It's un-American though. It somehow feels too socialistic to just have ulimited healthcare support.
> An insurance exists to protect people from going bankrupt due to health issues
On paper, in reality it is to feed the mouths of health care insurance workers.
The level of rhetoric regarding how nationalized healtcare takes away our choice and freedom and how it brings socialism and doom to our country has always baffled me. I watched the whole thing unfold for many years now. And it wasn't just one or two people here and there, it is whole segments of population who opposed a single payer system, the industry opposed it, so that was thrown out early on.
You'd imagine we were talking about forcing people to sell their first born children or even worse confiscating their property. There were suggestions (even here on HN) of proposing some alternative back to the 1800's free market utopian version ("let's go back to the pure and glorious golden age of free markets" etc). And that would be have been interesting to see and discus if we talked about some experimental new economic system or social order. But we were talking about a basic thing that exists and existed for decades in dozens of other developed countries, which have longer living, healthier, happier people.
I meant it to be both, the institution as a whole.
The idea of "oh but what about the jobs of everyone in insurance company, think of the admin assistants and poor call center workers" has been presented before as an argument against a single payer system.
> An insurance exists to protect people from going bankrupt due to health issues
On paper, in reality it is to feed the mouths of health care insurance workers.
The level of rhetoric regarding how nationalized healtcare takes away our choice and freedom and how it brings socialism and doom to our country has always baffled me. I watched the whole thing unfold for many years now. And it wasn't just one or two people here and there, it is whole segments of population who opposed a single payer system, the industry opposed it, so that was thrown out early on.
You'd imagine we were talking about forcing people to sell their first born children or even worse confiscating their property. There were suggestions (even here on HN) of proposing some alternative back to the 1800's free market utopian version ("let's go back to the pure and glorious golden age of free markets" etc). And that would be have been interesting to see and discus if we talked about some experimental new economic system or social order. But we were talking about a basic thing that exists and existed for decades in dozens of other developed countries, which have longer living, healthier, happier people.