Exactly. You wish to count some people out, don't you? Perhaps those who are not quite as American as you are...
I didn't say that the government should not provide health insurance. I said that the government should not provide ANYTHING. Only regulation (ie, referee services) and, perhaps, defense. The rest should be made available to all through bidding processes, open markets. People work, get money, and buy what they need. That's all. Simple. And a rudimentary tax on consumption pays for the government overhead. The basic philosophy should be that what we owe our citizens is equal opportunity, not equal results. You're more successful, you have more to use.
I just wonder how much that would change after, for instance, you were in a catastrophic auto accident, your insurance ran out, and you were paralyzed for life from the neck down with no way to take care of yourself? Do those National Socialist (we can't use that "N" word here, either) tendencies still kick in? I can hear it now: "I'm weak. I'm not a producer. Put me on the train with the blacks, gays, homos, gypsies and Jews." Now, before you have an aneurysm, I was (slightly) exaggerating to prove a point. You should realize that many, if not most, of us voting D are not doing it to help or protect ourselves. We believe that the weakest and lowest among us should be taken care of as well as the richest among us. No, that doesn't mean bringing back welfare of the pre-Clinton era. That means taking care of the children, sick and weak instead of giving the rich guys another tax cut. I know that I'm probably wasting my time trying to have this discussion, but I have to try.
ANYONE WHO IS IS THIS GULLABLE TO BELIEVE THE OUTRAGEOUS LETTER, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. I EVEN HAD SOME MORON AT MY JOB EMAIL THIS TO MY BUSINESS ACCT. ONCE SHE HAS RETURNED FROM HER SUSPENSION, (SUSPENDED FOR SENDING THE EMAIL TO MY BOSS, WHO IS A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT), I AM GOING TO TRY TO SELL HER THE BRROKLYN BRIDGE...
I HANDLE THE BILLING AND THE COLLECTIONS FOR A LARGE PHYSICIANS OFFICE. WHEN MY PHYSICIANS ARE ON CALL AT THE HOSPITAL, THEY HAVE TO SEE PATIENTS WHETHER THEY HAVE INS. OR NOT. THIS INCLUDES ILLEGAL ALIENS. PEOPLE WHO HAVE INS AND CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY THEIR DEDUCTIBLES OR COPAYS ARE CONSTANTLY SENT TO AN OUTSIDE COLLECTIONS AGENCY, PROVIDED THEY HAVE AN ACCURATE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, IT'S AS IF YOU ARE GETTING A FREE RIDE AT THE DOCTOR'S AND HOSPITAL'S EXPENSE.....MAYBE IT'S TIME WE JUST FINGER PRINT EVERYONE SO THEY CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR MEDICAL BILLS. WHEN PATIENT'S DON'T PAY OR CAN'T PAY, THIS AFFECTS MY BOTTOM LINE AS WELL. NO MONEY. NO RAISE AND EVENTUALLY NO INSURANCE FOR ME AND MY FAMILY
I will be SO FUCKING GLAD after november 5th when morons like you will go crawl back into their holes. You are out of your fucking mind with all the B.S. you post on this forum! Speechless? You got nothing to say imbecile! I can't even post on here anymore since it insults my itelligence some of the crap you liars on the right make-up... all in the name of WHAT.... certainly not in the name of what's best for the USA! ?
Your case is well articulated but I lose you when you use expressions like "tax the rich" as a panacea. This is a huge Pandora's box: start taking money and incentive out of the marketplace to pay for your pet projects and you are harming the same poor people you were trying to help. Yes, the woman with the medical need may get some more attention, but her husband loses his job and they are back in the hole, deeper than before. The only way out of poverty is a larger economy, not more "taxes for the rich" a classification which, by now, includes many, many families who are not "rich." The main point to be made is that money in the hands of the government is far less productive than in private hands. You could raise taxes to 90% and someone else will always cry out that the way out of the problem du jour is to "tax the rich." In that kind of dialog we don't even have a common language to communicate with each other, and that's why they call it class warfare. Who is "rich?" What's an appropriate level of taxation? If people sneak into this country illegally, does the government have the moral obligation to take care of them and their even poorer relatives? As individuals, yes, we always have the moral obligation to hep those in need, through charity, but how much do we overburden our economy to do that "officially?" And if we do continue down that road, where does it stop? When "the rich" of this country are forced to pay for the needs of, say, 3 billion poor people? 4 billion? Btw, about your first example, an aquaintance at church had exactly that happen to her: terminal illness with no assets to pay medical bills. Then Medicaid kicked in, same hospital, same treatment, no financial problem. But, of course, she died. It's a needed program but it has to be managed well so as to not be taken advantage of, as it is notoriously overcharged by unscrupulous doctors and medical labs.