"MajorOz" wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 6:57 pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Larry L" wrote in message

...

well put, Larry. It's sort of enlightening that our founding fathers built
a
system of government, not an economic model. They knew what was truly
important, and also knew they couldn't forsee the economies of the future.

What John doesn't see is that when it comes to healthcare, we are talking
about something that ought to be a birthright of citizenship,

That is as idiotic, divisive, and willfully ignorant as saying (to the
nation at large) that we should all accept Jesus Christ as our Lord
and Savior.

It may be a great idea for some and philosophically hardwired into
them, but it ain't a universally held view, and to assume it is, or
even that it should be, is just plain stupid.

cheers

oz, who prefers primary sources

Major,

First, accepting JC as one's personal Lord an Savior is not and never has
been a "birthright." One's religious preference has always been a matter of
choice--health and well-bing have never been a matter of choice. We have
health and well-being or we don't, eithere from birth or throughout various
points in our lives. You comparison is nonsensical. You are comparing
oranges to orangutans.

By your logic, all roads should be toll and each of us should pay each time
we drive a different road or highway, so that some one can profit from our
travels. While our national transportation system has never been considered
a "birthright," it was designed and constructed to ensure the health and
vitality of our nation--both in terms of economic commerce and national
security. Perhap we should view national health care in similar terms,
because when the time come that only those who can afford access to
healthcare are afforded it ,our nation will be beyond the point of economic
vitality and national security.

Imagine that you lost your job, pension, or other sources of income and
there is no medical safety net to catch you when you most need one. That
time is now for millions of your fellow citizens. And regardless of popular
opinion, I don't believe the vast majority of these people are too sorry to
pay for their own healthcare needs or that they are to lazy or sorry to work
in general. A large portion of our nation's workforce is employed by
companies that cannot afford to provide them with a helthcare benefits
packages i.e., small mom and pop businesses (electrical, plumbing, building
contractors, HVAC etc...) that employ 5 or 6 workers in a small rural
communities or even large cities, the guy that delivers your pizza, the
young or old woman that rings up your purchases at Walmart, the grocery
bagger, small shop owners--the guy or gal that repairs your lawn mower....

Yes there are people who would rather you and I pay their way--but they are
few comparatively, but there are also those who want you or your children to
provide for their security, by fighting the wars that they support so
vociferously--yet they never served in the military, nor do they want their
children to risk their lives fighting in our nations wars--why don't we have
compulsery military service. Why is there no outrage over this disparity?

Many people simply cannot afford to pay for a health insurance, pay rent or
a mortgage, car insurance--mandated in most states (I imagine), their
utilities, fuel for their main mode of transportation, provide food for
their families, save for their childrens educational future, and a myriad of
other factors that don't involve wasteful spending on the individuals part.

Universal healthcare is provided by many nations around the world as part of
their compact with their citzenry. The people pay taxes and the governments
provide vitally essential products such as education systems, national
security, healthcare, police and fire protection.... It's a matter of
priorities and good economic sense. If your nations people are not well
enough or capable of contributing to the national economy, they will become
a burden to that same economy and by extension the security of that nation.

I work for my state government and I am provided free health insurance to a
degree, as our health insurance benefits are on the downslide, so I purchase
supplemental insurance through a so-called flex plan. I am single and I make
$36,500 a year, as an electrician. I don't spend my money on drugs or
alcohol. I pay rent--don't own--I purchase fuel for my transportation,
mostly to and from work, the ocassional *local* fishing trips, back and
forth to mother's to ensure her safety, well-being, and to let her know that
I will always be there for her in her latter years, I rarely eat out at a
restaurant--maybe twice a year, no movies--haven't been in a movie theater
in 20 or more years, I rarely purchase new clothes, can't afford to
date--not that any woman would consider such, and I don't buy very many toys
i.e., fishin' gear or guns, and I don't have any children or a wife to worry
about providing for. And still I have no money to put into savings or throw
about. I cannot imagine providing for the everyday expenses of a family of
four, on my income and pay a premium on top of that for health insurance,
let alone if one or more of my kids were born with a life long
disability--which seems to be quite common these days.

My point is: healthcare should not be a for profit institution! When you or
my infirmities are a means of profit for any entity, we will surely loose in
the end as a society, as we all age and have our maladies. Virtually no one
is free from disease or physical aliment at sometime in their life-times and
if we allow our collective medical problems to be the interests of a profit
driven healthcare system, we will not survive as an economic force in the
world.

If this sounds like socialism, it is! We can't avoid being our brothers
keeper in certain matters. It is not, however, the slippery slope to
Communism and the death of Capitalism--it is what will ensure the survival
of our capitalist way of life.

Op --a primary source--