I am totally resigned to the fact. We're never going to go back to a limited government of the type that our founders envisioned, never. I learned that in 1980, when I voted for Reagan under the assumption that he would be able to scale back the size of the federal bureaucracy. When that didn't happen, I went back to voting third party again. It is likely that such a government wouldn't work in 21st. century America anyway.
At least 90% of what the federal government does would not be an option.
I suppose you could interpret it that way. Why dream of what is not possible?
the FDIC. Can you imagine what would have happened when the current recession struck without it? It isn't hard. it is the same thing that happened during the last great depression.
So, an average of say, two and a half million times ten million of them equals twenty five trillion dollars tied up in MRI machines. Can those figures be right? A million millions is a trillion, right? and 10 million times 2 and a half million would be 25 trillion. How can we possibly afford that? No wonder our health care system is so expensive, if that is any indication.
If there is one for every thirty or so individuals, it makes one wonder whether we really need that many. An MRI only takes an hour or so, so with one for every thirty people, we could easily give an MRI to everyone about once a week. Is that really necessary?
Individual plans are prohibitively expensive except for young healthy individuals. Group plans may be tailored to the group, but not for the individual.
My son, for example, is 40 and single (any 40ish unmarried women out there... no, let's not go there). He has insurance through his employer, who has capped benefits at $800 per month. Since every employee has to take the same plan, he has to have the family plan, which costs an extra $400 due to the employers cap. If he could take a single plan, he would have less out of pocket.
So much for individually tailored plan. Now with a larger group, say for example, a group of 300 million, there should be room for some to have a family plan, others to have a single plan.
We should be able to come up with a reasonable plan if we have reasonable people working on it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid we've elected too many rabid partisans.
Currently, you have no real choice.
SS would work if the government wouldn't put it in the general fund and spend it, and if they wouldn't give it away to people who didn't earn it. For 38 years, I and my various employers put 8% of my pay into a retirement fund controlled by the State of California, but not into the black hole our state calls its "general fund". At age 61, I was able to retire at 92% of my pay. Since I no longer had that 8% coming out, my pay didn't go down at all. Were the feds as responsible... no scratch that. The state wasn't responsible. The state had an "evil, socialistic, terrible" union that was strong enough to nix the idea of putting the retirement fund into the general fund and spending it. If we had such a union looking out for our interests in Washington, then the average SS recipient could retire at full salary at age 61. What a reform that would be!
Surely, you don't seriously think that charity can make up for millions without health care?
Not the way it's being run today it won't.
Sure, until the insurance you choose at age 25 goes out of business over the years, and you find yourself trying to get coverage at age 65. Good luck with that.
I don't think we should be doing any of that on credit. Maybe credit could be used for capital improvements, like a high speed rail or further interstate highways, but not for day to day expenses. Putting such on the MasterCard will ruin a family or a nation. We need to have a balanced budget amendment, and not just when the party of "fiscal responsibility" is not in power.
Maybe when that collapse you keep talking about is imminent
No, you're the one claiming that other countries are lying about how much they spend on health care. I'm the one asking why they would do that.