Dob wrote:Although I don't feel that anyone has a blanket entitlement to health care (in the sense that I don't feel anyone has the right to demand that a doctor treat him), I agree that a civilized society should provide a certain amount of emergency, "first responder" type of care without concern for who is footing the bill. Beyond that, however, the quality of care you get should be based on your ability to pay. If you can't pay, you aren't denied care, but you "go to the end of the line" and make do with whatever care is available, even if it's the bare minimum.
That would be an improvement over the present situation, where if you get a catastrophic illness without insurance, it's either bankrupt your family or die.
Why should better medical care be exempted from the normal way in which we exchange goods and services? Medical care is of critical importance, but so are other things. If I'm arrested and charged with murder, I can't simply demand the services of Robert Shapiro--even though he may mean the difference between freedom and life in prison. That's every bit as serious, and potentially involves as much suffering, as many illnesses.
Well, you *do* get a free lawyer, even if it's not Robert Shapiro.
To me, at least, health care isn't a consumer item (the current glut of "go to your doctor and demand medication" TV ads, which are an inevitable byproduct of for-profit health care, notwithstanding) -- it's a basic human need. I can't equate a Playstation and a mammogram as "goods and services" to be distributed according to ability to pay.
The better the medical care is, the more scarce and demanded it is (by definition). Do you have a better way to determine who is worthy of treatment by the best doctors and the most advanced equipment and who has to settle for something less?
Medical need?
Look, I apologize for being flip, but every other first world country somehow manages to provide health care to its citizens. Why is it only Americans withhold it for the well-off?
Hell, we're providing universal health care to Iraq. Now, I'm not saying Iraqis don't need health care, God knows conditions are miserable over there. But if the US can provide universal health care for Iraqis, why not Americans?
Beyond that, why shouldn't the police (for example) offer a higher level of service to those individuals that would like to pay for it? If your son was kidnapped, you might be willing to pay more to get the best officers to handle it...whereas if your car was stolen, the "next officer available" might be good enough.
So if a poor person's child is kidnapped, it's OK if they have to wait until the rich people's kids and cars are found? Does this really strike you as a good thing?
IMO those asinine fishermen should be billed big time for that service, as quite often their rescues are arduous or even dangerous (duiring a storm, for instance).
It's hard not to agree with that, and that's an easily definable situation that warrants limits. But it's a slippery slope. Should someone not get treated for a heart attack if they eat red meat?
I think we all agree that the health care system is too costly and inefficient. What on earth would give anyone the idea that having the government run the system would make things cheaper and better? Hospitals do charge a (seemingly) ridiculous amount of money for rather mundane items...but AFAIK they've never ventured into "$640 for a toilet seat" territory.
It's a subtle distinction, but having the government run it and having the government pay for it aren't necessarily the same thing. That how it works most of the time, but there's no reason a private non-for-profit company couldn't administer the system.
In any case, it's not a question of cheaper, it's a question of whether it's *right* to put a tollbooth in front of the hospital. Would I pay more taxes now than I currently do in insurance premiums (including what my employer kicks in) for universal health care? Yes. It's not in my financial self-interest, but it's *right.*
Ryan
).
