The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools
|Subject: Re: Quebec healthcare crisis||Date: 11/15/2012 10:44 PM|
|Author: Ziege19||Number: 413102 of 481333|
Lot's of people on the board are high on single-payer. The article points out the reality seen by our friends to the north.
I don't understand people that post these kinds of things.
Lots of people on the board, and most people everywhere, actually, are high on universal coverage. Single-payer gets a lot of play because many of us believe it is the model that is mostly likely to give us achievable universal coverage.
Right now we have a system that grants nearly unlimited coverage to some, while denying even basic care to others. The problem with posts like yours is that they state a relatively obvious truth: when transitioning from a system like ours to any kind of universal coverage then some people are going to experience tradeoffs. Well, duh.
Critics of single-payer act like pointing this out is some kind of valid indictment of single-payer, when it is no such thing. It is stating the obvious. If you want to mount any real case that what we have now is better than single-payer, then you need come up with a moral defense for our current regime of rationing.
To me, making limited health care resources available to certain people and excluding others based on wealth or income is morally bankrupt. It is no more defensible than covering or denying people based on their religion or hair color. You can point out difficulties other countries have experienced in their attempts to provide universal coverage all you want, but unless you have offered some kind of alternative system that realistically covers everyone or morally justified the withholding of health coverage for some for the benefit of others, then you haven't made any valid criticism of single-payer whatsoever.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|