> Health should always be far far far more important than money,
I'm pretty sure that your own behavior proves otherwise. (I'm not claiming that your choices are wrong, but they do show that health isn't always your highest priority.)
> but to prevent evil companies making a ton of money out of desperate people, it should be provided by the government.
In what universe can govts provide unlimited healthcare?
The current US healthcare "reform" includes significant cuts in Medicare spending on certain conditions. Folks who have those conditions will get less care. You know, pre-existing conditions....
Feel free to provide a checkable citation to any govt healthcare system that doesn't limit the amount of care.
I just believe that in this day and age, the US should join other first world countries in valuing life above military.
>> "I'm pretty sure that your own behavior proves otherwise. (I'm not claiming that your choices are wrong, but they do show that health isn't always your highest priority.)"
You said that it was wrong to limit healthcare access. If there aren't limits, it's unlimited.
> I just believe that in this day and age, the US should join other first world countries in valuing life above military.
What makes you think that it doesn't? The US spends far more on health care than it does on the military.
Yes, that's true of the federal govt. Note that state and local govts also spend money on health, and they spend very little on the military. And then there's private spending.
In fact, one of the big arguments by folks arguing for more govt healthcare is that they claim that it will cost less than the current system.
> Care to elaborate?
If I observe your life, I'm pretty sure that I'll find several things that you do that are not as good for your health as they could be. (Here are easy ones - is your weight ideal? Do you exercise enough? How about sleep?) Their existence proves that health isn't your highest priority.
I'm not saying that you're wrong to have priorities other that health, but it is absurd to criticize others for doing the same.
> I think we should become a First World country, which means universal healthcare.
The US has univeral healthcare. As I've pointed out, most people opt out, in part because it's a lot like the DMV. It's unclear why making it bigger would change that.
The US has a lot of experience with govt healthcare and it's mostly bad. (The Indian Health Service is especially bad.) It's unclear why we'd go for more before demonstrating that we could do it well.
In other words, as long as Medicare and Medicaid are disasters, why would we want more?
And yes, you can fix Medicare/Medicaid without increasing their scope. If they're fixable. And if they're not, increasing their scope won't fix them either.
Medicare is a "disaster" because of the funding cuts, which are a direct result of our tendency to elect assholes to represent us.
In many areas, government can do a great job when it's not being kicked around by bunch of asshole politicians who think government fails at everything (I include almost all Republicans and at least a third of Democrats) and are therefore invested in proving that point by making it fail.
> Medicare is a "disaster" because of the funding cuts, which are a direct result of our tendency to elect assholes to represent us.
Whatever the cause, we're going to continue electing the same kind of people, so if the result of doing so is broken govt healthcare ....
I am curious about the argument that medicare would be less of a disaster with more money. Govt healthcare advocates claim that govt healthcare would make medicare cheaper. That claim is inconsistent with medicare needs more money.
Medicare with more money might well produce better outcomes, but that's not cheaper.
FWIW, Obama's cost numbers assume significant additional medicare cuts. Those cuts aren't likely to happen, but ....
As I've written before, I'm perfectly willing to give Obama free rein over everyone currently covered by govt healthcare (not just IHS, VA, and medicare/medicaid, but govt employees, including state and local govt employees, and maybe the beltway bandits too) to see what happens. Part of the deal is a 5%/covered-person-year cut in years 3-6, which is a bit over 20% total, which should be a slam dunk given the claims of 30% cheaper with better outcomes. (That's starting from what they're spending now to cover those people.)
If he wants to spend the savings on convering more people, great. I'm also open to letting other folks buy in at cost. The only non-negotiables are "all govt employees" and the per-covered-person budget cuts.
If the claims are correct, that experiment will be a huge success. If the claims are wrong, govt employees will revolt. Either way, we'd know.
I'm pretty sure that your own behavior proves otherwise. (I'm not claiming that your choices are wrong, but they do show that health isn't always your highest priority.)
> but to prevent evil companies making a ton of money out of desperate people, it should be provided by the government.
In what universe can govts provide unlimited healthcare?
The current US healthcare "reform" includes significant cuts in Medicare spending on certain conditions. Folks who have those conditions will get less care. You know, pre-existing conditions....
Feel free to provide a checkable citation to any govt healthcare system that doesn't limit the amount of care.