| Subject: Re: Universal Health Care |
Author:
jason
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10:08:32 02/22/02 Fri
In reply to:
Steven Melling
's message, "Universal Health Care" on 21:19:22 02/21/02 Thu
well, contrary to the reviewer's opinion, "the public," aka John Q., really do want some sort of universal health care. the "average" american, even "below average" americans, would swallow up a single-payer health care system in a minute. it may mean a rise in taxes, but it would also mean a dramatic decrease in health care costs as there would be little out-of-pocket expenses, "co-pays," and the like, that would at least equal the amount of new taxes, if not surpass them.
of course, once the issue has been spun through the mainstream media (where the vast majority of americans get their news), the issue is boiled down to a few negative things. sure, the people may have free and easy access to efficient and accountable healthcare, BUT:
-TAXES! my god the taxes! you'll have to PAY MORE TAXES!
-a single-payer system is the FIRST STEP towards a SOCIALIST society, and you remember the USSR, right?
-your HIGHER TAXES be paying for high schoolers to recieve birth control, condoms, and ABORTIONS!
-there will be BAD DOCTORS! because their average salaries will decrease significantly the GOOD DOCTORS will LEAVE! you don't want a HIGH-SCHOOL DROPOUT to perform your OPEN HEART SURGERY do you?!
-universal healthcare is without a doubt UNAMERICAN. you don't want to turn your back on YOUR COUNTRY do you?
those were pretty much the essentials that filtered down to the common man through the media during the last healthcare debacle. there were advocates out there, but they were decried as kooks and commies for the most part (or the dirty L-Word). the fact that the health plan under consideration was partly authored and heavily promoted by hillary clinton damaged the issue, because everyone knows she is a jewish, lesbian, evil member of the illuminati who wants only to take over the world.
although that particular health plan wasn't that great, as it is doubtful it would have increased effinciency and lowered costs, it would have been a decent step in the right direction. those who opposed it were the same group that always oppose anything that would benefit the commoners - the privileged classes.
much like the reviewer, they didn't see a need for reform - health care to them was affordable and great. the fact that a huge percentage of the population can barely afford to see a dentist once a year, let alone get regular health care, didn't seem to have much of an impact. it is true, a universal care system would affect them in adverse ways:
-they wouldn't be able to send their kids off to the best medical schools to be world famous brain surgeons; obviously since there wouldn't be any great amounts of money to made, there wouldn't be any prestige. heaven forbid the son of a CEO from doing anything out of altruism or concern for humanity.
-poor people would have access to the same medical professionals they they do. they might have to sit next to a black, heroin-addicted, pregnant, 13 year-old with HIV in the waiting room.
-those poor insurance company executives surely won't make the same amount of money working for the government than they did while raping the people out of the money they actually earned.
the list goes on and on. the whole thing was a pretty good example of how our government is bought and paid for by the wealthy elite and corporate america, as well of how uncritical the general population is. they heard the "facts" and decided accordingly.
what's funny is, in polls of the people where neutral questions regarding healthcare are asked, the results that indicate a populace in favor of the benefits of a single-payer system are overwhelming.
it's too bad the people don't have a say in how our country is run.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 