The Socialist Nightmare

[FlashLackey]

What are the alternatives? I mean, Medicare/Medicaid are both going to bottom out with the current world projections of 7 billion people by 2011.

Exactly. So, why would we want to apply that model to more people?

Of that, most are getting elderly and going to tax any current system in place. So... I'm being honest here... what are the alternatives? To hear that a government system that you can pay into is an option, not solution, option is met with this much resistance, then the alternatives should be as clear.

The alternative that I mentioned could be applied to elderly people as well. Make the health industry compete for that business.

The reason the public option idea is met with resistance is that it is not an option. You can opt to take the plan. But, you can't opt to not pay for the subsidies it asks for via taxes. Whether your taxes are raised directly or indirectly via increased costs of goods, lower salaries or increased unemployment, we are all on the hook to pay for it, without an option.

I didn't mean you, per se. It's just that socialism is not as evil as people put it. Nor are we any closer to a socialist situation.

I don't see how socializing health care doesn't make a country that much more socialist than they were before. I don't think it's evil. It just doesn't serve the people as well as alternatives.

Who said it'll be free? Everything I've read was it'll be competition. Don't like it, stick with your current coverage. Nobody's forcing you.

Unless I am mistaken, the expressed goal is that all of the 47 million uninsured will have insurance. If Obama's plan costs anything, it will surely fall short of that goal since many people either choose not to or cannot afford to pay anything.

They say that they will make an "affordable plan" but I've yet to see that defined. Perhaps it is misleading for me to say "$0.00" (except for people that don't have money?). The same problem exists in that it's not a competition. Competition is when two parties compete according to the same rules. Subsidizing part of the cost of making one product to "compete" with another product is like giving one basketball team 50 points to start a game and calling it a competition.

You very well might have. Care to link to it? Some of your better posts get buried or I (honestly) get disinterested in the conversation because I have to switch to "moderator mode" and fan down flames from all directions.

Makes sense. I'd rather not dig through old posts to find it. Besides, its possible that I was posting it on another forum. Getting closer to medicare age, you know.

But there's some limitations to this, no?

I don't see what they would be? As with any course of business involving lots of people, there would be new issues to work out. But, fundamentally, I think it would maximize competition to work for us, create a baseline cost pace matching the costs of other goods and everyone would have coverage.

I think that broader competition would force companies to offer "no drop" plans. But, if that became a concern or problem, that's one piece of legislation. It doesn't take reforming the entire industry to solve that issue.