And flip side with, say, Sanatorum running for the republican nomination, he wants to ban Abortions nation wide, pretty much make contraceptives illegal. Whats the difference between legslating one religions 'ideologies' versus legislating the opposing viewpoint ideology?
theres no difference betwen this and what Obama is doing. imo, both are an over step of the gov and pushing ones morals and religious beliefs on another.
And face it, 20-50 years from now, they are Going to have to legislate the number of kids couples can have. Its going to happen eventually.
in other countries maybe, but there will never be enough support int eh USA to get legislation like this put itno law without a mass revult. and not to sound conceited, but i'm only concerned with laws or possible legislation that affect my country.
We still have laws that allow the government to draft people into the military against their will.
Yet, we don't practice it unless a situation actually calls for it.. right?
theres a difference in this. imo its a civic duty of every citizen to be willing to fight for their country and if need be give their life to ensure their country survives. i have nothign against this legislation and wish they woudl amend it to include females as well.
The whole health-care debate comes straight down to a symantic issue.
You have those that view Health Care as Insurance and a Buisness.
And those that View Health Care as a Right, and 'insurance' as the method in which you obtain it.
If the GOVERNMENT can provide Health care Cheaper than the PRIVATE SECTOR, theres something wrong with the PRIVATE SECTOR.
Nothign the Government does, is EVER CHEAPER!
If they make it cheaper, private sector has to make be able to compete.
depends on if the legislation is aimed to stall the private sector or to boost it. the current legislation is aimed to stall out and do away with private insurance in 20 years which is the main problem i have with it and why it's going to get thrown out in April.
i do agree with the underlined statement. but i feel that both sides can agree that its better for Healthcare to be privatized with set restrictions in place by the government to prevent it from becoming again what it is now. treating it as a private business and not a government service will lead to better and cheaper goods & services. just compare our current helathcare pre Obama care to that of Canada's and you'll see what i mean.
Really think of the health insurance companies like the Oil Industry Tycoons. You have a few people controlling the resources, artificially inflating the prices to there own ends. You add in a new party? THat party all of a sudden starts selling it cheaper? The other partys have to compete. Thats called Capitalism.
If you don't have any competition, and several party's all selling the same product? You still basically have a monopoly.
i agree but the government shoudl not be the new party to enter into it. i never stated competition is bad, as a consumer competition is my best friend. what i disagree with is having the Fed Gov being one of those that is a Competitor, especially when the ageda behind this legislation is for a Single Payer Medicaid for all type of system.
Health-care reform laws need to affect more than just insurance. They have to affect everything from Education costs, to wages, to malpractice insurance, even to LAW SUITS against doctors/hospitals!
Only then can health insurance costs truelly go down. People are always afraid of higher costs now when it means lower costs in the future.
very true. but if yoru goign to raise costs in the immediate future to reap lower costs in the long term you need to factor in if the economy can handle those higher costs until the demand/supply cycle reallocates itself and settles. otherwise your just setting it up for failure.
If I told you, There were shingles & insulation, that could reduce your energy bill by 90%, but they cost 50x what the normal costs? Your obviously going to look towards the cheaper alternative. But, if your saving, $90 every month on electricity, over 20 years? You just got your money back.
Same goes for Health-care. More people get it, The more the price of health-care in the future goes down, as many ilnesses could be prevented before they cost even more money to treat.
and again, to use your example to further my point. if those shingles cost $120 a pop and you can't afford that, your not goign to buy them even thoguh the alternative will ikely not save you money and will have to be replaced sooner. sure you wnat the one thats goign to lower your bill for 20 years, but your coing to wait until it's affordable and wont bankrupt you.
i can further my example in terms of buying tires as well if i'm not being clear enough.
If an Abortion costs $5000 (thats probably low these days) And a condom costs $0.90 (give or take $0.25) and that single condom, or that single birth control, could prevent a $5000 procedure?
If a simple dentist visit could prevent a tooth-removal that can cost upwards of $1,200?
If you increase the supply, and lower the demand, you force the price to go down.
once again, i agree; but it's not up to the government to dictate that people buy the condom. they can highly suggest it, but they can not force you; nor shoudl they ever be allowed to force a citizen to buy something, and i'm sick of politicians trying this sort of stuff becuase they think they know whats best for me. try telling me that to my face and i'll gladly bite my thumb at you, a sentament majority of americans share btw.
Private companaies know that if they keep demand high, and supply low? They'll always get a premium. ANd if they refuse to actually pay for procedures that could save someones life, or simply prevent an ilness from becomeing even more severe?
How many people died before health insurers allowed chemo therapy even after it had become a proven technique? how many people died before health insurers allowed bone marrow transplants even after it became a proven technique and nolonger experimental?
i also agree, and this is wher the Governments role comes in; to make sure companies are being fair o their customers (keeping in mind that they shouldn't regulate so much that it causes business to lose alot of revenue becuase then the service will no longer be provided by anyone but the government)
i never said the healthcare system like it was, was perfect and didn't need to be fixed. i've only stated that obamacare is the wrong approach and is more abotu the governemnt seizing control of citizen rights and a private industrie than fixing the problem.