reply to post by FuzzyDunlop
First, let me thank you for apologizing for little Justin...though I'm still a little miffed about Loverboy.
You are correct that our Constitution does allow for the population to become bad friends with the government and throw them out. This is called
impeachment. And it can be used for deriliction of duty--I'm looking at you, Congress.
Further, our Second Amendment was installed NOT to protect citizens from criminals or for hunting. It was installed because we'd just fought a war
with a MAJOR world power (it's a miracle we won, really.) And Britain had forbidden firearms for anything except hunting. They also installed
soldiers in citizen's homes to keep this firearm business in check.
However, no place in any law in America--from the Constitution to School Boards allows for the assasination of a government official. THAT is
Treason. Disagreeing with the government is as American as rampant illiteracy, and we're proud of it.
I've spoken with (and taught) many foreign people. They always ask me why Americans are so angry wiith their government (and this was during four
administrations and several changes in party domination in Congress). They came from what they considered hell-holes compared to where they were in
the U.S. (I apologize if I use the term "American" to just mean the U.S. I know Canadians and Mexicans and all the nations of Central and South
American can and should be noted as Americans, too. In acknowledgment of the international members of ATS, I promise to work on this.) I told them
that was part of being a U.S. American.
Note: This description EXCLUDES the nations of Western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan and Canada. People from these countries usually just smiled
politely and went away chuckling. They HAD health care! Single payer, too.
I DO think Single Payer Health Care can be viable in the U.S. Just the logic of it should be easy to see. The more people enrolled in any insurance
company, the better. They pay lower rates, because the probability of ALL (or a significant segment) of those enrolled needing expensive health care
at a given time is lower than an insurance company with fewer subscribers. This is kind of like banking. If all the customers of a particular bank
wanted their money at the same time, the bank would crash. Wait, I think there's a Federal Reserve rule that would prevent actual closing. I'll
look that up.
If every U.S. citizen were enrolled in the same insurance company, not only would the rates be less expensive, but the costs of the needed Health Care
would be lower. And certain outdated things like home doctoring might be able to return (as in France).
It's the insurance companies already in place that would suffer (a bit) from "Universal" Health Care for U.S. citizens. In Canada, as you know,
there are still private insurance companies that supplement and (at least claim to) add value to the basic Canadian health care system. I think
you'd find some of the larger, private insurance companies in the U.S. swallowing up the smaller ones and making themselves available as an Oligarchy
industry to the wealthier citizens as supplementing United States "Universal" health care.
And please remember that for many U.S. Americans, the physical and mental health care they may need is provided by their Sunday Go To Meetin'
preacher. Benny Hinn (or insert some other fraud) is their insurance broker.
So...in the short version answer to your question, yes, "Universal," single-payer health care in the United States is not only viable, I think it's
inevitable. That is, when Congress removes their hands from insurance company lobbyists' pockets. Health care costs are rising fast and someday
most of us will see what U.S. (and world) economists have seen for decades.
Thanks for your post.