Can someone explain to me why we can't pay for health care how we pay for school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have never had to use healthcare from military care facilities. There are *lots* of problems with government run healthcare. Civilian care is much more efficient.

I always hear people say that, but I’ve been to some truly horribly run, inefficient civilian healthcare clinics. My sister is a physician and I’ve seen how things are run behind-the-scenes, and it’s BAD.

For sure there are good ones but let’s stop pretending private health care is all a well-oiled machine run by slick businesspeople. Most have no clue what they’re doing.

And you have the choice to go elsewhere. If it's your only option, you're stuck with it. People tell me all the time how lucky I am for my healthcare that costs nothing at an MTF, and then two friends came to visit me when I had a baby and were shocked at the level of care. They changed their opinion quickly.
Giving the government a bigger hand in it is not the solution. Insurance reform is where it needs to start.

PP. I’m on Medicaid, my kids are on Medicaid, and we have the option to go wherever we want. I gave birth to my second in a state-of-the-art hospital with top notch care and even the food was delicious.

Not sure where you live but my experience certainly hasn’t been poor quality care and being told who I must see.

Sure tons of great docs accept medicaid and lots of hospitals don't either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As a conservative I would be more than willing to institute this provided we end birthright citizenship, deport all illegal immigrants, and end chain migration of non-working foreign relatives. Socialized healthcare is too much of an incentive for people who haven't paid into the system.

How do you feel about the fact that kids go to public schools who aren't documented? Do you think kids have more or less of a right to basic healthcare or basic education?

I think kids have a right to basic healthcare and education in their home country, which is where their parents should be raising them.

So you would deny basic education to kids who are here "illegally" even if not their fault and even if it does'nt change what their parents would do (which it would be unlikely to change)?

I have relatives living all over the world and other countries, most of which would be considered beacons of enlightenment by DCUM denizens, deal with illegal immigrants by deporting them, including children, to their home countries. Families are not separated, the children go with their families. Not sure why every country except ours is allowed to do this.

Really? I am not doubting you, but I would say that aren't most "enlightened countries" (and then some, e.g., everyone but places like 2-3 countries, inc N Korea) signatories to conventions that require providing refuge to people fleeing for certain needs? Someone more educated on the specific international conventions can enlighten us, but something feels off here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As a conservative I would be more than willing to institute this provided we end birthright citizenship, deport all illegal immigrants, and end chain migration of non-working foreign relatives. Socialized healthcare is too much of an incentive for people who haven't paid into the system.

How do you feel about the fact that kids go to public schools who aren't documented? Do you think kids have more or less of a right to basic healthcare or basic education?

I think kids have a right to basic healthcare and education in their home country, which is where their parents should be raising them.

So you would deny basic education to kids who are here "illegally" even if not their fault and even if it does'nt change what their parents would do (which it would be unlikely to change)?

I have relatives living all over the world and other countries, most of which would be considered beacons of enlightenment by DCUM denizens, deal with illegal immigrants by deporting them, including children, to their home countries. Families are not separated, the children go with their families. Not sure why every country except ours is allowed to do this.

Really? I am not doubting you, but I would say that aren't most "enlightened countries" (and then some, e.g., everyone but places like 2-3 countries, inc N Korea) signatories to conventions that require providing refuge to people fleeing for certain needs? Someone more educated on the specific international conventions can enlighten us, but something feels off here.

Those conventions require the first safe country they the refugees reach to grant them asylum. Subsequent countries are free to consider them economic migrants and deport them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As a conservative I would be more than willing to institute this provided we end birthright citizenship, deport all illegal immigrants, and end chain migration of non-working foreign relatives. Socialized healthcare is too much of an incentive for people who haven't paid into the system.

How do you feel about the fact that kids go to public schools who aren't documented? Do you think kids have more or less of a right to basic healthcare or basic education?

I think kids have a right to basic healthcare and education in their home country, which is where their parents should be raising them.

So you would deny basic education to kids who are here "illegally" even if not their fault and even if it does'nt change what their parents would do (which it would be unlikely to change)?

I have relatives living all over the world and other countries, most of which would be considered beacons of enlightenment by DCUM denizens, deal with illegal immigrants by deporting them, including children, to their home countries. Families are not separated, the children go with their families. Not sure why every country except ours is allowed to do this.

The US has birthright citizenship because we're a nation of immigrants (or colonizers if you don't want to sugarcoat it). If you want to say birthright citizenship is not a central tenant of the American system of government and society, most of us commenting on DCUM will have to figure out how to reacquire citizenship to a country that our ancestors left a couple hundred years ago since we clearly have no right to be here and are occupying the land illegally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As a conservative I would be more than willing to institute this provided we end birthright citizenship, deport all illegal immigrants, and end chain migration of non-working foreign relatives. Socialized healthcare is too much of an incentive for people who haven't paid into the system.

How do you feel about the fact that kids go to public schools who aren't documented? Do you think kids have more or less of a right to basic healthcare or basic education?

I think kids have a right to basic healthcare and education in their home country, which is where their parents should be raising them.

So you would deny basic education to kids who are here "illegally" even if not their fault and even if it does'nt change what their parents would do (which it would be unlikely to change)?

I have relatives living all over the world and other countries, most of which would be considered beacons of enlightenment by DCUM denizens, deal with illegal immigrants by deporting them, including children, to their home countries. Families are not separated, the children go with their families. Not sure why every country except ours is allowed to do this.

Really? I am not doubting you, but I would say that aren't most "enlightened countries" (and then some, e.g., everyone but places like 2-3 countries, inc N Korea) signatories to conventions that require providing refuge to people fleeing for certain needs? Someone more educated on the specific international conventions can enlighten us, but something feels off here.

Those conventions require the first safe country they the refugees reach to grant them asylum. Subsequent countries are free to consider them economic migrants and deport them

Okay... not sure how that impacts the point?

[Anonymous]

Google Canadian health care and wait times for services - its horrendous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As a conservative I would be more than willing to institute this provided we end birthright citizenship, deport all illegal immigrants, and end chain migration of non-working foreign relatives. Socialized healthcare is too much of an incentive for people who haven't paid into the system.

How do you feel about the fact that kids go to public schools who aren't documented? Do you think kids have more or less of a right to basic healthcare or basic education?

I think kids have a right to basic healthcare and education in their home country, which is where their parents should be raising them.

So you would deny basic education to kids who are here "illegally" even if not their fault and even if it does'nt change what their parents would do (which it would be unlikely to change)?

I have relatives living all over the world and other countries, most of which would be considered beacons of enlightenment by DCUM denizens, deal with illegal immigrants by deporting them, including children, to their home countries. Families are not separated, the children go with their families. Not sure why every country except ours is allowed to do this.

Really? I am not doubting you, but I would say that aren't most "enlightened countries" (and then some, e.g., everyone but places like 2-3 countries, inc N Korea) signatories to conventions that require providing refuge to people fleeing for certain needs? Someone more educated on the specific international conventions can enlighten us, but something feels off here.

Those conventions require the first safe country they the refugees reach to grant them asylum. Subsequent countries are free to consider them economic migrants and deport them

Okay... not sure how that impacts the point?

All of the enlightened countries PP was pointing to would be subsequent countries and free to deport without violating international laws. It's hard to reach Europe from war torn countries without entering other countries first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google Canadian health care and wait times for services - its horrendous.

Try getting treatment for a non-acute condition in the US without insurance or money. We have the same rationing, ours is just based on money rather than a place in line

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As a conservative I would be more than willing to institute this provided we end birthright citizenship, deport all illegal immigrants, and end chain migration of non-working foreign relatives. Socialized healthcare is too much of an incentive for people who haven't paid into the system.

How do you feel about the fact that kids go to public schools who aren't documented? Do you think kids have more or less of a right to basic healthcare or basic education?

I think kids have a right to basic healthcare and education in their home country, which is where their parents should be raising them.

So you would deny basic education to kids who are here "illegally" even if not their fault and even if it does'nt change what their parents would do (which it would be unlikely to change)?

I have relatives living all over the world and other countries, most of which would be considered beacons of enlightenment by DCUM denizens, deal with illegal immigrants by deporting them, including children, to their home countries. Families are not separated, the children go with their families. Not sure why every country except ours is allowed to do this.

Really? I am not doubting you, but I would say that aren't most "enlightened countries" (and then some, e.g., everyone but places like 2-3 countries, inc N Korea) signatories to conventions that require providing refuge to people fleeing for certain needs? Someone more educated on the specific international conventions can enlighten us, but something feels off here.

Those conventions require the first safe country they the refugees reach to grant them asylum. Subsequent countries are free to consider them economic migrants and deport them

Okay... not sure how that impacts the point?

All of the enlightened countries PP was pointing to would be subsequent countries and free to deport without violating international laws. It's hard to reach Europe from war torn countries without entering other countries first.

I still don't see the point. Most European countries can deport (let's not forget that many are willingly receiving refugees, but whatever) so the US should too, but what our terrible former president called $hithole countries should be stuck with refugees like that's just?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like how we pay for public schools using tax dollars?

Republicans want to stop finding local schools. They want us to believe vouchers will magically cure all the issues by paying evangelicals to homeschool the next generation of the American Taliban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No thanks. I think the biggest issue is that there's a lot of disagreement about what health care is and whether it should be funded. Some people go for platinum plans that pay for cosmetic dermatology, therapists and expanded mental health coverage. I really like the health care I've always received through work.

And yeah, funding it by property taxes is wild. I'd like to live in the thin, healthy, active part of town please!

Do you ever consider what would happen if you lost your job or couldn’t work for some reason? You can buy something through the ACA but supposedly that can be much more expensive than an employer plan. It’s absolutely terrible that good health insurance is tied to employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google Canadian health care and wait times for services - its horrendous.

Try getting treatment for a non-acute condition in the US without insurance or money. We have the same rationing, ours is just based on money rather than a place in line

I would rather have that than be charged 6 figures for a hospital stay.