Over my life, I've experienced nearly all the scenarios of the healthcare system:
- Uninsured
- Under-insured
- Denied coverage
- Received charity care
- Foregone treatment due to likely cost
Believe what you want really, but if you HONESTLY, SERIOUSLY think that the way insurance companies operate is fair and in the best interest of the people and this country, I'd love to hear it.
Socialism? Maybe in a loose definition of the term. But, if you think about it, insurance companies NOW operate under a basic definition of socialism in that the costs gained from ALL payers go towards the welfare of the people who need the care. Why is a public option any different ESPECIALLY when one of its primary concerns is to operate a self-sufficient entity?
The strawmen really come out to play when the right guffaws and says with a goofy grin on their face, "The GUBMENT can't run anything! I'm not going to trust them with my healthcare!" These arguments are weak at best, and stupid at worst. Grow up. Get a good argument and present it. PROVE why this is a bad idea when NEARLY EVERY OTHER 1st world democracy on the planet got rid of for-profit healthcare YEARS ago and, by and large, they outperform the US's system in nearly every sense.
EDIT: I just reread the posting directly under this one. Take it as a example. I had a mild, but potentially dangerous medical problem. Uninsured, the costs for simple blood tests and EKGs were over $550. Luckily, through cash payment and charity care, I was able to reduce this to about $200, but this is no way to handle the uninsured, and ultimately, this comes out of everyone's pocket. Sorry for not dying guys. BOOTSTRAPS OR BUST.
