Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
That being said, you of course could provide it in some form... Obviously not endorsing everything HockeyIlliterate said, but one of his suggestions was interesting:
This is challenging because it's a matter of pragmatism, arguably. Let's assume that we have 1,233 billion in federal money for health care (apparently this was the 2016 FY outlay by the US federal government on health care).
Would people be amenable to a system whereby that money is used so as to provide basic life-saving and quality-of-life preserving health care for as many people as possible, or to provide more extensive coverage for a smaller group of people?
This has the interesting and probably controversial dual effect of providing equal health care to everyone regardless of status, while practically speaking resulting in people with more money getting better health care (because presumably they can pay for it).
|
I think if you're going to look at it pragmatically you have to consider the costs in lost economic activity due to people missing work, the burden on society and the economy when people self-medicate, etc.