Healthcare Discussions
Laziness? What about people who are working two part-time jobs and don't have health insurance at either occupation? What about someone beginning his or her own business, who can't afford the prohibitive rates private insurance charges for monthly premiums? What about people who are refused coverage or who are only given prohibitive monthly premiums because they have a 'preexisting condition' because they have the audacity to, for example, get cancer and survive, for which they are rewarded with health care premiums, co-pays, and bills that are through the roof, for only minimal care?
It is in private insurance's financial, profit-making interest to provide as little coverage as possible, and to insure as few truly ill, hard-working people as possible. Healthcare cannot be run like a business and provide compassionate care to all. How tragic that in our nation, when someone is sick, their first thought is: how can I afford this, not how can I get well?
Discussion 2
Of all the systems profiled, I liked the British system the best. Although the author did not believe Americans would accept such a 'big government' system, it is no less 'big government' in nature than the systems of healthcare that cover the elderly and very poor in our nation. Imagine never having to worry about a doctor bill for yourself or a loved one, or to have to take a part-time job at Starbucks, just because it is one of the few corporations that offer part-time workers health insurance. No one, or at least very few people, 'want' to go to the doctor for excessive visits, so the free system will not necessarily cause people to abuse it, and even then the wait times to see doctors often act as a deterrent. For the wealthy or impatient, Britain does have private clinics and doctors who work on a paid basis -- no one is compelled to use the system, but it is there for what most people need, that is, basic care.
