Everyone covered by healthcare?

[Initiate_Sacred_Demise]

America is the only OECD nation that currently does not cover everyone with healthcare. On top of this, America spends 17.5 % GDP on health care, with 30% of that going to inefficient administrative costs. Do you all think it is a good idea for the government to come up with a way to cover everyone and attempt to make it more efficient?

[Trigr Warning]

The Affordable Health care Act would've helped, before it got declawed.

It's still going to help, just not as much.

[SmallTownGuy]

^^ Generally agreed. The original version was a pretty good bill before it got ripped apart to appease Republicans (who wound up voting against it anyway). The version that got signed will still help a lot.

Come to think of it, Hilary Clinton's version (12 years ago, when Bill was in office) would have helped, if that bill hadn't gotten bogged down with the right-to-sue details.

[Sir Fharlanghn]

I really only want them to mess with the pharmaceutical companies considering how they like to rebrand their products as new to jack up the price. I mean seriously, there are some medicines in the United States that cost five times more than they do in Canada.

[from blue to]

I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

[azulmagia]

But...but...that would mean negroes and other unworthy moochers would get healthcare!

[I AM R U]

Sir Fharlanghn

I really only want them to mess with the pharmaceutical companies considering how they like to rebrand their products as new to jack up the price. I mean seriously, there are some medicines in the United States that cost five times more than they do in Canada.

So you'd want the government to subsidise the cost of medicine, and place pressure on pharmaceutical companies to not seek disreputable methods of raising prices, such as packaging changes?

[I AM R U]

SmallTownGuy

^^ Generally agreed. The original version was a pretty good bill before it got ripped apart to appease Republicans (who wound up voting against it anyway). The version that got signed will still help a lot.

Come to think of it, Hilary Clinton's version (12 years ago, when Bill was in office) would have helped, if that bill hadn't gotten bogged down with the right-to-sue details.

Can you please explain the opposition towards universal health care? As far as I've understood, people seem to want the right to not have health care... Which while understandable in a purely theoretical sense, but makes no practical sense at all.

[from blue to]

azulmagia

But...but...that would mean negroes and other unworthy moochers would get healthcare!

You want service, you gots to pay. And Seriously, who still cares about color. You know what, I'm gonna do it. I don't care how awful it is. I'm gonna quote ICP. "******** skin color. Everybody's blue. Then what would all these bigots do?"

[azulmagia]

from blue to

azulmagia

But...but...that would mean negroes and other unworthy moochers would get healthcare!

You want service, you gots to pay. And Seriously, who still cares about color. You know what, I'm gonna do it. I don't care how awful it is. I'm gonna quote ICP. "******** skin color. Everybody's blue. Then what would all these bigots do?"

Really? You're quoting ICP?!?!

[from blue to]

azulmagia

from blue to

azulmagia

But...but...that would mean negroes and other unworthy moochers would get healthcare!

You want service, you gots to pay. And Seriously, who still cares about color. You know what, I'm gonna do it. I don't care how awful it is. I'm gonna quote ICP. "******** skin color. Everybody's blue. Then what would all these bigots do?"

Really? You're quoting ICP?!?!

I know. Don't you feel dirty just reading it?

[Trigr Warning]

from blue to

I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

SmallTownGuy

^^ Generally agreed. The original version was a pretty good bill before it got ripped apart to appease Republicans (who wound up voting against it anyway). The version that got signed will still help a lot.

Come to think of it, Hilary Clinton's version (12 years ago, when Bill was in office) would have helped, if that bill hadn't gotten bogged down with the right-to-sue details.

Let's not pass the buck. They were told at the start that they were not going to get Republican votes. This whole thing is on the dems alone.

[Sir Fharlanghn]

I AM R U

Sir Fharlanghn

I really only want them to mess with the pharmaceutical companies considering how they like to rebrand their products as new to jack up the price. I mean seriously, there are some medicines in the United States that cost five times more than they do in Canada.

So you'd want the government to subsidise the cost of medicine, and place pressure on pharmaceutical companies to not seek disreputable methods of raising prices, such as packaging changes?

I'm not quite sure if subsidizing is the best answer so I have no response as of right now. However, to you second question I say yes.

[Initiate_Sacred_Demise]

Trigr Warning

from blue to

I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

Love the sarcasm! Great way to put it. Can't forget the public education system, too!