House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks[

[Witchiepoo]

Now which part of what you described above would be improved by a visit to a nutritionist or physician?

Under my "plan," you would pay less (no) money for health insurance premiums, and have lots more to spend on those more healthful food choices.

[scotths]

Withlepoo,

So, I am a bit confused about your position... You seem to be claiming that any type of universal health care plan will likely lead to significant restrictions on the availability of options. However, you also seem to be supporting a candidate who believes in removing the entire health care system and replacing it with a single payer fully nationalized system?

You do realize that other countries severely restrict which medical services are covered and which aren't ... don't you?

In the current free market system most people are limited to the insurance their employer provides. In many cases due to preexisting conditions they are unable to afford to purchase an individual plan. Thus, the insurance companies have very little incentive to compete and improve their services and people are typically limited to what their health care plan will provide.

Consider the out come of the for-profit American system vs. other systems. The United States is experiencing declines in life expectancy relative to the rest of the world!

Further a large number of people, (some even who had health insurance), are forced to declare bankruptcy and give up everything they have saved in life in order to pay their bills. In many cases the medical providers are only able to obtain a fraction of the cost of the care provided from such bankruptcies, and society at large has to pick up the rest of the cost anyhow. We are all paying for this with increased premiums and taxes! Even if we had given such a person totally free health insurance (which isn't what is being proposed) it would have cost only slightly more than the current situation and perhaps even less if the person had gone to seek preventative care and avoided costly surgery or emergency room visits.

The invisible hand of the free market will have every incentive to care for sick people who want to care for themselves.

Why is this true? Why shouldn't a sick difficult to treat patient be tossed aside like an old broken down car?

[Matt1989]

In the current free market system

No.

-Matt

[Witchiepoo]

However, you also seem to be supporting a candidate who believes in removing the entire health care system and replacing it with a single payer fully nationalized system?

I never said that I agree with Nader/Gonzalez on every issue. They're a little too commie for my taste. But I do admire their ability to cut the B.S. and tell the truth. I admire Sarah Palin for the same reason.

I also never said that I personally had a problem with limited medical treatment options. The problem is that most Americans see socialized medicine as a "free ticket," when it is anything but.

In the current free market system most people are limited to the insurance their employer provides.

What Matt said. Requiring employers by law to provide health insurance for their employees is NOT what happens in a free market.

Why shouldn't a sick difficult to treat patient be tossed aside like an old broken down car?

Usually, those patients toss themselves aside, and the rest of us end up footing the bill to "save" them. Can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped.