Current Events > American CEmen, do you support single payer healthcare?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Choose

4:0 so far

not really
---

The more I think about it the less plausible it seems. I'm not an ideologue for/against though, I'd rather we see a public option for health insurance first then go from there.
---

hell fuckin yea
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I'm not an ideologue for/against though

Anyone morally opposed to the idea is just an asshole.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I'm not an ideologue for/against though

Anyone morally opposed to the idea is just an asshole.

Well, moral opposition to being taxed even more isn't necessarily an asshole move. We need to account for efficiencies in the system and the human condition. Otherwise, why not continue the line of thinking to a UBI, communism . . . ?
If UHC would hurt the economy and innovation and result in a net negative for society, the definitely moral act of not bankrupting people for being unfortunate enough to get cancer, could still be the worse policy.
---

Yes.

Reminder: Hillary Clinton does not, she criticized Bernie for it during the primaries
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Well, moral opposition to being taxed even more isn't necessarily an asshole move. We need to account for efficiencies in the system and the human condition. Otherwise, why not continue the line of thinking to a UBI, communism . . . ?
If UHC would hurt the economy and innovation and result in a net negative for society, the definitely moral act of not bankrupting people for being unfortunate enough to get cancer, could still be the worse policy.

But, you've already started moving past the visceral reaction and began thinking of the fiscal implications.

Questionmarktarius posted...

But, you've already started moving past the visceral reaction and began thinking of the fiscal implications.

Unless you live in a post-scarcity society, you have to. If fusion ever takes off, many policies that are radically left will be easy to justify.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

But, you've already started moving past the visceral reaction and began thinking of the fiscal implications.

Unless you live in a post-scarcity society, you have to.

And you're already a step or two ahead of any given Berniebro.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

If UHC would hurt the economy and innovation and result in a net negative for society, the definitely moral act of not bankrupting people for being unfortunate enough to get cancer, could still be the worse policy.

then it's a good thing that people are more important than money
---

Anyone who doesn't is terrible
---

averagejoel posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

If UHC would hurt the economy and innovation and result in a net negative for society, the definitely moral act of not bankrupting people for being unfortunate enough to get cancer, could still be the worse policy.

then it's a good thing that people are more important than money

This was explained forty years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c8Gkm8VSLE" data-time="

The government should have an opt-in system to see if it even has a chance of working
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The government should have an opt-in system to see if it even has a chance of working

That would crash and burn almost immediately.

Think about it, just a little bit.

averagejoel posted...

then it's a good thing that people are more important than money

So it would be worth bankrupting the country and crashing the economy tomorrow, to save 1 person?

You realize that human prosperity is tied to more than just medical care . . . or you probably don't.
Also, you would prefer research funds go directly to health services, fuck the future right?
There's so much wrong with what you posted, I didn't know where to begin.

Before you complain about me strawmanning you, think of the implications of the broad generalizations you're making.
---

We need to get the government out of healthcare so costs can get under control.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Yes.

Reminder: Hillary Clinton does not, she criticized Bernie for it during the primaries

Which is odd considering that was her pet project when she was first lady.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

We need to get the government out of healthcare so costs can get under control.

Either that, or just go ahead and nationalize the whole damn thing, and set prices via fiat.

But yes, it's well-intentioned government meddling that fucked up the whole deal, much like government fucked up everything else it's jabbed a finger into.

An opt-in system wouldn't work to fully fund health care.

But if a few million people signed up and that isn't enough to fund a decent amount of the health care costs for those few million people then that says something.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

So it would be worth bankrupting the country and crashing the economy tomorrow, to save 1 person?

it wouldn't bankrupt the country or crash the economy, and it would save a lot more than 1 person. don't ask questions that are irrelevant to the situation.

You realize that human prosperity is tied to more than just medical care . . . or you probably don't.

Yes, I do.

Also, you would prefer research funds go directly to health services, fuck the future right?

... what? this has nothing to do with what I said. also I would consider some types of research (namely, medical research) to be a type of health service

Before you complain about me strawmanning you, think of the implications of the broad generalizations you're making.

before you strawman me, think about the context in which I'm making those generalizations
---

I'm going to advocate an idea again, that seems to instantly piss off damn near everyone on both sides.

VA for Everyone

Questionmarktarius posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

We need to get the government out of healthcare so costs can get under control.

Either that, or just go ahead and nationalize the whole damn thing, and set prices via fiat.

But yes, it's well-intentioned government meddling that fucked up the whole deal, much like government fucked up everything else it's jabbed a finger into.

If we nationalize the industry, I'm concerned that we would miss out on important medical innovations. That being said, the FDA has made it so hard to bring new drugs to market that innovation has already taken a hit.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

If we nationalize the industry, I'm concerned that we would miss out on important medical innovations.

Concern?
That's an inevitability.

Questionmarktarius posted...

I'm going to advocate an idea again, that seems to instantly piss off damn near everyone on both sides.

VA for Everyone

because it is a stupid idea basically
---

I support multi-prayer health care.

Thoughts and prayers are what make people better.
---