Quote from: lisarenee on December 11, 2015, 07:26:24 PM
I wouldn't mind (though I sadly suspect it would become a slippery slope to full single payer) a catastrophic fund that would cover the expensive stuff (Hospitalization, Surgery including SRS and certain FFS, etc...), while preventing the insane delays for basic/routine care seen under the British or Canadian systems by keeping the private healthcare system.
I've gotta ask, because I don't know, are the systems in the UK and Canada inherently inefficient with basic care, or is it that there are too few medical personnel to handle the need? Personally I'm a big fan of single-payer because it gets insurance companies out of the equation. Full disclosure: I'm old and my healthcare needs are met through Medicare. It's not an
entitlement because I paid into it every working day of my life, in case you were wondering.
And another thing, referring to this as "government pay for sex change" has got it backwards. Reality is we, through our tax dollars, provide money that the government uses at our direction (provided our congressional representatives do their jobs) for things we the people feel are worthy. The government is the administrator of the money we give it. It's not creating money to do whatever it pleases.