thegreekdog wrote:Frigidus wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Hooray for defeating socialized health care!
Except IT NEVER WAS AN OPTION.
What was defeated is not "socialized healthcare". It is the option to have a bottom line check on the insurance companies, an
option.
That won't convince him. He will keep cheering over the deaths of Americans for the sake of his preferred economic theory no matter how bad the system gets. He is a willing servant of the corporations that control this country.
Player is simply wrong, and I don't know why she keeps insisting that the defeated bill was not socialized healthcare. I've explained it before, I've pointed to the specific provision in the bill, and she's ignored me. I'm not sure what else I have to do.
Just because I disagree does not mean I have not heard your argument, nor does it mean I need "further explanation".
You claim that if the government is involved, they inherently won't "fight fair", will tax the insurers, etc so that they won't be competetive and therefore even having the public option is equivalent to socialized medicine.
I have referred you both to the bill, AND to other countries that do have a mix of the two. You have not even looked into other countries, you just keep on with government=bad. That is not "facts" it is political opinion.
And please stop insisting that I think corporations are all bad, am anti competition, etc. I just don't happen to think that profit and HEALTHCARE go together. You may not think it wrong that Blue Cross denied me care (and they did), questioned every bill we had for over 2 years (other than
some -- not all -- well pregnancy visits to my OB). You may not see any connection between Blue Cross refusals to pre-authorize visits to specialists in a timely manner is connected to greed of the Blue Cross executives, but I do. I am not "anti corporation", but I don't give them a free pass on causing me and my family harm, either.