Posts
I don't see what the gigantic issue is. We have public schools, and private schools. Tax dollars fund the former so that all children have a chance at getting an education, which makes our country stronger. If you want even better education (or religoius based) and if you can afford it, you can have private schools.
We have police, and we have private security firms. I've never heard someone say that since the police are tax supported, that it precludes someone from hiring a security guard for their business.
We have firemen, and we have private fire retardation systems. Having a firehouse in your city doesn't mean you can't install fire extinguishers in your place of business, or having a super effective fire supression system in your computer room.
So - why does a government built and run hospital mean that you couldn't still have your own private doctor and insurance if you want it?
If we can pay $500 billion every year to Iraq, why couldn't that money be used to build public hospitals, and have doctor's and nurses working in them? Yes, you likely wouldn't get as "good" of a doctor as at a private institution. Then again, you possibly won't get as "good" of a teacher at a public school at a private one. Or as "good" of a police officer as the guy who heads his own private security company.
We have the money. We've done it before in areas like education and postal service and police and fire. It would allow companies like GM and Ford and other manufacturer's to not have health care as their #1 expense, and instead use that money to build better plants and hire US workers.
So why don't we do it?
Oh, that's right: "I shoudn't have to pay for some guy when they get sick."
Just like "I shouldn't have to pay for some kid to get ecducated. Or some other guy's house to be protected form burgers. I shouldn't pay for some other guy's house to be hosed with water if it's on fire."
Blogged with Flock
5 comments:
As far as I've got it sorted from the last couple times I debated this with folks: the main objection to public healthcare is more or less the one they have to welfare. "Well, people who were doing what they're supposed to will have jobs and healthcare already."
Which, y'know, in an ideal world where we had a great economy and weren't outsourcing a vast quantity of jobs to foreign countries, would even be true.
In our current world, somewhat less so.
@Poet: I guess it all boils down to the same thing: I got mine, if you don't got yours, sucks to be you.
Just so, hence my thoughts the other day on how to represent these people. It's a serious disenfranchisement issue when folks do not have basic necessities, and must spend their time working on that or starve or be on the street, and there's really no REASON for it, except that we're intentionally sabotaging the damn economy for profits.
Bah.
@poet/ninja 7:51AM--
The thing is, the people who are *really* getting shafted by our current system *aren't* the poor and destitute. That's what Medicaid is for. It's people who have jobs with employers who don't give them health benefits, and self-employed people who are rejected for bullshit like "pre-existing conditions" like diabetes or asthma or a bad back.
As a broke person who has been consistently rejected by every form of welfare, and has minimal work history, and a chronic untreated health condition, I can actually argue quite eloquently that it also affects the poor. Just sayin'
Post a Comment