There has been a big influx in the controversy of universal healthcare. Especially, when the numbers came out about how many people were not insured. More than one in five nonelderly Californians lacked some form of health insurance coverage for all or part of the year in 2003—nearly 6.6 million children and adults under age 65, which is more people than the entire population of the state of Massachusetts. That is a crazy amount of people that are not insured. More than 3.7 million of these Californians lacked health insurance coverage for at least the entire year. If one thing happened that put someone in the hospital they would talk to you while you are in the hospital about how you are going to pay. They put a price on health, a price on living. Some of the arguments is that we have a right to Life, yet that right we heavily have to pay for. What is the price to pay for life and wellness? What is life? Is it just being alive or is it being ALIVE? Some other countries have a healthcare system as well as a private sector where people can choose their own doctors. Right now I don’t think that general healthcare would be a good idea. In a prosperous time period, sure, I think it could work and I am sure it would work. Many nations have it now and they are doing fine and even better than us but that is another matter and because of many reasons. Who gets healthcare is also another matter. Many people think that everyone should get healthcare and many others think that only citizens should. The question of who gets what where and how is one that
applies here. Even immigrants, legal or illegal, would get healthcare. The United States of America has a massive population and it would be very expensive to finance a general healthcare system. It would not work now and would only when we had a stable tax base and a stable economy.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment