aceventura3

I have some mixed feelings about national healthcare. If I can get over this theoretical problem I would support it. I am just curious about what some of you think.

Lets say you are going to die ( no doubts), the cost to keep you alive for the next 30 days is going to be $1 million. If it is your money and you had the choice of spending the money for another 30 days to stay alive in the hospital, or leaving the money to your children what would you do?

Using the same scenerio, but it is the governments money. Would you elect to have the money spent so you could stay alive for another 30 days, or would you choose to save the government $1 million dollars.

There you have my problem with national healthcare. If it is my money I make one decision about my health; if its your money, I make a different decision.

I don't know, long-term, how any national health plan will work, unless you eventually have a government pencil pusher making health related decisions rather than the individual and doctor.

How do you decide on pain medicine? If I am spending my money I might tolerate a certain level of pain that I would not tolerate if it is someone elses money. What would you do?

Am I making a bad assumption about human nature? I think almost everyone would have the government spend as much money as possible, but if they were spending their own money they would make different choices carefully balancing the costs and the benefits

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."