Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   8 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

A Health Care Proposal

By       Message Harold Hellickson     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -
One question I would like each congressional and presidential candidate running for office this year to answer is this: “Who should profit from the illness or injury of another?”.

My answer of course is that no one should profit from the illness of injury of another. If you agree, these consequences should result.

A. Single Payer Universal Health Care Provider

The majority of the American public, physicians, and nurses want it. It would eliminate insurance companies from the business. Without their sales, administrative costs, and profits, cost would be reduced. Most importantly it would care for all American citizens.

And, we would have it except for our “Kowtow Congress” whose continued care and feeding of the insurance and health care industry provides us with the worlds most expensive heath care. Still we rank 40th in the world in infant mortality and 42nd in longevity.

B. Pharmaceutical companies would be nationalized.
- Advertisement -


This would reduce costs by elimination of their huge marketing expenses and enormous profits. These companies argue that profits are required to finance R&D and the development of new drugs. This is nonsense. R&D is an expense financed from revenue not profit. Besides, a great deal of pharmaceutical R&D is already financed by government.

C. “For profit” HMO’s, PPO’s hospitals, and nursing homes would likewise be nationalized.

 
D. Alternative means of financing the above would need to be developed.

But the current insurance costs of both business and individuals as well as current Government subsidy costs to various groups would be eliminated. I do not propose a solution but all of the industrialized nations with whom we compete have done so and, with respect to B. and C., prices should be high enough to pay for their nationalization over time.

Criticism of this proposal can only be that it is socialistic and not in keeping with free market capitalism as established in our representative democracy.

If this proposal marks me as a socialist, so be it.

- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

A retired MBA, I am a former corporate ideologue, former 3rd party advocate and current curmudgeon. While a continued supporter of a 3rd party, I have concluded their efficacy cannot be demonstrated until our form of Government is changed to (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Follow the Yellow Brick Road - Who Rules America - Part 3

Why Occupy? Here's why.

So you're proud to be an American, right? Part 2

Follow the Yellow Brick Road - Who Rules America - Part 4

Follow the Yellow Brick Road - Who Rules America - Part 1

You Decide: Republican, Democrat, or Other