"The problem with healthcare is that it doesn't follow a supply/demand model of commerce because the demand will always be there unless people pay for it out of their own pockets. Today, the insurance company acts as a buffer and most people treat that as "free" healthcare." This statement doesn't make sense. There are millions of people without insurance out there that are at Dr.s offices every day that do pay for it out of pocket. True that someone with insurance is more likely to go to the Dr. but not matter what there is ALWAYS a demand for it. If you go with universal health care all that does is pave the way for more and more social programs that we (working tax payers) are stuck paying for. Whats next? There are already WAY too many flawed programs out there and all this would do is create another one. Look at how well our welfare system works... You really want the people that run that system deciding what is best for us medically??? If so Then you are a braver man than I...
WHO...is not a reliable source in my opinion. They are no different than the UN. Ran by people that dislike if not hate the US. And wasn't it WHO that grossly miss calculated the number of AIDS in Africa. Sorry, you can go online and see all sorts of horror stories from the the UK and the Canucks with thier health care systems. And the fact that we are the only wealthy, industialized nation means nothing, we are also have a republic form of gov't and capatalist economy which most of the others countryies don't exactly have. As for the #72 on the level of health, unfortunately a lot of Americans are fat, lazy and ignorant. Some of this ignorance comes from the 'nanny state' mentality that the gov't has been breeding into us. Ihave to say that if you make something public instead of private then it will go downhill like every other program he have had since social reform has started in this country. Make people responsible for themselves, it's the only way they will truely learn. Like I said, we have a form of public healthcare at the federal and state level, they suck, bad; medicare and medicaid. Look at NY, thier medicare system is going bankrupt. They have many more people using the system than they have paying into it. If you go back to the constitution, healthcare is not listed as a right and its not. It is not the job of the gov't to provide everything to the public 'for its own good'. People must be able to decide what is for thier own good, it's what this country was founded on and the Bill of Rights is there to insure that.
I have to say that if you make something public instead of private then it will go downhill like every other program he have had since social reform has started in this country. Make people responsible for themselves, it's the only way they will truely learn. Like I said, we have a form of public healthcare at the federal and state level, they suck, bad; medicare and medicaid. Look at NY, thier medicare system is going bankrupt. They have many more people using the system than they have paying into it. If you go back to the constitution, healthcare is not listed as a right and its not. It is not the job of the gov't to provide everything to the public 'for its own good'. People must be able to decide what is for thier own good, it's what this country was founded on and the Bill of Rights is there to insure that.
The reason that Medicare and Medicaid run into budget problems is that they can't keep up with the rising costs of healthcare. These costs are rising because of a lack of controls. There is a lack of control because the private healthcare industry is not contrained by basic economic principles.
everything is constrained by basic economic principals. the reason why healthcare is not is because there are already too many government regulations on it as it is.
We will have to agree to disagree duty. Although the discussion has been fun, I thik we are beating a dead horse. We will have to wait to see who wins the election to see how this possibly plays out.
Andy, Isolationism is what this country was founded on we were complete isolationists until World War II when the country as a whole developed a hero complex. Isolationism has served Canada and Switzerland, among others, quite well.
I think we can keep our nose out of some others business but right now but we are into so much across the world it would be very difficult to completely stop everything we are involved in. It wasn't a hero complex that brought us out of isolation during WWII; It was an attack on our soil. The foriegn policy of the Bush admin hasn't been the best has done well protecting us and responding to a terrorist attack. If we decide to shut ourselves out, other countries will have no probelm shutting us in which I think is bad for us overall. Imports/Exports and the economy will suffer greatly.
Hope you don't mind me jumping into this debate late in the game...but we isolate ourselves and fail to intervene at our own peril. We can ignore Iran right up until the point when they've enriched uranium and gone nuclear and then it's too late. I'm not saying we need to get involved in wars on three or four fronts, but we can't isolate ourselves either.
Comments