(no subject)
Jul. 15th, 2009 05:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
violachicThanks to everyone who responded to my previous post.
I want to clarify my skepticism. I'm not skeptical of universal health care- indeed, even before I had chronic health problems and no insurance, I was firmly in favor of some kind of National Health Care system.
What I'm skeptical about is that, even if the US implements such a plan, that it would be done in such a manner that it actually helps the health care crisis in our country.
Any other analyses of this are welcome.
I want to clarify my skepticism. I'm not skeptical of universal health care- indeed, even before I had chronic health problems and no insurance, I was firmly in favor of some kind of National Health Care system.
What I'm skeptical about is that, even if the US implements such a plan, that it would be done in such a manner that it actually helps the health care crisis in our country.
Any other analyses of this are welcome.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 12:44 am (UTC)The people who make the most money out of the current system, which is mostly insurance companies followed by large healthcare providers (ie. people who sell goods or services that the insurance companies then pay for), are the people who have the most influence in Washington. Neither stands to gain from a single-payer system. They also would be hurt by the appearance of a large non-profit insurance provider (eg. something run by the UAW with a gigantic risk pool of members).
Unless something very unusual happens, the normal influence-peddling/bribery in politics will kill this initiative.