Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar88
Wow @ awfulcopter we actually agree on something lol. As a fiscal conservative and somebody who believes in several libertarian views, I am not really a big fan of the mandate or governmaent telling me what to do or the taxes going up (tho who really knows what this will do financially to the US citizen). But one thing I know is that the current system is wack and the only people who like the current system is the insurance companies getting rich from it. Healthcare should NOT have to be so expensive and the biggest factor driving up the costs is the insurance companies. I do think the UK system (or a hybrid of it) would help and it could be something the Republicans could live with IF it were tweaked and they were allowed to be a part of the process and not have it rammed down their throats (unless republicans get bought out by insurance companies). |
Republicans could never live with it because the entire GOP (and to a lesser extent the Dems as well) are in bed with Wall Street. Keep in mind that the party sees absolutely nothing wrong with the insurance companies profiting massively and in fact consider it a good thing. Not to mention, many high ranking Repubs have a vested interest in insuring that the laws stay the way they are due to personal investments and financial connections with these companies, and others. TL;DR: if the laws change (and they did to some extent with ACA) they make less money. Therefore the Republican candidates and news pundits are always going to work overtime keeping the voting public misinformed as to the nature of a universal healthcare system.
They claim that universal healthcare system is fiscally wasteful, or more commonly "hurr it's socialism." This is ironic because universal healthcare systems are, as you know, generally more efficient and especially so compared to our current one. Anyone who calls him or herself a fiscal conservative is almost necessarily obligated to support universal healthcare if they truly want to be consistent with their own philosophy. But predictably, the fiscal waste of the bureaucratic insurance industry is always hypocritically overlooked by most of these "fiscal conservatives" due to their vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
And finally, if we are going to implement a universal healthcare system then we also need to be realistic about taxes. We cannot lower taxes any further and expect the deficit to do anything except grow. It's such a simple concept that it doesn't even take a degree in economics to understand: lower taxes mean lower revenue, and thus, an increased deficit. A properly structured progressive tax system can deliver the necessary revenue to maintain healthcare, education and infrastructure maintenance without fear of looming runaway inflation that Ron Paul is always shitting himself over. The answer to managing the deficit is not simply "cut spending," for several reasons. Government spending is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing, governments must spend money as a function of their existence. The problem is not the budget itself, but rather what is being done with said budget, and if said spending is netting us any return (it isn't.) The defense budget for 2011 was over a trillion dollars. A large portion of this money went directly to the coffers of the military industrial complex in the form of government contracts, and the rest was quite literally set on fire (i.e. turned into bombs, missiles and bullets.) There's no return on that spending. It's not an investment. By contrast, investing in our infrastructure, healthcare and education are all things that
would bring many returns in the short and long-term. I don't know about you but I cream my pants thinking about what a kickass place Murrika would be if we dropped a trillion dollars and a couple of years into improving our healthcare, education, roads and public transport.
Interestingly, I read a study by a British economist that predicted that by
2024, Britain will be spending the same amount (% of GDP) on healthcare that the US spent in
2001. That figure alone speaks volumes as to the efficiency of the NHS.
Long post, but I was trying to get everything in here at once lol.
Today's Toppers
3Likes
Affordable Care Act (ACA) ("Obamacare")
