone.

We live in a society where junk food is easier to obtain than healthy foods. People are fat, lazy, and ignorant about their health overall. Perhaps we can take baby steps over the course of decades to reach the end goal, but it ain't happening overnight.

What an odd post.

You state you're not in favor of a universal healthcare solution and then proceed to rather succinctly outline why Universal Healthcare is needed by naming all the problems it would target and solve.

Providing solutions that require effort doesn't mean it solves problems:



Because people that have problems associated with laziness will never be solved by govt solutions that are basically optional. In other words giving more healthcare won't make more people eat/exercise more.......

I still think a universal platform can work but I dont for a second believe that lazy sick people will stop being lazy sick people with bad eating habits.

I have a super simple solution to make america healthy ban alcohol, fast food, candy and require 30 minutes of exercise a day.........it's a free solution that will readily improve the QOL and health of all involved.......problems solved....

I was being sarcastic, many health problems that the USA faces are that of overindulgence and simply creating universal healthcare will NEVER fix that problem. Lazy people that get diabetes 2, obesity, heart conditions are some of the serious problems that are lowering life expectancies in the USA, problems that need to be solved by the individual.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Providing solutions that require effort doesn't mean it solves problems:



Because people that have problems associated with laziness will never be solved by govt solutions that are basically optional. In other words giving more healthcare won't make more people eat/exercise more.......

I still think a universal platform can work but I dont for a second believe that lazy sick people will stop being lazy sick people with bad eating habits.

I have a super simple solution to make america healthy ban alcohol, fast food, candy and require 30 minutes of exercise a day.........it's a free solution that will readily improve the QOL and health of all involved.......problems solved....

Let me get this right:

Because modern society has easier access to poor-quality food, we shouldn't implement a solution that directly addresses this problem in a much better way than the current corrupt and ineffective system in the US?

Let's put it a different way: the UK has a healthcare system that is so much better than the US's system that we look like barbarians in comparison. And their healthcare system is plagued with it's own problems. The UK is also going through an obesity epidemic and are slated to surpass the US in obesity rates in the 2020s.

Okay, so what about Japan?



What I'm reading is still the same: complaints about problems to avoid universal healthcare but those problems will be directly addressed and improved under the UH option.


It's like protesting against building roads.

"People are getting injuries from walking through this rocky terrain!"

"Okay, build roads. Save money on trip costs and injuries. Simple."

"But people are getting injuries on the rocky terrain! We can't possibly build the roads!"

That isn't what I said, I simply piggybacked on what kurk was saying.

When obesity and things associated with said diagnosis cause a significant problem for a population there is no insurance in the world that will cure a lack of discipline or bad habits.



That's not a good example as it relates to what was discussed. No one makes someone overeat and not exercise and there isn't a road you can build in the world to fix people that choose to partake in said behaviors because that isn't the job of health insurance.

The UK has this problem already so we can see the problems and burdens it produces without a fix to the problem.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Okay, so what about Japan?






In Japan, fat-shaming is the norm. Citizens over 40 undergo annual waist-line measurements. Those exceeding normal parameters are essentially involuntarily entered into a "weight-watchers" program. Also obviously Japanese people are extremely hard-working and have societal and dietary factors contributing to their overall healthiness. Thus, their universal health-care system is far more of a preventative maintenance type of system rather than one which pours money into treating preventable chronic conditions.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That isn't what I said, I simply piggybacked on what kurk was saying.

When obesity and things associated with said diagnosis cause a significant problem for a population there is no insurance in the world that will cure a lack of discipline or bad habits.



That's not a good example as it relates to what was discussed. No one makes someone overeat and not exercise and there isn't a road you can build in the world to fix people that choose to partake in said behaviors because that isn't the job of health insurance.

The UK has this problem already so we can see the problems and burdens it produces without a fix to the problem.

To both points, the answer is the same: the UH option literally directly addresses that. The road comparison is spot on but you don't realize it because you don't understand why a UH option is better for that particular problem. Please let me know if you do understand and I will apologize for my faulty assumption.


Check it out: you can be fat and healthier under the UH option. When your system transforms from a reactive emergency solution to a preventative solution that is affordable to the masses, you healthcare costs drastically drop and the people get access to better services. Guess which of those services falls under the preventative healthcare option? You guessed it, diet and weight management.

I can hear the Price is Right "correct guess" bell dinging and the cheesy music playing, now.




Also, one of the biggest benefits of the UH option is a central location where health information is stored and managed. One case file. Have you ever moved and had to pay $200 to have your medical records copied to your new physician's office? What about your dentist. The ability to have continuity of records across one system instead of thousands, alone, vastly improves the quality of care that can be provided. Preventative care and looking for potential life threatening scenarios (such as contraindicated pharmaceutical regimens) is much easier to do.

Yeah, I know the solution is sick care and not health care. 99% of folks covered under healthcare today by law have access to "preventative" health care and even if they didn't it just falls under a doctor office copay.

I'm for Uhealthcare but I know it will not cure obesity (that's not its job,) I know that people with chronic illness disorder such as obesity/diabtes2/heart problems will be part of the 10% healthcare users that also use 90% of the budget. There is literally nothing that can take away from that fact.

I have said it before but I have a background in health insurance and group benefits, I've reviewed claim reports and explained them to people, created insurance policies for large co-op groups that allowed multiple different businesses to form up for the purchase of insurance (of course that was never the "prupose" of the group ) I literally lived in that system and communicated with people who used and created the products daily.

None of what you said takes away from kurks facts that many health problems we face are caused by poor lifestyle choices and not from lack of insurance.

https://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/health/fighting-obesity-in-the-uk-health-essay.php

Obesity remains one of the most significant global public health problems along with tobacco use and alcohol consumption leading to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Yet there is no effective policy that could solve the problem in the long run

Originally posted by snowdragon
I have said it before but I have a background in health insurance and group benefits, I've reviewed claim reports and explained them to people, created insurance policies for large co-op groups that allowed multiple different businesses to form up for the purchase of insurance (of course that was never the "prupose" of the group ) I literally lived in that system and communicated with people who used and created the products daily.

Same background but I got to deal with Medicare and Medicaid, as well, and I saw how much better that system was.

Originally posted by snowdragon
None of what you said takes away from kurks facts that many health problems we face are caused by poor lifestyle choices and not from lack of insurance.

Yes what I said directly takes away from those facts. You're operating under an insurance program, already. You're already talking about something not applicable to the topic. Unless, of course, the employer provided insurance penalizes the employees on your policy for smoking and obesity.

Then we'd be talking about the same topic.

Under a UH option, poor lifestyle choices still result in better healthcare outcomes than the tens of millions of people who cannot afford healthcare. Do you understand that you're bringing up people who do not even apply to this topic? You're talking about people already on insurance getting to use insurance at generally affordable rates. Not that 150 million other people in the US which causes us to have the most expensive healthcare, per person, in the world, by far.


Originally posted by snowdragon
Obesity remains one of the most significant global public health problems along with tobacco use and alcohol consumption leading to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Yet there is no effective policy that could solve the problem in the long run

And the Obesity Action Committee says the solution is Prevention and Treatment, not just one or the other, both of which would be run much better under a UH option.

https://www.obesityaction.org/community/article-library/can-prevention-alone-solve-the-obesity-epidemic/







This is a lose-lose-lose-lose topic to discuss.

In a nutshell :







The problem is obesity, UH won't cure it. That is the problem I addressed in regards to Kurk. Your posting the benefits of UH doesn't change the fact it won't cure obesity.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-obesity-and-the-food-environment/health-matters-obesity-and-the-food-environment--2

http://obesityhealthalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OHA-briefing-paper-Costs-of-Obesity-.pdf

The only cure for obesity is for individuals to take better care of themselves prior to that state, UH is a bandaid. That isn't a diss on UH whose job it is to make sick people live longer many times without having them modify behaviors until said people realize their own mortality.

DDM stomping imo

I do favor it with restrictions. People who live chronically unhealthy lifestyles use far more healthcare than healthy people. It's also interesting to note that 80% of all heathcare costs are for people in the last year of their life.

Then there's the cost of a medical degree, approaching $500,000 just for a General Practioner, a specialist is more. We would also have to subsidize this, something I am in favor of

And then malpractice insurance, over $100K annually for most doctors, would also have to reform this as well, something I also agree with. Lets put some lawyers out of business.

And I do agree with cutting our military budger, let huge global corporations incur their own expenses.

@snowd

Ultimately is does fall on people helping themselves, as you can't force people to not be obese; they have to want to do it. But if you're 400+ lbs, morbidly obese and end up in the hospital, with no insurance it will likely be an ER visit that they treat at the time and then you're released and the tax payer ultimately picks up the bill and this cycle will likely just repeat itself until death comes.

With universal healthcare, this hypothetical 400+ lbs person could both get that ER visit treatment (paid through insurance) and further assistance to help them lose the weight via counselors, coaching and whatnot.

And there will always be certain people who simply will not change no matter what, you can throw all the healthcare, counseling and weight loss pamphlets at them and they'll simply snub their nose and go about being sedentary while eating the worst processed foods possible. But we shouldn't deny others what should be a right in a modern country because of this lot.

Originally posted by Robtard
@snowd

Ultimately is does fall on people helping themselves, as you can't force people to not be obese; they have to want to do it. But if you're 400+ lbs, morbidly obese and end up in the hospital, with no insurance it will likely be an ER visit that they treat at the time and then you're released and the tax payer ultimately picks up the bill and this cycle will likely just repeat itself until death comes.

With universal healthcare, this hypothetical 400+ lbs person could both get that ER visit treatment (paid through insurance) and further assistance to help them lose the weight via counselors, coaching and whatnot.

And there will always be certain people who simply will not change no matter what, you can throw all the healthcare, counseling and weight loss pamphlets at them and they'll simply snub their nose and go about being sedentary while eating the worst processed foods possible. But we shouldn't deny others what should be a right in a modern country because of this lot.

Yes, I simply agreed with Kurks sentiment about lazy americans and know the having universal healthcare will not cure that problem, no matter what anyone wants to believe. As shown by the current system in the UK:

So let's look at the UK who are actually dealing with this situation and has universal healthcare and see what they say:



So weird, I thought a universal healthcare system would fix this problem or at the very least slow it down and yet we find that to not be true based on historical figures of a country running UHC.

I am for UHC something like the system used in France. Many posts have been made about that topic

Originally posted by snowdragon
In a nutshell :







The problem is obesity, UH won't cure it. That is the problem I addressed in regards to Kurk. Your posting the benefits of UH doesn't change the fact it won't cure obesity.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-obesity-and-the-food-environment/health-matters-obesity-and-the-food-environment--2

http://obesityhealthalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OHA-briefing-paper-Costs-of-Obesity-.pdf

The only cure for obesity is for individuals to take better care of themselves prior to that state, UH is a bandaid. That isn't a diss on UH whose job it is to make sick people live longer many times without having them modify behaviors until said people realize their own mortality.

Sort of. We are still not quite talking about the same thing.

UH is not the bandaid - it is almost all of the solution. It covers both angles that need to be addressed: Prevention and Treatment.

Education falls under the prevention portion. And other countries do run education programs as part of their healthcare solutions. UK, Japan, etc. You know, places that run healthcare better than the US does.


Imagine how amazing the NHS would be if each individual paid as much, on average, as Americans do? They'd cure all cancers in less than a year. We are talking nearly tripling their budget per person, on average. I cannot even fathom that.




Also, I will never support regulating food out of people's mouths unless it is demonstrably toxic or poisonous. (It becomes a hazards and poisons problem). Just because people are fat and overeat does not mean it needs to be regulated. But fat lazy people DO need to be penalized. The NHS does it.

Originally posted by dadudemon

But fat lazy people DO need to be penalized. The NHS does it.

I'm assuming the penalties would be higher rates/taxes for people who fail to meet a sensible level of improvement over the course of a year or more?

How then do you deal with the problem of say my hypothetical 400+ lbs obese person who simply will not change and keeps ending up in the hospital, but now is too poor to tax higher, otherwise he's going to also need housing and food assistance?

(I'm all for UH, playing devil's advocate in regards to issues that would arise)

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm assuming the penalties would be higher rates/taxes for people who fail to meet a sensible level of improvement over the course of a year or more?

How then do you deal with the problem of say my hypothetical 400+ lbs obese person who simply will not change and keeps ending up in the hospital, but now is too poor to tax higher, otherwise he's going to also need housing and food assistance?

(I'm all for UH, playing devil's advocate in regards to issues that would arise)

I'll bet someone like Bentley, Jaden or Putin could answer what they do in countries with UHC, I'm willing to be that they would be placed on some disability pay and housing project and have family assist in their care.

That is one of the challenges faced when a country provides benefits and services, when do they provide soft solutions vs hard solutions.....ie a pamphlet is a soft solution, a fat boot camp would be a hard solution.

Very overweight people are pretty much considered disabled for all intents an purposes, they get special programs to get a job, aid at their home and a lot of monetary support and services. You probably need to fill some requirements to fully have Access to all that though, which probably includes physical therapy and some degree of management for your dietary habits.

Originally posted by TempAccount
I live in the states and am not in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm willing to make compromises for juveniles, and subsidize initial ER treatment costs related to trauma-related accidents, but overall too many people in this country are chronically unhealthy to make any sort of universal healthcare system work. Hospitals are not centralized and have a very wide array of subpar to excellent quality control measures. Healthcare personnel are strained as is---allowing anyone to receive health-care for bullshit would be disastrous and simply lower the standard of care for everyone.

We live in a society where junk food is easier to obtain than healthy foods. People are fat, lazy, and ignorant about their health overall. Perhaps we can take baby steps over the course of decades to reach the end goal, but it ain't happening overnight. Your **** up here is assuming that you get to choose whether or not tax payers foot the bill for uninsured peoples' medical care. You don't. I can walk into any hospital and tell them that I'm a fat **** who's eaten candy my entire life and I need insulin or else I'll die, and they'll give it to me on the spot. They'll also slip me a bill for a couple grand, but if I can't pay it then I just can't pay it. So who's going to pay for it? You and DMB of course, and all the other tax payers, because it's illegal to just let me die and doctors still need to get paid.

So you don't get a choice in that regard- denial of service is not even part of the debate. The only question is whether we should have the inefficient universal heatlhcare system we have now, or an efficient healthcare like other countries have that actually costs tax payers LESS then what the average US tax payer has to pay in taxes for other peoples' unpaid treatments now. You and DMB are going to pay for my care either way.

Yeah, let's just cut all of our military spending (or at least enough of it to pay for everyone's healthcare which would lead to pretty much the same result defense-wise) so we are totally defenseless and practically begging for someone to attack us or our allies. That's sounds like a marvellous idea. A weakened America makes not just the U.S. but pretty much the entire world as a whole much weaker and more vulnerable.


LOL@ so-called "progressive" idiots and their crazy fantasies. They all seem to think money grows on trees. DDD, along with many others, also thinks taxpayers should be forced to pay off everyon's student loan debt lol. Guess we'll just pull money out of our asses for that as well or weaken our military even more to pay for it.

As Surtur rightfully pointed out, free healthcare for everyone is a pipe dream.

Originally posted by TempAccount
I live in the states and am not in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm willing to make compromises for juveniles, and subsidize initial ER treatment costs related to trauma-related accidents, but overall too many people in this country are chronically unhealthy to make any sort of universal healthcare system work. Hospitals are not centralized and have a very wide array of subpar to excellent quality control measures. Healthcare personnel are strained as is---allowing anyone to receive health-care for bullshit would be disastrous and simply lower the standard of care for everyone.

We live in a society where junk food is easier to obtain than healthy foods. People are fat, lazy, and ignorant about their health overall. Perhaps we can take baby steps over the course of decades to reach the end goal, but it ain't happening overnight.


Great post. Agree with pretty much everything you say here, Temp.


Americans should take responsibility for themselves by making a serious effort to actually take better care of themselves so they aren't as susceptible to illness rather than cut military spending (which would seriously weaken our country and make us and our allies much more vulnerable to attack) to pay for universal healthcare. I also agree with you that everyone who is seriously injured through no fault of their own should have free access to being treated for it.

We need to get a handle on our border crisis before we even begin thinking about cutting spending in some other area to pay for free healthcare for all. Many people bring diseases and drugs across the border which ends up putting more of a strain on our healthcare system. Spend the money to build that wall. The wall will end-up paying for itself eventually. Free healthcare for everyone will never do that.


And before some snowflake yells "walls don't work! It'd be a huge waste of money!!", they do work (ask the Israelis; and yes, it is a comparable situation despite what libtards like robbie will say) and no it wouldn't be a waste. It'd be money well spent because wall would end-up paying for itself in a few years time.

Money spent into a Wall could be used to make an sterilization program and cleanly solve abortion problems too.

Hell, while we're at it, let's just go ahead and give foodstamps to everyone as well. That should be a univeral right, eh? After all, food is way more important than healthcare because people can only go two to three weeks w/out food. Let's just go ahead and give eveyone free housing while we're at it as well. Everyone needs a place to live, right? What about free clothing for all? Shouldn't that be a universal right? Can't have people walking around naked now can we? Guess snowflakes think we can cut even more out of military spending to pay for all of those things as well lol.

God help us if one of these "progressive" socialist snowflakes like AOC ever becomes President.

What about free guns for everyone? After all, the 2nd amendment actually is an ACTUAL RIGHT unlike those other things I mentioned. Everyone should have the means to defend themselves, right?


Oh no, crazy "progressives" don't like that idea because being able to defend ourselves really is a God-given right so the hell with cutting spending in other areas to pay for that, right?

Off-topic, why was the OP banned?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
What about free guns for everyone? After all, the 2nd amendment actually is an ACTUAL RIGHT unlike those other things I mentioned. Everyone should have the means to defend themselves, right?


Oh no, crazy "progressives" don't like that idea because being able to defend ourselves really is a God-given right so the hell with cutting spending in other areas to pay for that, right?


Forgot to add that we should all get free ammo in addition to free guns because what good are guns w/out ammo, you know? That should be a "universal right" as well.

What about free dental care? I'd say that is pretty darn important. Shouldn't everyone have access to that as well?


Free cars? Free entertainment? Free game consoles? Free porn (LOL)? Free utilities (water & electricity)? Free postage stamps? Free personal care products? FREE EVERYTHING!! Seriously... where does it end, ffs?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Free cars? Free entertainment? Free game consoles? Free porn (LOL)? Free utilities (water & electricity)? Free postage stamps? Free personal care products? FREE EVERYTHING!! Seriously... where does it end, ffs?

It will never be free, it never has now or in the future. With that said rather then your employer being responsible for the majority of health coverage in the USA it should be positioned away from employment is a large factor for why I support a UHC system such as France's.

Employers, when they create a group policy, are required to pay at least 50% of the premium for the employee and can contribute to family premiums if they want. Our current system has a tendancy to penalize employees for leaving companies with insurance and forces employers to waste time on HR to enroll/educate etc. For me it seems like a better system for everyone.

A national system means insurance is "portable," dealing with networks that participate with your insurance becomes less of an issue, peace of mind for low income workers with families that fall in the cracks of high premiums low accessibility due to rates and utilization charges, loss of coverage due to an std/ltd that would force an employee out of employer coverage due to termination and loss of wages etc.

There is a huge list of benefits and cost analysis a big part of the money to pay would continue to be employers/employees but rather then a group a policy they would have a "national" policy.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Off-topic, why was the OP banned?

Pretty sure he's the sock that was stalking jman.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Great post. Agree with pretty much everything you say here, Temp.


Americans should take responsibility for themselves by making a serious effort to actually take better care of themselves so they aren't as susceptible to illness rather than cut military spending (which would seriously weaken our country and make us and our allies much more vulnerable to attack) to pay for universal healthcare. I also agree with you that everyone who is seriously injured through no fault of their own should have free access to being treated for it.

I do think we should cut some military spending though. Look at how much we spend compared to others, why should Americans suffer because the USA has somehow become the default protector of the world? I'm being a bit hyperbolic there, but you know what I mean. Other countries need to start pulling their weight if what your'e saying is true.

If we come up with a workable universal healthcare plan I'd also be open to cutting all foreign aid in order to fund it. And I think the left should support that because they seem to be acting like we are in a crisis when it comes to health care. Extreme measures need to be taken then.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm assuming the penalties would be higher rates/taxes for people who fail to meet a sensible level of improvement over the course of a year or more?

How then do you deal with the problem of say my hypothetical 400+ lbs obese person who simply will not change and keeps ending up in the hospital, but now is too poor to tax higher, otherwise he's going to also need housing and food assistance?

If we had a the FairTax system in place, your point becomes irrelevant.

Part of me thinks that those types would not be treated and just die. They waste all the resources around them and eat all the things.

But then that's the same for many homeless. So this is why I cannot take a Kurk-like stance on stuff like this. It's too cruel to take that stance.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, let's just cut all of our military spending (or at least enough of it to pay for everyone's healthcare which would lead to pretty much the same result defense-wise) so we are totally defenseless and practically begging for someone to attack us or our allies. That's sounds like a marvellous idea. A weakened America makes not just the U.S. but pretty much the entire world as a whole much weaker and more vulnerable.


LOL@ so-called "progressive" idiots and their crazy fantasies. They all seem to think money grows on trees. DDD, along with many others, also thinks taxpayers should be forced to pay off everyon's student loan debt lol. Guess we'll just pull money out of our asses for that as well or weaken our military even more to pay for it.

As Surtur rightfully pointed out, free healthcare for everyone is a pipe dream.

We'd be defenseless if we closed down our foreign bases, brought our troops home to defend our actual country, cut out all the corrupt military programs (a $1.5 trillion F-35 program, for example) where government contractors are wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars?


It's like you don't know how the real world works and only cry about "progressives" because it's easier than trying to educate yourself.

Also, quote my post where I said taxpayers should be forced to pay off everyone's student loan debt. This is the third time I've asked you to quote me saying that.

Originally posted by Surtur
I do think we should cut some military spending though. Look at how much we spend compared to others, why should Americans suffer because the USA has somehow become the default protector of the world? I'm being a bit hyperbolic there, but you know what I mean. Other countries need to start pulling their weight if what your'e saying is true.

If we come up with a workable universal healthcare plan I'd also be open to cutting all foreign aid in order to fund it. And I think the left should support that because they seem to be acting like we are in a crisis when it comes to health care. Extreme measures need to be taken then.


Depends on how much you mean by "some." If you mean we should cut enough of it to pay for free healthcare for everyone then I think that's way too much. Same thing goes for cutting enough of it to pay for DDD's crazy idea of paying off irresponsible people's student loan debt lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Depends on how much you mean by "some." If you mean we should cut enough of it to pay for free healthcare for everyone then I think that's way too much. Same thing goes for cutting enough of it to pay for DDD's crazy idea of paying off irresponsible people's student loan debt lol.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So you don't get a choice in that regard- denial of service is not even part of the debate. The only question is whether we should have the inefficient universal heatlhcare system we have now, or an efficient healthcare like other countries have that actually costs tax payers LESS then what the average US tax payer has to pay in taxes for other peoples' unpaid treatments now. You and DMB are going to pay for my care either way.

Originally posted by Surtur
I do think we should cut some military spending though. Look at how much we spend compared to others, why should Americans suffer because the USA has somehow become the default protector of the world? I'm being a bit hyperbolic there, but you know what I mean. Other countries need to start pulling their weight if what your'e saying is true.
Part of me initially agrees with this... but then again you also watch Sargon...

Think about it... is it really good to give the European Union another reason to expand their powers?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Part of me initially agrees with this... but then again you also watch Sargon...

Think about it... is it really good to give the European Union another reason to expand their powers?

You have a point, but I'd say it's a risk worth taking because I think the EU is gonna head in that direction whether or not we do anything.