How? Get some cash, find a doctor, and give him cash to fix you. Nothing is stopping you from doing that under the new system.
I find it intriguing that your purported solution to the limitations of this legislation is the very antithesis of the program itself. This seems like a weakness in the reasoning behind the plan. Not to mention that the problem is more that the quality of care, at any price, will degrade and that we will all become less wealthy as our government takes more of our money and spends it ever less efficiently.
Also, each state does own, build, and operate their own expressway systems. How exactly do you imagine the FHWA operates? There is not some federal agency that builds interstates across the nation, ignoring state boundaries. Rather, the FHWA provides a set of standards, design advice, and substantial federal funding to local agencies which then make their own decisions on building their own roads. The US government doesn't own and didn't authorize or oversee the construction of, say, I-5 or I-95 they merely coordinated with local governments to do so. This is how a healthy cooperation across local and federal government works.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that this bill represents an unprecedented leap in the involvement of the federal government in every individual's business and livelihood is living in a fantasy world.
Were you really making so much money on capital gains that this is going to affect you negatively in any way?
This is a specious argument. They came for X, and I did nothing... Principles matter. Extorting taxes out of others to pay for your own healthcare may seem just fine and dandy an idea if no one you or I know would pay those taxes, but it's a bad idea on principle.
To adapt a common phrase, those who sacrifice liberty for universal healthcare deserve neither.
(Example: I went to the pharmacy to refill a prescription, but it was a few days early and my insurance company would not pay. The cost of the drug to the insurance company is $18 -- I pay $10, they pay $8. Without my insurance, though, the cost of the drug is $85. That's the free market at work -- liberty indeed.)
The liberty of doctors and drug makers to set their own prices, the liberty of individuals to decide their own degree of health insurance coverage. Today we have precious little of this liberty already (I suspect that you imagine that square 1, the present situation, is some sort of laissez faire free for all market economy, but that couldn't be further from the truth), tomorrow we will have even less.
Given that the US has been the engine of medical advancements in the world for the past several decades (though you'd expect the EU, with a similar population and wealth to at least match America's contributions), it seems that perhaps there is some correlation between the ability to earn a profit on the sale of new drugs and new treatments and the development of those treatments.
Now, indeed, this correlation seems to hold in every other industry as well, and everyone accepts that. We understand that Apple would not spend its efforts developing the iPad were it not assured of a hefty profit. We understand that Tesla motors would not have poured the significant amount of R&D into developing their roadster if they did not expect to make significantly more in sales.
And yet somehow our reason flies out the window when it comes to medical care, because we can't imagine the "unfairness" of a system which doesn't cover everyone exactly 100% equally. Sad to say but the universe is unfair. I believe that it's important that we ensure that life-saving care is always available to people regardless of whether they are able to pay or not, but I do not believe that medical care can or should be "free" or entirely government subsidized for everyone.
That path is the way not only to the stagnation of medical advances but also to the ultimate bureaucratization of the medical industry. We can look forward to more and more people deciding to become software developers, lawyers, or oil and gas engineers instead of doctors, nurses, or pharmaceutical researchers. And we can look forward to a system ever more encumbered by red tape and the inefficiency of bureaucracy at every step. In what fantasy world could anyone imagine that the results will be any different?
We should rejoice that it's even remotely possible to trade dollars for health. We should thank all of the people who spent so much effort going through medical school, nursing school, or acquiring chemistry degrees, and who spend so much effort keeping up with the state of the industry. If instead we vilify these folks as extortionists and financial nuisances, if we portray them as providing services that we DESERVE to receive as a birth right for a pittance, then we will drive them away. We will end up with fewer and more mediocre doctors and researchers.
And we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
"because we can't imagine the "unfairness" of a system which doesn't cover everyone exactly 100% equally."
The system in the UK doesn't even pretend to have "100% equality" - if you want to you can go to private health providers and insurers. Very few people do though because the socialized care from the NHS is often good enough.
As for complaints about bureaucracy - I'm always amazed at how little bureaucracy is involved. Only time I can remember signing a form in a hospital was after my wife had a climbing accident and the hospital wanted to keep her in longer but she wanted to go home - so we had to sign some disclaimer.
Maybe I am a socialist or something, but I actually really like the idea of everyone in this country getting pretty decent healthcare that is free at the point of delivery. Of course, I know that I am taxed for it in various ways - but for this I am happy to pay.
I find it intriguing that your purported solution to the limitations of this legislation is the very antithesis of the program itself. This seems like a weakness in the reasoning behind the plan. Not to mention that the problem is more that the quality of care, at any price, will degrade and that we will all become less wealthy as our government takes more of our money and spends it ever less efficiently.
Also, each state does own, build, and operate their own expressway systems. How exactly do you imagine the FHWA operates? There is not some federal agency that builds interstates across the nation, ignoring state boundaries. Rather, the FHWA provides a set of standards, design advice, and substantial federal funding to local agencies which then make their own decisions on building their own roads. The US government doesn't own and didn't authorize or oversee the construction of, say, I-5 or I-95 they merely coordinated with local governments to do so. This is how a healthy cooperation across local and federal government works.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that this bill represents an unprecedented leap in the involvement of the federal government in every individual's business and livelihood is living in a fantasy world.
Were you really making so much money on capital gains that this is going to affect you negatively in any way?
This is a specious argument. They came for X, and I did nothing... Principles matter. Extorting taxes out of others to pay for your own healthcare may seem just fine and dandy an idea if no one you or I know would pay those taxes, but it's a bad idea on principle.
To adapt a common phrase, those who sacrifice liberty for universal healthcare deserve neither.