I voted Out-of-Pocket, since that's closest to what I want, though I don't believe in denying healthcare to someone who can't pay (who should then be indebted to the hospital, except for a few special groups which could be provided insurance by the government -- veterans, the elderly who cannot provide for themselves, children under 18 whose parents cannot provide for them, and pregnant women who cannot provide for themselves).
The fact that you "don't believe in denying healthcare to someone who can't pay" doesn't change the fact that that is the practical effect of the policies you support.
I've already pointed out that universal healthcare pretty much always causes a degradation in quality, which is why I think the solution to the healthcare crisis would be to reform the way you pay hospitals, not to have the government do it for you, which not only do I think would cause quality to decline but would also set a very dangerous precedent. It is better, and fairer, to have some people have better-quality care than others instead of everybody having the same mediocre care. But let's finish the gay Republican debate first -- this is something both of us have argued dozens of times, whereas that one is more outlandish.
nothing about either of your posts makes any sense.
Poll
