A letter to the editor from the producer of the documentary that appeared in yesterday's LA Times:

source

Sorry Kevy, but that's a defeatist attitude with a prescription to remain in the dark ages perpetually.

Progress depends on taking chances, and moving to new ideas, even though ALL ideas must contend with the flaws of human nature. Are greed and other foibles of humanity any less prevalent in the current system of lousy health care?

This depends on whether the idea of change fits with what you think is best or not.

I would suggest a change to our border policy with a wall and armed military patrols (especially considering the violent incursion into AZ by Mexican drug runners in which the border patrol and or reserves were forced to flee for their lives), because obviously our policy is not working. However, that is met (not by you, necessarily, ISM) with great disdain by a very vocal minority.

My money will get a far better return in the private sector than going into the social security "lock-box" (bwhahahaha - lock-box. right). I suggest privatization now of a failing system. This idea is met with sheer panic in any form.

The examples of such things are endless.

So my suggestion? Let's get back to the constitutionally mandated functions of government first and make sure those are done correctly. Starting with controlling the border is great.

Social utopian ideas are great but impractical and they fail to meet their desired goals every time. The founders knew this well when constructing our Constitution. So how about we stick to that? I don't see government retirement or government health care or even government schools in it. I think the public education system is broken. I think social security is legalized theft and the biggest pyramid scheme ever constructed. So I want to trust the government with my health care? Hardly.

I guess I am too cynical of perpetually watching people want something for nothing. I am tired of new programs that will "take care of the poor sick children" that end up perpetuating the welfare state on my dime. I am tired of watching lazy-assed people not willing to work for a living and claiming that (pick your favorite cause) is a "right" to them.

And I am REAL tired of "government" picking up the tab for every little thing that comes along (speaking in the general sense and not just health care - I'm on a roll here). Cuz at that point, "government" is me.

Here is a far-out question: is "affordable" health care a "right"?

In my opinion, abso-freaking-lutely.

The idea that the decision to save a person's life is predicated on how much money they have is horrifying to me. How much money do I have to make for my life to be considered worthy of saving?

Money is a tool, it is NOT a measure of a person's right to health and life.

I'm not a very political animal, but I'd love to hear some pragmatic solutions on this issue. I understand why conservatives don't want to pay for every societal woe. On the other hand, I work three jobs, not one of which provides me with a single bit of coverage, and I can no longer afford to purchase it. So, what should I be doing? I sometimes get the feeling that I'm supposed to accept "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" as an answer. This seems to mean either go get enough education to get a REAL job (working on it but it costs a hell of a lot and will take me years) or become an entrepreneur or investor and accumulate loads of wealth. Not bloody likely.

Anyhow, I'd welcome input on either side. I'm not committed to any particular party or ideology. I'd just like to hear about practical solutions that will contribute to the greater good. (Not to bait anyone, but liberals at least sound like they care, whether disingenuously or not. Conservatives kind of give me the impression they'd just as soon see lower middle class fence sitters like me disappear. Prove me wrong.)

Then, of course, I'm anxious to hear the anarchist view as well. :D

I think the real problem with health care is that we got into a strange model whereby it is somehow linked to fulltime employment. How people think that my company, an electric utility, is better than the government in providing my health care is quizical to me, but clearly the prior model, where we selected and managed our own care exists only among the wealthy. Personally, I'd love at a minimum a system that disassociated health care from employment

I think the rhetoric is grand to say health care is a right, but there are economics attached to that. And when we speak of human life, no one really wants to place a dollar amount on what that's worth. Most families when confronted with a health care issue will ignore the economics as much as they can, going deep into debt to make their loved one's well. It seems you have to set some level of "minimal" service but I'm not sure what that means.

I suppose in a way coverage happens right now through the acquiring of medical debt, which if unable to pay gets written off and integrated into the costs of those who do pay, so health care is available to anyone with credit enough to default on

Everyone in this thread is one serious illness or special needs child away from the poorhouse. That's all I have to say on the matter. Except, of course, to also point out that right now that insurance company you are paying for is working overtime to figure out ways to screw you out of coverage you assume you have, such as hearing aids, speech therapy, etc. Ironically enough, it's the government that often provides the avenues for screwage, thanks to the industries most effective lobbying efforts. In the meanwhile, our lawmakers enjoy benefits for the rest of their days at little or no cost to themselves- we foot the bill.

Don't even get me started on daycare.

Ok; read Who really Cares by Arthur C Brooks

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/...zI1Y2I3YmE1ZDg

Um, is that supposed to be some sort of news flash? Richer people give a higher portion of their income to charity? Snoooooze.