zandila

Thanks K-Mac. I'll look into those as soon as I get home. You think they'll actually shell out trillions? Or maybe it is just splintered- 700 billion here, 120 billion there... I'm going on the figures reported this morning on the radio news, on my way to work.

And the only arguments I'm hearing are from people who want to include housing bailouts with the Wall St bailouts. I was told today that because I have never sat down to buy a house, I can't imagine how complicated it is. This was used as a reason why housing bailouts area good thing, while simultaneously decrying the Wall St. bailouts. Well how difficult is it to run a multi billion dollar company? A whole lot harder than buying a house, I'm betting. Does anyone else feel sick? And does anyone have some ideas on what we can do about this?

I must jump in and defend myself here- I am unequivocally not operating on the assumption of a morality based on 'greatest common good'. What I was saying with my statement was those those who choose to donate to and support charities would thusly have more resources to do so, to the charities of their own choice as opposed to whatever the government decides deserves their money. Do you see the distinction? Can you tell me some of the presuppositions you think I am accepting? If there are, it would be far more beneficial to me to identify and eradicate them. Because I do not think I am. Thank you for your input, I look forward to hearing more.

Thanks for the article, I'll have a look at it this afternoon. I agree with you here- anyone with a vested interest should be putting in the legwork to inform others of the situation, and the lack of funds, if any. Contrary to seemingly popular belief, most human beings do not enjoy seeing other human beings in pain or dying. I think perhaps this viewpoint comes from the assumption that man is a malevolent beast, a fundamental flaw much deeper than a cursory attack on privatized health care, but I think endemic in many of the attacker's philosophies.

Good Morning! This is an issue that has popped up a couple of times for me in the last few months: What happens to the severely disable (Down's syndrome, incapable of moving, needing 24/7 care, etc.) in a fully privatized healthcare system? Who pays for those expensive medical treatments and care? My answer, which I fear is not robust enough to be completely accurate, is that there are people in the society who are willing and eager to sponsor organizations to help maintain the life of such people that are fully incapable of being productive. This is a very small amount of the population. All of the members of society that are able to be productive will be producing, and being compensated in turn. This will provide more resources for concerned parties to help support whatever charity/organization they are interested in supporting. I work in a chiropractor's office, and my employer believes that socialized (which he calls one-parent) medicine is the way to go- the way France does it. I am not familiar with France's health care system, but I stand by the fact that socialized medicine is immoral and leads to deteriorating levels of care. Does anyone have some resources they can point me to, say, essays detailing what happens to the disabled people in a privatized health care system? I would like to give my employer something to reference, not just my words, which he thinks are naive and idealistic. Probably because I don't think I have the issue covered well either. Thanks! Sarah