| halogamer1989 said: I am opposed to the NHS. In principle it is great but when you come right down to it, it is a bureaucratic mess that forces people to travel to a doctor when they have one that is close by that could do the same job. It taxes the hell out of the average worker by deductions. In all, it is a POS socialistic system that the U.S. does not need. People need quality over quantity not shortages in care b/c Dems find it necessary to appease Michael Moore
Edit: Also in the porkulus bill was a provision that creates "the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446)." I prefer my doc and me to make decisions about my future not this damned gov't. |
Both things that you describe insurance companies do already.
Insurance companies are a bureaucratic nightmare. HMO's and many cheaper forms of insurance do restrict to varying degrees the doctors you can see.
Insurance companies tell patients what treatment they can and can't receive.
Even if the government had BOTH those qualities if they were providing care, they won't allow an insurance company to forcibly drop you because of a pre-existing condition or a condition that develops.
None of your arguments at all prove your point that the current system is better. If anything, they suggest that they system SHOULD change.
And people act like we would somehow be paying more for healthcare than we already are. The only difference would be you are paying your fees to a different person. If anything, a single payer system would reduce the amount of bureaucracy (insurance companies spend a lot on overhead and there are a ton of different insurance companies) that artificially raises cost.
America will most likely end up doing what Britain currently does, a hybrid private public system where you don't have to use the NHS system and can use a private doctor.
Furthermore, didn't the American people elect Obama on a campaign promise of changing healthcare, and relatively drastically at that? Isn't this what the American people want? Who are you to say what is better for them?
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
