So an Abortion limiting bill passed in my state, Texas

[Mr Khan]

Screamapillar said:

Mr Khan said:

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.

Such a response is wholly unfounded. You just assume that the system would not be properly funded, for one. Two, it is the role of the state to provide goods for which the free market is an inefficient provider, health care being a *huge* thing here. Third, different countries use different systems, and not all of them (indeed, not many of them) involve the government seizing direct control or totally monopolizing the system (just mostly monopolizing it. The United Kingdom still has a small private health system that the very rich can take advantage of). In many countries, it's simply a matter of the government distributing funds to a system that otherwise looks much like our own, just that the bill ultimately comes from the top. In Japan, everyone pays into national health insurance (including anyone on a visa more than 90 days), and they pay according to their income, and get deductibles set according to their income. The wealthy pay more into the system, and are on the hook for more when they get care, but everyone is guaranteed to get it, which is simply justice.