7 ms·

People against universal healthcare are just good people who are confused and/or deluded. Their arguments will never really add up because it's only about corpo

People against universal healthcare are just good people who are confused and/or deluded. Their arguments will never really add up because it's only about corporations making profits and to that end people will need to be deluded and manipulated into believing that we shouldn't implement a proper system. Just remember this when you say you don't get it: it's just the political power of traitors speaking through humans via propaganda.

sp332 13y ago
I'm against public healthcare in the USA because there's no way (in the current political climate) it won't be massively corrupt. Did you know the insurance companies were lobbying in favor of our new system? It's still about corporations making profits.
- Xdes 13y ago
  Public healthcare ought to be implemented at the local level for those that want it (which I don't). I'm quite fine with not seeking treatment when I get a terminal illness. If it ever gets to that point I would prefer euthanasia (illegal in the USA).
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Best bet is to fly to Switzerland when terminally ill, it's what I plan if it ever happens to me.
  - shawabawa3 13y ago
    > I'm quite fine with not seeking treatment when I get a terminal illness. If it ever gets to that point I would prefer euthanasia (illegal in the USA). You say that now, but I guarantee you the moment you get diagnosed you change your mind. Especially considering so many terminal illnesses can in fact be cured with (very expensive) treatments. Also, what about all the non-terminal illnessess? What happens if you break your leg? Or get stabbed? Or get in a car accident? Or any of the millions of other things that can happen?
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      >You say that now, but I guarantee you the moment you get diagnosed you change your mind. Especially considering so many terminal illnesses can in fact be cured with (very expensive) treatments. By definition, they aren't terminal illness then. In any case, in the US (or many other countries), those treatments are unavailable or will literally make someone homeless (and preclude them ever getting insurance again). There's also the question of if it's worth it - will the end result provide proper quality of life or not. Breaking a leg is a specious analogy as it is neither terminal nor permanent; but if something worse did happen and it would permanently affect my quality of life, yes, I'd still feel the same.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - mikeash 13y ago
    What if you get hit by a bus and go into a coma and your treatment costs millions of dollars? If you're not awake, you can't refuse treatment.
- Kurtz79 13y ago
  By living in a few different countries, I found out believing that the current political climate of your own is somewhat worse than other ones where supposedly things work better is a common fallacy. Universal healthcare exists (and works, with various degrees of success) in most countries that are otherwise very similiar to the US in terms of culture, form of government, and in some cases have worse corruption and bureocracy. As in many things with democracy and social security, there would be inefficiencies, abuses and problems, the real issue is, in my opinion, if the people would be better off in the end, all things considered.
- coldpie 13y ago
  As opposed to the current situation?
- nedwin 13y ago
  The lobbyists were lobbying to get the new system setup in a way that was favourable to them. That doesn't mean the new system is inherently wrong.
- specialist 13y ago
  massively corrupt The data, comparative experiences, and commons sense, disagrees with you. Single payer is easier to audit. Because it's more simple. Healthcare Fraud: Auditing and Detection Guide [2012] http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Guide/dp/1118179803/ http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Gu... Healthcare Fraud: Auditing and Detection Guide [2007] http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Guide/dp/0470127104/ http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Gu... And before you say "tort reform", single payer and universal coverage largely eliminates need for malpractice insurance. Again, because we have existence proofs (every country that has single payer) that discerning people can use to inform their opinions.
  - cwaniak 13y ago
    of course! Centralized economic solutions always work the best. The USSR is the best example of that. You people go back to coding and leave economics to economists.
    - huherto 13y ago
      That is simply not true. Centralized economic solutions work better for some things. Free market soluctions work for other types of things. The USSR was a dictatorship where everything was managed by the State. This is not what it is being proposed.
      - specialist 13y ago
        Markets are not always the most efficient way to determine price information. Further, most transactions are private or semi private, meaning not conducted via an open market. The amount one business unit (or agency) charges another for goods and services may be informed by a market price, but not necessarily.
      - cwaniak 13y ago
        > Centralized economic solutions work better for some things. I could also say that 2 and 2 not always is 4. Please give concrete examples.
- lewaldman 13y ago
  I'm brazilian... You can't, and should not, ever; spoke about corruption on a media were a south american/african could read you. US got corruption? We got it worst! Much much much worst. Worst in a level were the King of Soccer (Pelé) can say on national television that the money that would be stealed during the construction of the stadiums for the world cup would came back as tourists money. And, beside that... we have universal health care. (It's not fancy nor without big lines of people or up to 5 hours waiting to a doctor but it exists, and works. Specially for serious illnes like cancer, HIV or Hepatitis).
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> People against universal healthcare are just good people who are confused and/or deluded. The U.S. has universal healthcare. The Affordable Care Act guarantees everybody can sign up for new, better insurance, or keep their old insurance if they want. We know it's good because it was designed with extensive public collaboration and debate. Thank God the folks from Washington, D.C. are here to help.

sp332 13y ago

I'm against public healthcare in the USA because there's no way (in the current political climate) it won't be massively corrupt. Did you know the insurance companies were lobbying in favor of our new system? It's still about corporations making profits.

Xdes 13y ago
Public healthcare ought to be implemented at the local level for those that want it (which I don't). I'm quite fine with not seeking treatment when I get a terminal illness. If it ever gets to that point I would prefer euthanasia (illegal in the USA).
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Best bet is to fly to Switzerland when terminally ill, it's what I plan if it ever happens to me.
- shawabawa3 13y ago
  > I'm quite fine with not seeking treatment when I get a terminal illness. If it ever gets to that point I would prefer euthanasia (illegal in the USA). You say that now, but I guarantee you the moment you get diagnosed you change your mind. Especially considering so many terminal illnesses can in fact be cured with (very expensive) treatments. Also, what about all the non-terminal illnessess? What happens if you break your leg? Or get stabbed? Or get in a car accident? Or any of the millions of other things that can happen?
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    >You say that now, but I guarantee you the moment you get diagnosed you change your mind. Especially considering so many terminal illnesses can in fact be cured with (very expensive) treatments. By definition, they aren't terminal illness then. In any case, in the US (or many other countries), those treatments are unavailable or will literally make someone homeless (and preclude them ever getting insurance again). There's also the question of if it's worth it - will the end result provide proper quality of life or not. Breaking a leg is a specious analogy as it is neither terminal nor permanent; but if something worse did happen and it would permanently affect my quality of life, yes, I'd still feel the same.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- mikeash 13y ago
  What if you get hit by a bus and go into a coma and your treatment costs millions of dollars? If you're not awake, you can't refuse treatment.
Kurtz79 13y ago
By living in a few different countries, I found out believing that the current political climate of your own is somewhat worse than other ones where supposedly things work better is a common fallacy. Universal healthcare exists (and works, with various degrees of success) in most countries that are otherwise very similiar to the US in terms of culture, form of government, and in some cases have worse corruption and bureocracy. As in many things with democracy and social security, there would be inefficiencies, abuses and problems, the real issue is, in my opinion, if the people would be better off in the end, all things considered.
coldpie 13y ago
As opposed to the current situation?
nedwin 13y ago
The lobbyists were lobbying to get the new system setup in a way that was favourable to them. That doesn't mean the new system is inherently wrong.
specialist 13y ago
massively corrupt The data, comparative experiences, and commons sense, disagrees with you. Single payer is easier to audit. Because it's more simple. Healthcare Fraud: Auditing and Detection Guide [2012] http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Guide/dp/1118179803/ http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Gu... Healthcare Fraud: Auditing and Detection Guide [2007] http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Guide/dp/0470127104/ http://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-Gu... And before you say "tort reform", single payer and universal coverage largely eliminates need for malpractice insurance. Again, because we have existence proofs (every country that has single payer) that discerning people can use to inform their opinions.
- cwaniak 13y ago
  of course! Centralized economic solutions always work the best. The USSR is the best example of that. You people go back to coding and leave economics to economists.
  - huherto 13y ago
    That is simply not true. Centralized economic solutions work better for some things. Free market soluctions work for other types of things. The USSR was a dictatorship where everything was managed by the State. This is not what it is being proposed.
    - specialist 13y ago
      Markets are not always the most efficient way to determine price information. Further, most transactions are private or semi private, meaning not conducted via an open market. The amount one business unit (or agency) charges another for goods and services may be informed by a market price, but not necessarily.
    - cwaniak 13y ago
      > Centralized economic solutions work better for some things. I could also say that 2 and 2 not always is 4. Please give concrete examples.
lewaldman 13y ago
I'm brazilian... You can't, and should not, ever; spoke about corruption on a media were a south american/african could read you. US got corruption? We got it worst! Much much much worst. Worst in a level were the King of Soccer (Pelé) can say on national television that the money that would be stealed during the construction of the stadiums for the world cup would came back as tourists money. And, beside that... we have universal health care. (It's not fancy nor without big lines of people or up to 5 hours waiting to a doctor but it exists, and works. Specially for serious illnes like cancer, HIV or Hepatitis).

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

> People against universal healthcare are just good people who are confused and/or deluded. The U.S. has universal healthcare. The Affordable Care Act guarantees everybody can sign up for new, better insurance, or keep their old insurance if they want. We know it's good because it was designed with extensive public collaboration and debate. Thank God the folks from Washington, D.C. are here to help.