On Wednesday, January 19th, the house voted 245-189 (all Republicans, and 3 Democrats) to repeal the Healthcare Law. I was curious as to what AG's response would be to this.
Why do people not have healthcare in the first place?
I'm going to briefly step in and say: if they could afford it and be covered at the same time, the percentage of people with standard healthcare would rise a lot. A man has very bad heart problems, right? He's pretty well off in terms of money--he makes 6 figures being a small business owner. He finally decides to go and get insured for his heart. Problem is, the insurance company will provide everything BUT his heart. His heart was a pre-existing condition and, so the insurance company won't lose money over the heart, won't cover him for that specific aspect of his health.
@Freakenstein - ok, but you still need to read the entire argument, because even if this is bad, it's irrelevant; you have not refuted my particular argument against the bill.
The point is that it's economically inefficient whatever that minority is.
Thus there is no "gain" at all by using universal healthcare - there is only an inefficiency.
I agree that this would be a negative for the percentage of the population who doesn't wont healthcare but what about those that can't afford any or full coverage? I would agree that net "good" or "ursuit of happiness" would be positive. Although impossible to please everyone it is possible to please more people than we are now.
I dont think universal healthcare can work for america because we are too big for it.
Denmark-5,529,270 It has successful universal healthcare. Is also very happy. US-307,006,550 No universal healthcare. Dont know about the happiness.
I dont see any countries near our size with universal healthcare.
If you believe that government-run universal healthcare (not that it can't be government-run) can be successful, then address my argument above, please.
If you believe that government-run universal healthcare (not that it can't be government-run) can be successful, then address my argument above, please.
I believe it is situational. I think over some population number the program becomes inefficient simply from its size like you said. As the world population grows I think universal health care will decline.
I agree that this would be a negative for the percentage of the population who doesn't wont healthcare but what about those that can't afford any or full coverage? I would agree that net "good" or "ursuit of happiness" would be positive. Although impossible to please everyone it is possible to please more people than we are now.
Just saw this, if AG had an "Edit Post" button, I could not-double-post, but it is inevitable (unless someone posts in the meantime...).
What about those who can't afford coverage? First, if they want to be insured, then they would be able to do that and anything else they wanted with a system to redistribute wealth (this is for another topic) - with universal healthcare, there is bound to be inefficiency.
Thus, universal healthcare can not be practical because it is inefficient, and I have given an alternative that must be better (and this was shown logically, above).
I believe it is situational. I think over some population number the program becomes inefficient simply from its size like you said.
What about size would be the factor that makes it harder to implement universal healthcare? It gives us more funding, more medical professionals, more medical schools, and more medicals structures.
I believe it is situational. I think over some population number the program becomes inefficient simply from its size like you said. As the world population grows I think universal health care will decline.
OK - insert the "if AG had an 'Edit Post' button" thing here.
Again, if this is truly what you believe, then you must be able to refute my argument against this above. I didn't say that its size made it inefficient - I said that it was inherently inefficient in all situations whatsoever.
Just saw this, if AG had an "Edit Post" button, I could not-double-post, but it is inevitable (unless someone posts in the meantime...).
Copy your post, refresh, and go :]
Thus, universal healthcare can not be practical because it is inefficient, and I have given an alternative that must be better (and this was shown logically, above).
Based upon what principles? Sorry, I may have missed your argument or was it based upon those citizens that don't want healthcare?
@Freakenstein - ok, but you still need to read the entire argument, because even if this is bad, it's irrelevant; you have not refuted my particular argument against the bill.
You could say I refuted *that* part of the argument. The question was asked and the following line below was false, so I just stopped by and put white-out over it :P
This is the first time, other than The New Deal, that there was a federally-run health care bill in the US right? If it is the first, then it's safe to say that it can be better and that those who wish to implement it should observe those that already have UHC and are functioning well. Ideally, I want to say that people should have the right to their choice of health care and should always be eligible for the benefits, so long as they can pay it. Sure, it would be a major loss for the companies to have to insure those with pre-existing conditions, but in the times that they don't, they are just like a standard customer--they pay hundreds every month to be insured. With all those that couldn't have been insured that *now* could, they would be making more profit.
Based upon what principles? Sorry, I may have missed your argument or was it based upon those citizens that don't want healthcare?
My argument was that redistribution of wealth (since I don't want to debate that right now) MUST be better than a universal healthcare system because of the inherent inefficiency dealing with citizens that don't want healthcare. It is more based off of individual choice rather than government-choosing-for-individuals.
My argument was that redistribution of wealth (since I don't want to debate that right now) MUST be better than a universal healthcare system because of the inherent inefficiency dealing with citizens that don't want healthcare.
I would argue more citizens would be upset about there wealth being redistributed than those who would be about having to have healthcare. By I would argue I mean that is what I'm arguing. If we were to want everything to run at complete efficiency we would have to redraw every government program, company, machine, and organism in the world.
Obama just wanted to make health care cheaper originally, but the senate re-wrote the bill so that health care was a requirement. If it had just been cheaper, than people who wanted it could afford it, and those who didn't wouldn't need to buy it.
