Decameron:
I would be interested to hear what your rebuttal is if you condone enforcing universal health care on Americans who enjoy the freedom of choosing their care from the private sector.
-D
I don’t actually agree with your perception of universal health care being ‘forced’ on anyone. It would be a service that would be available to anyone, but if you choose to have your own private insurance then there would be nothing stopping you from doing so.
I was stationed in England about 10 years ago and it broke down like this. If you were just an average joe (not plumber), you had access to their normal NIH services. That meant that you could go to hospital for whatever ailed you without charge. However, the folks that were a bit more well off wanted better care, private rooms, and all that. They purchased private supplemental insurance that got them that next level of service. This seemed like a reasonable compromise for the people who felt that they deserved a better level of service than the general public.
I think that it’s ridiculous that one of the richest countries in the world (that would be us) doesn’t provide basic health care to its citizens. It doesn’t seem right that somebody working hard and just trying to live their life faces the very real possibility of bankruptcy due to unforeseeable medical problems.
Decameron:In the scenario you describe, whereas public health care is made available to the general public with exceptional circumstances allowing for a higher grade of health care being made available to those who wish to pay, I agree. What I don’t agree with is the mode in which the government wishes to fund the health care system. The situation you described is already present. This is why we have Medicare which is funded by the tax payer. People have actively sought out employment to take advantage of medical and dental benefits; this is one of the inherent incentives with getting a job. Now I realize that on one hand, exceptional circumstances can bankrupt a persons ability to handle their own medical bills-employed or not, but this is the exception not the norm.
Let us be realistic here, the government is not efficient at handling wealth. The private sector has its up and downs, but it’s cyclic rather then a continuous decline. History has widely shown that continuous growth of the government often creates social dependencies, lack of individual accountability, all funded by higher–irreversible tax rates. Case in point, it’s no secret that the country is flooded with illegal immigrants. Each time an ‘unfortunate’ medical circumstance occurs and an illegal goes to the emergency room, or get’s pregnant…who pays the bill? The answer? You and I.
Look at the welfare system. How many families receive welfare checks as registered, unskilled workers with dependents, all the while engaging in silent partners or criminal activity? The answer? Many. The fact is, the government comes up with some excellent ideas but rarely has the vision to follow through to correct the problem. Throwing money at it….tax payer money is not the answer. Deterrence and holding people accountable for their choices in employment, health, and life styles is the key. For exceptional circumstances, Medicare is still in place, the concept of credit allows financing, and if all else fails…families and friends will pull together. There will always be circumstances that cannot be remedied. But I think it’s an atrocity on individual freedom to let the government raise our taxed another 25% in order to create larger more inefficient agencies, encourage poor choice making, and vicariously reduce the standard of living across the board. I agree that the health care system needs to be adjusted to fit the times but it needs to be without giving a blank paycheck to the government. At the end of the day it all boils down to the individual choice. That freedom is worth preserving for better or worse.
11 February 2009, 8:40 pm
Posts
