Another fine column pointing out the absurdity not only of our current health care system but the flaws in one of the most common arguments in favor of keeping it.
This is a consistent theme among opponents of universal care. They act like universal care is some crazy utopian fantasy like communism that has no realistic prospect of working and has failed miserably whenever tried. They never acknowledge the fact we are the outliers, that every other first world country has long since moved to a system of universal care and that there are now a multitude of different, fully-functioning systems out there for us to choose from. In other words, we’re well past the experimental stage. It’s like mocking someone’s idea for a “flying machine” in, say, 1954 (“when that contraption crashes it will prove to the world that man was never meant to fly!”).
I thought this comment also explained quite nicely one of the reasons we haven’t made any serious progress on this issue, despite the majority of Americans haing the current system:
Under a socialist health care system, the government hires all the doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The government owns and runs all the clinics, hospitals, ambulance services — the whole enchilada.
Anyone who thinks that system is absolutely no good better be prepared to explain why presidents, Cabinet members, 535 members of Congress and the whole sprawling U.S. military find it overall satisfactory or better. Because that’s exactly the health care system those Americans have.
In other words, the politicians already have the best system in the world. So they have no pressing need to fix ours.
Because, after all, they got theirs. Screw everyone else.
Although that’s not even the system folks are really clamoring for.
What folks on the left want is a single-payer, universal health insurance system, with the federal government doing the honors. So, consumers get the coverage they need at a price they can afford for care from whomever they choose to get care from.
Businesses get relieved of the burden of co-funding expensive insurance plans. They also will be relieved of the temptation to push 59-year-old Marge, who’s already had a lumpectomy, into an early and meager retirement because she (and other less than completely healthy older workers) will run up the premiums for the whole company if they’re kept on the payroll.
Well. That does sound radical.