The Big Cat Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Hey, this is great. We both agree that a government-run insurance option is a bad idea and that the government should, instead, focus on areas where health care falls short for a small group of people without hurting the larger group which is happy with it's current care. Great to hear that. Once a resident of Erie, PA (a city with a freakishly efficient US Postal Service) I might have bought the "government can run mail, surely it can run health care" argument. But since I've moved to Chicago and had not one, not two, but THREE INSURED packages erased from existence, and THEN had 400 pound black women tell me it was MY fault, well, I'd prefer the government not be in the business of...well, business, period.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 It's a realistic statement. For the record: when I enter my twentieth hour of a liver transplant and they can't control the bleeding, it's time to let me go. One person consuming that many resources is patently ridiculous. Okay... That is better, I see where you are coming from now. Yet, you are scaring me... You sound like you have a little socialist/commie in you. You know, maybe the gov't should get control of healthcare. How else would they be able to implement what you propose? Surely no through the free market where they make money by keeping one alive and suck resources.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 That was my thought too, Tom. What? You a socialist/commie too? What is this world coming too!
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Once a resident of Erie, PA (a city with a freakishly efficient US Postal Service) I might have bought the "government can run mail, surely it can run health care" argument. But since I've moved to Chicago and had not one, not two, but THREE INSURED packages erased from existence, and THEN had 400 pound black women tell me it was MY fault, well, I'd prefer the government not be in the business of...well, business, period. I can change that attitude.. Come through the lock where I work... I will even give you a free jump if your battery dies or a gallon of fuel! It is all about perspective.
Kevbeau Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Again, the Japanese sytem might be the best of all worlds. Private insurers competing to carry people on a mandatory basis with cost controls imposed on healthcare providers by the government. Better than the UK's single-payer system, with less governmental (and tax) overhead. They also fine companies that employ overweight people. Not saying your wrong, just food for thought. News Linky
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 They also fine companies that employ overweight people. Not saying your wrong, just food for thought. News Linky No problem with that, and I'm not exactly svelte.
Chef Jim Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Okay... That is better, I see where you are coming from now. Yet, you are scaring me... You sound like you have a little socialist/commie in you. You know, maybe the gov't should get control of healthcare. How else would they be able to implement what you propose? Surely no through the free market where they make money by keeping one alive and suck resources. So only the government has the ability to make the decision whether or not you live or die given certain medical situations? Is that what you're saying? Ever heard of Advanced Medical Directives?
Recommended Posts