|
 |
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:16:58 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/13/09 15:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It seems to me (being in favor of it, and no, I haven't read it either)
>> that there are those who think that it should reformed as it is -
>> nearly everybody agrees that what we have is broken, it's just a
>> question of how best to fix it.
>
> Funny - I haven't heard any suggestions of alternatives from
those who
> keep opposing it. Are you sure they agree it is broken?
The ones I've talked to agree that it's broken, but they are against "big
government" and I understand the reasons why, even though I might not
agree with them.
>> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
>> that public health is, by definition, a public concern. If we don't
>> take care of individuals who get sick because they don't have
>> insurance, we risk infecting everyone else.
>
> Not really. I'm betting most serious problems where people get
hurt by
> private health care/insurance are not contagious.
No, probably not, but the problems of contagious/infectious diseases
should not be discounted either. Health affects everyone, directly or
indirectly. People on long-term (or permanent) disability, for example,
affect you and me because they still need medical care. People without
insurance currently are paid for by you and me (IIRC you're in the US as
well) because part of our premiums goes towards covering the uninsured -
but they tend to only go in when things get REALLY bad and consequently
REALLY expensive. I'd rather they were covered for preventative care so
that my (and your) premiums can come down because they don't wait until
they have to go to the emergency room to get treated for a sore throat
(that turns into something serious enough to need a trip to the ER).
> (And my sig was totally randomly picked. I swear!)
LOL, it's a good one, though, and highlights one of the major problems
with the US system: litigation and malpractice insurance.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
