Quote:
Originally posted by brianna
how is this *NOT* true for the military or courts or police? there will always be haves and have nots in a capitalist society and the haves will always be paying more into government programs -- the rich are paying a higher percentage of the military, court, police, and education budget. when someone is accused of a crime and can't afford a lawyer the state provides him or her with one and guess who pays for this? I fail to see how health care is any different. enforcing the rule of law is only marginally different than ensuring a right to health care -- a serial killer is no different from a wave of contagious disease except for the protection issue. as a society we have agreed to provide criminal protection to all (Anyone can dial 911 and seek help from the police) but we refuse medical protection. by your logic we should perhaps have a privatized police force that only answers calls placed by those who can afford to pay them.
I am not arguing for equality of condition, i'm arguing for bare bones medical care -- I would not ask the government to cover elective surgeries or to spread out material wealth evenly throughout society. I think it is obvious that there is a great difference between medical care and material possessions. How can one pursue happiness if he/she is not given the tools to do so? I certainly cannot pursue happiness if i am dead (nevermind pursuing life). We have made many attempts to even the scales in this society (public education, public access to courts and representation, public access to highways and transportation, public access to information (via libraries), etc) and I see no way that health care is different -- in fact I think health care is probably a more important pursuit than the others mentioned since it is literally a mater of life and death.
|
Yes you are. You are arguing for an equal access to health care paid for by somegody else.
A little understanding of the laws of supply and demand wouldn't hurt. When you insist on a right to someone else's productivity with the state as broker, you disrupt the equation.
Look at what has happened in the U.S. over the past few decades. Since the 60s, the percent of health care spending on the part of the government has doubled. During this time, government price caps have caused insurers and providers to increase the rates for the private sector to cover the losses. Now, the government portion is so large that we are experiencing a contraction of supply because operating at a loss is a going out of business strategy.
And so the downward spiral goes: as healthcare becomes more expensive and scarcer, the government will step in to ration it. A self-fulfilling prophecy for state control which only benefits the bureacracy and those close enough to it to get preferential treatment.
The real solution is to encourage an increase in supply by lessening the financial burdens on suppliers. That is the Capitalist way.