The 40 million number, much like the '10,000 women a year dead from illegal abortions before Roe', and the 'spousal abuse increases during the Super Bowl' is largely horsefeathers. First and foremost, most of those in that number are transitorily uninsured. That is, someone loses a job and is temporarily out of insurance. The average being 5.6 months. Further, a large chunk of those that aren't insured are people between the ages of 20 and 30 who make 40,000 a year or more. People like me, who in my 20s, didn't have insurance. I kept the money in my paycheck and paid OOP because I almost never went to the doctor. So most of those '40 million' are already in line.
As for the 'for profit' motive, name me a government program that has decreased in costs over the years? Yeah, didn't thinks so. That argument won't carry any water.. There are problems with the current insurance scheme. I've suggested an alternative that won't cause scarcity the way socialized systems proveably do in every case.
The largest problems with increasing healthcare costs are the overhead from filing insurance. This is a bureaucratic cost that a government run system would only increase. The second is from people like the Prell Girl who file ridiculous lawsuist, use junk science to award their clients millions and thereby drive malpractice insurance costs through the roof, and lastly the cost of uninsured emergency room visits. HOWEVER, the largest chunk of those who use the ER for healthcare and are driving costs up there are illegal immigrants. Not poor citizens who are eligible for medicaire and medicade.
Lastly, where the hell do you think the money comes from for 'the government' to pay for that healthcare? Do you think the congress can just defacate the extra money into their hand? That money has to come from somewhere. Which means taxes. Which means that more money is taken from the wealthy and corporations that already pay more than their fair share. And that's money that isn't invested in capital and expansion and innovation and research. The increased costs of regulation and the stifling effect on innovation that government run systems always create would far outstrip any competitive drag healthcare costs are having on our companies. Besides, the HSA solution answers this far more effectively than would socializing.
Further, if we follow this line of thinking, why not just close down the grocery stores and turn that over to the government. Everyone needs to eat, right? How about housing too? Let's make that government run. Then we can all live in wonderful places like Bed-Stuy or Cabrini Green. Oh! Oh! Clothing, let's let the government handle clothing all of us. We can all be dressed in the latest Wal-Mart fashions then.
The biggest reason not to socialize healthcare is this: It isn't the government's job to provide for your needs. When government tries to do more than that it is immoral, because it must take from one group to give to another. And that's wrong. Wether you're pushing fundie christian biblical precepts or east coast progressive social justice, using the force of government to make other subscribe to your morality is immoral.
no subject
As for the 'for profit' motive, name me a government program that has decreased in costs over the years? Yeah, didn't thinks so. That argument won't carry any water.. There are problems with the current insurance scheme. I've suggested an alternative that won't cause scarcity the way socialized systems proveably do in every case.
The largest problems with increasing healthcare costs are the overhead from filing insurance. This is a bureaucratic cost that a government run system would only increase. The second is from people like the Prell Girl who file ridiculous lawsuist, use junk science to award their clients millions and thereby drive malpractice insurance costs through the roof, and lastly the cost of uninsured emergency room visits. HOWEVER, the largest chunk of those who use the ER for healthcare and are driving costs up there are illegal immigrants. Not poor citizens who are eligible for medicaire and medicade.
Lastly, where the hell do you think the money comes from for 'the government' to pay for that healthcare? Do you think the congress can just defacate the extra money into their hand? That money has to come from somewhere. Which means taxes. Which means that more money is taken from the wealthy and corporations that already pay more than their fair share. And that's money that isn't invested in capital and expansion and innovation and research. The increased costs of regulation and the stifling effect on innovation that government run systems always create would far outstrip any competitive drag healthcare costs are having on our companies. Besides, the HSA solution answers this far more effectively than would socializing.
Further, if we follow this line of thinking, why not just close down the grocery stores and turn that over to the government. Everyone needs to eat, right? How about housing too? Let's make that government run. Then we can all live in wonderful places like Bed-Stuy or Cabrini Green. Oh! Oh! Clothing, let's let the government handle clothing all of us. We can all be dressed in the latest Wal-Mart fashions then.
The biggest reason not to socialize healthcare is this: It isn't the government's job to provide for your needs. When government tries to do more than that it is immoral, because it must take from one group to give to another. And that's wrong. Wether you're pushing fundie christian biblical precepts or east coast progressive social justice, using the force of government to make other subscribe to your morality is immoral.