Yes we live in a society where everyone should have access to a certain level of health care. But
1] Do not claim the rich should absolutely have no right to better health care. If you believe this then you should also be arguing for complete equality in all aspects because the rich also get to eat better, travel more, fukk more beautiful women, etc.
2] It is not just about that these 40 million have to be insured and so we need universal coverage. One alternative option is to keep the current system and just have the government give people vouchers that are equivalent to the monetary value required to purchase a private health insurance plan that gives some 'minimum level of coverage'. You can argue about what this minimum should be. Therefore, universal coverage is not the only way to get these 40 million covered, and the debate should center around what is the best method.
3] Notice now that there are different ways to ensure everyone is covered. The question is now what is the most efficient way to deliver health care?
Private hospitals/private insurance. Hospitals want to cut costs - it is possible this is to the detriment of the health of the patient. They also have an incentive to work efficiently and see many patients (even without providing inadequate treatment). Public servants have no incentive to see more than a few patients a day, so they take their time. This is nice when it's your turn to see the doctor, but not if you have to wait a very long time before you get this opportunity.
4] Don't say a dollar value cannot be placed on life. This happens all the time. Do you think the govt should pay $5 billion to save one guy's life? If you say no, then you think the value of this guy's life is less than $5 billion. And don't claim it is close to that. Look at the decisions people make in every day life - jay walking, speeding, other dangerous driving behaviour. Now that we agree we can put a $$ value on life, we can argue about what it should be, but be realistic that decisions will always have to be made where tradeoffs between lives and $$ are made. If you think this is not true you are deluding yourself.
So please no more 'everyone deserves basic care so we need universal health coverage and there is no alternative' or 'corporations are money grubbing corrupt thieves so they should not be involved in any way'. My local grocery store is run by a money grubbing jew that I despise, but he provides a good selection of cole cuts and oriole cookies at a good price, so what's the problem? Sometimes a greedy fukk's best way to make $$ is to give you what you want.
1] Do not claim the rich should absolutely have no right to better health care. If you believe this then you should also be arguing for complete equality in all aspects because the rich also get to eat better, travel more, fukk more beautiful women, etc.
2] It is not just about that these 40 million have to be insured and so we need universal coverage. One alternative option is to keep the current system and just have the government give people vouchers that are equivalent to the monetary value required to purchase a private health insurance plan that gives some 'minimum level of coverage'. You can argue about what this minimum should be. Therefore, universal coverage is not the only way to get these 40 million covered, and the debate should center around what is the best method.
3] Notice now that there are different ways to ensure everyone is covered. The question is now what is the most efficient way to deliver health care?
Private hospitals/private insurance. Hospitals want to cut costs - it is possible this is to the detriment of the health of the patient. They also have an incentive to work efficiently and see many patients (even without providing inadequate treatment). Public servants have no incentive to see more than a few patients a day, so they take their time. This is nice when it's your turn to see the doctor, but not if you have to wait a very long time before you get this opportunity.
4] Don't say a dollar value cannot be placed on life. This happens all the time. Do you think the govt should pay $5 billion to save one guy's life? If you say no, then you think the value of this guy's life is less than $5 billion. And don't claim it is close to that. Look at the decisions people make in every day life - jay walking, speeding, other dangerous driving behaviour. Now that we agree we can put a $$ value on life, we can argue about what it should be, but be realistic that decisions will always have to be made where tradeoffs between lives and $$ are made. If you think this is not true you are deluding yourself.
So please no more 'everyone deserves basic care so we need universal health coverage and there is no alternative' or 'corporations are money grubbing corrupt thieves so they should not be involved in any way'. My local grocery store is run by a money grubbing jew that I despise, but he provides a good selection of cole cuts and oriole cookies at a good price, so what's the problem? Sometimes a greedy fukk's best way to make $$ is to give you what you want.
I like this guy pokerjoe.