Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
The government wouldn’t be “taking care of you” – it would simply administer a plan using tax dollars – that’s it, in a nutshell. Instead of paying an insurance company, your “premium” would be paid in the form of taxes. This is a simplification of course, but so is the idea that a government administered healthcare system is some sort of giant freebee handout to deadbeats. The government isn't “giving” you healthcare, any more than it is giving you free roads and bridges.
If you and others are so distrustful of government, might I suggest a move to Somalia? There you will find a delightful little example of what it’s like to live without all that dastardly government interference, and all those freely available, government “handouts.”
|
Bear in mind that when a conservative talks about 'government' and 'the government' being too big, they're generally referring to the FEDERAL government. Very few people want to get rid of roads, police, firefighters, education etc etc. However these are services which are all provided locally, and paid for with local taxes. Wanting to reduce the size of 'government' (ie, the FEDERAL government) has nothing to do with getting rid of these services. (Yes, several of these items, specifically education and some roads are subsidized with federal funds. Nothing is perfect.
)
Just because I don't want a federal healthcare plan doesn't mean I want to fire the local police.
And this is where I'd suggest that if you really want the government to be more involved in your life that you move to China, where they even tell you how many kids you can have. But then the moderators might think the conversation was getting a little too heated.
