Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

United States with Capitalism

Posted Sep 24, '13 at 8:09pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

Typical greedy Republican thinking!
Why can't the US have a similar system as Denmark?
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279

Of course they'll never do it because rich parasites always find loopholes in the system so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.
They'd rather give corrupted congress members outrageously high salaries + the money they get from crooked Insurance and pharmaceutical companies to pass bills that favors their greedy agendas!

Conservatives always wine about solutions to problems that touch others until they get hit by the same problem then, all of a sudden, they understand.
Remember the gay marriage issue?

1. I was never against gay marriage.
2. Republicans, who are often tax payers, can afford health care.
3. Why you believe I should be a slave to the sick and get literally nothing in return is beyond me. Sure, I'll get coverage too, OH WAIT, I can cover myself because I have a job.

If you want to help people, help them. Don't tell other people they have to help or be imprisoned, because that's lazy, irresponsible, and completely immoral.

If you want to help people, YOU help people. I'll help people when I can help them. I shouldn't be forced to live a ****ty life, paycheck to paycheck, because people want me to pay for their healthcare.

Again, I'm going to be forced to pay for half of my insurance thanks to Obamacare. This will COST me money. Not only will I have less money in my paycheck, but in the long run I'll have payed more money for my health insurance than any medical bill. Am I greedy? If I can't be happy with myself, then I see no reason why I should be forced to care for others.

Not once do I say, "let the sick just wither away" or anything related to that. I believe we can find ways to help the sick without forcing people to help. 

When I'm sick, I'll be poor. Not because of high health care costs, but because I'll have saved nothing paying for my healthcare while I was healthy. It would be better for me to save my money and pay for my own costs, at least it would be in a truly free market healthcare system. What we have now is bad too, but it's bad because people got the government involved.

 

Posted Sep 24, '13 at 8:11pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

Just so that I'm clear, Obamacare puts small businesses into debt. Hmm, why do we hurt the middle class to take care of the poor?

 

Posted Sep 24, '13 at 8:42pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,982 posts

It would be better for me to save my money and pay for my own costs, at least it would be in a truly free market healthcare system.

What about when something happens and the insurance company denies your filed claims and drops your coverage based on a bs 'preexisting condition'? You can't exactly save up a few million dollars these days.

 

Posted Sep 24, '13 at 9:11pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

What about when something happens and the insurance company denies your filed claims and drops your coverage based on a bs 'preexisting condition'? You can't exactly save up a few million dollars these days.

This is a false dichotomy.

A.) We get stuck with mountains of debt.
or
B.) We adopt socialized healthcare to avoid medical debts.

Why are these the only two options? Why not get rid of the actual problems plaguing American healthcare? That is to say, we encourage people to pay for their own healthcare rather than promoting employer based healthcare. We let insurance companies compete across boarders. We allow people to pick healthcare that fits them specifically so they may save money. We find ways in which hospitals become more competitive (such as encouraging people to look for he best medical service rather than picking the first one they see since they don't care about costs they won't pay due to 3rd party payer systems). We lighten up with the DEA and make it so drugs aren't too costly to develop and test.

 

Posted Sep 24, '13 at 9:40pm

SSTG

SSTG

11,054 posts

Knight

Why are these the only two options? Why not get rid of the actual problems plaguing American healthcare? That is to say, we encourage people to pay for their own healthcare rather than promoting employer based healthcare. We let insurance companies compete across boarders. We allow people to pick healthcare that fits them specifically so they may save money. We find ways in which hospitals become more competitive (such as encouraging people to look for he best medical service rather than picking the first one they see since they don't care about costs they won't pay due to 3rd party payer systems). We lighten up with the DEA and make it so drugs aren't too costly to develop and test.

Did you even check the link about Denmark?
where it's says:
It's mainly cheap because it's a lot simpler to manage. There are no medical insurance companies or lawyers operating for profit, or financial background checks
and
Stronger state regulations ensure that the money pouring through the system ends up where it's supposed to: with doctors and health care providers.
The pharmaceutical industry still gets its fair share since medication is still bought on the free market. This rewards innovation.

If congressmen weren't so crooked and overpaid a similar system could be implemented and each States would supervise and make sure there are no abuses from any parties.

 

Posted Sep 24, '13 at 9:47pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,982 posts

This is a false dichotomy.

B.) We adopt socialized healthcare to avoid medical debts.

Except I didn't say this was the only alternative, as many nations (like Japan) need to borrow from banks to cover the overall cost, then pay it off with other taxes.

 

Posted Sep 24, '13 at 10:08pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

If you want to help people, YOU help people. I'll help people when I can help them. I shouldn't be forced to live a ****ty life, paycheck to paycheck, because people want me to pay for their healthcare.

NoName, are you even looking at what we're saying?

It's not more expensive to have socialized healthcare.
You aren't going to be forced to live a crappy life, because you'll have healthcare too. You aren't going to be paying for your own healthcare costs in addition to paying the tax for the socialized healthcare coverage...you'll just be covered by the tax.

How much do we have to show you? All of your arguments are against a strawman. We have data proving these socialized systems work, and far better than ours. You won't wait longer, you won't pay more, you won't be screwed over, and you aren't paying for anyone else's healthcare anymore than you're paying for your own already, except people who can't otherwise afford healthcare or simply weren't covered are now able to receive proper treatment. Yet you somehow keep thinking you're right by arguing that none of this is true, all because you've got some huge problem with the word socialism.

 

Posted Sep 25, '13 at 9:20am

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Are you familiar with the Social Contract?

No, were they before they started? And we can always change it.

Also guys, we cannot rely on the government to provide for us.  It just gives them all the more power.  With a Socialist government, they force us at gunpoint to pay for other people's welfare.  What the heck is up with that?  I mean, we might as well be Communist.

 

Posted Sep 25, '13 at 10:30am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Also guys, we cannot rely on the government to provide for us.

It's not the government providing for us, it's the government taking a pooling of resources and distributing them in the exact same fashion we build roads, fund police departments, fire stations, parks and whatever else. Insurance agencies aren't profitable except when they charge high rates or have a very large following so that the risk is lowered. 

With a Socialist government, they force us at gunpoint to pay for other people's welfare.  What the heck is up with that?  I mean, we might as well be Communist.

It's the exact same reason for taxing with public schools. Even if you don't have kids, you pay for the school in the area. Why? So that we don't have a bunch of ignorant twerks growing up into the workforce. It improves everyone's life in the long run.

What the heck is up with people not understanding that everyone getting better healthcare for individually less is not only more sustainable, but will improve happiness, decrease crime rates, increase productivity and decrease fiscal troubles?

Oh wait, there's the word socialist in it! THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY FOR THOSE LAZY *******S WHO WON'T WORK OR GET HIGH PAYING JOBS TO AFFORD THINGS. THEY SHOULD DIE.

 

Posted Sep 25, '13 at 11:05pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

I'm curious, let's say we had a completely capitalistic healthcare system where you pay your own way. What happens to those who can't? It seems this idea of not having any support is based on the concept that those who use it are just being lazy. What of the people who would truly have no other option but to receive help from others to receive healthcare or die because they couldn't pay for it even in a highly competitive field?

Also do you think such people are the minority, that most receiving benefits are just being lazy?

 
Reply to United States with Capitalism

You must be logged in to post a reply!