|
Re: A Question For Supporters Of Government Run Healthcare...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slon
Like I said, many of the costs associated with medical assistance is a result of heavy regulation. Likewise, if there were fewer regulation, I would imagine that teenager (I'm not sure who you're talking about) might have been able to get it. In any case, our government has a LONG history of making age-based prohibitions. See the age of consent, which varies from state to state, and even varies according to sex. Who is to say they won't impose the same ridiculous bullshit if they get their hands on health care?
Oh yeah, because if they can't compete with "free" health care, then they were no good, anyway. 
|
Ridiculous nonsense. It makes little business sense for an HMO to take on the risk of this teenagers health, which is likely to fail and to fix it will be enormously expensive.
Govmnt's aged biased prohibitions are irrelevant. The age of consent is done to protect the young. The government, with its hands on healthcare, must still abide by its own anti-discrimination legislation.
Theres no such thing as free health care, in any case they can compete with publicly provided health cover.
__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Guess who?
|