Quote:
Originally Posted by Phasad1913
Well, given the small amount these people would be taxed, especially since the burden would spread among a number of people and entities rather than JUST the wealthy, I doubt they will feel so pinched that they would choose to leave the U.S.
This is not a matter of people just wanting something for nothing like many conservatives love to yell about. People cannot go and heal themselves when they get injured or sick. People HAVE to be able to go to the doctor and receive adequate regular health care. It's a morality issue, not a social one in and of itself. How can people allow people to just die because they have no way to afford a doctor? That is very scary and something that happens everyday. For people to constantly fuss about "taxing the rich to help the poor" and then call themselves a Christian is completely hypocritical to me. In a system that has set up a nation where there are such deficiencies in how people become rich and how others are born and remain poor, it is necessary to not equalize the two groups completely ( I don't agree with that), but at least enable people in the are of health care to receive the same care that everyone else does.
|
I have a problem with your argument (bolded) in that it's something of a slippery slope. As you know, medicine is a lot different than it was 50 years ago. Some procedures are routine (and cheap) while others are just astronomically (and sometimes unjustifiably) expensive. You seem to present to us that health care is some sort of inalienable right. It's not.
The fact is that in the end, we all die. Those with more resources have the ability to cheat death. In the end, we all have bodies which will eventually cease to function. C'est la vie. Were a doctor to come up with some sort of anti-aging therapy which could either reverse or stall the aging process and it was a very expensive therapy, it would seem that your above bolded statement would hold that it is necessary for society to fund that therapy for every single aging person out there.
I may be beating a bit of a straw man here -- I'll admit that. I only do it to point out that should we 'give in' on this proposition that the government should provide health care, we'll suddenly be faced with the prospect of 'line drawing.' By that, I mean that some government official, committee, task force, computer, high priestess, etc., is going to be tasked with deciding which procedures the American people will pay for and which procedures they will not. What criteria will decide whether people have a "right" to health care in a certain case? The commonality of their condition? The severity of the condition? Their poltiical party? A letter from a Senator?
Currently, Americans have a lot of choices. We can go pay for insurance which would only cover those basic procedures.. that doesn't cost a whole lot. Or, like me, you can take out a pretty good chunk of change and cover just about any possible medical emergency. The point is, we have choice. I like choice... choice is good.
People no more have a "right" to medicine than they have a "right" to housing. We all die. It's just a question of when. People who have failed to make good choices in their lives may die because they can't afford insurance. Oh well.
At some point in governance, we have to be callous. We have to be willing to accept that governmental intervention is not the solution to all the ills of the world. As I said above, it's all about line drawing. I'm pretty clear where I draw the line on this issue... are you?
Threaded Mode
