Quote Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE View Post
You're about to get less care so someone else can get that same care and you're going to have to wait to wait for a few years to see a doctor. If you are on medicine you're going to most likely face a shortage once the programs kick in and then you may have less given to you despite needs. Also your medical needs will be evaluated on a cost effectiveness basis, ie if its cheaper for you to die than get treatment you die, but they won't take away that health care plan or the taxes that go along with you.
It'd be more appropriate if you didn't lie to scare the kid.
The time to see a doctor is not possibly calculable, and "years" is simply absurd. If you want to compare it to countries that actually have a similar health care system, it will be weeks at the most, depending on the disease.
A shortage of medicine is retarded. Medication can be mass produced, fast. If we kept the same amounts of medication that we have now, there would be a shortage. Obviously companies that produce said medicine are going to produce more. It would be retarded for them not to, since it would make them more money to do it. "Every day, 100 people want to buy my product. But I choose to only make 10 so that the other 90 face a shortage." Sure thing.
It's always cheaper to die, so don't give that BS. Moreso, doctors will be encouraged to prescribe you what you need, not what will make them the most money. Thusly, you'll get better medication at a cheaper cost per person (that would otherwise be able to afford it) than the capitalist system.
And ironically enough, you say "if its cheaper for you to die than get treatment you die" as if it's a bad thing (and it is), but support the alternative of "if you can't afford treatment, you die" as if it's so drastically different.