By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Puggsly said:
Puppyroach said:

Yeah, but there is no problem with having private options as well as long as everyone is guaranteed the same high quality healthcare, financed by taxes. In Sweden we also have private healthcare and private healthcare insurance. But you are still guaranteed all the help you need regardless of if you pay for additional private insurance.

And I think there is misdirection on both the right and the left. Healthcare cost will most likely drop significantly for US citizens if universal healthcare would be introduced but it would be a case of, for example, you as a citizen paying 1000$ more in taxes each year but in return you don´t have to pay 1500$ in private insurance each year. And since the wealthy earn so much more than those that make the least, they would pay a much larger proportion in relationship to how many they are.

Its incredibly naive to think the public options is going to be at par with the private option. If that was the case, there wouldn't really be a reason for the private option to exist.

Our government already spends a fortune providing healthcare services to about 1/3 of the country with mixed results.

The wealthy already pay a vast majority of the taxes. For the most part, people want to keep their private options. If the government forces people to pay your hypothetical $1000 into the public option, many may not be able to afford the private option they prefer.

So yeah, some sort of public options existing as option is something many people would support. But don't be surprised if people oppose the government takeover of healthcare. Primarily because we have little faith in government to operate that.

Well, we have that setup in our country, kind of like the US model within education with public schools and charter schools (we also have charter schools).However, private alternatives would likely never be able to exist without government funding.