National defense, i.e. the military, is a single payer system. We seem to have no problem with that. The government pays and private firms make the tanks, bombs, planes and ships.
Why can't we make national health care, for everybody, a single payer system? We can, it's just a matter of priorities.
A healthy citizenry is an invaluable asset, just like national defense is. We could have both; there is no shortage of dollars.
Does the government require citizens to buy "defense insurance?" No, it just pays for everyone's defense.
6 comments:
I had a high deductible plan from Raytheon last year ... not so good ... basically only covered massive nuclear retaliation and nothing else.
I **love** my new plan from SAIC .... I even get free preventive detentions!
From what I understand, the "National Defense" argument was actually an important factor in the British implementing a national health care system. Much to the chagrin of the authorities it was found that an embarrassingly large percentage of military age young men were "unfit" for WWI and II. These were the generations brought up under Victorian/Malthusian "starve the poor" policies.
Can't we just declare disease an enemy combatant? Why should it matter if the invading forces are human-sized or microscopic?
"Can't we just declare disease an enemy combatant? "
Hush, don't give the NeoDems any ideas. They would send drones out to kill you after a Repub death panel.
Holy cow, this is a brilliant analogy!
Of course we could always refer to the military as 'Invasion Insurance.'
Post a Comment