<<< health risks are substantively different from other risks in life so protection from them is both more essential to the point that it is not humane for the community to allow them to exist.
If anyone reading this would care to try to explain/justify that POV, I'd appreciate reading it. IMO, risk is risk and one is not less morally conscionable than another. If I were to single out one risk above others for the community to insure on behalf of the individual, it would be the risk of being a victim of criminal violence, not risk to health.>>>
Risk of losing your $5M Malibu home to fire is a lot different than losing the single bread winner in a $50K income family of 4 due to sickness or violent crime (which should be a subset of health).
Universal healthcare is something that India or China can not afford, but affordable in Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, France, the Uk, Netherlands, etc.
Universal health care may not need to be as lavish in the USA and could take on some different characteristics such as in part employer subsidized, partnerships with private enterprise for poor health prevention, incentives for more efficiency and more effective care, etc.
There is no need to take away any essentials from anyone. Most of what can be done can come from reallocation of resources. Some of it can come from eliminating waste and redundancy. It takes nothing to eliminate the the first 10% in cost cutting and another 10% through increased efficiency. |
