A PNHP single-payer zealot writes an op-ed that triggers significant resistance in the comments:
You know, what this really ultimately comes down to is others trying to preach and force their morality and views on those who do not want it. If I say I DO NOT WANT TO BE WITHIN A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, should that not be my right? If others want their socialized setup, let them go ahead. They can do it. I want no part of it. In Canada it’s not even legal to privately pay for a lot of healthcare. There are private clinics hamstrung by laws prohibiting people from healthcare that they otherwise can afford, so they in some cases come to the US. I want to stay in the private system. Let there be a grander social system. I don’t care. I don’t want a part of it and I don’t want my money supporting it. Build it, let people opt-in, let others opt-out and keep what they’ve got. This is fair and everybody wins. Right?
With a significant amount of the population sharing similar views, a single-payer system will unlikely ever happen here.
Related posts:
- Administrative costs and single-payer
- Single-payer: "The flaws are unacceptable"
- Single-payer: Read the fine print
- The intolerance of single payer supporters
- Obama invokes single-payer
- Single-payer and the Indian Health Service
- Single payer ills, part 2
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
Never underestimate the degree to which the politicians are susceptible to the bandwagon disease.
What this person is suggesting is the design of the original Clinton Health care plan. Of course ,as most of its critics never read it, they don’t realize it proposed exactly the combination of public,private options the writer describes. Funny, how things come full circle.
By the way,it continues tob irk me ,that you describe anything other than pure private care ,as socialism. Are the fire and police departments socialism?
Comments on this entry are closed.