|
simply put
access to basic health care seems to me a fundamental human right.
the lack of it is a violation of same...
this as i understand debate on the question here to be hamstrung by curious assumptions about taxation and a general political climate that leaves folk little choice but to see in the social consequences of capitalism evidence of moral failure on the part of those who do not benefit from holding capital.
i can see why this issue is problematic for conservative ideology--to allow a coherent debate on this issues directly into thinking about the social consequences of capitalism.
that and, judging from the sustained hatchet job done on the clinton healthcare panel by right media during its last period of being in opposition (for example) it is prety clear that defense of insurance company interests is a non-trivial aspect of republican party activities. so i have serious doubts about whether universal health care would be assembled during the sorry tenure of bushworld.
i would recommend looking into the french model for organizing such a system.
it is a more complex model than the single-payer system--perhaps because it is more viable than a singlepayer system--and because (these days) it is france--this option tends to be excluded from debate. but this system is rated as the best in the world, if you allow for trivialities like access to be factored in (which requires a downgrading of the american technological fetishism on the one hand, and a taking account of the fact that the present system means that the lives of the children of the wealthy are worth more than the lives of the children of the poor)
i have posted a bunch of information on this in earlier threads on health care and dont have time at the moment to do it again. (mea culpa)
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|