Of course, I would also say that if Republicans made any effort to not look down on Democrats as socialist antipatriots, then maybe relations in government would be better.
Which is why I said it takes two to have an argument.
I wish I could say this was one of the most insane things I've ever heard. I really wish I could.
Why? What word of that sentence was even remotely untrue?
Your healthcare is provided by the doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare professionals. These people have no affiliation with the government. Your insurance company does not provide your healthcare, just a means to help pay for it.
Right. What I'm saying is that if you create a healthcare system with more government involvement, does this change?
Like you can find no negative stories about healthcare in the US? I'd rather have a flawed heathcare plan that everyone can afford than a flawed healthcare system that is quickly becoming unaffordable to even middle class families.
Of course you can. And nothing about what you're saying bothers me. I just don't like how a lot of posts about healthcare implicitly say "Canada and Europe have figured this out and the US is just too stupid to get on board with the solution." I've never, ever gotten the impression that was the truth.
Not sure if serious? But if so, this is a straw man. The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the government "being responsible for your medical care" - the government is not in the business of medical care. The Affordable Care act has the most impact on how insurance companies operate. It sets new guidelines on the level of care that is paid for, who qualifies for it, etc, and it prevents insurance companies from kicking people off their plans because they get sick or refusing to extend coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government. If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.
And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government. What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.
A not-very-dramatic but hopefully illustrative example. I had to get a mole removed from my right cheek a few years ago. It wasn't cancerous or anything, but it was nasty and the surgery would've cost about a thousand dollars without insurance. Luckily, I was under an insurance that was willing to cover it and the thing was cut out.
"So basically you're privileged and don't want to lose that privilege."
No, I'm saying that I was treated the way everyone should have the opportunity to be treated. So what if it wasn't cancerous then. Why should I have to wait until it becomes cancerous to find that out? When you introduce mediocre government insurance into the market, you're making it more acceptable to suck. And the government has no reason to improve the quality of what they do.
Look, I'll be the first person to say that the law is far from perfect. Personally, I wanted a single payer system akin to Medicare, but Republicans managed to rip all of the good stuff out of this law with their idiotic "death panels" mantra, so we had to limp over the finish line with what we got, which has some damned good provisions in it.
Leave aside the death panels thing.
If the government is responsible for paying for healthcare, then that means the government decides who lives or dies. Lets say the government was paying for the care of Terry Schiavo. At some point, do they cut off money for her medical care because it's believed she's too far gone? I know this happens in Europe because I've seen news stories about it. If the government is responsible for medicare, it can't do that. Ever.
"But come on now, you're saying we should have to spend money on everyone, even if they're brain dead?"
Yes. The moment the government, which is supposed to serve its people, is responsible for medicare, then it has to do its job. It can't try to be "pragmatic."
"So what you're saying is that if the government doesn't do a perfect job, then it's not good enough for you."
It doesn't actually have to be perfect, but it does have to try. The government is supposed to act in the best interests of its people. So if you say "the government is now responsible for paying for X type of medical care," it can't have any reservations designed to impede the access of care to the patient. At all. For any reason whatsoever.
This is starting to sound expensive to me.