Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennD
All arguments about the legality and Constitution aside, I think part of what you're seeing behind some of the arguments here against a national health care system is just plain mistrust of the government. I'd be happier to have a lighter hip pocket for others' medical care if my pocket hadn't already been lightened for numerous other reasons. US debt is high (60% of GDP today) and getting higher (expected to be 100% of GDP by 2015 by some estimates). Congress has shown plenty of interest in spending tons of money and not much interest in balancing a budget. There's a limit to how much we can cough up, and the expected costs of a national health care system just speed up how fast we expect to go further into debt.
Seeing responses here from people who live with a government health care system has certainly given me reason to think harder about it - I was very much against it at one point, partly because of reading horror stories not only in the US press but even in other internet-accessible media outlets in other countries. But, hearing from live people here on Mobileread who don't see those same problems occuring helps quite a bit to ease my mind about the concept.
It still remains though, that we have a huge and growing deficit. (Yes, the military budget is one reason but there are many others.) We have several federal health programs that are not run efficiently. We have a state-run health program in Massachusetts that is running into higher than expected costs, and as a result is heavily in debt. I see other facets of health reform that are being totally ignored. None of these things give me much faith that my tax dollars will be spent wisely. I see a lot of knee-jerk reaction in our government and not a lot of thoughtful analysis of how to make a health care program actually work. When I see that kind of thought, when I see Congress saying "we're going to prioritize our spending and cut in these other places to provide the funding for a health care program", then I'll be much more inclined to support it.
Just my two cents.  |
See, and that's perfectly reasonable. The issue is, I think, that with the way the government is set up in the US, they can't do all of the consulting and planning until congress/senate already agree to reform (if I'm wrong, please let me know) so the dollars and cents can't be accounted for at this stage of the game.
The Canadian system isn't perfect. It needs reform itself. A lot of money is being spent inefficiently, but it's a hard sell to get people to pay slightly more taxes in the short-term to get things fixed. That's the real issue with politics/democracy in general - trying to get people to agree with long-term plans while not impacting the short-term. I don't think it's possible. In Canada the battle over healthcare (when it was instituted) was fought for the future of the country rather than the (then) present. It was a different time, when some people didn't even have electricity so people didn't see things changing quite so quickly. Now, everything changes almost instantaneously so even improving the near future is a hard sell at the cost of the present.
I don't envy you guys and gals in the US. If this debate were going on in Canada right now, I doubt it would ever be instituted. Luckily, it was put in nearly 50 years ago so we're all used to it and couldn't imagine life without it.
What I don't think is useful is political spin like horror stories and words like "rationing." Maybe they happen, maybe they don't, but if they do happen, they're extreme cases and not anywhere near indicative of the system. More people die from car accidents than from health issues in Canada. Does that mean that everyone will stop driving cars?