I generally don't like doing line-by-line responses, but there were a lot of specific assertions that I wanted to refute.
Masked Midnight wrote:
I find that list to be rather vague, personally (i.e. "emergency services").
Of course it's vague, it was only a paragraph haha. My point is that a specific list could be constructed and should be provided by the government. For example's sake, I feel like "emergency services" include ambulances and treatment for immediate, live-threatening danger (poison, rapid blood loss, etc). I would also include maternity care. There's probably stuff I'm missing, but the bottom line is that there are some health care services which should be available to everyone (and therefore financed by the government, since the private sector can't guarantee the acquisition of any good).
The problem with having the government involved is that it sets dangerous precedent for more and more regulation.
You can argue that against anything.
I'd argue that we can't just have government protect "some things" when we don't know what those are. We have nowhere to draw the line -- and we certainly shouldn't let the government do that.
See above re: what "some things" are. I also see no problem in letting the government do that, seeing as the government is representative of the people (also note that laws are not writ in stone, succeeding administrations may add/remove items from "the list" as the opinions of the people change)
What I'm talking about isn't regulation, it's provision. I agree that the private sector should be able to do what they want with regards to offering health insurance. But the government should also provide basic health care to people who need it. Public libraries and schools don't regulate the library or education industries.
I fail to see the relevance of this.
Ideally, the government would provide tax incentives to corporations who provide high quality packages; this would hone the competitive edge.
Not sure I completely understand you here, but I don't think it's a good idea for the government to pick winners or losers in any industry.
So, the I should have to pay for someone else's antibiotic? These things cost money. Where's my incentive to have a high income/work hard just to pay for everyone else's medications if I can get free healthcare by being poor?
To answer your first question, yes, if the antibiotic is being used to treat something that's "covered" under the basic list. Same way you pay for someone else's defense attorney if they're charged with a crime. I'm going to assume that your second question was sarcastic, because there are obviously other things in the world worth working for besides basic health care. Like, say, health care that covers other things (e.g. specialized doctors), or a house, or a car, or a cigarette. I don't see people quitting their jobs because of a system like the one I'm proposing.
There's a difference between making a public system private (like education) and making a private system public (Obamatax).
Could you explain? Education is a mix of private and public, and I'm proposing that health care be done in the same way. Why, exactly, is it a good idea for the government to provide basic education but not basic healthcare? You'd be hard-pressed to argue that education is more important...
The reason things are so expensive is because the government intervened in the auto and housing industries favoring certain markets. You shouldn't have to pay for my car; why should I have to pay for your health insurance? The government doesn't give free cars.
My point was that the private sector can't guarantee the acquisition of goods. If there are people who don't have enough money to find a bed to sleep in or a sandwich to eat, they're not going to be able to afford privately provided premiums, no matter how inexpensive they are.
Education should actually be left up to the States; the DOE and common core has only hindered the system (but that's a debate for another thread
It's also a debate that isn't really relevant here. If you think that the states would handle it better, then I'll amend my proposal and argue that the states should do what I'm saying.
I really don't see how higher premiums for the majority of Americans helps preserve the right to life.
What does this have to do with higher premiums? I'm saying that everybody in the US deserves the right to basic health care. With no premium.
In fact, I think Obamacare and federal intervention hinders such a right due to people no longer being able to afford health insurance.
Like I said earlier, I'm not defending the entirity of Obamacare. What I am saying is that we shouldn't have a country where anybody is in the position of not being able to afford basic health care.