Dude, come on! Don't preface your post like that. I am among the last people to write off someone's statements because I know we fundamentally disagree on something.
It can't be a s simple as just giving out money. Is he looking to eliminate health insurance companies? Remove the insurance expectation away from employers?
I guess I need to look into it, though I don't see that alone changing my vote.
Honestly I don't know what Obama's plan is regarding letting people opt out for private coverage. Ideally that would be an option (and it most likely would), but even if it weren't, there's simply no comparison between the benefit to society as a whole and the benefit to a few nitpicky people for whom public services 'aren't good enough' for them. See my below response to Dakryn for more.
Better idea, end Medicaid and Medicare. The solution to failing socialism is not more socialism.
Ok Vihris, since obviously you are for socialistic programs, do you mind explaining who should pay for them?
First off, our health care system is much more privatised than socialised right now, so if there's any failure it's most likely with the private aspect of it. Given how astronomically expensive our private hospitals, clinics, and insurance is becoming, how much less money countries with universal health care are paying, and the fact that the U.S. is the ONLY wealthy industrialised nation which does NOT have universal health care, it's pretty safe to assume that universal health care works better than private health care.
Naturally this means that some wealthier people are going to end up picking up part of the bill for some poorer people. But the cost to wealthy people is so unbelievably negligible compared to the enormous benefit of not having a large fraction of the population suffering and/or dying from lack of medical treatment, that to support a full privatisation of health care is simply callous and morally apathetic.
Me? No, not at all. It's just an observation I have been contemplating. How adamantly opposed to each other the opinions of two people who are reasonably intelligent can be. To the point of thinking that the other person is fundamentally lacking some level of intelligence.
I tried to have this conversation and give examples of how it is more a fundamental difference in how people see things, than a lack of intelligence. vihris-gari could not handle it and could not stop arguing the points. I wasn't making point about issues, I was giving examples of how differing thoughts on fundamental ideas will result in different views on issue.
If this disagreement were over something like how aggressive our foreign policy should be or whether tax cuts should be focused more on businesses or on consumers, there would be much more room for an even debate, since those are issues for which (as far as I know) no one has a clear solution.
There are several partisan issues, however, for which it is glaringly obvious which side has a more logical solution which is more beneficial to everyone as a whole. I'm sorry that the side for most of this class of issues happens to be the liberals/Democrats, but that's just the way it is. I'm not saying conservatives/Republicans are inherently stupid - just that there are certain issues where they are clearly wrong, and which they will inevitably have to side with the liberals on.
Giving homosexuals equal legal and economic benefits under civil unions is one such non-debateable issue, because anyone who opposes this is clearly prejudiced against homosexuals.
Universal health care is most likely another such issue, because our current predominantly-private system is clearly failing, and given the overwhelming success of UHC in other developed countries, it's pretty safe to assume that the government can handle health care much more efficiently than private companies can.
