args

Universal healthcare

"Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system?" This type of statement on the part of Republicans is pure rhetoric. You are right in contesting that the "greatest healthcare system" in the world is of little use if few have access to it. "I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about?" I wish I was talking about trivial liberal policies that we could cut out in order to save a few bucks. But I'm talking about massive government intervention that has required healthcare providers (along with drug companies, supply manufacturers and equipment manufacturers)to spend billions to conform to government standards. It's impossible to accommodate champagne taste on a beer budget. "You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens!" You're preaching to the choir on this one. But I believe any savings realized by reducing our military ventures should go right back into the pockets of American tax payers, and not toward artificially inflated healthcare costs resulting from government interference in the free market. "And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically!" Any spending (and resulting taxation) on the part of the federal government which is not absolutely required to defend just the most basic rights of its citizens is superfluous, wasteful and unjust. This includes entitlements to the undeserving, pet projects for state representatives, and unnecessary wars. I have a problem with wasteful spending, period-- regardless of which party is responsible. Your round 2 question: "Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk?" This is definitely an emotional gambit, but I certainly would not let someone bleed to death on the street. Is someone who has not paid for medical insurance entitled to not bleed to death on the street? I'd say no. He has put himself at the mercy of others by opting to pass on health insurance. He is fortunate that society will find a way to take care of him. That is our nature, but it is not our obligation. "I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess... I could possibly consider going along with this" I'm glad you understand where I am coming from. I can definitely see your point as well. I want you to consider one thing: almost every product and service available in this country (via free enterprise) has been made available (at some level) to most people, regardless of economic status. I don't know many welfare recipients (much less working people) who do not have a roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation, etc. You can thank the free market for that. When the free market senses a need, products and services are immediately developed to accommodate that need, and at a price to satisfy almost every budget. Yes, quality is sacrificed in many cases. But the overall need is typically met. The same could happen with healthcare. There is currently a HUGE need or affordable healthcare, and entrepreneurs are chomping at the bit to get rich meeting that need. Unfortunately, government interference in the free market has made it implausible and unprofitable at this time.