|
Edited on Sun Feb-20-05 11:59 PM by necso
to get the healthcare that he or she needs (although total costs do have to be considered -- and this can get ugly), without undue difficulty, and without becoming destitute and/or bankrupt (if this is even going to be an option in the future).
Removing the burden (of any healthcare costs -- except the direct costs of having a sick employee) from employers would also enhance their competitiveness and make it much easier for new and/or small businesses to prosper (these are, theoretically at least, the foundation of our future prosperity -- but the corporate "dinosaurs" can probably be expected to try to prevent this by protecting their "turf" -- and keeping the "mammals" down).
Having as large of a percentage of total medical-care costs (as we do) "burned-up" by profits, advertising, insurance middlemen, other useless mouthes, etc, etc, adds greatly to the price. It would have many benefits to remove all these unnecessary costs.
There are many possible solutions to the problem, but when the problem is this large and complicated and has resisted previous solutions (although it is something of a stretch to call what we are doing a "solution"), Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot comes to mind -- "cut it with the sword".
In the case of American health care, this might mean un-reimbursed nationalization.
...
You gotta do what you gotta do.
...
And yeah, this could be called socialist (or worse). But what? Corporations get to own the government, but the government can't own corporations? -- This doesn't sound very reasonable to me.
|