Immediately after switching the page, it will work with CSR.
Please reload your browser to see how it works.
As someone who voluteered in this field during that time, this is just a repetition of right wing propaganda. There was no serious movement to eliminate private options. Every country with a single-payer system that I'm aware of has private options as well, they just aren't popular because they aren't good or necessary. Right wing extremists want to present this as eliminating options, but in reality, it's just people not choosing private options when they have other options, because private options suck.
The real reason the left rejected a the "compromise" of non-profit options is that it still requires people who don't have money to pay for insurance. Simply slapping a non-profit label on an insurance company doesn't fix anything.
Note that non-profit health insurance companies exist already, and have solved exactly zero of America's health insurance problems.
There's also a difference between letting people die for whom you have no responsibility, and actively taking on the responsibility to prevent deaths in exchange for profit, and then letting the people whose lives you're responsible for die.
If you don't want to be held responsible when you let people die, don't take on that responsibility by becoming a health insurer.
Health insurers actually did worse than that: when other people wanted to take on the responsibility (i.e. single-payer healthcare) they actively blocked them from saving lives so they could go on profiting.
If this isn't "murder" or "killing" in your eyes, then maybe we just need a new word for the callous abdication of responsibilities that you signed up to provide for profit, when doing so results in the deaths of thousands.
Incorrect. It's just easier to explain why the teeth thing is wrong than to explain why, for example, Aristotelian ethics is an ex-post-facto justification for slavery.
> It's a stack of hundred dollar bills just sitting on the sidewalk, which you can pick up any time you want.
If we're exchanging rhetorical blows instead of any sort of logic, then I'll note that when you pick the bills up they have Jesus' face on them instead of Benjamin Franklin's, and the back is religious proselytizing. It's a good idea to pick it up, but only so that you can dispose of the litter properly.
> If you'd rather feel superior to someone from the ancient world, because you were taught things he didn't know (and own none of that insight yourself), rather than gittin gud, that's up to you.
Nice ad hominem, but I don't feel superior to him. In his situation I likely would have made many of the same mistakes, in addition to a few mistakes all my own. That doesn't mean we need to pretend they weren't mistakes.
I'm less concerned with the ownership of ideas and more concerned with whether those ideas are true and/or useful. The fact that Aristotle was given very little foundational knowledge on which to build his ideas is all the more reason to ignore his foundation-less ideas.
> You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
How confident are you that you aren't the horse in this metaphor?