Not true – you can opt out of payments, and nobody has proposed banning private transactions – I’m not going to be your strawman. Again – how does your bestiality porn analogy apply?
It applies as an example of the type of thing that gets descried as a “slippery slope”, which I doubt will be avoidable in any universal health care system. Do you need to go back to the original documentation for the NHS to show that private transactions weren’t banned, but they later came to be cause for being booted from the system? That’s how this program will evolve. Some of us aren’t limited to thinking in terms of one step at a time. You don’t want to debate “strawmen”, well I don’t want to debate someone ignorant of the empirical facts of the evolution of universal health insurance restrictions in the countries where it’s already been implemented. Look up the chess term “endgame” if you need some help conceptualizing what I’m saying.
Again, if you want to argue against a strawman, look elsewhere. I’m advocating a safety net – not your imaginary euthanasia program.
Again, also, “endgame”. The Dutch didn’t start with euthanasia on day 1, either. They started with a “safety net”.
The plain truth is that in the USA care is more expensive, and less effective, which you have helped demonstrate by posting the costs for universal care in other countries. Care to try again?
Another perfect example of why debating you with facts is a useless exercise. Only someone whose mind was completely shut down would say that 6% of income (cost in US) is more expensive than 15.5% (cost in Germany). Nor did the sample data I posted address “effectiveness”, but you somehow took it to show that US care was less effective. Again, a great example that I’m not dealing with someone whose approach to this question is empirical.
So, the time for debate is over now. I don’t do non-empirical debates.
