Quote:
Originally Posted by djnemo65
OK, but this means that you are saying that we should limit access to care for these 50 million people without insurance, at least in part, to protect the quality of care for people with insurance. You can't claim dilution of quality care as a disadvantage of the plan without at least implicitly advocating the status quo.
|
Yeah, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. I'm not saying some kind of reform isn't necessary, and I'm not screaming status quo either. Like I said, I'm far, far from an expert on health care. The opposite really. But if I have the means to pay for my own high quality insurance policy, why should my level of care suffer in order to give insurance to someone who can't/won't pay for it? I guess it boils down to the brass tacks of big/small government, which I don't really care to debate.
I work hard to afford my health insurance. I'm willing to give a few inches to help the uninsured, but not much more than that. By the way, putting some limits on the 50 million people receiving goverment healthcare to protect those who actually pay for it is more than fair in my opinion. You're either willing and/or able to put your hard earned dollars towards your healthcare or you're not. But if you are, you should get to go to the front of line for most things (life threatening situations excluded of course). I'm not saying anyone should be denied care, but if the government is picking up your tab, cry me a friggin a river if you have to wait a while.