[QUOTE=Robbobin;36506990]That's not fair though. You can argue it's nice, but that's not fair. Unless you have some cooky notion of fairness. I say fairness is something along the lines of free from coercion, all consented to, etc. The only way you can really argue for taxes imo is by saying that the ends somehow justify the means (I don't personally think they do but I respect that argument).
I think there'd be plenty of order in a system of anarchy; still developing that argument because it's more or less the thing I intend to solve in my dissertation.[/QUOTE]
Right so you have no solution to the problem of keeping order, there we go, that is why we need a government, you can't trust entities dedicated to profit because they only do what is profitable, if iti isn't, they won't do it. That's why we have a system where the companies do the things that are profitable and the government do the things that aren't, it is the only way of doing it.
Also the only way you can argue that they aren't fair is through opinion, all ethics is opinion, all rights are formed based on the opinion they should exist.
the only way you can really argue is, how many people does this idea benefit and from what I can see, socialism benefits more people than anarchism does, as anarchism only benefits those with power through whatever means they do it through, with everyone bending over for them hoping they'll get a bit of benefit too.
I used to be for free health care, then I got a job and noticed how much gets taken out already for things that aren't even for me.
(social security etc)
Taxes go through the roof, no thanks.
I do think anarchism is itself a solution to order, but I don't feel I can really do my argument justice by knocking out a few paragraphs at 1am in the morning when I'm gonna write several thousand words on it. Obviously that isn't any reason for you to take my word for it, just saying there is a good response in the works and I'll post it when I have something presentable (probs in a new thread, in a few weeks).
However I will say that I think you're looking at anarchism all wrong. Companies and corporations aren't real entities; by truly respecting each individual human as their own agent, they simply shouldn't form (I think their formation is, if anything, indicative of irrationality). The only business entities that could really exist if there's no state is partnerships/cooperatives, which is how any business entity should be viewed in the first place. As a result, people's wealth should start to correlate with their actual perceived value in society (their ability to produce labour that society values). Monopolies only occur when one entity holds all of a resource, which simply couldn't ever really happen, since it's impossible for [I]one individual[/I] to possess all of something (and if it were possible, it certainly isn't something society should require).
This way, there'd never be any vast excesses of wealth, unless an individual provides an excessively valuable service to society. It's really a mixture of irrationality and state interference that allows certain individuals to possess so much wealth, since I can't really see anyone possessing billions of dollars all through rational negotiation, can you?
I don't think anarchy would resolve in everyone after their own profit, but rather their own self-interest, which I think is very different (or at least it's implication is). Profit is just material wealth, while your self-interest can entail absolutely anything, including your humanistic values. By assuming that it resolves to everyone greedily chasing profit, you have a very unsympathetic idea of human nature. I don't think absolutely everyone values each other, but I definitely think the majority of people at least care a great deal about those in their immediate surroundings. And they have very rational, self-interested reasons to. Cooperation is the dominant strategy in symmetrical games; if you try to get everything you want by screwing people over all the time, ultimately you're going to be worse off, if the majority (or even a significant minority) are cooperative.
I just feel very strongly that when people are free from coercion, they have the freedom to pursue their own values, which I think are a great deal more pleasant than the statist would have you believe. When you're being coerced, I think this is the point where your truest values are put on hold, in favour of hording your wealth as much as possible merely as a way of protecting yourself from future coercion.
It seems very intuitive to me that anarchy would incentivise making yourself valuable in society a great deal more than the state does.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36506531]Here we go with the Just World Fallacy again. Just because someone can't afford healthcare doesn't mean it's their fault. A person could get sacked and then get ill and be unable to work, thus unable to raise money for treatment and die.[/quote]
It's not always their fault, but it's always their responsibility. If someone wants to step in and help out through a voluntary charity, that's great,but charity must be voluntary.
[quote]As long as the taxation is fair and doesn't cripple a person I don't see the problem, especially considering the people who make the majority of the money do virtually no more work than many on lower salaries. In the end as long as they have plenty of money to spend, who cares if a bit of it gets taken and is given to a good cause, and don't give me that liberty bullshit, as I see it liberty is only good when it improved people lives, when people start dying due to greed that's where I draw the line with liberties.[/QUOTE]
I don't think taxation could ever be considered fair, at least not in my view. And in a free market with no expensive government regulations preventing them from entering the market, the workers have the same opportunity to start their own business, hire their own workers, and make profits, as long as they're willing to deal with the stress and risk of running a business.
[quote]And in a free market with no expensive government regulations preventing them from entering the market, the workers have the same opportunity to start their own business, hire their own workers, and make profits, as long as they're willing to deal with the stress and risk of running a business. [/quote]
'The workers' are never going to run a business because:
1. They're inherently at a disadvantage in that they sell their labor rather than make money off of others. While you're saving up to enter the market with your wages you're also helping existing capital, your future competitor and maybe the gravedigger for your own, accumulate, and when you eventually join you're helping saturate the market and reduce profitability, which can only lead people back to being workers.
2. It's impossible to not have a working class majority, because capital produces no value by itself.
The free market isn't going to change much at all, it certainly won't provide any semblance of equal opportunity. If anything, all-encompassing state capitalism would do this much better.
Your first point is a textbook example of begging the question. There are so many holes in this logic that I don't even know where to begin. If you can do something better than your competitor then you're only reducing your competitor's profit, and increasing your own. You aren't "reducing profitability" of the market. I think that may be... "the dumbest thing ever written" to use your words. If I work at a restaurant waiting tables, it's ridiculous to try to make this argument that I'm at a disadvantage when opening my own restaurant because I sold my labor to my former employer. Not to mention, what if I choose to go into a whole other field of business with the money I made there?
I'm really not following this logic at all
As for the second part, I didn't say it's for everyone, I said those with the proper discipline, willingness to take the risk, and obviously the ones who have the necessary funds/credit to run a business. Most people are going to want the safety of working for someone else, where they don't have to risk their own money in the business. The point is that if they want to, they have the option in the free market, unhindered by expensive government regulation, to open their own business. If what they provide is valuable enough to everyone else, they will make big profits. Not everyone is capable of doing this, so the vast majority of people would continue to work for a stable income.
[quote]If you can do something better than your competitor then you're only reducing your competitor's profit, and increasing your own.[/quote]
You're further dividing the market share, as there is only a finite amount of demand. Everyone's profits are a little bit closer to the break even line (whatever number the new competition settles on is invariably closer to it), once the new competition forces them to lower prices. This precedes an overproduction crisis.
[quote]You aren't "reducing profitability" of the market. I think that may be... "the dumbest thing ever written" to use your words.[/quote]
Lol, can you tell me that with a straight face? Would you rather invest in a market with many sellers, or few sellers, relative to demand?
You make a similar decision when you decide what kind of worker you want to be (looking for less job competition), as the selling of labor in the job market is the same as selling any other commodity.
[quote]If you work at a restaurant waiting tables, it's ridiculous to try to make this argument that I'm at a disadvantage when opening my own restaurant because I sold my labor to my former employer.[/quote]
Well, waiting tables isn't really productive, your employer doesn't make any money off of it but it is necessary nonetheless. But if you spend years finely cooking for your restaurant owner and finally quit (with all your consumer fame) to run your own, your employer already has the money to afford another fine cook (who can earn similar fame), the time-earned effect of the brand name, and plenty of capital to compete with and keep the business alive (even if you force him to lower prices by charging a little bit higher than the cost of overhead, you're living bare, accumulating little, and have little capital to reinvest with, whereas he has the opposite of the first and the third, so you have an inclination to go back to being a worker and he has one to remain a capitalist).
[quote]Not to mention, what if I choose to go into a whole other field of business with the money I made there?[/quote]
Businesses aren't necessarily limited to one market, and neither are workers for that matter, but the business you just left has a better chance at gaining market shares in the market you're going to than you do, which can only perpetuate the opportunity gap between capital and labor. I can guarantee if x workers left in mass with their accumulated wages to start their own businesses in x markets, their former employers would invest in the same market, easily annihilate them in competition and force many back to the working class, and at the same time gain a huge market share in this previously ripe market.
Established, accumulated capital is just always going to beat out the 'capital' wage-laborers enter a market with.
[quote]I didn't say it's for everyone...
...Not everyone is capable of doing this, so the vast majority of people would continue to work for a stable income. [/quote]
It's not, but it's not like it's favoring the best homo economicus or some crap. It has nothing to do with risk or the safety of working for someone else, but the fact that it's an economic impossibility for an economy to develop that way. The only time it ever was, was when we were transitioning from feudalism to industrial capitalism, and it was quickly resolved. You don't see our society being made up of artisans and small merchants anymore, but rather concentrated capital in our banks and industrial giants, who facilitate the labor market for the majority of people to use and become a worker and help perpetuate the system.
Theoretically, the best number-crunching businessman with the most rigorous scientific method in the world could end up a wage-laborer all his life because the market just never presents the opportunity for getting a stable and firm market share.
[QUOTE=Hustle Bones;36507314]I used to be for free health care, then I got a job and noticed how much gets taken out already for things that aren't even for me.
(social security etc)
Taxes go through the roof, no thanks.[/QUOTE]
I just want to jump in here and say you don't really have to worry too much about an increase in taxes if your country adopts a health care system like Australia for example.
The US already invests a large amount into their healthcare which is wasted.
[img]http://www.medicareforall.org/images/spending_among_30_countries.jpg[/img]
Increased waiting times are a myth. If there are increased waiting times because it's cheaper that just sounds to me like people who need a doctor are able to see one, unlike before.
Somehow didn't notice this was 11pages in, my point's probably already been mentioned a dozen times already. Sorry about that.
[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/health%20spending.jpg?uuid=2tJ2YAskEeGZ7C6lZcS_dg[/img]
This graph looks like it's from the same thing but it at least mentions a source.
Oh... so we got some badass "Rwong Pawl" Libertarians here. I love your spin btw. "You need to steal money to make it work". Oh wow.
1.) Health care is funded by tax.
2.) Health care+tax is set up by government policies
3.) Gov policies are decided by the main party
3.) The people (or the majority) decides that main party
The people decides which party would rule and also in turn, gives consent on the policies the party sets. Simple stuff. Before you say the typical Libertarian douchebaggy line that is "Tax is theft!". Tax isn't theft the same way that an impeachment or a no-vote isn't a coup d'etat. Tax and no-vote are legal while theft and coups are, BY DEFINITION, illegal.
[editline]27th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;36508722]The US already invests a large amount into their healthcare which is wasted.
[/QUOTE]
My hypothesis would be that the US is simply too large to have too much power concentrated on the centre (Federal gov), and also their political system is so dysfunctional that it causes political stagnation and financial waste.
[QUOTE=Jocken300;36484343]Here in Sweden we've got universal healthcare, and it works just fine. Honestly I don't see why so many Americans have problems with it. Are you really that greedy that you can't give something back to the less fortunate that don't have the money to, let's say, afford an important surgery?
As for the rich paying more, that's debatable. I personally believe that if someone has worked long and hard to get a decent education in order to get a good job with a good salary, he is entitled to his money. However then there are those people that are born into wealthy families and haven't done any work to get to where they are now.
In either way, I still believe universal healthcare could work in the US even if everyone paid the same amount of money for the tax. It's a matter of helping the less fortunate, and giving something back to the society that has shaped you into who you are today.[/QUOTE]
I think most of the problem with people in the US not wanting universal health care is that its something that will raise taxes a lot to the point where we have not seen. My parents health insurance has gone up over 1k since Obama passed healthcare reform. The amount of money you will pay into taxes to fund the healthcare will make it hard for some people to even live. In the US I really don't think a universal healthcare funded by taxes would be the best option, simply giving the option to buy insurance from every insurance company in the US instead of the region based companies would drive down the costs of insurance and make it easier for people to afford it, and that was Obama's big thing, that so many people did not have insurance.
[QUOTE=redhaven;36508824]Oh... so we got some badass "Rwong Pawl" Libertarians here. I love your spin btw. "You need to steal money to make it work". Oh wow.
1.) Health care is funded by tax.
2.) Health care+tax is set up by government policies
3.) Gov policies are decided by the main party
3.) The people (or the majority) decides that main party
The people decides which party would rule and also in turn, gives consent on the policies the party sets. Simple stuff. Before you say the typical Libertarian douchebaggy line that is "Tax is theft!". Tax isn't theft the same way that an impeachment or a no-vote isn't a coup d'etat. Tax and no-vote are legal while theft and coups are, BY DEFINITION, illegal.
[editline]27th June 2012[/editline]
My hypothesis would be that the US is simply too large to have too much power concentrated on the centre (Federal gov), and also their political system is so dysfunctional that it causes political stagnation and financial waste.[/QUOTE]
What, in your mind, is theft? Would you define it, for us? To me, theft is just taking without consent. If I don't consent to taxation, I get threatened with violence. How is tax [I]not[/I] theft? All you can argue, as a statist, is that the end justifies the mean. That's the only route open to you. Theft isn't in its entirety illegal, since otherwise taxation would be... The state holds the monopoly of legitimate coercion, and we shouldn't pretend a majority vote legitimizes it any more. Even if the election system even began to represent the collective will (it doesn't), it still wouldn't do anything to stop taxation being theft. If it's involuntary and it involves the taking of your shit, it's theft. Stop pretending it's not.
Also I don't like libertarians or Ron Paul. There's a rich background to anarchist thought and it's a shame it's only presented as RON PAUL, LIBERTARIANISM AND THE RISE OF THE INDUSTRIALISTS when there's [I]so[/I] much of an intellectual background to it. Godwin, Proudhon, Chomsky, even Zhuangzi and I'd personally argue Rousseau (even though he's supposedly your quintessential socialist, he clearly valued [I]consent)[/I], this isn't about Ron Paul or any libertarians.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36512374]What, in your mind, is theft? Would you define it, for us? To me, theft is just taking without consent. If I don't consent to taxation, I get threatened with violence. How is tax [I]not[/I] theft? All you can argue, as a statist, is that the end justifies the mean. That's the only route open to you. Theft isn't in its entirety illegal, since otherwise taxation would be... The state holds the monopoly of legitimate coercion, and we shouldn't pretend a majority vote legitimizes it any more. Even if the election system even began to represent the collective will (it doesn't), it still wouldn't do anything to stop taxation being theft. If it's involuntary and it involves the taking of your shit, it's theft. Stop pretending it's not.
[/QUOTE]
Theft is taking something that belongs to YOU without consent. The money you earn is NOT completely yours:
1) If you're an employee, you're paying with taxes the regulations made by the government that allows you to not be fired for no reason.
2) If you own a commercial exercise, a store, whatever, you pay taxes for the street that people uses to get to your place, the regulations that the state imposes on food, beverages so that you don't get faulty products that may damage your reputation, and so on.
You are paying taxes because you have a job, or a property, that you wouldn't have if there wasn't a central government allowing a civilized society that can give you jobs, leisure, various opportunities and so on. Do you think it's easy to work as an employee in a third world country? Or to even find a job?
You pay taxes only if you work, or you own a property. At any time you're free to go in the wilderness or in another state where no one pays taxes, and no one will charge you anything. You're not coerced into anything.
After researching and looking at the evidence, it seems that universal health care, is, indeed a better way of doing it than privatized healthcare. In the end, it provides health care to those that can not afford it themselves, and ensures that you don't have to worry about getting a checkup because it costs too much.
Thank you all in the thread for debating with me, as it helped me change my opinion to what I see as a better way.
IMO, this is what the point of Mass Debate is.
No. The reason why healthcare in the United States is expensive is due to the large amount of people who hold low-deductible insurance, about 90%. Healthcare needs to be reformed, but not in that way.
There are two problems with using insurance with small co-pays for health care. First, people have no incentive to save money by finding out where they can get the cheapest CAT scan because insurance covers it, so who cares? Second, when somebody has small-deductible health insurance, they have no incentive not to go to the doctor's office. Studies show Americans are over-tested, 90% of emergency room visits are not medical emergencies, etc, etc. You're probably thinking, "No health insurance!? That's crazy!" but there are alternatives. In order to make healthcare affordable for the average american, we must move toward a consumer-driven system.
1. Make personal owned health insurance more favorable than corporate health insurance. Corporate health insurance isn't paid for by money subjected to income taxes, and is therefore a valuable form of compensation. A 30% subsidy can be given out to make personally owned health insurance more favorable and additionally people who couldn't afford health insurance can now afford health insurance.
2. Encourage the use of Medical Savings Accounts. (MSA's) Money deposited into this account will not be subjected to income tax and will be used for small medical services. Money in this account never goes away and can be invested in mutual funds if not in use.
3. Encourage the use of catastrophic health insurance. Catastrophic health insurance is considerably cheaper than regular health insurance and will cover expenses such as major surgery and broken limbs. You will use your MSA to pay for everything else.
4. Switch medicare from a reimbursement plan to a fixed-benefit plan. Instead of being reimbursed seniors will receive a fixed amount of money in their MSA each month.
I didn't come up with these, economists did.
I have a question. Does this obamacare crap mean that I have to pay insurance every year even if I don't want it? Thus if I don't pay I'm going to be taxed for something I never wanted or needed in the first place and will end up in debt for never paying it?!
[editline]29th June 2012[/editline]
I also don't believe in universal healthcare. I don't think it's fair for the government to say what I need. Nor for them to tell doctors what they need to do to a patient. Doctors didn't go to med school for years for that to happen. Example: I have a splinter. I need a doctor to give me product x to recover. But the government tells doctors that product y is what I need. No.
[QUOTE=HookerVomit;36546276]I have a question. Does this obamacare crap mean that I have to pay insurance every year even if I don't want it? Thus if I don't pay I'm going to be taxed for something I never wanted or needed in the first place and will end up in debt for never paying it?![/quote]
Well take your grievances to your local government and tell them to stop taxing you for the fire department as it's clear your home isn't currently on fire.
Tell them to remove police, as you're not currently being robbed or murdered.
Also tell them to get rid of highways for me, because I don't use that shit.
If you want to complain about your taxes going up for shit you don't use - please direct your anger to the US' over inflated defence budget filled with shit you'll definitely never need ever.
[quote]I also don't believe in universal healthcare. I don't think it's fair for the government to say what I need.[/quote]
Oh but it's fair for the insurance companies to say what you need?
For the record, the government doesn't tell you what you need. I don't know where you got that idea.
[quote]Nor for them to tell doctors what they need to do to a patient. Doctors didn't go to med school for years for that to happen. Example: I have a splinter. I need a doctor to give me product x to recover. But the government tells doctors that product y is what I need. No.[/QUOTE]
wow! that sounds terrible. Thank god that will NEVER happen and doesn't happen in socialised healthcare systems.
The insurance companies tell doctors that.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36546732]Well take your grievances to your local government and tell them to stop taxing you for the fire department as it's clear your home isn't currently on fire.
Tell them to remove police, as you're not currently being robbed or murdered.
Also tell them to get rid of highways for me, because I don't use that shit.
If you want to complain about your taxes going up for shit you don't use - please direct your anger to the US' over inflated defence budget filled with shit you'll definitely never need ever.
Oh but it's fair for the insurance companies to say what you need?
For the record, the government doesn't tell you what you need. I don't know where you got that idea.
wow! that sounds terrible. Thank god that will NEVER happen and doesn't happen in socialised healthcare systems.[/QUOTE]
You know, anything that businesses can compete to provide shouldn't be handled by the government. Government monopoly is a huge money waster. The reason why healthcare is so expensive is because the cost of health insurance is shared amongst policy holders. Since health insurance cost is shared amongst policy holders, you have no incentive to be conservative with your medical expenditure because your medical expenditure doesn't reflect the cost of your health insurance, other people's medical expenditure does. To fix healthcare we must move towards a consumer-driven system.
Or we can have waiting lists so long that people wont want unnecessary healthcare, but that's a shitty solution.
Also, I would like it if instead of a local government fire department I paid a monthly bill to a local corporate fire department in exchange for fire coverage. I'd save money because the fire department would be cheaper due to competition for low priced fire contracts. Don't think the fire coverage you receive was free, an old economist saying goes, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." you pay for it with taxes.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36550793]You know, anything that businesses can compete to provide shouldn't be handled by the government. Government monopoly is a huge money waster. The reason why healthcare is so expensive is because the cost of health insurance is shared amongst policy holders. Since health insurance cost is shared amongst policy holders, you have no incentive to be conservative with your medical expenditure because your medical expenditure doesn't reflect the cost of your health insurance, other people's medical expenditure does. To fix healthcare we must move towards a consumer-driven system.
Or we can have waiting lists so long that people wont want unnecessary healthcare, but that's a shitty solution.
Also, I would like it if instead of a local government fire department I paid a monthly bill to a local corporate fire department in exchange for fire coverage. I'd save money because the fire department would be cheaper due to competition for low priced fire contracts. Don't think the fire coverage you receive was free, an old economist saying goes, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." you pay for it with taxes.[/QUOTE]
When someone has just been hit by a car, I don't think people want to have to shop for the cheapest hospital in the area.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36550878]When someone has just been hit by a car, I don't think people want to have to shop for the cheapest hospital in the area.[/QUOTE]
Catastrophic, high deductible, health insurance is considerably cheaper than low-deductible health insurance. You won't shop around during medical emergencies, but what you will do, though, is shop around for a CAT scan. The first place might ask 8,000, the second 5,000.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36550955]Catastrophic, high deductible, health insurance is considerably cheaper than low-deductible health insurance. You won't shop around during medical emergencies, but what you will do, though, is shop around for a CAT scan. The first place might ask 8,000, the second 5,000.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have universal healthcare
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36550978]I'd rather have universal healthcare[/QUOTE]
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Unless you're poor as fuck you'll be paying more for health insurance in taxes than you would using the reforms I outlined in page 11.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36551032]There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Unless you're poor as fuck you'll be paying more for health insurance in taxes than you would using the reforms I outlined in page 11.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the whole point is to make it available to everyone, which includes the poor.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36551110]Yeah but the whole point is to make it available to everyone, which includes the poor.[/QUOTE]
Obeezycare's got you covered, but it does a lousy job. Instead of subsidizing health insurance until it is affordable what they should do for people on welfare is give them a fixed amount of money for their MSA yearly and provide catastrophic health insurance for those who cannot afford it. It'll provide for people without health insurance in the same manner I suggested they should reform medicare, reform #4. By doing this, folks on welfare will be selective of medical services.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36551216]Obeezycare's got you covered, but it does a lousy job. Instead of subsidizing health insurance until it is affordable what they should do for people on welfare is give them a fixed amount of money for their MSA yearly and provide catastrophic health insurance for those who cannot afford it. It'll provide for people without health insurance in the same manner I suggested they should reform medicare, reform #4. By doing this, folks on welfare will be selective of medical services.[/QUOTE]
I don't mean like obamacare, that idea is awful, I mean a proper government funded healthcare
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36551260]I don't mean like obamacare, that idea is awful, I mean a proper government funded healthcare[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that universal healthcare will lower the cost of healthcare half as much as these reforms based off of economic theory, but you're welcomed to enlighten me.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36551468]I seriously doubt that universal healthcare will lower the cost of healthcare half as much as these reforms based off of economic theory, but you're welcomed to enlighten me.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of reforms the poor and especially the unemployed will never be able to afford it, which is why universal healthcare is introduced. It's not their to help the rich and middle class, they can fuck off, it's there to help the poor.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36551719]Regardless of reforms the poor and especially the unemployed will never be able to afford it, which is why universal healthcare is introduced. It's not their to help the rich and middle class, they can fuck off, it's there to help the poor.[/QUOTE]
I've pondered it and this is what I've come up with: healthcare is problem because the healthcare market is off equilibrium due to the wasteful habits created by the use of insurance. Universal healthcare lowers healthcare expenditure as a % of GDP by creating a system of rationing in which the wasteful habits are discouraged by long waiting lists, death panels, etc. This seems like a good solution only when you fail to consider the possibilities. Rather than having government take over and ration healthcare I am proposing that we get the healthcare market back on equilibrium by creating incentives for people not to be wasteful. My reforms on page 11 will lower the cost of healthcare while at the same time allowing people the same access to it.
As for the poor, it is necessary to cover them because when they aren't covered they end up in the emergency room with a huge ass medical bill they can't pay. Obeezycare's got them covered, but it does a lousy job. Instead of subsidizing health insurance until it is affordable what they should do for people on welfare is give them a fixed amount of money for their MSA yearly and provide catastrophic health insurance for those who cannot afford it. It'll provide for people without health insurance in the same manner I suggested they should reform medicare, reform #4. By doing this, folks on welfare will be selective of medical services and still get medical services.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.