I think you may have missed the implications of my question. The question I asked was in response to a reply that argued against mandatory health care insurance and argued against the government delivering universal healthcare. So the question that was asked, in a graphic way, what does society do with all of those who would have no insurance and hence, no health care or medical treatment? Does our society tolerate walking over the sick and dying? Or, do we need to do what is required to allow for some form of medical care for all?
Then, if one is of a conservative mindset, do we do what is required to make those who can pay do so and offer a minimal level of coverage for a minimal fee for those who ordinarily would be priced out?
When a conservative denies personal responsibility in the name of freedom I just ask the question, then would you wish to be left on the sidewalk in sickness convinced your argument is correct?
So the question that was asked, in a graphic way, what does society do with all of those who would have no insurance and hence, no health care or medical treatment?I trained in one of the last great county hospitals. No patients had insurance (or, rather, no patients got a bill - some of them DID have insurance, but came to our place because it was so good.)
It is certainly false - grossly false - that, because a person had no insurance, he had no health care or medical treatment.
What IS true is that such persons didn't have PRIVATE medical treatment, and didn't have access to the latest and best technology.
The social decision to destroy the system of healthcare for the poor has been amazingly foolish. It is no more likely that the poor will have healthcare for the rich than that they will have mansions or gluttinous dinners.
To achieve a semblance of one-class care, the existing high class system will have to be destroyed.
And so it is being.
Hope you all like it.