Quote:
Originally Posted by leoslayer
look i wouldnt support single payer paying for any addiction treatments.
Why not? People with illegal addictions that aren't treated will invariably end up in the prison system to a high degree, which costs tax payers 20-50k a year per inmate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarce...ed_States#Cost
If we could save money by treating addiction and lowering crime, seems like money well spent.
Quote:
the only exception would be if you got addicted to pain meds that were prescribed due to a procedure.
What is the logic for drawing the line here?
Quote:
nobody forced people to drink smoke or do drugs. they started voluntarily. its their problem.
Even if that is true, which it really isn't*, if there is a better more cost effective and less destructive way of dealing with it, who cares?
* It isn't really true because I'm pretty sure there is good science indicating that upbringing/parents or lack of them/quality of education/genetics, ect (i.e. things out of peoples control). All play a non insignificant role in whether someone has addiction problems. I would agree with you more if we all started off with a good family/role models/education/neighborhood/genetics - then you could say it was entirely meritocratic whether someone has an addiction problem, but that is far from the way it is.
Quote:
also anybody who thinks single payer would not be a massive tax increase is very much mistaken. and i really doubt that you wont pay more in taxes than you would if you just bought a high deductible policy matched with a hsa.
If as a society we end up spending less overall on healthcare with equal or better outcomes, again, why should it matter a great deal whether we are spending the money via government or via spirally out of control costs for extremely profitable private insurance industry in bed with the government.
Last edited by Fedorfan; 02-23-2012 at 11:13 PM.