Lemon Sherbet. Which, until now, I had always spelt 'shebert'.
Lemon Sherbet. Which, until now, I had always spelt 'shebert'.
I'm going to try to stay away from saying how cold this sounds, because I suppose it's not relevant to the discussion. So let's put it into your terms, where money is all that matters. If a person is dying or sick, they cannot be productive. They cannot contribute to the economy, and so cannot contribute to your standard of living. If anything, I'd expect you to be in favor of supporting their health rather than their education if you had to choose one (clearly, you'd choose neither, but if the choice were forced upon you).
So, in this "real free market health care system", you'd expect it to work how? Only those who can afford health care get it? Beyond the fact that this would leave more than half of all people without health care of any kind, what about the folks who can just barely afford it? Do they get to go see med students or quack doctors? Are there any regulations at all? With the "real free market", there is presumably no regulation, so now we're talking back-alley clinics and dirty surgery instruments unless you can afford to go to a real doctor and get real care. That's really a better alternative to you? Why? Because you happen to be one of the people who could afford real medical help?
What happens to emergency rooms? Do they get to refuse treatment now to anyone without cash in hand? Do people start going to prison because they can't pay their medical bills? Forgive me if I'm starting to head down a slippery-slope argument, but I'm truly not sure what the hell you mean when you say that we should apply true capitalism to healthcare.
If it's already working in another country, how on earth is it the stuff of fantasy? What a useless post.
Bookmarks