tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post5856264152099505174..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: Fixing Health Care - American StyleScott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-36718223902671904382007-10-23T20:24:00.000-06:002007-10-23T20:24:00.000-06:00What is immoral is forcing others to pay for a ben...What is immoral is forcing others to pay for a benefit for you that you yourself are unwilling to pay for. It is obvious from your comments that you didn’t bother to check Cannon’s sources or the depth behind his arguments. But, hey, why bother with facts?<BR/><BR/>We successfully reduced welfare expenditure and welfare roles over the past decade without creating armies of hungry homeless people. In fact, more people went to work than ever before. Cannon suggests handling health care for the poor the same using the same recipe that was successfully used for welfare.<BR/><BR/>Although a significant portion of our health care system is private, that does not mean it is not socialistic. What we do not have today in our health care industry is a free market. Free markets produce a wide variety of products and services that become increasingly affordable for all. Socialized systems create shortages and rationing.<BR/><BR/>I think I understand socialism just fine. But the noble aims of socialism simply cannot be achieved through socialized systems, as is shown by the evidence. If you think free markets are harsh, they are nothing compared to the harshness of the most socialized societies of the 20th Century.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-45048686537739558512007-10-22T20:19:00.000-06:002007-10-22T20:19:00.000-06:00Cannon should at least provide one coherent idea, ...Cannon should at least provide one coherent idea, don't you think?<BR/><BR/>Let's just take his "prescription for conservatives", which is certainly not a prescription for solving the nation's health care crisis.<BR/><BR/>If you "think freedom" you basically have what we have now which is lots of people without coverage, virtually everyone paying more than they need to, and coverage being rationed based on ability to pay.<BR/><BR/>If you "cut welfare programs" you end up with lots of homeless, hungry poor people, but that serves the conservative's overarching belief in cheap labor (as long as it's not theirs of course).<BR/><BR/>If you think we already have "socialized medicine" then you don't understand either socialism or medicine very well.<BR/><BR/>In spite of the fact that the health care industry is fighting tooth and nail for unfettered, unregulated (a.k.a."free") markets, you should believe they don't want them.<BR/><BR/>The idea of ransferring responsibility for health care to consumers is nothing short of bizarre. First of all, that's not what he means. He means transferring the burden of PAYING for health care to consumers so that those who can afford it will get high-quality care and the rest of America can go pound salt.<BR/><BR/>This "conservative" health care policy is simply put, immoral. It puts ideology above the needs of human beings.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.com