Yankee Clipper wrote:
I had no problem with the health insurance I have had for more than a few years, I paid for it and they covered what I paid to have covered. What's the problem?
Basically, the problem is everything you're complaining about... If you are a healthy individual that doesn't go to the doctor every week, then I
guarantee you that you spend more money on insurance premiums than you need to AND that money you spend pays for other people's health care AND to line the pockets of investors.
Insurance companies are motivated by money, which means that health decisions are motivated by money. A public system is motivated by the concerns of the public. A public system has public oversight, private insurance companies do not. Just the current difference in overhead between Medicare and private insurance suggests the results of public oversight.
Average overhead for Medicare = 5%
Average overhead for private insurance = 20%
Yankee Clipper wrote:
I owe no one, repeat, no one, my money, my wealth, or taxes to pay for their health care coverage.
And yet you do it anyway and can't imagine there is a problem. You, my friend, are what people call a sucker.
Yankee Clipper wrote:
If they want it they can do as I have done, pay for it or go without. I personally have went without when I could not afford the payments at different times. When that happened I had to barter with my care providers for terms I could afford to pay my medical needs.
So, you were fortunate you didn't have any real problems. What did you have to barter for? A band-aid?
Yankee Clipper wrote:
I have never used the emergency room options that are available to the indigent (the ones who really need care) or the dead beats who take advantage of the system. I do not believe in the emergency room option, (it should be repealed) care is always available through many charities, people will not be dying in the streets.[/color][/b]
First of all, according to a study at Harvard University, 45,000 deaths per year in America are caused by a lack of medical attention.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/Secondly, I'm so tired of people using charity as the "magic excuse" to be selfish. "I give to charity - so I don't need the state to take my money by force." I hear this all the time from the right, like it's a practiced mantra. I bet most of them are lying about their donations anyway because with charity it's easy to lie and SAY you gave, when you didn't and I think that's why they like it as opposed to a tax system they HAVE to pay into.
If someone is truly charitable they would not have a problem paying tax to cover the less fortunate because truly charitable people feel that helping others is the prime concern, not fussing about the money you gave up. When someone get's all dramatic about having to pay for someone else, it's really hard to believe they are being genuine when they casually mention charity as a better solution.
But forget about my opinions for a minute, let's go to the bottom line which is very simple (and I've studied this at length)...
In the U.S., the total sum of charity falls waaay short of the total sum of need. This is WHY 45,000 Americans die each year for a lack of service.
Not only that, but if we went with a simple tax plan, charitable giving would be even less because aside from the nickles and dimes that good people can afford to give up, most significant and effective charitable donations are motivated by tax avoidance. So we can probably thank the IRS for most charity in this country anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I think charity is a wonderful thing, but it's simply not enough. Most Americans really aren't as generous as they pretend to be. And I find the use of "charity" as an argument for not having to pay tax, simply revolting.