ok, here we go... I hope this is coherent- i haven't had enough coffee yet so i make no promises. :)
my thought was that the poster was trying to argue for free market health care and then complained about salaries paid in a free market society to excutives etc. To my mind, this is inconsistent logic. It doesn't matter whether or not I think it justifiable to pay sports people 10 million a year- the market thinks they are worth it and pays accordingly. However, if you're going to argue for controls, why pick excutive salary or sports figures? Who does that benefit, really? Lower prices? better goods? faster service? doubtful. Why not pick health care which is something we all need, anyway? healthy people want to work, they'll produce more, live longer and thereby contribute more. To argue against it in part b/c there are 'bad apples' denies the fact of all systems and societies- there will ALWAYS be 'bad apples'. Seriously, who DOESN"T know somebody who doesn't want to work, etc etc etc. We have no obligation to legislate to these people. Instead, legislate for the majority of people who are, i still think, good people who sometimes need help.
As for paying for health care- we already do. It just isn't an itemized list on the 1040 every year. We pay directly through our taxes for medicaid and medicare, our property taxes which go for local and state hospitals, clinics and doctors who treat uninsured people and etc etc etc. We pay indirectly through lost productivity, higher premiums, etc.
We already have a couple of government run health care systems: medicare and medicaid. While both have fraud issues, so do the privates. Access for Medicare is quite good, to the best of my knowledge. Access to Medicaid would be better if the reimbursement rates were more competitive. I simply don't see a problem with expanding these programs. And no, I have no problem paying more to get everyone covered.
Lastly, I'm not sure i understand what you mean by 'governemnt controlled'. Do you mean like Canada or like Britian? Near as I can tell, neither option is really on the table here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-19 01:48 pm (UTC)ok, here we go... I hope this is coherent- i haven't had enough coffee yet so i make no promises. :)
my thought was that the poster was trying to argue for free market health care and then complained about salaries paid in a free market society to excutives etc. To my mind, this is inconsistent logic. It doesn't matter whether or not I think it justifiable to pay sports people 10 million a year- the market thinks they are worth it and pays accordingly. However, if you're going to argue for controls, why pick excutive salary or sports figures? Who does that benefit, really? Lower prices? better goods? faster service? doubtful. Why not pick health care which is something we all need, anyway? healthy people want to work, they'll produce more, live longer and thereby contribute more. To argue against it in part b/c there are 'bad apples' denies the fact of all systems and societies- there will ALWAYS be 'bad apples'. Seriously, who DOESN"T know somebody who doesn't want to work, etc etc etc. We have no obligation to legislate to these people. Instead, legislate for the majority of people who are, i still think, good people who sometimes need help.
As for paying for health care- we already do. It just isn't an itemized list on the 1040 every year. We pay directly through our taxes for medicaid and medicare, our property taxes which go for local and state hospitals, clinics and doctors who treat uninsured people and etc etc etc. We pay indirectly through lost productivity, higher premiums, etc.
We already have a couple of government run health care systems: medicare and medicaid. While both have fraud issues, so do the privates. Access for Medicare is quite good, to the best of my knowledge. Access to Medicaid would be better if the reimbursement rates were more competitive. I simply don't see a problem with expanding these programs. And no, I have no problem paying more to get everyone covered.
Lastly, I'm not sure i understand what you mean by 'governemnt controlled'. Do you mean like Canada or like Britian? Near as I can tell, neither option is really on the table here.
anywho... must toddle! thanks for you reply!