Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman
Again I ask the question. Why is it so wrong to let people decide what kind of healthcare they want instead forcing them to partake in a government healthcare plan?
|
It is not that it is wrong. It is that not everyone has access to healthcare. People need food and water and an education and health and a system to heal them when they sicken. You needed healing when you ended your service. This isn't arrogance, this is looking at a problem/situation and realizing something is needed, that we need to come together as a people to remedy it. You got those surgeries at US Healthworks. Great. Now think of all the people who can't go to such places and the services those places may not provide. A system must be put in place that allows such access. It is easy to speak of "individual responsibility" when you have the means to provide for yourself. Not everyone can provide for themselves. Individual responsibility requires/assumes that what you need is somewhere around and you have the means to get it. It is impossible to get fresh meat if there is no local butcher.
The answer to the Walter Reed problem, and others like it, is not to wave these places out of existence but to improve them--to hold people's feet to the fire, and burn them if necessary. Again, look to the rest of the modern Western world. They're doing pretty good. By all studies they are healthier and happier and better educated, precisely due to policies which you might term liberal. Because the government is working for the people, rather than merely for the moneyed class. It provides for the people, who in turn hold their government accountable. Is that not "individually responsible"? Is that not democratic? That things work badly in your country doesn't mean it can't work at all.