I think that sort of thinking can lead us down a slippery slope. Should there be a safety net for those who deserve it but can't afford it (ie. fat chainsmoking guy who eats thrice a day at KFC probably doesn't deserve free bypass)? Arguably yes. Should the quality of health care be equal despite wealth? I'm afraid not. You would be treading on doctor's freedoms there. If some doc wants to be a private physician for some rich guy, he or she must have that freedom. Also - if we start down that path, why stop at health care? Rich kids go to better schools than my kids. They live in better houses and eat better food too. There has to be a tradeoff between "fairness" and "personal responsibility". Guaranteeing equal health care across the board tilts too much one way.
He said it is a service provided by a state that can afford it. He also pointed out it is a limited resource. We do not have the money to provide everyone healthcare. What you call civilized, others call rich.
It is not a universal right in those countries. This is getting purely into semantics and probably a useless point to make but here goes... 1. doctors in Canada all go on strike 2. citizens claim their universal right to have health care provided for them 3. Canadian moose mounties start rounding up doctors and putting chains around their neck and drag them back to the hospitals. or some poor country decides to that universal health care is a right. Problem is they have no doctors or health care industry. So what gives? Say tax revenues plummet and no one wants to buy our Tbills anymore and there's no Federal money to pay doctors? Do we point guns at them to protect our citizens' universal rights? As I said, it's not a universal right. By definition, a limited resource can't be a universal right since it is a limited resource. But it CAN be a public service for a state that has the resources to implement it.
I hadn't realized the degree to which you were making a purely semantic argument. You're right. It's a useless point to make. Rather than it being an enforceable right (in the case that all health care providers inexplicably go on strike), it is simply a guarantee that all citizens will be provided with free health care in every other Western country. Why you felt it was important to argue over this distinction is a mystery. We similarly do not have a "right" to protection from police or firemen or the military. But we do enjoy an expectation and a guarantee of those protections, at no cost beyond our taxes. On health care, everybody else in a Western country does but us.
Furthermore, we would have an easier time paying for a non-profit, single-payer system than probably any of those other countries. So why don't we? One word: greed. Viva Capitalism.
To be fair, you're the one said "Are you kidding?!?" But I think it is important to put things in perspective. There are a lot of people here in California who believe that health care is a human right - as is food and housing and higher education... and one day , auto insurance. They fail to grasp the concept that these things are limited resources and do not come free.
I think it's important to put these things in perspective too. That's why I pointed out that America is the only wealthy nation in which these things don't come free -- apart from taxes. Same as it is with police, fire, emergency services and public school. I must be missing something because this is like the third post in a row where you've said these things can't be free, can't be treated like a right... when in every comparable country they are. It's like you can't stop refuting your own argument while making mine for me. What's up?
And why do you keep calling health care a "limited resource?" It's no more limited than police, firefighters, EMT's or public school education.
You seem really confused on this health care stuff. They don't buy them anymore than we buy our military protection. They are provided by their governments. Mandating (or forcing) insurance purchase is part of the proposed American reform, not part of the European systems.
I don't think you get the point here. Those things are not free at all. We spend billions of municipal and state dollars on those things. Your "civilized, Western" (ie. rich) countries can afford public health care . If such things were actually free and limitless in supply, then why don't developing nations have those things? All I am saying is that a lot of people actually think health care can be free - that there is no cost associated with it. If that is the way they think - then there is a fundamental flaw to their thinking. If, however, they say that is is a public service that we can afford and should implement - that is en entirely different thing.
Gotcha. I got it backwards. At some point there would be a lack of doctors, and it is horribly inefficient to propose a system under which we would have to build a whole new second set of hospitals, etc for the public option. What you propose would increase the cost of healthcare in the aggregate, not reduce it.
I've been saying it is and we should through this whole thread. The only reason I didn't say "free (except for taxes, of course, the same as police/fire/emergency)" is because I've said it several times already. What point do I not get? You asked me earlier why the public option was important after I explained why I thought it was probably 50 times in the last month (in this thread even) and then you said I didn't get the point because we'd pay through taxation when I'd acknowledged that many times (including in this thread). Don't call me naive because you're not reading the thread.
I don't read every one of your posts. I have kids to take care of soccer games to got, etc. I didn't call you naive. In fact, some might argue that you're the one who throws around the personal insults more than most. I originally said that it is not a universal right - but rather a worthy public service. A point I made from the ver beginning. A semantical - but I think - important distinction. There are those on the extreme right that think national defense is free and that the Iraq war cost nothing. Just as there are those on the left who think housing, food, health care, and education are and should be free. You're the one that said "are you kidding?!?". From that incredulous tone I will infer that you thought I was off my rocker. I have merely been defending my point since then. Obviously - it seems you get my point now and agree with me. That there are tradeoffs and nothing comes without a cost. Don't take any disagreement personally Batman. I didn't call you naive. I just didn't think I was getting my point across.
I am in favor of public health care as a matter of national defense. We need as many healthy Americans as possible for the inevitable world war 3
It will happen in 2012 and it will not matter how many troops there are, Signed, The Mayans Nostradamus The Egyptians
