I assume that's a rhetorical question.
The whole debate over health care and how to pay for it has become almost as sterile and unrealistic on the right as on the left.
If our society is not going to literally leave people to die in agony on the sidewalk in front of the hospital, it must be paid for some way.
The left seems to be hardening into the idea that only a single-payer system, with the government and therefore taxpayers being the payer, is acceptable. That is the real purpose behind Obamacare. It was intended more as the opening wedge than as a solution.
Meanwhile, too many on the right are unwilling to consider any real change to our present system, which, like every other system in the world, has good points and bad ones.
There are dozens of countries out there that have health care systems that are in some ways better than our own. If we were willing to compile the best ideas from these systems, we could built something that actually works.
But the Left is stuck on wanting something that duplicates the (disastrously failed) British system, and the Right seems to be unwilling to consider any changes at all.
Sigh.
....sound of chirping crickets.....
What a horribly dishonest presentation.
If I don’t wish to pay for another’s health care I’m “leaving him to die?”. So his existence gives him a lien on my life?
If I don’t pay for your car am I “leaving you to walk?”
Either we believe relationships between individuals should be voluntary and mutually consensual or we don’t. By adopting the leftist view that refusal to compel one man to care for another is cruelty, you accept the
justice of single payer whether you believe it or not.
I’m willing to look at changes. How about this for a change: you pay for your own goddamned healthcare and I’ll pay for mine.
Deal?
Hank