|
I'm a law student by night, a legal assistant by day. My wife's a teacher. I'm not sure what sort of "luck and wealth" as you put it I've benefited from, ya know, having such lofty, high-falootin' titles 'n such.
What you are talking about is "basic" health care coverage. I was not aware that there was any such thing as "basic" health care coverage. Yes, I imagine there are a number of packages out there with things chosen somewhat arbitrarily (but mostly mathematically) to be covered and other things not to be covered. What you would propose is that a "basic" plan be introduced which would essentially take the choice out of the hands of the consumer.
There are any number of plans out there for you, the middle class right this moment. In my state, until my wife, the teacher got access to her plan where we took out a plan with all the bells and whistles, I was on BCBS. It had decent coverage, and if I wanted to expand that coverage, I could. At any rate, I was only spending about $120/month (which is way less than I'm spending now under the state plan, albeit, I have coverage out the wazoo).
Health care is a very complex problem. When you draw those lines as I was discussing above (in deciding what is "Basic coverage") you're essentially telling certain people they're not getting coverage. When you have socialized medicine, in my mind, you're going to create the unrealistic expectations in people that they are entitled to health care no matter what.
I do see that as the next looming "crisis" in healthcare. Microexpansions of the system. It's a huge entitlement program, and no one is entitled to health care. It's a large industry, and I rarely do see or hear of people 'going without.' Do I hear of people being bankrupted, losing their jobs, etc. because they didn't have insurance? Sure, but it's their choice to go without.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
Hybrid Mode
