Health insurance

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

An afterthought re socialistic solutions to "life and death" situations instead of free market solutions. Food, clothing, shelter, among others, are as much "life and death" situations as health care. Should we not, then, have universal food care, universal clothing care, universal shelter care, etc.?

Everything is on a spectrum. We already do have some level of aid for many of these situations, food stamps, tax exemptions for clothing in some states, low income housing subsidies etc...

Your argument is akin to the one that says if two gay people can legally marry, then why can't you marry 5 people or a goat or even 5 goats?

History has proven that when society sets reasonable limits the results can indeed be effective even when pulled at from both sides.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Everything is on a spectrum. We already do have some level of aid for many of these situations, food stamps, tax exemptions for clothing in some states, low income housing subsidies etc...

I realize that we have levels of aid for these situations. The spectrum I was on was Ikegami's preference for socialized UNIVERSAL type health care BECAUSE HC is a "life and death" situation. So, if, we agree that leaving "life and death" solutions to the free market is too harsh and unfair, and our solution to the problem of health care is to mandate that insurance coverage be universal, would it not follow that we should mandate universal coverage for other, even more "life and death" situations?

Your argument is akin to the one that says if two gay people can legally marry, then why can't you marry 5 people or a goat or even 5 goats?

I am not sure if your example is a "life and death" situation, but if it is, by all means, let's mandate some universal coverage for it.

History has proven that when society sets reasonable limits the results can indeed be effective even when pulled at from both sides.
-spence

Cool.