@wajoma said
No, because you're also paying for UHC which reduces your ability to go private.

That needn't be true and isn't in NHS.
Many "private" patients are treated in NHS hospitals, the private
medical insurance pays for the "extras" that an ordinary NHS patient
would not get. For instance a private room or additional choice of meals.
They don't end up paying twice for their actual treatment.

@divegeester said
Stop pissing about on the Internet, get off your lazy arse and make some use of your last bit of life you have left. At least clean your own house ffs!

Sorry if it upsets you Divvy but I have better things to do than cleaning the house!

@no1marauder said
That is your nonsensical take; no one is trying to hide that a government health care system would require taxpayer funds.

No.1 "If you wanted to pay cash for your medical treatment, you could so you'd still have choice you do now i.e. to use out of network providers."

My point is a persons ability to seek private care of their choice is reduced because they've had to pay for drug abusers, alcohol abusers, tobacco abusers, couch abusers, burger and fast food abusers. So when you say "If you wanted to pay cash..." you're trying to cover up the fact that their ability to pay cash has been reduced, thus by taking a persons attention away from this fact and focusing attention on the majic rabbit popping out of the majic hat you are doing precisely that.

@no1marauder said
Most single payer proposals would ban private insurance but then wouldn't ban private medical practices. If you wanted to pay cash for your medical treatment, you could so you'd still have choice you do now i.e. to use out of network providers.

Except perhaps for some uber-rich communities, almost no doctors' practices could survive without being able to take any insurance at all.

@no1marauder said
I don't see anything "just" in letting a poor person's child die because it has leukemia, which is what would be the practical consequences of your philosophy.

Healthcare shouldn't be dependent on such arbitrary factors as how much money your family has; that is nothing "just" about such a capricious system.

Yeah I get it, a volcano erupts and boils a bunch of tourists to death, that's unjust, ergo; we live in an unjust world, ergo; I have every excuse to act unjustly or employ the services of goobermint thugs to act unjustly on my behalf.

That's your excuse for unjustly reducing a persons ability to choose their own healthcare by making them pay for the bad decisions of others.

@wajoma said
Yeah I get it, a volcano erupts and boils a bunch of tourists to death, that's unjust, ergo; we live in an unjust world, ergo; I have every excuse to act unjustly or employ the services of goobermint thugs to act unjustly on my behalf.

That's your excuse for unjustly reducing a persons ability to choose their own healthcare by making them pay for the bad decisions of others.

There is nothing "unjust" about paying for the society that you live in and benefit from.

@no1marauder said
There is nothing "unjust" about paying for the society that you live in and benefit from.

I benefit from patching up health abusers so that they can go on to abuse their health again, thus reducing my ability to care for my own health.

No1s whacked out view of that which is just.

It's not surprising that he uses all the tricks to cover the evil in his underlying philosophy which amounts to a claim on the lives of others, it's too hideous to put the magnifying glass on.

@wajoma said
I benefit from patching up health abusers so that they can go on to abuse their health again, thus reducing my ability to care for my own health.

No1s whacked out view of that which is just.

It's not surprising that he uses all the tricks to cover the evil in his underlying philosophy which amounts to a claim on the lives of others, it's too hideous to put the magnifying glass on.

The guy who's philosophy requires the death of sick children really shouldn't be throwing around the word "hideous" to describe other people's beliefs.

Our nature as social, emphatic creatures living in societies puts a claim on all our lives. Ensuring all of adequate healthcare deprives no one of anything that they can reasonably expect out of human existence.

@no1marauder said
The guy who's philosophy requires the death of sick children really shouldn't be throwing around the word "hideous" to describe other people's beliefs.

Our nature as social, emphatic creatures living in societies puts a claim on all our lives. Ensuring all of adequate healthcare deprives no one of anything that they can reasonably expect out of human existence.

Well yes, of course I'd like to see where you got this from other than your own overly active ass:

"The guy who's philosophy requires the death of sick children..."

On the one hand you fess up the cost, your Mr Innocent act, yet over and over again you try to hide it, here it is again in this very post i.e. '...deprives no one..."

Yes No'1 it deprives individuals of control over their most personal possession, their own body.

@wajoma said
That's your excuse for unjustly reducing a persons ability to choose their own healthcare by making them pay for the bad decisions of others.

Do you have any friends who made the bad decision to get cancer?

@wolfgang59 said
Do you have any friends who made the bad decision to get cancer?

My Father died from Luekemia, his one wish, "Don't send me back to that place (public hospital).

After paying a lifetime of taxes.

We nursed him through his last days at home.

Strange that you'd like to discount personal anecdotes yet you'd like to drag up what are obviously sensitive personal issues to try score a few empty internet points, Kunt.

@sh76 said
Except perhaps for some uber-rich communities, almost no doctors' practices could survive without being able to take any insurance at all.

Correct. Even smaller hospitals in smaller towns would have to close which will mean fewer hospitals in large cities if you want treatment.

But major cities is where Progressives want us all to get herded into anyway, like in Europe. That way people can be crammed into row houses and forced to use mass transportation. Also, the larger the city the more dependent people are on the government.

@sh76 said
Because, at least Warren's proposal, is a single payer system that would ban private insurance.

If you ban private insurance, every doctor (or almost every doctor) would have to conform the federal insurance requirements to survive. Doctors would have not the freedom to choose which insurance's rules conform to their schedule and practice preferences.

https://slate.com/business/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-health-care-transition-medicare-for-all.html

Leftists want everything banned EXCEPT any restriction on abortion and illicit drugs.

@wolfgang59 said
Nice story ... now back to the facts.

Right, there is real life and your ivory tower crap

@wajoma said
My Father died from Luekemia, his one wish, "Don't send me back to that place (public hospital).

After paying a lifetime of taxes.

We nursed him through his last days at home.

Strange that you'd like to discount personal anecdotes yet you'd like to drag up what are obviously sensitive personal issues to try score a few empty internet points, Kunt.

My question was
Do you have any friends who made the CHOICE to get cancer.

That was in response to your stupid post about choices.


Pathetic that I have to explain this to you like you are a 7 year-old.