jonathan jetter wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 05:22 |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 24 January 2011 18:11 |
"The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country"
So, roughly speaking, it would seem you're already paying almost as much in taxes for healthcare as countries with a socialized system... which since they're about as healthy as you are (looking at the statistics), should be almost enough.
But then you're doubling it with private payments, and a load of you go bankrupt every year doing it.
Seems to me you're getting shafted, and the "I don't want to pay for anyone else" argument is not only selfish, it's misguided, you're already paying, you're just not getting value for money.
|
hi Jon-
i want to say that i agree almost entirely with your opinion on this, and with the source that you quoted.
i want though to reference our other discussion in the other thread where i mention not having any respect for the politician/CEO/billionaire-behind-the-scenes class.
would you not say that the machinations of the super-rich/super-powerful are most directly responsible for the health care mess you quoted above, and all in the name of enriching themselves to an even greater extent? to me, at least, the two discussions are inextricably linked.....
|
I think people give the ultra rich too much (dis)credit. It seems to me to be a deligation of responsibility more than anything, you just put the blame for all your ills on a few "super rich" people who aren't really human, because somehow they're all genetically programmed to want to extract the last cent out of everyone (and often it seems in ways that most economists would view as actually damaging to them, the logic of conspiracy is quite convoluted, but that's another discussion).
Your health system has thousands of people (if not millions) involved in it at one level or another who benefit from you being screwed, and you want to put all the blame on the guys at the very top of the income ladder?
One thing I always bear in mind when it comes to the subject of greed and the very rich was an interesting statement by Stelios, the founder of Easy Jet, and worth several hundred million. He said that once you passed a hundred million, unless you took to accumulating things like houses and yaghts, extra money made no real difference to your lifestyle.
You can already afford to do what you want, when you want, the best hotels, the best restaurants, the best of everything.
So, if you're that rich, getting extra money isn't really the aim, for some it's how they "keep score" in the business game, because they still take pleasure from the game, others will take up new ganes... Richard Branson likes trying to get records, Bill Gates set up a foundation.
Everyone is different, and everyone is the same, we're all people, with our own weaknesses and strengths. I've known a number of wealthy people, and they were different. For example two spring to mind, one seemed to achieve his success by being the ultimate shark, he could smell blood in the water from an ocean away, can't say I liked him much (but conversely having met his children I would say that not only was he a very good father, but they didn't share his predatory nature as far as I could see)... the other seemed to achieve his success by finding good people and rewarding them handsomely for what they did for him, so they stuck with him and he continued to profit (as did they).
So sure, there are people at the top who are a big part of the problem, but so are the people clinging to not wanting to pay for other people, or the people who will argue against it just because it's proposed by another party, or the insurance salesmen who'll sell you insurance that doesn't cover you properly because they make a better commission on that, or the doctors who prescribe medicins they get some sort of kickback from, etc etc.
It doesn't matter HOW rich or powerful you are, I challenge you to change British perception on whether healthcare should be available to all regardless of ability to pay. I think THAT is the important difference. Most of the world's healthcare systems are based on an ethos of shared care and shared responsibility. Yours is based on one of every man for himself, and then has a social part grafted on top of it because as a society you'd feel guilty if your selfishness meant people actually did get left to die on the street if they couldn't afford the ambulance fare.