Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Of course there is an alternative... the alternative that those who are against universal healthcare suggest: Let everyone fend for themselves.
Someone can't pay for their treatment? Let them die.
Can't afford to look after yourself if you have diabetes? It's a good way to thin the heard.
This is essentially what is being said by many here on this thread.
|
My point is that the "alternative" is no longer a choice. We've already made that choice, and we opted for universal healthcare. All of those people get emergency or stabilizing treatment. They're all billed, but they don't all pay - so in essence it's a payment optional system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
On top of that, let's seriously look at who is pushing this, why they are pushing it, and who stands to seriously benefit from this? The spin about healthcare for all is exactly that, spin. The health insurance companies would not be pushing for this with billions in campaign donations if they didn't stand to reap a windfall of profit.
|
That's one way to look at this situation. Another is to ask whether the intended beneficiary (the citizen/patient) benefits. Still another way to look at it is that the healthcare companies may support one version of universal healthcare, but we the people may implement a different version of it.