I'm still not getting your point. I'm assuming that you are simply being facetious. Your statements seem to conflict with each other. Seriously, I'd be interested in a legitimate explanation of the above statement. Why do you think that healthcare is different than food, housing, clothes, transportation, heating, hygiene, or recreation?
What I was meaning is that it is not a question of race but of spending power. Remember someone accused you of being racist, I was agreeing with you that this was not fair or accurate and suggested a better analysis.
Health care is diffrent in a lot of ways. First you choose those other items with a clear mind. You make health care choices when you are ill, which is not the best time to start allocating your resources. (to my mind)
Secondly it depends on your perspective and what you think health services are for. That might seem obvious but it's not. If you are a physician you tend to think in terms of personal services, one person at a time. If you are a policy maker on the other hand you might think in terms of the public good, equity, equality, distributed justice and so on. If you are an employer you might think in terms of keeping a healthy workforce. You might even consider that a healthy population is a matter of national security.
Consider the point I made about disease having no respect for borders. How should the government allocate scare resources to deal with infectious disease? Would you still leave this to the market? What if doctors didn't even have the capital to get in the line for a jab infront of a banker? Is that rational?
It's interesting to note that the riots in Britain by the "poor" were because the "poor" there didn't have access to luxury items or Mercedes. Most of them had food, housing, nice sneakers, and cellphones. THEY are the face of the modern "poor".
Interesting but a flawed analysis of what happened. To date about 2000 people have gone through the courts and many many of them had good jobs. Teachers, soldiers, nursery workers. All the usual suspects have used the riots to press their own hobby horse but the truth I suspect is rather complex. The other point is that the rioters were just a handful of people and there might be very little to learn save that a handful of people can cause a hell of a lot of trouble if they want to.
I think it has ceased doing its primary job. That's why it's a bad thing for the rich to be favored by the law.
That is essentially the knub of the matter. It boils down to what you think the government is for. Personally I found Clinton rather interesting in that respect. A small government man who still believed that the government had a duty to intervene and do good. Quite a balancing act.
However, we have now gotten far afield of a discussion of doctors salaries, or, for that matter, the topic of this thread.
Apologies. I think threads stay on topic for ten posts on average and then around the fifteen post mark someone mentions Hitler.
