|
WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS NOT A FEDERAL SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. it is a public insurance option that people lacking coverage can buy into according to their means. this is why i find it hard to remain calm. . . the same fallacious arguments have been made week after week after week.
i'm especially enraged by the "point" that it "will limit people's choices." i've given the example before of my privately insured, cancer ridden mother-in-law being denied treatments to elevate her red blood cell levels: i.e. the only thing that gave her the energy to do anything other than sit around the house. even with a doctor's recommendation, the treatments have been denied for these past couple months. WHAT CHOICE ARE PRIVATELY INSURED FOLK GIVEN THAT COULD POSSIBLE BE STRIPPED AWAY BY GIVING THE UNINSURED A PUBLIC OPTION?!?!?!?!?!
back to your question (well sort of, your question isn't based in reality), why does the solution NOT have to be a public option? why are government-run systems so taboo? what IS the solution? why has a comprehensive, alternative solution not been proposed? what do YOU propose? all i've heard is a lot of whining and disinformation, no answers whatsoever. if a public option can work it can work, and i haven't heard even a single argument pointing out why it cannot work. so again, what's with the stigma? show me how your misgivings are rational and i will kindly salute you for demonstrating something i haven't yet seen
and about the highway system. . . why is our transit dependent upon the federal government but THE DRIVING FORCE OF OUR ECONOMY (healthy workers willing to work) must remain sterile of government intrusion? this is all so ass-backwards and infuriating. i need to take a break from this shit
__________________
“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”
rip matt  |