Speaker to Animals wrote:When looking at the motives for why people take sides, aside from the philosophical stands, it comes down to this: We have the greatest health care in the world as long as you have the money to pay for it, but if you lack the money to pay for it, you end up receiving the worst health care of the developed world.
Well said!
But also note that there's a difference between the rich and the poor in health in any country. Not perhaps so huge as in the US, but still.
Speaker to Animals wrote:If we seek to provide more health care to those who cannot afford it, the quality of health care enjoyed by those with lots of money will erode.
So we have reached a point where people who can afford good health care don't want universal coverage because they know it will diminish their quality of health care, and those who cannot afford good health care want universal health care because they know it will improve their quality of health care.
The fact that people with plenty of money make reasonable moral arguments for universal health care of some kind ought to concern those who want none of universal health care. This final outcome of this problem will come down to how many people can be convinced one way or the other, and it's difficult to to overcome a moral argument with a philosophical argument in the context of changing minds.
Eventually somebody relatively powerful is going to get a giant spotlight and perform the equivalent of Marc Antony's speech and the opposition to universal health care will get crushed in the minds of the demos. It's only a matter of time.
True, because you simply cannot "reform" the present system as the stakeholders that profit from your expensive system are in control of Washington. You need that Mark Anthony.
Or basically you need a big scandal where the stakeholders like big pharma are involved and then you beat the shit out of them and their lobbyists.
