Aren't I supposed to have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
yes. the idea behind our rights is that they are the things you would have in the absence of government had you were born in the wild and that do not require someone else, freedom of speech, the right to carry arms etc
Healthcare isn't a right because it requires a third party, a doctor to treat you and people to pay for said doctor to treat you.
Dynalo posted...
I'll go through this by each point in the article.
1) Yes, all health care programs have challenges. But do you know what's worse than a waiting list? Dying because you can't afford treatment. Or getting treatment anyways and then declaring bankruptcy. Waiting lists aren't even a huge concern, as patients are always seen on the basis of criticality.
2) This would be fixed by government run health care. That way, coverage would be access, because everyone would be able to access health care.
3) Why is this article written as though insurance is still in the picture? If you get rid of insurance and have health care come from taxes, that fixes the issue he pointed out about "not enough young people signed up to offset the costs". If everyone is paying into it, those cancer bills can get split across the whole system and no longer be crippling. Keep insurance out of this.
4) Again, this article is written as though Medicare is in addition to existing systems. Keep insurance out, put everyone on the same level, and all these problems don't exist. Most of the issues he listed here are because there are options besides medicare. If there weren't, medicare (or whatever the new national program is called) would have to get significantly better, and there would be pressure from the entire public to make it better, rather than just those who are currently on it.
5) Again, let's create a new and better system rather than trying to point to something old and say "I don't want that".
6) I mean, this is true. No matter what, if you institute national health care the people at the top end will not be happy. Whatever the new challenges (waiting lists or whatever) are will absolutely hurt them moreso than folks at the bottom. But no one will have to worry about dying because they caught a very treatable disease. I think that's worth the pain of some folks being unhappy.
i didn't actually read whatever is in there i just sent the first article i stumbled upon to make clench happy but to answer what you say
people aren't dying, i keep asking liberals for footage of people in dire need of medical attention where the hospital just goes "whelp no money, no treatment, bye!" and no one has yet to supply, that is because the system takes care of everyone.
the problem is the price, you said so yourself, the goal is to lower it, but you ignore that goal and instead focus on nationalized healthcare, why not try lowering the price first via a free market, tax discounts and other methods that don't destroy freedom and use force?
---
Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition