You see, CJ, your idiotic post above just shows how much you know. Have you ever had to deal with healthcare providers in "socialized countries"? When I lived in france, my girlfriend had a couple of scares with lumps in her breasts that turned out to be benign but required biopsies, surgery and god knows what else. She had access to one of the best cancer institutes in the world and never had to worry for one second about how to pay for it. Everything was covered by the public government insurance. I would hate to imagine the same scenario in the US without coverage or with shitty high-deductible, yearly cap coverage. I don't know a single person in france who has been dissatisfied with the healthcare they received...not one. So stop with this bullshit about how under "socialized medicine" you get denied treatment. It's not true. In fact, a for-profit american insurance company is much more likely to deny you access to treatment than a single-payer system.
And that's the thing I find funniest....you don't want a government bureaucrat coming between you and your healthcare, but if it's some insurance company bureaucrat it's fine. And guess what? Despite all the bullshit and slogans, the actual proposal for healthcare reform under consideration right now would let you keep your insurance company hack, just force him to play by some new rules. Like you can't deny people coverage or you can't drop someone's coverage when they become sick. Stop spreading your retarded hysteria about what's in this bill. It's NOT the government running healthcare, it's basically what we have in MA.....which was put into place by, yes, mitt romney. Again, good politics isn't always good policy and vice-versa. You don't seem to understand the difference.
Abe, it's always good to have medical coverage or cash when an emergency happens. I'm sure your girlfriends ordeal was scary for both of you. I hope all is well now.
I'm afraid we disagree some on the full meaning of what is "good" though ...
It's also "good" to be able to decide some things for yourself, like if you want or need private coverage or if you'd prefer "no coverage at all."
The no coverage at all "option" doesn't exist in Massachusetts. If you simply decide you want nothing to do with it, you are fined by the state. Seems like that scheme will also be incorporated in the Federal plan.
Do you see anything wrong with fining a person for refusing to purchase a "service"?
How can a forced purchase ever be defined as anything but extortion? It matters not who the extortionist IS, it is the ACT of the extortionist that makes it extortion. Titles do not exempt perpetrators from true meanings of their ACTION despite their wishing it to be so.
In my case it will not be only a fine. Since I will NOT pay any fines, eventually I will be incarcerated. For lack of a better term ACCEPTING intitiated force against me doesn't fit my "religion".
How does the good you hope to achieve through government healthcare justify incarcerating anyone if they simply say no thanks, I'd rather not participate?
The answer is simple... it CANNOT justify it without first RATIONALIZING the use of force.
Over the curse of what seems like dozens of threads I've seen people argue back and forth about the merits of healthcare etc. Yet the underlying issue of the morality of the "solution" is always avoided or rationalized away by those advocating government healthcare. It's a form of cognitive dissonance.
Seriously, what is wrong with allowing a person to decide if they will or will not participate in something affecting their life, liberty and property?
You seem to focus on "fixing" a problem. That's admirable. Your solution, which relies on forcing people to participate in something they may not want is not admirable, it's rotten at the core...think about it.
ROTFL
