You are on the "right" side of the polls in believing health care access should be a right. I don't happen to believe in rights in the objective sense, but where a majority believes in a right it does exist, and in this case you appear to have the majority with you.
motherjones.com
I think with universal health care if one can prove that there is a good economic reason to support it, more people will support it, and I think there may be many good reasons. Although I do think the compassionate argument has merit (since I have zero confidence in "rights") I also think a logical dollars and cents argument makes a nice backstop. Shouldn't we make all possible arguments?
In terms of disease control, spending control on critical conditions, and productivity, I think it might very well be of universal benefit, and that, imo, is the way to sell it, because sell it you must. Even though people now seem to agree, once the costs start to mount you must have reasons to sustain those costs- and it's always a good idea to say "Sure, we're spending this much money, but we can expect a 4x return on every dollar spent this way." (or whatever return seems most likely- I just pulled 4x out of the air)
I also agree with you about the subsidies. It makes no sense at all- except to the industries subsidized, and to the big pharma companies that make billions treating the conditions that result from the products our government subsidizes. What we ought to be subsidizing is broccoli and cauliflower, exercise gyms, and preventative health. I think there is very little profit to be made from a truly healthy population, and because of that a for profit medical industry is not really the way to play this. Everyone makes a lot more money off sick people, than well people. It's like expecting the military industrial complex to be for peace- I mean get real. Where's the profit in peace? Same thing. Where's the profit in wellness? |
