Ok, you sound a little bit like a teenager speaking in hyperbolic absolutes. It's pretty comical.
For someone who is against "socialism" you sure do enjoy using its basic principles to your benefit, as most normal people do. Which shows, of course, that you aren't actually opposed to it in principle, but you are opposed to the popular perception of it. As you said, infrastructure, military, etc. are ok, so I guess my questions is this: why is healthcare the sticking point?
As is often the case, the argument isn't logically consistent, but is, instead, arbitrary...which is fine as long as you can admit it instead of trying to squeeze what is glaringly specious logic out of nothingness. You say "
If you can't afford the service you shouldn't receive it," but would that not describe everything we pool resources for, regardless of whether it is public or private?
Case in point: isn't "private" healthcare just a bunch of people pooling together resources to pay for things that an individual can't afford (and therefore doesn't deserve and shouldn't receive, according to your line of thinking)? How is that different in principle from any tax-funded system? Wouldn't businesses (especially small businesses) welcome being free of the burden of providing healthcare as a benefit?
Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross Blue Shield scored the best in our analysis of small business health insurance. We evaluated large insurance providers that offer ACA marketplace plans to find the best health insurance companies across the country. Providing health insurance can help a small busi
www.forbes.com
By Bob Herman Becker's Hospital CFO, April 9, 2014A new report from nonpartisan advocacy group Public Citizen said a publicly funded healthcare system that guarantees universal coverage would not only reduce healthcare costs — it would also be an economic relief for employers and businesses.By...
pnhp.org
Also, when you say that poor folks are "morally deficient" in various posts, I wonder what you mean. Are you referring to a specific moral system? Every moral system I know of makes
helping the poor one of the main responsibilities. I just wonder which moral system eschews helping the poor.
Healthcare is a benefit..that the consumer should pay for and is person specific. I detest food and rent relief as well, work for your basic needs. And as I've stated before I'm not against all social safety nets....but that is what they should be a net for catastrophic situations, not a way to even the playing field or make ones life easier economically.
When you start providing, section 8 housing, Food stamps, Aid For dependent children and basically free healthcare. The state has assumed the responsibility for most of the basic needs of a portion of the population.
My sticking point is healthcare is a Personal benefit and doesn't actually help the community as a whole. It only helps those who refuse to help themselves. And as I said I'm not talking about taking away the healthcare for those with catastrophic issues. Just the rank and file able bodied who won't work....or make excuse why they can't. They are poor because of their lack of desire to provide for themselves not because of circumstances beyond their control or lack of ability to provide for themselves. They choose instead to take the easy path and let you and me pay their way. If that is how you define poor then we are at odds on that.
I'm not against all socialist policies....I'm against heavy handed, overt govt intervention in private entities. Not all govt intervention but the heavy handed red tape one size fits all socialistic control the Feds and Some state govt have enacted.
I believe you are a educator correct.....and I would bet you have a disdain for some of the Federally mandated policies and guidelines? Most educators I know hate he NCLB act of 2001 it's a classic example. I worked as I said as a income maintenance worker and saw it first hand until I couldn't take it anymore, My GF works for the County and City govt and their inept policies and administration, guidelines and system in general has caused her to jump ship from Hardcore Blue to Purplish Blue.
When it comes to Moral's I'm talking about Work ethic....taking responsibility and having the drive to put in the work to meet a persons basic needs. But what you get is a lot of self indulgent behavior....which is all well and good if you are paying your own way....but if you get all your basic needs provided for and put no effort in providing for them or for your self and are fine with all your fellow citizens paying your way, while the birth rates, substance abuse rates and crime rates within that demographic are sky high. Well I call that morally deficient.
As far as Socialistic aspects of Highway's and The Military go.....Well the Military is a necessary system of protection for all. Same as the benefits from state/fed ran highways and byways. Almost Everyone benefits from that. The protection from foreign powers protects everyone.....providing care for a persons broken arm or sore throat only takes from the taxpayer it provides no benefit other than some emotional secondary gain for the taxpaying individuals. Same goes for Highways we all benefit from that infrastructure...either by using it or by consuming products that are transported by it...but to stretch socialism into basically making people wards of the govt who have all their basic needs paid for well that is a step to far.
And yes I'm being a bit hyperbolic in some statements...cause that seems to be the Norm dejure for Toots and VeerE.
And concerning Small business offering insurance, well the Obama care made that into a mockery, again govt meddling trying to help but making things worse. There are Risk pools as well for health insurance...and if we had real open market competition....as opposed to insurance market control things would be better. Weirdly the one thing the govt could regulate to create actual competition they choose not to do! Sure if the govt took over the total healthcare cost it would be business welfare and relieve them of any responsibility of providing that and be a boon to them but that would not be passed on to the employee's. As I'm sure taxation would increase to pay for healthcare.
As far as the article touting up how efficient Medicare and Medicaid is....well that is pure BS. It's only efficient because they are being subsidized by the Insurance company and those who pay co-pays,premiums and deductibles...the govt sets the price and just pay that. When those govt payments don't get close to covering the actual price of employee wages, technology for all the whiz bang stuff, the cost of Big Pharm etc. the hospitals overcharge the insurance companies. Get a itemized bill next time and see what a tylenol cost you, or your toothpaste, or even the little footy socks.
Example on our unit....we need 2 grand a day per patient to break even. Medicaid only pay's a bit less than half that....when we get a insurance patient we charge 15 grand a day to make up the difference...and most Insurance company's will only go for around 3 days of admissions and then they rebel, and the business dept. has to jump through hoops to make sure they don't decline on some technicality and refuse to pay. And we have to be very diligent in making sure we dot every I and cross every T in documentation and fill out all the proper forms or we don't get paid. Sadly sometimes we spend more time servicing the system than the patient. But without $$$ there is zero service.
This maybe? "Demand for Paxlovid has been unexpectedly light due to complicated eligibility requirements, reduced testing, and potential for drug interactions."
Here is a question why did they relax all that under Trump for the Warp speed Vax and the same is not being done for Paxlovid?
