Friar Bijou wrote:
No. He's saying let's see a plan actually spelled out concisely and presented as a piece of legislation that could be voted on.
Well, he's actually demanding a piece of legislation that's already been voted on and is sitting on the Presidents desk awaiting signature or veto. But even if he were saying what you're saying, that's still a ridiculously high bar to set for "having a plan". Again, let me remind you that this claim isn't just in the context of the GOP passing legislation today, but has been leveled at the GOP since 2009. Do I really need to go back and quote all the times folks on this very forum made the "GOP doesn't have an alternative plan" going back the last 6 years?
This is not about whether a party is able to put together legislation. This is about ideas. And I'm saying that the claim that the GOP doesn't have ideas is flat out wrong.
Quote:
And you are right; the ACA is a bit of a CF. Single payer is much better.
The ACA is a CF precisely so that you (and others like you) will demand single payer. I'd actually argue that a host of changes to our health care system by the Democrats going back several decades were done for this reason. Most of the things that were broken about out health care system prior to passage of the ACA were put in place by the Dems, using precisely the same top down federal approach. That's what was wrong with the system in the first place. Trying to fix it with yet more of the same bad idea is obviously just going to make things worse. Some of us have seen the pattern all along.
Quote:
Too bad soulless, selfish, arrogant jerks such as yourself cant part with 1% of your income to help other human beings and have a vastly more efficient health care system, eh?
Tell you what. We move to a flat tax rate for everyone, and then get back to me on single payer health care. One of us is trying to get something for nothing, and it ain't me. Call me soulless and arrogant if you want, but I'm not the one being selfish here.
I'd also argue that an "efficient health care system" isn't necessarily the criteria I'd look for. I'd want a quality health care system. Efficient systems do things like cut off treatment if they cost more than they think it's worth paying (yes, "death panels" if you want to call them that). You're ok with a government run system as long as it benefits you to have one. But the true test of whether a system "works" is when you'll support it when it doesn't benefit you. When you actually think "this is a reasonable cost for what we get". And I've looked at single payer systems around the world. While they look great from a distance, once you start looking a little closer, you start seeing problems. Big problems.
That's not to say that privately funded health insurance systems are perfect. Not at all. My point is that there is no "perfect" solution, and we should stop pretending that there is. The difference is that I support an imperfect system that is fair to all involved. Your supporting a system that is inherently unfair, as long as it's more fair to you than other people (or as long as you think that is the case). The problem (which I suppose ties back to my issue with federal versus state systems), is that once inside such a system you lose the ability to see the flaws. They seem normal because you don't see a better system on the other side of a state line, or a better program being offered by another insurance company or health care plan. They're all the same because the government has mandated them to all be the same. Thus, no competition and nothing for you, the consumer, to compare it to.
I just find it strange that wanting private people to be in control of their own lives is "soulless", but having some monolithic government bureaucracy running everything from some far off ivory tower is just peachy. I'm not even sure how one allows themselves to be bought into that position.