It didn’t take long for the differences to eclipse where we agree. I guess since Progressives want/need government to impose their ideals on everyone, and Conservatives don’t, everything else is moot.
It didn’t take long for the differences to eclipse where we agree. I guess since Progressives want/need government to impose their ideals on everyone, and Conservatives don’t, everything else is moot.
Do you think government should provide healthcare to all its citizens? I do. Most other people on earth enjoy this benefit. This isn't "imposing ideals." It's legitimately helping keep people alive. We're not talking about arts funding or drone striking here, man. Be less defensive.
Do you like the system we have now? What's the difference between public schooling and public healthcare?
Nobody's afraid to fend for themselves, bud. Been doing that for about 40 years and have been through the ringer a few times. I'd simply like a government that takes care of its citizens instead of its corporate donors. I'd like my tax dollars to make schools better and not used to prop up big business and buy more shit from Raytheon.
Past that, you're just arguing against a strawman of what universal healthcare would be. Currently, most Americans have an illusion of choice: which employer-provided care will I choose? Which doctors are in that network? Some people pretend that's "freedom" because they don't know any better. It's not. And you can always, always choose to pay for the doctor and care you'd like to receive. You're free to do that in most universal systems if you're willing to pay.
You make some good points but if there's an argument to keep government out of healthcare, then the example of public education fits the bill. The better example (i.e Sweden) of public healthcare relies on the private sector to deliver services. Here in the US, we have barriers to entry and feather-nesting in the form of anti-trust protections for insurance companies that limit competition. I'd like to see a discussion on that before we look at creating another government monstrosity.
I don't view public education as negatively as many here seem to, but that's a good point re: the Swedish model. I think most Americans would agree our *current* system is deeply flawed and it's gotten worse in the past few decades. (The ACA helped guarantee health insurance, sure, but what good is guaranteeing and indeed requiring people to purchase something that flatly doesn't do does what it's purported to do?)
I don't have a fetish for big government but have a problem imagining how our current private system can be rehabilitated to work for the average American. (That said, if you have an article/overview you think is really instructive re: the Swedish model, I'd love a link. What I know is pretty surface level. If not, no biggie. Appreciate the thoughtful reply.)
If you are looking for an argument you better look elsewhere; that sounds quite rational. Health care isn’t an area I focus on too much, but there is no aspect of 21st century US government that I want anything to do with. It is a mammoth jobs program for the incompetent!
If you think “... nobody’s afraid to fend for themselves...” you must have some twisted sense of reality. As for current system, it’s far from perfect and much of that is due to governmental bureaucratic red tape. Government is a massive weight chained around people’s neck. And amazingly, these days that’s what many people need/want.
I don't think you want to compare public healthcare with public schools. Public schools don't have a very good track record of preparing students, even with their budgets astronomically have increased the past 30 years.
Many public schools are controlled by teacher unions and their sycophant politicians, and look at the shitshow right now with many districts not opening up, largely affecting poor and minority students.
If we had public healthcare, that would pattern after public schools, then it would be a disaster.
Public healthcare absolutely does not model on public education. They're two different issues.
I'm sympathetic to the school choice position. I also think that although single-payer health care would be an improvement over what we have now, it isn't the best alternative. But I have different reasons for my objections.
Sure, I select my insurance company, it isn’t imposed on me; they are more efficient, until they have to comply with governmental bureaucratic red tape.
I looked at your two links. The person who makes a living “... helping people navigate...” has a motive called profit. The La times compares US v Canada. Do you consider the US and Canada to identical?
If you are willing to discard the fact that profit is the universal motivator then I can understand why you think as you do. But if you acknowledge the profit reality I guess it indicates your worshipping of bureaucracy is what controls your thoughts.
Your post moves the discussion turf from measurable, practical aspects such as those discussed in the links into the realm of abstract Theory. You're obviously more comfortable there.
Let’s pretend you have a job, a job that causes your employer to pay you. Would you report to your job if your employer quit paying you? If so, I agree, considering the motive of profit is in the abstract.
The UK, with the wonderful NHS (mine and family experience) has already vaccinated more than 1 million, 2 million per week goal. Meanwhile, our nonsensical, crony capitalist system limps along!!
People who can’t see the forest for the trees are funny. UK - approx 68 million people, US - approx 330 million; a slight difference. Plus many in the UK have sheep like tendencies, with their Judas goat they gladly, blindly follow.
Progressives want government programs to cure their neuroses about whatever their pet cause is -universal health care , global warming, “gun violence”, blah, blah, blah. It’s like taxpayer funded, budget busting, freedom trampling therapy. Note-progressives might give lip service to a BLM type agenda, but race relations generally aren’t in their wheelhouse of angst, imo.
So the rest of the developed world, most other countries have uni health, and thus are neurotic? The problem is US has a huge mental health crisis to go along with the physical one.
The American War on Drugs has hardly been all about triumphant Progressivism imposing its ideals on everyone. It's indisputably the most oppressive and pernicious Federal public policy regime of the last 70 years.
It's ironic that both Conservatives and Wokists act as if it's some minor side issue compared to examples of Real Oppression, like the prospect of a carbon tax (Conservatives), or people of unmixed European ancestry quoting the "n-word" (Wokists.)
It didn’t take long for the differences to eclipse where we agree. I guess since Progressives want/need government to impose their ideals on everyone, and Conservatives don’t, everything else is moot.
Do you think government should provide healthcare to all its citizens? I do. Most other people on earth enjoy this benefit. This isn't "imposing ideals." It's legitimately helping keep people alive. We're not talking about arts funding or drone striking here, man. Be less defensive.
Defensive? Hmmm. To your point, why would I want some inept, as opposed to ept, (🎩 Newton Monroe) bureaucrat telling you what doctor to go to?
Of course, a lot of people are afraid to fend for themselves.
Do you like the system we have now? What's the difference between public schooling and public healthcare?
Nobody's afraid to fend for themselves, bud. Been doing that for about 40 years and have been through the ringer a few times. I'd simply like a government that takes care of its citizens instead of its corporate donors. I'd like my tax dollars to make schools better and not used to prop up big business and buy more shit from Raytheon.
Past that, you're just arguing against a strawman of what universal healthcare would be. Currently, most Americans have an illusion of choice: which employer-provided care will I choose? Which doctors are in that network? Some people pretend that's "freedom" because they don't know any better. It's not. And you can always, always choose to pay for the doctor and care you'd like to receive. You're free to do that in most universal systems if you're willing to pay.
You make some good points but if there's an argument to keep government out of healthcare, then the example of public education fits the bill. The better example (i.e Sweden) of public healthcare relies on the private sector to deliver services. Here in the US, we have barriers to entry and feather-nesting in the form of anti-trust protections for insurance companies that limit competition. I'd like to see a discussion on that before we look at creating another government monstrosity.
I don't view public education as negatively as many here seem to, but that's a good point re: the Swedish model. I think most Americans would agree our *current* system is deeply flawed and it's gotten worse in the past few decades. (The ACA helped guarantee health insurance, sure, but what good is guaranteeing and indeed requiring people to purchase something that flatly doesn't do does what it's purported to do?)
I don't have a fetish for big government but have a problem imagining how our current private system can be rehabilitated to work for the average American. (That said, if you have an article/overview you think is really instructive re: the Swedish model, I'd love a link. What I know is pretty surface level. If not, no biggie. Appreciate the thoughtful reply.)
This will get you started...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq3vVbdgMuQ
Obliged, RAH. Will check that later tonight when I can devote the full hour to it.
If you are looking for an argument you better look elsewhere; that sounds quite rational. Health care isn’t an area I focus on too much, but there is no aspect of 21st century US government that I want anything to do with. It is a mammoth jobs program for the incompetent!
True, and as a kid I drank Tang.
If you think “... nobody’s afraid to fend for themselves...” you must have some twisted sense of reality. As for current system, it’s far from perfect and much of that is due to governmental bureaucratic red tape. Government is a massive weight chained around people’s neck. And amazingly, these days that’s what many people need/want.
I don't think you want to compare public healthcare with public schools. Public schools don't have a very good track record of preparing students, even with their budgets astronomically have increased the past 30 years.
Many public schools are controlled by teacher unions and their sycophant politicians, and look at the shitshow right now with many districts not opening up, largely affecting poor and minority students.
If we had public healthcare, that would pattern after public schools, then it would be a disaster.
Public healthcare absolutely does not model on public education. They're two different issues.
I'm sympathetic to the school choice position. I also think that although single-payer health care would be an improvement over what we have now, it isn't the best alternative. But I have different reasons for my objections.
you mean, as opposed to a private-sector bureaucrat from a health insurance company telling us what doctors to go to?
Sure, I select my insurance company, it isn’t imposed on me; they are more efficient, until they have to comply with governmental bureaucratic red tape.
That is the limit of your choice. Most people don't have that much choice; they're covered by the insurance company selected by their employer.
Private insurance companies are NOT more efficient than public health programs, they're less efficient. https://scholars.org/contribution/americas-public-medicare-program-costs-less-and-more-efficient-private-health
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-01-07/u-s-health-system-costs-four-times-more-than-canadas-single-payer-system
"[private insurance] is more efficient, until they have to comply with governmental bureaucratic red tape."
As yet, you're arguing with trigger phrases and ideological canards, not facts. I invite you to support your claims.
The problem is I couldn’t care less what sort of system you prefer, until you force your preference on me.
That doesn't really work as a responsive reply to my post. but I'll follow the tangent. Go on, elaborate on your concerns in that respect.
I looked at your two links. The person who makes a living “... helping people navigate...” has a motive called profit. The La times compares US v Canada. Do you consider the US and Canada to identical?
If you are willing to discard the fact that profit is the universal motivator then I can understand why you think as you do. But if you acknowledge the profit reality I guess it indicates your worshipping of bureaucracy is what controls your thoughts.
"the fact that profit is the universal motivator"
If only it were that simple.
Your post moves the discussion turf from measurable, practical aspects such as those discussed in the links into the realm of abstract Theory. You're obviously more comfortable there.
Let’s pretend you have a job, a job that causes your employer to pay you. Would you report to your job if your employer quit paying you? If so, I agree, considering the motive of profit is in the abstract.
The UK, with the wonderful NHS (mine and family experience) has already vaccinated more than 1 million, 2 million per week goal. Meanwhile, our nonsensical, crony capitalist system limps along!!
People who can’t see the forest for the trees are funny. UK - approx 68 million people, US - approx 330 million; a slight difference. Plus many in the UK have sheep like tendencies, with their Judas goat they gladly, blindly follow.
If you like your UK you can keep your UK! (🎩 BO)
Progressives want government programs to cure their neuroses about whatever their pet cause is -universal health care , global warming, “gun violence”, blah, blah, blah. It’s like taxpayer funded, budget busting, freedom trampling therapy. Note-progressives might give lip service to a BLM type agenda, but race relations generally aren’t in their wheelhouse of angst, imo.
I want healthcare for everyone because I think all lives matter and it’s the humane thing to do in the richest country in the world.
So the rest of the developed world, most other countries have uni health, and thus are neurotic? The problem is US has a huge mental health crisis to go along with the physical one.
What are neuroses if not mental health issues? Progressive politics are a manifestation, as I stated above.
The American War on Drugs has hardly been all about triumphant Progressivism imposing its ideals on everyone. It's indisputably the most oppressive and pernicious Federal public policy regime of the last 70 years.
It's ironic that both Conservatives and Wokists act as if it's some minor side issue compared to examples of Real Oppression, like the prospect of a carbon tax (Conservatives), or people of unmixed European ancestry quoting the "n-word" (Wokists.)
( lol!!! silence. the usual non-response. )
Under the guise of "religious freedom" you certainly do want to impose your ideals on everyone.
I do?
That's just a progressive fantasy to justify why they hate religion.
I'm not going to waste my time proving the obvious to religious nutters.
you wasted time calling me a leftist. what caricature do you wish to be known by? you and sherry disgust me.