Sociopath? Unable to empathize with the pain of thier victims. Who here said they had no empathy? Are you saying people who are against gov't provided healthcare are individualists and therefore sociopaths? Maybe I am not following.Please correct me if I am mistaken. Anyway,that would only be one possible attribute of a sociopath. http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html You probably knew that though.
It's abundantly clear that those who are against universal coverage are not trading for a living. Because if you were you'd be buying your own healthcare on the individual market and realize that you are one sickness or chronic condition away from being uninsurable. If for no other reason than attrition we are moving further and further from an employer based model toward individual policies. The problem is that individual policies are fundamentally flawed. They are priced based on your current individual risk which means that when you need it most you most likely will not be able to afford it. The only way to fix this flaw is to provide coverage to all at the same rate for all. At one time, when it was standard for an employer to provide health insurance we effectively had universal coverage because anyone with a job had coverage and anyone who didn't went on Medicaid. Now this is not the case at all. If employers are unwilling to provide coverage then it falls to the government to provide a scheme (public, private, I don't care) to cover all. All this other debate about whether healthcare is a right is a giant circle jerk between you lefties and righties. Get over it. It is irrelevant. Universal coverage is the only way to have an effective healthcare system.
So, how much of your own money have you given to these people who are dying in the streets, unable to pay for their healthcare? I mean, you're filled with empathy, and it's such a big problem, so you must give every spare penny.
That's a mindless question. Either you're a kid who hasn't yet learned to think things through, or you're on a bender. Not that they're mutually exclusive.
Oh, so you've thought it through. Let's examine your enlightened thoughts: Expecting you to put your money where your giant pie hole is, is just childish. Using the force of government to rob other people to pay for your principles is "empathy". You're an idiot, an asshole and a thief.
Thundermoron, Don't bother trying to prove how "enlightened" you are. I'm from the Soviet Union and I assure you that of the two of us, I know WAY more about the socialism you spew and just how "empathetic" it is - and just how many people die from lack of medical care. I'm sure you're all enraged that I stomped on your fragile ego as I'm certain that you believe yourself to be so much more "evolved" than people who recognize the value of liberty and don't wish forcibly enslave everyone to your inane vision, but you'll just have to find a way to suck it up. I run across your drooling occasionally on this site and it's pretty clear you're not operating on all cylinders.
A little reason in the midst of the usual libertarian nuttiness: Saying it's not a right doesn't really mean anything. Electricity isn't a right, but it is highly regulated, because in a modern society it's a necessity. Ditto for water and heat. Other things are treated by society as a public good: roads, police, and fire protection, all of which were, at one time, private enterprises. Once, for instance, NYC had two competing police forces. In Philadelphia, Ben Franklin ran a private fire company. Arguing that it should be that way again will get you nowhere, because it simply isn't going to happen. Healthcare in every other industrialized country is treated as a public good. In the case of Canada, the fact you can get private healthcare is analogous to the fact that if you can afford it, you can use a private limo to commute to work in NYC. Most people use the buses and subways - government-run in every city in the world, to the best of my knowledge - a small minority use taxis, a regulated utility, and a tiny minority get to work in private limos. Healthcare, in all other rich countries, is treated the same way. From a financial POV, it makes the most sense by a wide margin, because of the economies of scale involved in covering everyone, so cherry-picking healthy folk isn't a problem. The current USA system, such as it is, is socialism for the covered corporate/government employee, and a free market for small business workers and owners and self-employed people. The result, of course, is that small business folks and self-employed people massively subsidize corporate and government employees. The result of that is that most sane people with an economic choice decide to work for large corporations or the government. This is the least optimal outcome. You want a system where people make a choice to start a business or be an employee based on their inclinations and abilities. What you have is a system where large numbers of the most intelligent and able wind up working for years for other people, and only strike out on their own when they know they won't endanger the lives, quite literally, of themselves or their family by exposing them to the dysfunctional "market" for healthcare the USA has, which is rife with cherry-picking. The solution to this problem is to treat healthcare as a public good. A mixed socialist/free market "system" - really a mess - is the worst possible choice, but it's the choice the US has fallen into, by historical happenstance. It's completely indefensible. It delivers the worst care at the highest price.
First, the Federal Government has no authority whatsoever to mandate any type of socialized health care program. The 10th Amendment cedes all power not expressly granted to the Federal Government, to the States, or People. Any type of health care program must be initiated by the States. If a California or New York wants to mandate universal health care for their residents, let them. Either via a sales tax, state income tax, whatever . Its their business. As far as the morality of a universal health care system. Socialism is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Big Government power-freaks want to make everything a "Right", with the catch the State now has an equal RIGHT to tax you for it and take even more power to ensure the "safe and effective" metering of such services. Government freebies are really just legislated power to STEAL from your neighbor and keep a Government Brownshirt hovering over his wallet to insure future pillaging. Private healthcare would work a lot better with tort reform (liability caps), and insurance deregulation. This is just another powergrab by Government that will cramp the economy further, instill new, even more inept bureaucracies, and cut a fat pay-check to a top Washington lobbiest - Big Pharma.
-- I'm from the Soviet Union and I assure you that of the two of us, I know WAY more about the socialism you spew You may know more about communism, but from your reply you do not seem to know more about socialism since you do not seem to be able to differentiate the two. The interesting thing is that your reply would indicate that you bear all the intolerance that is associated with communism, but at the same time you rail against it. It seems you can release the Soviet from Communism, but you can not necessarily release the communist from the Soviet