So an Abortion limiting bill passed in my state, Texas

[Screamapillar]

Mr Khan said:

Screamapillar said:

AnthonyW86 said:

 

Living in a country with a collective health system i really can't understand how people can look at it this way. Without a collective system you get a situation were people with more money can afford basic health and people with little or none can't. Also more expensive medical conditions can happen to anyone, but for a lot of people this healthcare is unaffordable on their own.

That is the way it has always been.  There are always people with money and people without money.  You cannot take care of everyone, nor can you ever legislate poor people into prosperity by legislating the working class into poverty.  The most humane (yet still imperfect) system is to have an economy where the most amount of people as possible can keep as much of their money as possible, and be allowed to be successful.  Then you have more prosperity, and thus more people with more money to give to those less fortunate.  Increasing taxes in order to pay for ever-increasing medical costs is simply going to bankrupt everyone, and instead of some people going without, we'll simply all be left with nothing.

You are not debating in good faith here. For one, you labor under the hilarious notion that the poor are not "the working class." The poor are *the* working class. Your so-called "working class" is the "leisure class," an unfortunate number of whom have no idea of what it is like to really live in the working class.

And state-run health systems have *lower* health costs than private systems, because the state (as the sole consumer of health care, who merely dispenses it to the people as-needed) can then operate as a consumer-monopoly and have economies of scale work vastly in its favor, similar to how a corporate pension fund will always work better than an individual 401k. We would save money and eliminate economic dead weight (dead weight being the for-profit health insurance industry which just exists to profit off of our crazy system and contributes nothing to actual health care) by socializing in this case.

Trickle-down economics has failed. The rich are richer than ever, but they sure as hell haven't made life better for the people who make their wealth possible.

So it is now accepted that the role of governent is to provide health care to it's citizens?  Since when?

And what happens when we run out of money and the government is forced to cut back on healthcare costs?  We are to be treated like cattle.  Rationing of care, loss of doctors (already happening due to prohibitive Medicare/ Medicaid bureaucracy and legal fees), and long wait times, lack of specialists, and ultimately the state gets to decide who lives or dies.

I don't think so.