for those of you that read this mess but not slashdot:
How strange,
In your country if you're accused of a crime you consider it a natural right to have access to a free lawyer and access to free legal advice is enshrined in the highest law of the land. The spirit of socialism at its finest! But oddly there's no "socialism" conflict in that area, even from the "libertarians".
But when it comes to the right to some basic level of healthcare, no go. If you're poor you and your children can suffer.
It's an interesting paradox actually, because generally the poor commit more crime. So people are happy to fund legal representation for lower class criminals. But are definitely not happy to help fund a basic level of health care for themselves. Which is somewhat odd as the vast majority of people will be affected by health issues in their life, not criminal courts. And the costs associated with the two are about the same.
A strange but interesting culture.
(Yes I'm aware of the low quality of public defenders - due to a lack of funding more than anything. But it's better than nothing, just like public hospitals)
The argument is spurious. We have healthcare for every citizen.
Seriously. When my family was living on the government payroll, I went to government clinics.
I've never seen anything get cheaper once the gubmt gets involved. The costs just shift to those not in political favor.
the point is not whether we have healthcare for everyone right now.
the point is that the people shouting "oh hells no!" to expanded healthcare coverage are the same people heartily signing off on shoveling more free money into the pockets of bankers.
there has been little to no republican opposition to throwing more and more money at aig, citibank, and friends.
and by the way, maybe the government clinics you went to were kickass, but with the might and wealth of blue shield HMO, i get some of the shittiest medical care imaginable. i can only imagine free clinics to be much worse -- but if they're not, then why is my insanely expensive health insurance not getting me better medical care?
The bill does not expand coverage. only interference.
The same so called republicans are only opposed to be in the opposition. I agree that by voting to fund stupid bankers, they expand interference.
As for the care I got, I can say it literally kept me alive. it wasn't fancy or kickass.
HMO = Health Maintenance Provider. You are kept alive aren't you?
The cost of the health insurance has many factors. Most of these factors are caused by government interference.
1. The AMA. Government entangled union that limits the number of doctors trained to keep prices high.
2. The FDA. Government organization that decides which new drugs and treatments you can have comrade.
3. Market dynamics. Not the governments fault but the better doctors go where they can charge more. Imposing regulations can and will chase some good doctors to even more limited service or to other markets.
4. Liability. Check out the HUGE percentage of medical fees that go straight into liability insurance. Courts, government courts, are the ones who make the rulings with respect to liability.
This is not a push for total anarchy. Its not some bullshiat call related to "furriners in R mergency rooms". Look into what we have and why it costs so much and then ask yourself
How will more gasoline put out the fire?
If we could just work on #1 and #4 life would be much better. More doctors who can operate independently. Instead of having only a few choices, each being big medical organizations who can handle the liability.