Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.
We already have a system wherein it can and must be had at the local level--the governmental structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. Having it at a centralized national level destroys the constitutional structure. It's not a question of "rather" having it at the local level. It either "must" be there or it entirely changes the political structure and the relationship of the individual to the government.
"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"
Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.
|
Many of those reasons Scott was talking about also involve situations where the individual has, as you put it, "zero control over". Two that I mentioned above, growing old and in need of 24/7 care and the loss of job and income. Their is no such thing as a well run "government" program to solve them without changing the nature of our society. If you think a "safe" government manipulated society is better than one of individual choice fraught with messy problems, than we differ in more than minor preferences.
Threaded Mode