MyTie wrote:
Yeah, I see that now. I will change the way I make OPs.
My opinion, if it isn't to late, is that a capitolism, although flawed, provides a more affordable form of healthcare than government provided. I think that goes for just about anything.
I shall respond.
Capitalism is great. It's awesome. But it's not sufficient, in and of itself to insure adequate and equitable distribution of necessary services. Two points:
First - The market of medicine, if you will, is flawed. It's not a free-flowing supply-demand relationship. The highly specialized nature of the services and the in depth research required for products restricts the market from delivering a fairly priced product to all consumers with demand.
Second - Healthcare is deemed a necessity by our society. Indeed, it's pretty easy to see how our very neighborhoods could suffer if healthcare is NOT available. So, you see it's an essential good - like food, water, shelter, education, security. It's the governments responsiblity to insure a minimal sustainable level of healthcare to all citizens.
Clearly, things are not working. Government led healthcare has worked in many other countries. We'd be foolish to continue to give the drug companies and health insurance companies more and more money for less and less in return. This should have been deal with more than a decade ago. I gotta believe I elected that guy that could make some good decisions for this country. The research I've done, and the people I've talked to have bolstered my opinion that what we need are more public options - which seems to be what the latest dem plan is all about.