Originally posted by SleepyguyYou are basically ignoring my argument. That is up to you though it doesn't make this a very fruitful "debate".
Yes. Secure them. Not create them.
Assuming (as I do) that health care is not a right, why do all societies - even the most primitive - take care of their sick? Could it be that it helps to secure the right to life (among others).
Originally posted by no1marauderThe gov't could start by not paying $600 for toilet seats in all the new children's hospitals.
What is the "responsible approach" to the problem that 7 million children of working parents have no health care? How is addressing this problem as the present Congress and President have done "irresponsible"?
GRANNY.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not trying to ignore your argument. Fact is I've got a lot of very distracting things going an around me at the moment and I have to quit for now. But FWIW I think that is a good point. I agree that societies should try to take care of the sick. It is, as you say, the decent thing to do, and it is desirable to foster an environment where those needs are met. But doing so by falsely elevating health care to the status of a Natural Right so that some can be forced by law to assume the obligations of others just seems wrong to me. If I had a choice though, and I don't, bailing out parents with sick kids is far less objectionable than bailing out failing banks.
You are basically ignoring my argument. That is up to you though it doesn't make this a very fruitful "debate".
Assuming (as I do) that health care is not a right, why do all societies - even the most primitive - take care of their sick? Could it be that it helps to secure the right to life?
I think there is consensus, at least among those in this new Administration, that there are a lot of misconceptions about health and health care in the USA in relation to the rest of the world.
For example, Americans are NOT the healthiest people in the world. Citizens of 34 nations live longer than Americans.
The U.S. is NOT the best place to get sick. The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the world for health system performance. Countries like Australia and the United Kingdom rank above the U.S.
Americans have lower odds of surviving colorectal cancer and childhood leukemia than Canadians who do have national health care.
Americans also experience greater problems in coordination of care than the previously mentioned countries and New Zealand.
Covering all Americans will NOT lead to rationing. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. (33 percent) is far less available than in the United Kingdom (41 percent), Australia (54 percent) and New Zealand (60 percent). Per capita spending for health care averaged $2,696 in countries without waiting lists and $5,267 in the U.S.
Originally posted by SleepyguyThen we are in basic agreement.
I'm not trying to ignore your argument. Fact is I've got a lot of very distracting things going an around me at the moment and I have to quit for now. But FWIW I think that is a good point. I agree that societies should try to take care of the sick. It is, as you say, the decent thing to do, and it is desirable to foster an environment where those need ...[text shortened]... bailing out parents with sick kids is far less objectionable than bailing out failing banks.
Originally posted by ScriabinThats pretty screwed up isn't it... maybe we should focus on improving the medical system and not so much on who pays for it.
I think there is consensus, at least among those in this new Administration, that there are a lot of misconceptions about health and health care in the USA in relation to the rest of the world.
For example, Americans are NOT the healthiest people in the world. Citizens of 34 nations live longer than Americans.