"the PUBLIC wants nationalized healthcare & free pre-K & childcare" No, that's what Progressives think the PUBLIC wants. Sounds good until the public realizes that government-run means government decides. CRT in pre-K for all!! Gender/Sex discussions in pre-K for all!! No SCOTUS or state restrictions on abortion (and I'm pro-choice, abortion availability until viability in all cases). Lets have the PUBLIC vote on everything via their phones and 51%+ decides. Too bad for minorities of any stripe. I agree. Not sure after reading the comments I want to continue. Hackles going up!!
After the polling disasters of the last few election cycles, I'm a skeptic about how truly 11K+ represent 350 million. Who are the people who actually answer the phone, emails, etc. to provide the info? How were the questions worded? Many don't realize the restrictions the "government-run" systems have or how CMS influences most insurers or how various states can impose their own mandates & restrictions. Again you can't cover everyone for everything with everything and still have a functioning economy. I don't have the answer or know if anyone does when you have as diverse (in every way) population of 350 million and be fair to all. What would it cost if everyone had the same coverage as Congress, the President, SCOTUS etc.?
Jardin read the US Constitution. It was designed to LIMIT the power of the Federal Gov. Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ...and will soon lose both. Nothing is free, there only trade offs.
I wish there had been a Bill of Responsibilities along with the Bill of Rights. The F.F.s just assumed everyone knew what those were. What did they know. Too "enlightened"! Probably would have made the Constitution even more systemically racist (satirical).
It's allocation of limited resources. The more taxes you take for the undeserving and irresponsible, the less you have for police and those that really need them.
The "state" only exists as a delegation from the people. In the absence of popular consent, the state vanishes - starved of resources - or becomes overtly tyrannical. So the idea that the state can refer to citizens as "its", i.e., belonging to it, gets things precisely backwards. The state ought to do what the people want from it, insofar as a consensus can be determined. No more, no less.
It's 50%+1 and it's not that way. It's coalitions and compromise. Few "choose" to be ill, but name me a national healthcare system that covers everything for everyone all the time like those for it make it out to be. There are always restrictions and Medicare for all is quite restrictive in many areas. CMS determines care, not really you & your MD. It disincentives' self-responsibility. Does anyone ever talk about non-compliance? Does everyone always deserve the same? I have no problem paying taxes for safety (police/military) & maintenance. I object to what seems like forced charity for some of the rest. Thanks for your thoughts.
i could go on for hours answering this. I will just say I worked in healthcare for over 40 years. Is the bad heart genetic or an unlucky roll of the dice? Was it caused by bad habits, i.e. drugs, diet, smoking? Is the person compliant with the changes they need to make, i.e. diet, smoking, medications, exercise? When do we stop paying for people's irresponsibility? It's a slippery slope which a national system doesn't cure and only divorces us from cost awareness. Taken to its nth degree, the government should determine & enforce everyone's diet, exercise regime, life style. Homogeny would be needed! Sounds like a sci-fi movie. Was the accident due to their or someone else's negligence? Is that person insured medically, auto insurance, worker's comp or get some type of legal restitution? Let's talk tort reform. No, can't, the lawyers may be reading this.
"the PUBLIC wants nationalized healthcare & free pre-K & childcare" No, that's what Progressives think the PUBLIC wants. Sounds good until the public realizes that government-run means government decides. CRT in pre-K for all!! Gender/Sex discussions in pre-K for all!! No SCOTUS or state restrictions on abortion (and I'm pro-choice, abortion availability until viability in all cases). Lets have the PUBLIC vote on everything via their phones and 51%+ decides. Too bad for minorities of any stripe. I agree. Not sure after reading the comments I want to continue. Hackles going up!!
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/
After the polling disasters of the last few election cycles, I'm a skeptic about how truly 11K+ represent 350 million. Who are the people who actually answer the phone, emails, etc. to provide the info? How were the questions worded? Many don't realize the restrictions the "government-run" systems have or how CMS influences most insurers or how various states can impose their own mandates & restrictions. Again you can't cover everyone for everything with everything and still have a functioning economy. I don't have the answer or know if anyone does when you have as diverse (in every way) population of 350 million and be fair to all. What would it cost if everyone had the same coverage as Congress, the President, SCOTUS etc.?
Jardin read the US Constitution. It was designed to LIMIT the power of the Federal Gov. Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ...and will soon lose both. Nothing is free, there only trade offs.
I wish there had been a Bill of Responsibilities along with the Bill of Rights. The F.F.s just assumed everyone knew what those were. What did they know. Too "enlightened"! Probably would have made the Constitution even more systemically racist (satirical).
It's allocation of limited resources. The more taxes you take for the undeserving and irresponsible, the less you have for police and those that really need them.
The "state" only exists as a delegation from the people. In the absence of popular consent, the state vanishes - starved of resources - or becomes overtly tyrannical. So the idea that the state can refer to citizens as "its", i.e., belonging to it, gets things precisely backwards. The state ought to do what the people want from it, insofar as a consensus can be determined. No more, no less.
It's 50%+1 and it's not that way. It's coalitions and compromise. Few "choose" to be ill, but name me a national healthcare system that covers everything for everyone all the time like those for it make it out to be. There are always restrictions and Medicare for all is quite restrictive in many areas. CMS determines care, not really you & your MD. It disincentives' self-responsibility. Does anyone ever talk about non-compliance? Does everyone always deserve the same? I have no problem paying taxes for safety (police/military) & maintenance. I object to what seems like forced charity for some of the rest. Thanks for your thoughts.
i could go on for hours answering this. I will just say I worked in healthcare for over 40 years. Is the bad heart genetic or an unlucky roll of the dice? Was it caused by bad habits, i.e. drugs, diet, smoking? Is the person compliant with the changes they need to make, i.e. diet, smoking, medications, exercise? When do we stop paying for people's irresponsibility? It's a slippery slope which a national system doesn't cure and only divorces us from cost awareness. Taken to its nth degree, the government should determine & enforce everyone's diet, exercise regime, life style. Homogeny would be needed! Sounds like a sci-fi movie. Was the accident due to their or someone else's negligence? Is that person insured medically, auto insurance, worker's comp or get some type of legal restitution? Let's talk tort reform. No, can't, the lawyers may be reading this.
Maybe someone else can explain better.