Why aren't the "pro-lifers" protesting the denial of life to the living in a medical system run by the profit motive? Why isn't health care a family value, conservatives?
How come some people prefer to be ripped off by insurance companies than to have always-available care, no matter what, as they have in outrageously "extremist" countries such as Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Denmark, Sweden and Norway?
Why are we debating how much we'll "compromise" so the insurance companies, pharma and, yes, the medical mafia known as the AMA can keep sodomizing the nation?
The real issue is not whether to have a "public option," pretty please with sugar on it, Don Medico Corleone.
The real question is how long will we tolerate money deciding whether children get essential and timely care. The real issue is how much more will we accept the notion that the bulk of a lifetime's medical expense is in the last 5 years, when there is the least likelihood of recovery.
The real problem is not, in brief, whether there should be a public system of health available to all regardless of ability to pay, but why we haven't abolished medicine for profit.
2 comments:
Quite so. Why *do* you allow insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms etc to control the life or death of your nation's children?
Obviously, coming from one of the extremist countries and, now, living in another, I just don't understand your system at all. Healthcare (including preventative healthcare) not available to everyone? - seems completely mad to me!
Post a Comment