Nationalise Health Care

Politicians in the US have private sector health insurance they purchase themselves, with a partial government reimbursement.

 

I don't see that. Can you be specific?

And that is true ONLY if we don't also address the cost of prescription drugs, cost of medical equipment, hospital profiteering, outrageous incomes of some medical professionals, and some other unnecessarily excessive costs contributing to high healthcare costs.

 

Can't. Healthcare is to powerful from the golden cow monopoly it has going. What may fly is leave the current system in place and the gov starts a 2nd socialized plan.

But, who would run it? Our politicians are corrupt and incompetent. Plus the current healthcare wont go for it, they would lose $.

Maybe China or Cuba can do our healthcare for .10 on the dollar?

And if not, the dems will take down the borders so there will be a constant supply of new worker bees as the sick ones dye off.

...an believe me, this is no joke. What I've said is what it IS.

 

Do members of Congress pay for 100 percent of their health insurance ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../do-members-of-congress-pay-for-100-percent-of-th...
Claim: "Every member of Congress, they pay for their own insurance, too. We are put into the exchange. We’re not a federal employee. We go into the D.C. exchange...
Claimed by: Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.)




Fact check by Washington Post: Three Pinocchios

 

I'll support it if I can opt out (and, yes, be refused care).

 

Which of congress's enumerated powers would allow it to enact such legislation?

 

So you advocate a free rider situation?

 

In the UK, if the government wanted to renationalise, say, the water companies, it would just buy them back up.

I don't know how it works in America.

If you support "privatisation", in the UK, you would be classed as a Thatcherite. If you support "nationalisation", you would be deemed socialist. Of course, there are overlaps within that and pros and cons to both.

 

Ideally we learn from their faults, correct (or fine tune it) it and implement it. I'd rather pay high taxes then deal with unscrupulous insurance carriers.

 

How am I suffering? Could you supply a list.

 

Do you think you should apply this logic across the board?

 

That everyone chip in equally? Yes.

 

The Republicans largely are in power and they won't even consider this, so that's the main reason, but the massive money and political power of the health care industrial complex has both parties in their pockets enough so nothing can get done if push comes to shove.

 

Ok, so if you earn $20,000 a year and I earn $1m a year, we pay equally for everything? So if I pay $50,000 in income tax, you're doing the same!!

I'm not sure you've grasped economics.

 

Money corrupts, especially when it's large scale.

 

No, not that. I said chip in equally. Divide up the bill and split it equally among all of us.

 

Hang on, you either chip in across the board as opposed to cherry pick. So now you want to cherry pick on what everyone has to pay equally on?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by cherry pick, but I'm saying that the bill for universal healthcare should be divided up equally among us all and we each pay our equal, fair share of the cost.

 

Cherry pick means, "choose and take only (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available".

So in the example of healthcare, you're wanting to treat it separately to everything else.

 

So you'd rather I include the entire bill for all government services? Okay, then we should take that entire bill and split it equally among all of us so that we each pay an equal, fair share.

 

@Longshot In the UK, houses are banded from A to H, A being the cheapest house to H being the most expensive. Your house comes under one of these bandings based on value and each band is giving a tax costing. The house owner pays this to the local council. For example, band E can be £2,000 a year.

But why not use your idea, the house owners would pay equally. So someone in a £70,000 house would pay the same as a £15m mansion?

Thatcher tried it, poll tax. Everyone pay £700 each. There was such an up-roar when it was rolled out, she lost her job.

 

But this is my point. Why single out health care? Why cherry pick health care?

 

Houses has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting. I'm saying take the total cost of government services and split it among each of us so that we all pay an equal, fair share of the cost of government.

 

Yes, I took your suggestion. So rather than single out the cost of government healthcare, I'm suggesting we look at the total cost of government. We take that total cost and we divide it up equally among us, so that each of us pays our equal and fair share of the total cost of government.

 

Yes it has. Trying to take all costs and split it equally is the most ridiculous thing I've heard for a long time. It's so ridiculous, it's beyond Uptopian Socialism.