On Aug 17, 11:55 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > The sustainability argument when it comes to free health care, though > something that must be considered, is not an argument against it.
True, and stop calling it "free" healthcare if you don't mind? >Instead, > it is a variable, amongst many, that must be balanced when weighing up a > fair percentile contribution from those that earn. Given that many countries > in Europe have tax-funded health care systems, it can clearly be managed. Sure! Those countries have cost controls all over the place! (that is a bit harder to pull off over here in cowboy land) > When it comes to sustainability, the current private system's weaknesses > should also be considered. For example, the price that the American health > care systems pays for drugs is nothing short of farcical -- typically four > times the amount the NHS pays here for exactly the same thing (which is > already, by some estimations £7bn too much). I can't argue with you there. > I'm not anti-capitalist, and I am not against companies making a fair > profit, but the American system could provide the same level of care for > significantly less money and to significantly more people. Hey! we actually agree on something! >You're getting a > bad deal and only nationalising the service will remove entrenched > commercial interests. If you wonder why the crazy talk coming from over here, then you should not be surprised by just how "entrenched" all the various parties are. >I understand the fear, but it's irrational when such > enormous social progress is on offer. If you do not fear politicians, you are not rational. > Arguing that someone who is effectively eating themselves to death presents > a significant moral argument against free health care is erroneous. Such an > unrepentant case, though it would definitely exist, is not mainstream, even > for America. Back that up with some data? Clearly the person should not be denied any health care they > require. There are so many reasons for obesity, it is morally wrong, in my > opinion, to be exercise prejudice. The problem may be genetic, thyroid, > psychological, or something else. None of these would represent "fault". > > Yes, I think health care -- along with education -- is a fundamental RIGHT > for any citizen of a developed country. Without these two social > cornerstones, there can be no shared economic or social vision and thus no > progress. > > IanOn Aug 17, 11:55 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > The sustainability argument when it comes to free health care, though > something that must be considered, is not an argument against it. True, but stop calling it "free" healthcare if you don't mind? >Instead, > it is a variable, amongst many, that must be balanced when weighing up a > fair percentile contribution from those that earn. Given that many countries > in Europe have tax-funded health care systems, it can clearly be managed. Sure! Those countries have cost controls all over the place! (that is a bit harder to pull off over here in cowboy land) > When it comes to sustainability, the current private system's weaknesses > should also be considered. For example, the price that the American health > care systems pays for drugs is nothing short of farcical -- typically four > times the amount the NHS pays here for exactly the same thing (which is > already, by some estimations £7bn too much). I can't argue with you there. > I'm not anti-capitalist, and I am not against companies making a fair > profit, but the American system could provide the same level of care for > significantly less money and to significantly more people. Hey! we actually agree on something! >You're getting a > bad deal and only nationalising the service will remove entrenched > commercial interests. If you wonder why the crazy talk coming from over here, then you should not be surprised by just how "entrenched" all the various parties are over here. >I understand the fear, but it's irrational when such > enormous social progress is on offer. It is not rational to have no fear of politicians. (joke symbol here) > Arguing that someone who is effectively eating themselves to death presents > a significant moral argument against free health care is erroneous. Such an > unrepentant case, though it would definitely exist, is not mainstream, even > for America. Back that up with some data? Poor people are notorious for bad lifestyle habits. Clearly the person should not be denied any health care they > require. There are so many reasons for obesity, it is morally wrong, in my > opinion, to be exercise prejudice. The problem may be genetic, thyroid, Ø psychological, or something else. None of these would represent "fault". It sounds like there never would be any fault. > Yes, I think health care -- along with education -- is a fundamental RIGHT > for any citizen of a developed country. Without these two social > cornerstones, there can be no shared economic or social vision and thus no Ø progress. America did OK without universal healthcare up to this point, and the education system in place in our public schools is an indication of why we might reject the “government run" way as being "good" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
