Because national health care is the first step on the path towards a communist dictatorship.
Which is like saying “walking out your front door in Hoboken is the first step in walking all the way to Los Angeles.” I mean, it could happen, and there’d be no way to turn around and go back!
So just to be safe we better not do anything, ever.
No, they are not. In the same way that advocating for better working conditions, limits on corporal punishment, and basic nutritional standards for the enslaved is not the same thing as being an abolitionist.
Wants to lose healthcare coverage for themselves and their family whenever they lose or change jobs,
Wants a shorter average life expectancy for them and theirs,
Wants to maintain an increased total family cost (health insurance plus medications plus income tax et al) for their healthcare services,
Loves to have their choice of physician limited by an insurance provider,
Prefers to pay medication costs 2x to 5x that of prices in other countries.
Everyone seems to wilfully ignore the fact that a healthier society is more productive/profitable/competitive in the world economy.
You forgot the misery. The misery that is the point. The misery that they get to inflict on others, never thinking that it could be inflicted on them. You see, they are better than that and won’t ever get sick and fired and loose their health insurance when they need it the most. (And if they do they will die bitter but survivor’s bias.)
IMHO, if you are against Universal Health Care you are a horrible, horrible person; and the world would probably be a better place without you. Being against Universal Health Care means “I would rather pay more for health care just so I can make sure that other people don’t have it; and I like having people suffer and die so much I am happy to pay for it.”
(With that being said, I am a bit concerned about the specific M4A implementations.)
Oh yeah. . . so many developed nations have national health care, but the US can’t because . . . who knows, it might fail or something. Good point.
Consider this: the military, a huge government program, is rife with problems. But it’s obviously a necessity. Health care is also a necessity. It doesn’t have to be done by the government, neither does the military, but in both cases it’s probably better if the government handles it.
The core argument for public health care over private for-profit health care is pretty simple – the profit has to come from somewhere. That means that private for-profit health care ends up being less accessible and/or more expensive, and it reduces costs by eroding working conditions and lowering standards of patient care. There is no shortage of horror stories from the United States of people who have access to no health care at all, or to inadequate levels of care, or who acquire care through taking on brutal levels of debt. Because it allows rich people to buy better care, according to Azocar, private for-profit health care is “elitism, plain and simple.”
Nothing enrages and terrifies the average American more than somebody getting something they “haven’t earned”. Given a choice between something that benefits everyone (including themselves) and something that inflicts suffering on both themselves and anybody they consider “undesirable”, they’ll pick the suffering every time.
What? US medical insurance admin jobs are still onshore? How can the insurers not have found a way to move that to Asia already? Missing a big trick, right there, to increase profits overnight.
(Guessing it may have something to do with regulations re confidential medical data going offshore? Which, if the case - and I am not a USian so I really do not know - is a weird thing for the Repugnicons not to have legislated away by now.)
At they very least, they probably tried… They did the next best thing and moved call center jobs to the mid west. Of course, those jobs don’t replace a good, unionized factory job with benefits.
But hey, we have full employment right? Look at the good job this president is doing!
Obviously for-profit healthcare is immoral. Obviously we’re getting bled dry by insurance co’s and we need M4A asap.
Would someone smarter than me be willing to suggest a response in the following scenario? Ideally something concise, unequivocal yet unlikely to escalate, ten words or fewer?
P = the other person who shares my 8x8’ windowless office at school.
MQ: So I was at the registry of motor vehicles yesterday and it was a shitshow…
P: …Right?! And these are the people they want running our healthcare? The government, running healthcare? How stupid is that!
MQ: . . .
P: Seriously, like we’re really going to have these morons in charge of our medical records?
MQ: . . . ? [What can I possibly say?] Anyway, see you next week
For context, our DMV was recently found to be stockpiling unopened notices of out-of-state traffic violations, allegedly/arguably resulting in the failure to weed out a dangerous driver who last year plowed down a huge group of motorcyclists, many of whom died. There’s been at least one high-up resignation, lawsuit, a huge and sudden “update” to the software system foisted on the desk clerks… Given the context it feels like a crazy huge leap from that to “omg those liberals”, but there you go.
As opposed to the minimum-wage, too exhausted to care person doing it now? Really, anyone who trusts an insurance company over government is missing part of their grip on reality. Companies are not more competent. They just hide their incompetence from you.
Really quick answer: In Canada, and in many other countries, the government does not “run” health care, nor is it in charge of medical records. It just pays the doctors, who operate as private businesses, and the hospitals, which are mostly run as private non-profits. (More than ten words. Obligatory Canadian sorry.)
As @MalevolentPixy says, the bureaucracy in a US-style for-profit health system has to be a hundred times worse than any government plan. Any bureaucracy in our health system is almost completely invisible to me as a patient.