I think that it's really cool getting money from the Govt. It really is. But it's not the Govt's job to provide health care. It's easy to side with those who want to provide these things because it looks like you're a caring person, and us republicans like bad people.
But there are those with bad intentions. They want to lull us into a false sense of security. To grow the Govt. To have the power over our lives.
The best thing for us is to have smaller Govt. I don't want go live under a repressive regime.
The problem is that 16% of America is uninsured. Not all of them qualify for something like MediCaid. And some of them aren't lucky enough to live in places where other resources are available.
I am. In Minneapolis, we have independent programs that provide free health options. It's good to know I can go to the clinic for free if I really need to, since I am having a lapse in insurance for the next couple months.
But Minnesota has a pretty decent economy, compared to a lot of places in the US right now. Not everywhere does. Not everywhere can afford it.
I'm not more deserving of health care than someone living somewhere less well-off. I'm just lucky.
You seem to be under the false impression that in order to have public health, we would need to get rid of private. Most countries with public health care still have private insurance. And here's what's cool.
The reality of having to compete with public health care drives the prices of private health care down to a fraction of the cost, and with all the same benefits and more. It also means private insurance companies break coverage down into more customizable chunks, so you don't have to buy anything other than what you need.
Let's say you buy insurance for a particular kind of specialist coverage, because you have a disease requiring specialist attention. It may expidite the referral process, allow you more doctors to choose from, and possibly reduce wait times (though wait times are often exaggerated by those against public health care). And the rest of your health coverage needs can be covered by the public sector, since you don't require specialist attention.
Even if you opt to go entirely private, the cost would be much less than what you pay now. Even if you include the taxes you pay for the public system.
This is the sort of flexibility and cost effectiveness I've seen in Europe and New Zealand, which I spent a combined 3.5 years living in.
I had to go to an English A&E once (like our ER). This was in London, which is obviously a huge city. Going to the ER in any huge American city means waiting for 4-6 hours and even if you have insurance, paying a co-pay. If you don't, you're looking at a bare minimum of $350, going all the way to tens of thousands of dollars.
I was in-and-out in under an hour. And I didn't pay a dime. And still the UK pays proportionally way less for their healthcare than we do for ours.
Having a public option doesn't take away your options. It actually increases them, but introducing heavy competition. Nothing is more competitive than "free." And it is possible to run public health efficiently and cost-effectively.