[Prudence]

I don't want the question of whether I live or die to depend on how much money I was able to earn. Frankly, I find the notion that I should just suck it up and deal, no matter what the circumstance, appalling. My worth, and my contribution to society, should not be measured solely by my paycheck - or whatever I managed to inherit.

I dislike the current system of health insurance provided primarily through employers. I'm sure it seemed like a nice perk at one time, but it's not available to everyone. It's not available to everyone who works. It's not even available to everyone who works hard. But because it is the primary model, it is difficult, if not impossibly cost-prohibitive, to obtain individual coverage. If the reluctance to provide universal coverage is that some sloths might also benefit and people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, how does that reconcile with those bootstrap-pulling examplars of American industriousness whose employers do not participate, and to whom individual coverage is not available?

Speaking of sloths - under the current system I do end up paying for their care anyhow - directly, through Medicaid, and indirectly, through higher service fees charged to cover charity care. But instead of that risk being distributed over the entire population, it covers the sickest end of that population. People don't show up at Harborview because they're well, they show up because they've experienced some medical trauma and they're broke. So, essentially I'm paying twice - once as part of my "fringe benefits", and once as part of my taxes (and service fees).

There is no perfect solution to this. There is no amazing, wonderful, miraculous solution that benefits all the people we consider worthy and deprives coverage to all those deemed unworthy. But because no one will act on an imperfect solution, here we sit.

I don't support privately-managed health care because in that scenario the goal of the private manager is to deny me care. The less care I receive, the higher the stock price goes and the more acclaim the CEO receives. And I don't think for a second that the notion of "preventative care" plays a role. CEOs don't appear to care about the long-term health of their companies. The company only has to do well-enough during their tenure to ensure their golden parachute will sail them safely to the retirement destination of their choosing. If denying me a pap smear today means I might have an advanced, more expensive to treat cancer in 10 years - so what? That will be a problem for the next CEO. Meanwhile, it saves money in the short term to deny treatment.

Heck, it's not even good for the country. I miss an insane number of work days to illness stemming from untreated allergies that have a) never been identified (so I can't avoid the allergens) and b) don't respond well to OTC medications. I can not GET treatment for my allergies, despite having "health insurance", because it's cheaper to deny treatment. It costs my employer more in lost work days, but hey, it pays more dividends to the stock holders.

Ultimately I prefer universal health care because I find that the goal of private providers is contrary to the service they allegedly provide. Do I think that it's a magical solution that will bring kittens and sunshine to all who want them? No. But I think it's a better fit for my personal values.