I'm impressed that your are unable to equate "a third party [insurance company] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties" with "a third party [government] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties."
It's almost as impressive as your idea of "Tea Party myths."
That's a fair question, and I'd also ask what you meant by corporations "providing for our health."
Personally, I would expect that I'd probably have insurance for something unexpected like this. Or perhaps I'd simply keep a certain amount of cash on hand for unexpected medical issues, and use that to pay a doctor to set the broken arm, put on a cast, etc.
I would actually trust corporations a lot more than I would the government. In theory (if they haven't colluded with the government) the corporation actually has an incentive to satisfy my needs (I'm assuming we're talking about an insurance company). Of course, there are mitigating factors, like how much competition there is for my business, but it's gotta be better than a government monopoly (unless it's an actual private monopoly colluding with the government or something, at which point it's probably about the same).
Maximizing profit while satisfying consumers is generally a good thing. For a health care related example, take a look at the corrective eye surgery industry. The procedure is generally not covered by insurance, so there is competition both on quality and price.
No. Why would you think that? I countered your speculation with another speculation (though less speculative, I think), and then made a comment about how this sort of conversation tends to go.
I can't imagine how you could read any of my previous post as an ad hominem argument, so now I'm sure the rest of your arguments are wrong.
I suppose you believe that I'd prefer to grow all of my food and make my clothes, too. Well, at least then I guess I'd have a use for a man made of straw.
Yeah, but so what? Americans die more often from other things, like car accidents. So it's probably underestimating the increase.
It's annoying that critics of the stupid way Americans pay for health insurance fall back on aggregated statistics to convince us to move to an even stupider way of paying for health care that seems to result in inferior outcomes.
Why are corporations the only alternative? Why wouldn't you prefer rely on yourself?
If you think that Americans live shorter lives than Europeans because of the respective health care systems, how do you explain that Japanese immigrants to America live longer than Japanese in Japan (who live longer than Europeans)?
In the meantime, we can focus on the initiative itself, and not get bogged down in the Constitutionality issue, since we have a system set up to rule on that.
That's absurd. Yes, there's a system, but it doesn't always work very well. And even if it did, that's no excuse to purposefully break the rules. It's not just agents of the government who have responsibilities as far as our government goes. For instance, perhaps this phrase seems familiar, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Would you have the same approach if the issue at hand were, say, slavery? Freedom of speech? The PATRIOT act? Do you care about the rule of law at all? Or just when it might be convenient?
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
