Bill Dungsroman wrote:

Those silly NAFgots wrote:

Before rejecting the proposal out of hand, stop and consider that it may be a second-best alternative for relieving the growing political pressure to create some sort of nationalized single-payer health care system modeled on the nearly bankrupt and increasingly shabby health care schemes in Canada and Western Europe.

YEAH! SIGN ME UP!

unless you know how to get blood from a stone.

Looks to me like the pool, the pool of those with the federal system, is going to see increases (if it's even possible, if they can even pay for it) in the unhealthy side of the spectrum.

If the rates were all significantly lowered for everyone, how does everything carry on with so much less money available? Magic? Because the HAHAHA government is on the case? Among the NAF's proposals are the perpetuation of private health care. Under that notion, your idea of a large healthy working pool of government health care insurees dwindles rapidly. If I got the US plan for 50 bucks a month, or a much better plan from a private organization for 100 or even 150, I'd fucking take the private plan. Which, no doubt, was about 75 a month when I had it through my employer. See, EVERYONE does not buy into the risk pool, unless I still had to pay the government plan and then pay for private additions to it, which is a fucking mess, or rather, a tax.

Because, in essence, the NAF is admitting we'd all get stuck with the bill no matter what, and it's up to us to pay for something better. What the fuck makes you think the government health plan would be at all better than barely adequate? And not mired in the red tape and bureaucracy that EVERY SINGLE OTHER government organization is mired in? That's better? Somehow medical care would be the one exception? Please.

I don't do the shit I do or have done the shit I've done for that. You want to fix health care in America? Fix the insurance companies. Don't nix 'em, fix 'em. Don't make me do it, in effect.

In a sense, it is. I guess one of my problems is this looks like turning apples into oranges. It's also like trying to outlaw legal possession of firearms. Sounds great, but it's a little too late and far gone, with too many objectors to pull off. IMO, it's a case of cutting out several middlemen and using just one big ass one, the US government. Is that a good idea, ultimately? Wouldn't we just be trading one set of problems for another? Would it truly help the people it's supposed to help? Would it hurt more than it would fix? I don't like the sort of answers you get to these questions, they look to much like a Grass Is Greener scenarioo to me.