"If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles"

"the art of war", Sun  tzu 

category: healthcare

We all want and need great healthcare in order to live our lives to the fullest extent possible. In the US, healthcare for most folks under 65 years of age is privately insured through one of many health insurance companies. Great healthcare is available in the US, however, access to insurance to pay for it is prohibitive to much of the populace without the resources to purchase it. As in any complex situation torn between moral and money issues, there are two sides to the story.


Each voting citizen must determine how to vote and lobby in his/her own way to hone in on the preferred path. On the one hand, healthcare providers and insurers are in the business to make money in a capitalistic country. Since there is a segment of the population able to pay for these resources, that incentive has resulted in extraordinary breakthroughs in health science. On the other hand, is it morally acceptable that the segment of the population without the resources to pay for this level of healthcare to be denied. If not, and everyone is subject to the same level of healthcare, then it would follow that there may be a lack of incentive to develop these breakthroughs and health science would stagnate. If government chooses to pay for this high level for everyone, then is it acceptable to make the taxpayers pay for it? If so, where does that lead government coffers in the end? If we continue to increase debt which eventually leads to sovereign bankruptcy, then everyone will be adversely affected and no one will receive the level of care desired. Even taxing the rich to 100% will not cover what is required. This is the dilemma we face.


How do you feel about it?